4F (Armstrongs) tenders

[Guest Belgian]

One source that hasn't been mentioned above may cause a little consternation about the later tenders!

 

This is "Somerset & Dorset Locomotive History" by D L Bradley and David Milton (ISBN 0 7153 5956 8 on page 165 of which it states (and I quote)

 

"At Derby in February 1956 No 44561 was coupled to tender No. 2762 ex-Compound No 41123 which had commenced service behind a Midland Belpaire (class 3) 4-4-0. It was of the standard Johnson bogie variety, but in March 1913 was rebuilt as a 3,500 gall, six-wheeled tender with a 13ft 9in wheelbase and transferred to Class 3 No 732 where it remained until this locomotive was withdrawn in 1929. Subsequently it passed to Compound No 1197 and in May 1937 it was rebuilt with a Fowler tank of the pattern used on the LMS standard 13ft 0in wheelbase tenders, which left a platform at the rear between the back of the tank and the buffer beam. By October 1950 it was partnered by Compound No 41123 and as stated above later gravitated to No 44561. Nos 44558 to 44560 also received spare tenders with various degrees of complication."

 

I have seen that 53808 as preserved has an odd tender with a platform at the rear, which may or may not be that referred to above. From this above information the tender was not a standard Fowler one at all! Also, it's anyone's guess what the tenders attached to the other Armstrongs really were! Note that there's no reference to 44557 receiving any other tender, although that's obviously wrong according to the photographic evidence described above.

 

JE

[buffalo]

Yes, I've read that too. Unfortunately, photos rarely show enough to be certain about the rear platform on this tender. Plate 65 in Ivo Peters' The Somerset & Dorset, English Cross-Country Railway shows 44561 on 18/07/1959 but I'm not convinced the tender has this platform.

 

I think there was some discussion of the tender on 53808 on the 7F thread. Here's a photo of the current tender showing the rear platform.

 

Nick

[Combe Martin]

Its just occurred to me that there's 3 of us here at the moment all trying to produce a 'better' 4F for use on a S&D layout now. I'm not quite as adventurous as to attempt an etched brass kit at the moment, what I am doing is improving an old Airfix 4F that never ran properly by fitting it with a Comet loco drive and tender chassis.

 

I started with the tender chassis thinking that wouldn't be too difficult, which it wasn't (a useful learning curve), though there was quite a bit of carving to do to the plastic tender frame to make it fit onto the chassis, then you have to attach some 'fixings' to the plastic frame so it and the chassis can be held together with screws. You also need a bit of weight in there too. I've carved off the moulded plastic handrails from the tender body, fitted wire ones and I'm quite pleased with the result. Standing it next to the tender of the Bachmann 7F, the dimensions look about right, though the shape of some of the details isn't quite the same, it's not a million miles out !. It's going to be either 44422 or 44417 (the loco body is left hand drive).

 

Now I have to start on the loco chassis, thats a different 'kettle of fish' !

[buffalo]

Its just occurred to me that there's 3 of us here at the moment all trying to produce a 'better' 4F for use on a S&D layout now. I'm not quite as adventurous as to attempt an etched brass kit at the moment, what I am doing is improving an old Airfix 4F that never ran properly by fitting it with a Comet loco drive and tender chassis.

Given the current level of interest in the forthcoming Hornby revision, I would have thought that a thread or blog on what you are doing would go down well.

 

...It's going to be either 44422 or 44417 (the loco body is left hand drive)...

In my searches for photos of the Armstrongs I've had the impression that those two crop up quite frequently so you've a good collection of photos to work from. At least you don't have the problem of choosing a tender. I believe both of them were Derby built with original Fowler tenders.

 

Nick

[Combe Martin]

"At Derby in February 1956 No 44561 was coupled to tender No. 2762 ex-Compound No 41123 which had commenced service behind a Midland Belpaire (class 3) 4-4-0. It was of the standard Johnson bogie variety, but in March 1913 was rebuilt as a 3,500 gall, six-wheeled tender with a 13ft 9in wheelbase and transferred to Class 3 No 732 where it remained until this locomotive was withdrawn in 1929. Subsequently it passed to Compound No 1197 and in May 1937 it was rebuilt with a Fowler tank of the pattern used on the LMS standard 13ft 0in wheelbase tenders, which left a platform at the rear between the back of the tank and the buffer beam. By October 1950 it was partnered by Compound No 41123 and as stated above later gravitated to No 44561. Nos 44558 to 44560 also received spare tenders with various degrees of complication."

 

I have seen that 53808 as preserved has an odd tender with a platform at the rear, which may or may not be that referred to above. From this above information the tender was not a standard Fowler one at all! Also, it's anyone's guess what the tenders attached to the other Armstrongs really were! Note that there's no reference to 44557 receiving any other tender, although that's obviously wrong according to the photographic evidence described above.

 

The tender attached to the preserved 53808 (No 88 at the moment) is tender no. 2870 which is one of several Deeley/Fowler hybrids, i.e. Fowler body on a slightly longer Deeley chassis. It also ran behind 53800 for a short while too. All this is described in a very good article by George Moon of the S&D Trust in the Trusts winter 2009 'Pines Express' magazine No. 255.

[Bruciethefish]

I too have studied the original tenders, which appear to be a hybrid of Johnson & Fowler practise. The flare at the top looks much smaller than a normal Johnson tender, while the coal rails dip at the front, but appear to wrap around the coal space at the back.

I have a feeling that they may have been unique to the Armstrong-Whitworth build, & were possibly that companies' interpretation of a not-too-detailed specification...