gedlee Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 Well Done Dave You are a Star!!! Cheers, Ged. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted June 6, 2018 Author Share Posted June 6, 2018 Hi everyone, Today's iteration of the King cad/cam for your thoughts. I have a couple of thoughts regarding the firebox top edge slope back to the cab, but i'd welcome thoughts. cheers Dave 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 Hi everyone, Today's iteration of the King cad/cam for your thoughts. I have a couple of thoughts regarding the firebox top edge slope back to the cab, but i'd welcome thoughts. cheers Dave Yes I agree that the slope of the top of the firebox is wrong - it appears to be too pronounced. Also the cab side windows are too narrow and the profile of the cab roof still does not look right - the flat section in the centre looks to me to be too wide and the positioning of the ventilators does not look right to me. IMHO Hornby got the cab including the cab roof absolutely right on their OO gauge model and Farish's effort on their Castle is very good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xModellerx Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 (edited) Hi Dave Yeah.. firebox top is wrong.. I think the front is a gnats tadgers to high it should be closer to flush with the boiler top IMO, and the cab end another gnats too low giving a wrong impression. Your CAD has the top of firebox at the cab end level with the top of the cab front windows and it should be a little higher from these phots. As to cab windows.. well there were multiple versions depending on period... heres two pics to conpare and as you can see, the windows are different sizes. Your CAD appears to have the slightly smaller window, but the rear of it is in the position for the larger window. The front edge of the window appears to be common to both types. Spud 7 with the double chimbley has the (slightly by about 1 rivet) narrower ones.. the spud 2 and line drawing show larger. By the way... looking at the .. oh god, don't remember what it's called.. but the bulge under the chimney RHS smokebox.. it seems straight on a king (unlike other western locos)... conpare in spud 2 the king with the loco behind it, also compare to spud 7 with double chimney. (added a screffy pic of KGV as well to show it more clearly). This may be a date dependant thing as well, but a lot of phots on the web show it straight and it should be bigger and start futher forward of the CAD idea.. (may be a doubly chimbly thing.. don't know but have found one phot of Henry 8 showing it like your CAD so beats me but from the photo.. blue spud 2 as it is today is single chimney and straight cover thingy. ) I'm not a specialist but it looks wrong to me but hopefully someone with good knowledge can confirm or deny the options and the whys and wherefores. Edited June 7, 2018 by xModellerx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 By the way... looking at the .. oh god, don't remember what it's called.. but the bulge under the chimney RHS smokebox.. it seems straight on a king (unlike other western locos)... conpare in spud 2 the king with the loco behind it, also compare to spud 7 with double chimney. (added a screffy pic of KGV as well to show it more clearly). This may be a date dependant thing as well, but a lot of phots on the web show it straight and it should be bigger and start futher forward of the CAD idea.. (may be a doubly chimbly thing.. don't know but have found one phot of Henry 8 showing it like your CAD so beats me but from the photo.. blue spud 2 as it is today is single chimney and straight cover thingy. ) I'm not a specialist but it looks wrong to me but hopefully someone with good knowledge can confirm or deny the options and the whys and wherefores. king3.jpg king4.jpg king2.gif king5.jpg Hi xModellerx, The bulge is the oil feed cover and these changed over the lifetime of the loco. As built, they were slimmer and tear-drop shaped, as shown on the CAD. The larger, squarer ones appeared after nationalisation. I think they were fitted at the same time as the increased superheating was applied to the boiler (since this in turn required an increase in lubrication). What is confusing me is the oil feed covers on the left hand side. As built, most photos show none on that side (as per the CAD). However a handful of Kings do seem to have been fitted with oil feeds on the left hand side in GWR days and it looks like both KGI and KHVI (the GWR-liveried versions that Dave is proposing) were among the examples fitted with a second feed cover on the LHS. https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Collett-Locomotives/Collett-460-designs/Collett-King-Class-60006029/60006029-Pre-1968/60066019-Built-1928/i-JF6wCDR/A https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Collett-Locomotives/Collett-460-designs/Collett-King-Class-60006029/60006029-Pre-1968/6016-6019-Built-1928/i-9VTSfGb/A As far as I can tell, when the Kings received the larger late plates, these were only fitted to the RHS. However it appears that a handful of early Kings had covers on both the RHS and the LHS and both the examples chosen seem to be from this batch. Once you start digging into small details, it becomes an absolute minefield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 