Dowlais Ironworks Locomotives

[Michael Edge]

I built a 7mm model of Peacock No2 earlier this year.

Apart from etching some overlays for the Slater's wheels and the nameplates this was all scratchbuilt, mostly from steel sheet with brass for the boiler and tank. The next loco for this customer will be the Dowlais 0-6-0T shown in a previous post in this thread. This one may include more etching, it will certainly need something unusual for the wheels which have T section spokes.

 

[avonside1563]

'Sandyford' is interesting. Similar design but enlarged to an 0-6-0T. Looks better proportioned to me.

 

This reminds me of one of the 2ft Baguley internal combustion locos built for some of the pleasure lines such as one Alan Keef restored seen half way down this page http://www.alankeef.co.uk/gallery/heritage-and-restoration/

[hartleymartin]

I built a 7mm model of Peacock No2 earlier this year.

07-10 Dowlais BP 0-4-0ST fr top.jpg

07-10 br top.jpg

Apart from etching some overlays for the Slater's wheels and the nameplates this was all scratchbuilt, mostly from steel sheet with brass for the boiler and tank. The next loco for this customer will be the Dowlais 0-6-0T shown in a previous post in this thread. This one may include more etching, it will certainly need something unusual for the wheels which have T section spokes.

 

Are there any public domain drawings online of this locomotive? I'd like to put them in my file of Locos I would like to build, but probably never will.

[Michael Edge]

The only information I had was a Beyer Peacock GA with only side and plan views, presumably this was from the Manchester museum collection. Let me have your Email address and I'll send you a copy.

[Ruston]

I've now found the relevant plans.

.

Which were published in the Model Railway Constructor.

.

The wheelbase of these locos was 7'6"

.

Front and rear overhangs (buffer plank face to wheel centres) was 6'0" front and rear, giving 6'0"  +  7'6"  +  6'0" (24mm + 30mm + 24mm) Ruston Edit

.

Coupled wheels were 3'6" dia.

.

Brian R

I have now got one of the Hornby locos and the measurements in relation to those above, given to scale, are: 30mm + 33mm +30mm, which gives a total overlength of 15mm. The wheel diameter is 16mm, so that's 2mm oversize - not that I would want to keep those steamroller wheels anyway!

 

I have been trying to see how the body can be shortened and I can really only see that the firebox is overlength when compared to prototype photos. The photo below shows about 8mm that can be removed with two cuts. Whilst that does make an improvement there are still 7mm to lose and I can't tell where they need to go from but then there's also the amount of cuts to consider. In the lower photo I have also shortened the wheelbase.

 

[5050]

Who needs warning stripes when the loco is that colour!

 

The cab roof looks a bit 'squat' to me and the boiler fittings look a bit short.  Perhaps the boiler is overscale in diameter?

[Ruston]

Who needs warning stripes when the loco is that colour!

 

The cab roof looks a bit 'squat' to me and the boiler fittings look a bit short.  Perhaps the boiler is overscale in diameter?

The cab roof looks about right, I think.

 

I have taken a photo of my Hornby loco and have scaled both it and a prototype photo to their respective lengths. Whilst it's not an exact science it does at least look as if the cab length, opening and its height match up reasonably well. it would be nice to have a proper drawing to work from..

 

[hartleymartin]

It is pretty clear that Hornby just took a prototype and stretched it to fit their standard chassis. Would be interesting to see a cut-and-shut job converting the Hornby model into a scale model.

 

Something similar happened with Triang "Nelle" which is a stretched out LSWR C14 (or something like that,) I don't know my obscure British steam locos that well.

[RThompson]

It is pretty clear that Hornby just took a prototype and stretched it to fit their standard chassis. Would be interesting to see a cut-and-shut job converting the Hornby model into a scale model.

 

Something similar happened with Triang "Nelle" which is a stretched out LSWR C14 (or something like that,) I don't know my obscure British steam locos that well.

Nellie is more closer in proportion and size to a peckett as someone did one in P4 years ago? Is it coincidence, Who knows?

[sem34090]

To be honest I think it's quite something that, at the time, Hornby even bothered to base their cheap 0-4-0T's on prototype designs.

 

Then you look at the basic trainsets today and they have virtually no prototype relation.

[Killian keane]

Heres no. 3 Mountaineer

A open modelling challenge for anybody determined enough to make those beautiful wheels

I appear to have been mistaken for ascribing this loco to Dowlais, she is in fact 'St David' of Tredegar Ironworks

[TheWelshEngineer]

I've now found the relevant plans.

.

Which were published in the Model Railway Constructor.

.

The wheelbase of these locos was 7'6"

.

Front and rear overhangs (buffer plank face to wheel centres) was 6'0" front and rear, giving 6'0"  +  7'6"  +  6'0"

.

Coupled wheels were 3'6" dia.

.

Brian R

Is it possible to share out the drawings?

[hartleymartin]

Come to think of it, that Hornby Side-Tank would make a nice 5.5mm scale 3'0" gauge locomotive conversion, or perhaps an 'S scale' 3'6" narrow gauge locomotive.

[Ruston]

I have been given a drawing to work from and have found that there's not a lot on the Hornby model that measures up. I am completely disregarding the chassis as it's not worth any attempt at salvage but the height of the plastic body it's as near as makes no difference. The width of tanks and body are are also as near as makes no difference but the whole thing is moulded on a thick base that forms both the running plate and valances, which is 3mm too wide.

 

They have made the following too long:

Smokebox

Smokebox support

Boiler

Firebox

Cab.

 

The length over buffer beams should be 78mm but the Hornby body is around 90mm long. Shortening the smokebox and support would require the destruction of the chimney, so it's more trouble than it's worth but two cuts to shorten the firebox and two to shorten the boiler should be fairly easy to do and can reduce the length to 80mm. The remaining 2mm needs to come out of the cab, between the front and the aperture but these would be more difficult cuts.

 

Other things that are wrong:

The buffer beams are thick and are wrong for King Gerorge V, which should have thinner, plate steel, beams but are correct for Queen Mary.

The cab handrails on the model are inside the aperture, which is fine for 42 after it was named Queen Mary but not for before, when they appear to have been on the cab sides, as on King George V. The handrails are rubbish anyway, so need to come off regardless.

 

Do we know what colour these engines were painted?

Edited July 27, 2018 by Ruston

[Osgood]

For livery see first block of text at top of first page of the link in post 1.

[Ruston]

On both King George V and Queen Mary there is a tube, fitted just under and to the rear of the front buffer beam. This tube appears to have capped ends. The ends on QM have small retaining chains (at least visible at one end), which suggests they can be unscrewed. In the picture of QM the tube appears to form a T-joint with a larger diameter tube, which has a flange that fixes it to a frame cross member, although that may in fact be a trick of the light and the "flange" be a hole in the cross member but if they aren't going into a larger tube then what are they connected to? These tubes are not on the drawing that I have, so the drawing sheds no light on whether there is a hole or a large tube at the front. Whatever they are I've never seen anything like them and I can't think what they were for.

 

Does anyone know what these tubes were for?

 

Queen Mary

 

King George V

 

 

[Osgood]

Fascinating.

 

Looking at pictures on Alan George's web pages it looks like 77 (41 SANDYFORD), built GKN Dowlais, had one above the footplate - but in what looks like a later view only, not in early view.

Also 53 (25 GWERNLLYN), built Kitson, had one in same place as QM.

 

Keep us informed!

[Michael Edge]

This is the next Dowlais loco I will be building.

 

http://www.alangeorge.co.uk/Images_D-H/DowlaisLocomotive_ArthurKeen_RowlandWren.jpg

 

I've made a drawing, mostly based on a T.L.Jones one but there are one or two vague areas here.

 

 

Download this pdf for a better view.

 

GKN 0-6-0T.PDF

 

I can't see from the few photos I have found whether it's LH or RH drive, fireirons on the top of the RH tank suggest the former.

The box on the back of the cab is presumably a locker of some sort, shows clearly on the Jones drawing but there's no plan view.

The back of the bunker is somewhat unusual with a curved bottom corner, the footplate angle turns out above the buffer beam under this but is there a curved plate across the loco or just the angles protruding? I can't find any rear views at all.

The bunker is clearly narrower than the tanks but is the footplate the same width all along?

To add to the confusion "Arthur Keen" and the similar "Sandyford" swapped identities for a royal visit in 1912.