Hi Dave Yeah.. firebox top is wrong.. I think the front is a gnats tadgers to high it should be closer to flush with the boiler top IMO, and the cab end another gnats too low giving a wrong impression. Your CAD has the top of firebox at the cab end level with the top of the cab front windows and it should be a little higher from these phots. As to cab windows.. well there were multiple versions depending on period... heres two pics to conpare and as you can see, the windows are different sizes. Your CAD appears to have the slightly smaller window, but the rear of it is in the position for the larger window. The front edge of the window appears to be common to both types. Spud 7 with the double chimbley has the (slightly by about 1 rivet) narrower ones.. the spud 2 and line drawing show larger. By the way... looking at the .. oh god, don't remember what it's called.. but the bulge under the chimney RHS smokebox.. it seems straight on a king (unlike other western locos)... conpare in spud 2 the king with the loco behind it, also compare to spud 7 with double chimney. (added a screffy pic of KGV as well to show it more clearly). This may be a date dependant thing as well, but a lot of phots on the web show it straight and it should be bigger and start futher forward of the CAD idea.. (may be a doubly chimbly thing.. don't know but have found one phot of Henry 8 showing it like your CAD so beats me but from the photo.. blue spud 2 as it is today is single chimney and straight cover thingy. ) I'm not a specialist but it looks wrong to me but hopefully someone with good knowledge can confirm or deny the options and the whys and wherefores. king3.jpg king4.jpg king2.gif king5.jpg If nothing else, these exchanges show how complicated is the subject of modifications to the Kings, but one could do a lot worse than refer to the late Kenneth Leech's book, "Portraits of Kings", which contains a detailed description of these. In particular the book reveals the following: 1. 6001 was the only King to sport the narrow cab side window and then only on the driver's side. It was meant to facilitate cleaning the inside of the cab window on that side behind the Automated Train Control apparatus . Otherwise there were no changes to these windows throughout the entire lives of these locos. 2. The valve lubricating pipe cover shown on the CAD (the "bulge" referred to in the above post) is correct for a King not fitted with a four row superheated boiler (fitted to the class in the early fifties onwards). The cover on the driver's side shown in the above photographs (subject to a small change in shape - see the Leech book) was adopted when those boilers were fitted with both the single and, later, the double chimneys. 3. Apart from 6014, which was so modified when streamlined in the mid-thirties, the cab roof ventilators were not fitted to the class until 1954 so should probably not appear on a model of a pre-four row superheater boilered King. Some further points occur to me looking at the CAD. The straight section of the rearmost extension to the cab roof (looking from above) should be slightly wider, and the whistles and whistle shield are too far forward. The shield itself appears to have made contact with the leading edge of the cab roof on the prototype. Leech's book also gives much detail on such matters as the different types of chimneys and outside steam pipes fitted to the Kings. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 7, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 7, 2018 (edited) The problem with the 'Kings' - apart from certain early variations mentioned by 'Karhedron' is getting the right mix of period detail. So looking at the latest CAD in terms of such details the cab roof ventilator is post 1954 (as a generalised date), the outside steam pipes are pre 1953 modification, the oil pipe cover is pre 1951 (at the very latest), the bogie shows signs of being post 1955, and there is no mechanical lubricator (basically post 1951) while the chimney would not be correct for several engines post 1955/56. As with almost any 'standard' GWR class you first need to chose your date and then your engine if you want it as near right as you can get it. Edited June 7, 2018 by The Stationmaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 Hi xModellerx, The bulge is the oil feed cover and these changed over the lifetime of the loco. As built, they were slimmer and tear-drop shaped, as shown on the CAD. The larger, squarer ones appeared after nationalisation. I think they were fitted at the same time as the increased superheating was applied to the boiler (since this in turn required an increase in lubrication). What is confusing me is the oil feed covers on the left hand side. As built, most photos show none on that side (as per the CAD). However a handful of Kings do seem to have been fitted with oil feeds on the left hand side in GWR days and it looks like both KGI and KHVI (the GWR-liveried versions that Dave is proposing) were among the examples fitted with a second feed cover on the LHS. https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Collett-Locomotives/Collett-460-designs/Collett-King-Class-60006029/60006029-Pre-1968/60066019-Built-1928/i-JF6wCDR/A https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Collett-Locomotives/Collett-460-designs/Collett-King-Class-60006029/60006029-Pre-1968/6016-6019-Built-1928/i-9VTSfGb/A As far as I can tell, when the Kings received the larger late plates, these were only fitted to the RHS. However it appears that a handful of early Kings had covers on both the RHS and the LHS and both the examples chosen seem to be from this batch. Once you start digging into small details, it becomes an absolute minefield. The oil feed covers on the fireman's side appear to have been fitted by the GWR at roughly the same time the lamp iron on top of the smokebox was repositioned on the smokebox door i.e. in the early thirties. Thereafter, I think I am right in saying that the cover on that side disappeared for good with the fitting of the four row superheated boilers in the early fifties. As you say, "an absolute minefield"! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 (edited) Hi All, Oil pipe covers on Castles go like this: The covers simply hide the elbows in the oil lines that come from the lubricator in the cab to the various bits in the smokebox that need thick steam oil. Early locos as built, one large cover on the driver’s side. This is because they only had a 3 glass hydrostatic displacement lubricator. Most of the production run up to 5099 were built with and early locos also modified to have large cover on the driver’s side and a small one on fireman’s side. This is due to the 5 glass hydrostatic displacement lubricator having more oil lines to go to the front end. 5098 and 5099 were modified shortly after construction and all subsequent Castles built went to mechanical lubrication as a result of the new 3 row superheated boilers. There is still a steam supply to the front end so a redesigned cover is fitted. No need for one on the other side now though. This is also true of all 4 row superheater conversions but be careful with Castles as there are two types of lubricator used... I do not see why it would be vastly different for the Kings. However, it looks like the large banjo sort of shape thing in one of the photos above shows three little dots showing through. These are the shut off valves for each oil line so perhaps they ran three lines down one side instead of two on the driver’s and one on the fireman’s side like the Castles? I hope this helps! All the best, Castle Edited June 20, 2018 by Castle 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstone Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Hi All, Oil pipe covers on Castles go like this: The covers simply hide the elbows in the oil lines that come from the lubricator in the cab to the various bits in the smokebox that need thick steam oil. Early locos as built, one large cover on the driver’s side. This is because they only had a 3 glass hydrostatic displacement lubricator. Most of the production run up to 5099 were built with and early locos also modified to have large cover on the driver’s side and a small one on fireman’s side. This is due to the 5 glass hydrostatic displacement lubricator having more oil lines to go to the front end. 5098 and 5099 were modified shortly after construction and all subsequent Castles built went to mechanical lubrication as a result of the new 3 row superheated boilers. There is still a steam supply to the front end so a redesigned cover is fitted. No need for one on the other side now though. This is also true of all 4 row superheater conversions but be careful with Castles as there are two types of lubricator used... I do not see why it would be vastly different for the Kings. However, it looks like the large banjo sort of shape thing in one of the photos above shows three little dots showing through. These are the shut off valves for each oil line so perhaps they ran three lines down one side instead of two on the driver’s and one on the fireman’s side like the Castles? I hope this helps! All the best, Castle The difference between 3 glass and 5 glass hydrostatic lubricators was that in the three glass version one glass fed the regulator valve direct and the other two fed the main steam pipes from the regulator box so that only one would normally be in use, the other being a spare in case the one in use was blocked. in the five glass version, one in use and one spare for each steam pipe, the extra fairing on the fireman's side fed the left hand steam pipe. I am not absolutely sure of the layout for mechanical lubrication, but I believe that they went back to running all the pipes on the drivers side, but in both cases, the steam provided to mix with the oil would come from the "w" valve sited below, and actuated by the regulator handle which would be open just before the first valve of the regulator. this was where the regulator handle would be set when coasting. on mechanically lubricated Castles and Kings, a pressure gauge in the cab would show no oil and oil Regards, Alex Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) Hi Alex, That’s correct - all the glasses are not in use at once, some are spares. Correct on the mechanical lubricator set up too. The steam supply from the valve under the regulator is still used down the driver’s side. No. 6023 has this set up and it is why the mechanical lubricator versions have the oil / no oil gauge in the cab where the hydrostatic displacement lubricator normally lives. Steam is still part of the equation! All GWR designed locos so