 

 

[Osgood]

From John Owen's book 'The History of The Dowlais Iron Works 1759 -197 comes a full description of the Dowlais-built locomotive liveries:

 

Smokebox, saddle, chimney, running plates - gloss black

Boiler, bunker sides, back - medium green with broad black band having finer yellow line between black and green

Cab side sheets, roof - bordered by broad band with finer yellow line innermost

Dome, safety valve cover - in the same green

Whistles, window framings - polished brass

Valves, under frame, guard irons and plates, step black plates - green with yellow lining

Steps - black

Sandboxes - green unlined

Brake hangers, shoes - unlined black

Wheels - green with black tyres and yellow line between black and green

Buffer beams, stocks - red bordered in black and lined in yellow

Name, number, works plates - raised brass edges and characters on black background

All brass lightly polished

Coupling rods, handrails, smokebox door handles and hinges, buffer heads, couplings, seating ring behind smokebox door - polished steel

 

The works already had all necessary facilities in their steelworks workshops, and in 1901/2 recruited George Robson (an ex TVR man) from the GWR at Swindon to act as loco superintendent and to instigate a new policy to repair existing locomotives and build new.  Before this time, overhaul and rebuilding of locomotives had been subcontracted - invariably to Pecketts of Bristol.

[martyn11post]

Interesting image of 'Pant' on Ebay currently

 

 

Must have been towards the end of her life as the front buffers have been removed. Pant was built later than Arthur Keen and Sandyford, but has the later stylised windows in the cab, which must have been more challenging for the crews, especially in the confines of a steelworks.

[Caledonian]

On both King George V and Queen Mary there is a tube, fitted just under and to the rear of the front buffer beam. This tube appears to have capped ends. The ends on QM have small retaining chains (at least visible at one end), which suggests they can be unscrewed. In the picture of QM the tube appears to form a T-joint with a larger diameter tube, which has a flange that fixes it to a frame cross member, although that may in fact be a trick of the light and the "flange" be a hole in the cross member but if they aren't going into a larger tube then what are they connected to? These tubes are not on the drawing that I have, so the drawing sheds no light on whether there is a hole or a large tube at the front. Whatever they are I've never seen anything like them and I can't think what they were for.

 

Does anyone know what these tubes were for?

 

Queen Mary

Dowlaiscloseup.jpg

 

King George V

DowlaisCloseup2.jpg

 

Given the end cap, I'd say that its actually a container for something rather than a part of the locomotive proper, but what that might be I really don't know.

[Ruston]

Given the end cap, I'd say that its actually a container for something rather than a part of the locomotive proper, but what that might be I really don't know.

If I'm right about the T-joint, and the pipe does lead to someting between the frames then it is a container but for what? It has been suggested to me that it could be for fuel oil. I wonder if these Class D locos were oil-fired? Looking at the side view photos, and the drawing, the "coal bunker" would be of a decent enough size but the gap between the rear panel and the rear of the cab upper is very small, so filling the bunker with coal would be difficult. The rear windows too - they are very large and come right down to the level of the bunker top. There are no grilles over the windows in the photo of No.42, or in the drawing and so they would be prone to being broken when filling the bunker. If they were oil-fired then perhaps the main tank (bunker) was supplemented by one beteween the frames?

[Caledonian]

If I'm right about the T-joint, and the pipe does lead to someting between the frames then it is a container but for what? It has been suggested to me that it could be for fuel oil. I wonder if these Class D locos were oil-fired? Looking at the side view photos, and the drawing, the "coal bunker" would be of a decent enough size but the gap between the rear panel and the rear of the cab upper is very small, so filling the bunker with coal would be difficult. The rear windows too - they are very large and come right down to the level of the bunker top. There are no grilles over the windows in the photo of No.42, or in the drawing and so they would be prone to being broken when filling the bunker. If they were oil-fired then perhaps the main tank (bunker) was supplemented by one beteween the frames?

 

If they were oil-fired, and your reasoning sounds good, then the simplest explanation might be that its a filler, ie; you unscrew that cap and screw on a hose in its place.

[brack]

But why put it in a comparatively vulnerable place, at the other end of the loco and below the tank level? Surely a filler on the bunker top would be easier, more secure and less prone to potential leakage.

Interestingly the photos I've seen suggest the tube is only on the front end of the 040t, not on the rear and not on the six coupled locos.

It does look like there's something between the frames it connects to, but that's where the cylinders are, so whatever it is can't be that big.

 

Is there a possibility that the pipe is an outlet of water/steam for some reason?

[Caledonian]

But why put it in a comparatively vulnerable place, at the other end of the loco and below the tank level? Surely a filler on the bunker top would be easier, more secure and less prone to potential leakage.

Interestingly the photos I've seen suggest the tube is only on the front end of the 040t, not on the rear and not on the six coupled locos.

It does look like there's something between the frames it connects to, but that's where the cylinders are, so whatever it is can't be that big.

 

Is there a possibility that the pipe is an outlet of water/steam for some reason?

 

Now that night be a realistic possibility, if it was supplying steam for something.