fitted require the regulator handle to be lifted to open that valve when coasting to keep the oil supply running to the front end. All the best, Castle Edited June 22, 2018 by Castle 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 OK, here is another puzzle. Can anyone identify this small, square patch on the boiler, close to the firebox? It seems to have appeared on most class members in the mid-50s but not all of them. At first I thought it might be related to the increased superheating of the boiler but this shot of 6017 in 1957 shows it does not have the patch despite have the 4-row superheater. Any ideas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstone Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Probably an access patch to one or more of the union joints of the lubrication pipes that ran down that side of the boiler. Regards, Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hi everyone, I'm pleased to say that the cad/cam for the GWR version of the King is almost completed, and i hope to sign off on it over the next day or 2. Just checking a few things, and refining where possible. I've spotted a couple of minor niggles that still need 'playing with' but here it is. changes you will notice include, the coupling box being pushed back (there will still be a spare bogie frame without coupling box in the packaging, the detail above the bogie and 'through' the frames is better, cab roof, and firebox slope changes. I'd still like the whistle better but i think it may be one of those compromises that's needed. Anyway, if you spot anything at all that's not right, please let me know, even though i may have spotted it already, its better to have more than 1 pair of eyes on this. Cheers Dave 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted July 6, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 6, 2018 (edited) Hi Dave, just an observation. Would you consider having a look at the reversing lever? To my eyes, the fish belly portion seems to be missing. Cheers, Ian. Edit. Sorry Dave, I forgot! It depends whether the locomotive is moving forward, or stopped. You won't see the portion, as it sits behind the nameplate.... oops. Edited July 6, 2018 by tomparryharry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted July 6, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hi All, Oil pipe covers on Castles go like this: The covers simply hide the elbows in the oil lines that come from the lubricator in the cab to the various bits in the smokebox that need thick steam oil. Early locos as built, one large cover on the driver’s side. This is because they only had a 3 glass hydrostatic displacement lubricator. Most of the production run up to 5099 were built with and early locos also modified to have large cover on the driver’s side and a small one on fireman’s side. This is due to the 5 glass hydrostatic displacement lubricator having more oil lines to go to the front end. 5098 and 5099 were modified shortly after construction and all subsequent Castles built went to mechanical lubrication as a result of the new 3 row superheated boilers. There is still a steam supply to the front end so a redesigned cover is fitted. No need for one on the other side now though. This is also true of all 4 row superheater conversions but be careful with Castles as there are two types of lubricator used... I do not see why it would be vastly different for the Kings. However, it looks like the large banjo sort of shape thing in one of the photos above shows three little dots showing through. These are the shut off valves for each oil line so perhaps they ran three lines down one side instead of two on the driver’s and one on the fireman’s side like the Castles? I hope this helps! All the best, Castle I think you've got that right. The Western issued a new set of notes & diagrams when the new lubricators came along. It shows the new arrangement of oil feeds. I've still got my copy somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium steam-driven boy Posted July 6, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hi, there will still be a spare bogie frame without coupling box in the packaging Very happy to see this, it must be tempting to compromise for pricing reasons. Regards, Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hi, Very happy to see this, it must be tempting to compromise for pricing reasons. Regards, Gerry Oh of course it is, but i want my first N gauge loco release to have good reviews and for people to take notice. So do it as right as possible, first time. The Factory offered me a free (apart from a free to put my name on it) box for the loco, sort of American and Continental type, with a separate lid that has lugs on the side to hold it to the base. Free'ish is always good, but with me, even the box has to 'say something' when you look at it, and hold it. it must exude a presence, not look like so many before it, which tend to look a tad naff. Cheers Dave 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hi everyone, I'm pleased to say that the cad/cam for the GWR version of the King is almost completed, and i hope to sign off on it over the next day or 2. Just checking a few things, and refining where possible. I've spotted a couple of minor niggles that still need 'playing with' but here it is. changes you will notice include, the coupling box being pushed back (there will still be a spare bogie frame without coupling box in the packaging, the detail above the bogie and 'through' the frames is better, cab roof, and firebox slope changes. I'd still like the whistle better but i think it may be one of those compromises that's needed. Anyway, if you spot anything at all that's not right, please let me know, even though i may have spotted it already, its better to have more than 1 pair of eyes on this. Cheers Dave This looks much better although it is not possible to make out if the cab roof profile is now correct. Shouldn't the speedo. bracket be pushed rearwards a tad? Looking at the photo of 6001 in post 354 it should line up with the centre of the axle of the rear drivers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 This looks much better although it is not possible to make out if the cab roof profile is now correct. Shouldn't the speedo. bracket be pushed rearwards a tad? Looking at the photo of 6001 in post 354 it should line up with the centre of the axle of the rear drivers. Hi Vacuum, Totally correct , and here is the laser scan to show the parts mentioned in the last 2 mails. Fish belly to the reverser duly added, and speedo position being changed in a few minutes. Overlaying the cab front roof profile to drawings, it seems to match up properly now, obviously the laser scan was of the 'cut down' king cab so would have been different anyway. Cheers Dave 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 6, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 6, 2018 The bogie still has the post 1955/56 strengthening strips on it - they only appeared on engines with 4 row superheaters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 The bogie still has the post 1955/56 strengthening strips on it - they only appeared on engines with 4 row superheaters. Hi mate, agreed, the problem comes as a cost against reward excercise. a 3rd / 4th bogie (if you take into account with and without coupler box) will just cost so much more than i am comfortable i have orders / payments for. cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hi Vacuum, Totally correct , and here is the laser scan to show the parts mentioned in the last 2 mails. Fish belly to the reverser duly added, and speedo position being changed in a few minutes. Overlaying the cab front roof profile to drawings, it seems to match up properly now, obviously the laser scan was of the 'cut down' king cab so would have been different anyway. Cheers Dave Dave, I have just seen your post above. Many thanks for taking the trouble to let us know of the speedy corrective action which you have taken (although I cannot of course take credit for Tomparryharry's comments regarding the reversing lever). I just wish I could alter my physical appearance at the touch of a computer button! Your remarks about the cab roof profile are reassuring and I agree that the original version of the cad showed the horrible profile of the cut down version of the King (6023). This is NOT intended as a criticism of the Great Western Society which has to find some way of dealing with the ridiculous gauging requirements of the modern mainline railway. Will you be showing us the cads of the double chimney version? Although not strictly relevant to this thread I would add that I have just purchased my second example of your super 14xx model in OO gauge. The amount of detail on this is astonishing. I appreciate that it is not possible to achieve the same level of detail in N gauge and, as you have stated there have to be compromises, but if the King is anything like the 14xx then we are in for a treat. I wish you every success in this project. Colin 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 9, 2018 Author Share Posted July 9, 2018 Hi everyone, I'm hoping that today or tomorrow i can show the completed cad/cam of the early King locomotive to you. (Fingers crossed here) Work will then move on apace for the other versions, and i think we are only about 10 or so days away from the distinct possibility of starting tooling on this model. With this in mind, please note that once i am are sure this is happening, i will need everyone here who has placed an order to pay the deposit to allow tooling to start. You will be able to do this via a link that i will send to you all which will take you to the non RRP 50% deposit payment page. It is here that you can order, alter and or add to your requirements, and pay your deposit securely through Lloyds quick safe payment system. when the invitation to pay is sent out, no orders will be taken from fresh customers coming late, although you as existing customers will be allowed to add extra models for yourself etc, right up to second ep / production phase. cheers Dave 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGR Hooper! Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) Hi everyone, I'm hoping that today or tomorrow i can show the completed cad/cam of the early King locomotive to you. (Fingers crossed here) cheers Dave Why not just post pictures when you get them? It's now expected to hear you say you'll show something and then delay it. Not that it matters but then what's the point of the post? Just saying.... Edited July 9, 2018 by MGR Hooper! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts