2012 / 13/14.....Dukedog?

[buffalo]

That's a very plausible idea.

It is indeed. Though I'm glad we didn't adopt metric measurements too early; 4mm to 1' is fine and fairly easy to convert real inches to scale millimetres, but think of the errors we'd make if we had to work from metric drawings at 4mm to 304.8mm (adjust as required for your favourite scale).

 

Nick

Edited February 10, 2012 by buffalo

[phil gollin]

From the point of view of future choices, does the "Dukedog" lend itself better to back-dating to a "Duke" or a "Bulldog" ?

 

(Presumably the boiler moulding is easier to change than any adjustment to the double frames ???)

Edited February 11, 2012 by phil gollin

[buffalo]

From the point of view of future choices, does the "Dukedog" lend itself better to back-dating to a "Duke" or a "Bulldog" ?...

This is really one for the experienced plastic bashers. Personally, as one who prefers working in metal, if I wanted a Duke (I do) or a Bulldog (I don't), I would go for the Martin Finney kits. However, a quick answer to the question is that, leaving aside details of cabs, smokeboxes, chimneys, frame variations, etc., the Dukedog is a Duke above the running plate and a straight-framed Bulldog below.

 

Dukes, and some Bulldogs, had frames and running plates that were curved over the driving axles. Other Bulldogs (they were many and varied) had straight frames of several patterns. Early Bulldogs had parallel boilers with a high mounted Belpaire firebox which, to my eyes, is quite ugly. Later, they acquired coned boilers. I would need to check boiler types, but maybe a County or City boiler could be adapted to suit?

 

Nick

[Pennine MC]

This is really one for the experienced plastic bashers. [snip]

 

Second guessing Phil, I reckon he's thinking more of the possibility of the Barwell boys doing the bashing. It's an odd one, the Duke and Bulldog are both characterful locos but all withdrawn (AFAIK) by the very early '50s; pre-Group locos are certainly on the up, but more so those prototypes with a reasonable length of BR service

[ThePipersSon]

I've just been checking things up in 'Standard Gauge Great Western 4-4-0s' by O S Nock.

 

3265 Tre Pol and Pen was built with 3' 2" wheels, as on the 4-6-0 express passenger locos. The author states that he has been unable to find the reason for this, but suggests it might be due to clearances on the cylinders and motion. There cannot have been a problem though as they reverted to 3' 8" when the production batch was built 5 years later.

 

As for boilers for the bulldogs, they were standard type 2 (and these came in at least 3 varieties parallel, short cone and long cone).

 

Citys and Counties had standard type 4 boilers.

 

The passenger equivalent of Bulldogs was the Atbara class (also with standard type 2 boilers). Ten Atbaras were rebuilt with standard type 4 boilers (keeping their original names) and were then included into the City class.

 

The whole history of the 4-4-0s is quite complicated.

 

Tom

[Gilwell Park]

I've just been checking things up in 'Standard Gauge Great Western 4-4-0s' by O S Nock.

 

3265 Tre Pol and Pen was built with 3' 2" wheels, as on the 4-6-0 express passenger locos. The author states that he has been unable to find the reason for this, but suggests it might be due to clearances on the cylinders and motion. There cannot have been a problem though as they reverted to 3' 8" when the production batch was built 5 years later.

 

As for boilers for the bulldogs, they were standard type 2 (and these came in at least 3 varieties parallel, short cone and long cone).

 

Citys and Counties had standard type 4 boilers.

 

The passenger equivalent of Bulldogs was the Atbara class (also with standard type 2 boilers). Ten Atbaras were rebuilt with standard type 4 boilers (keeping their original names) and were then included into the City class.

 

The whole history of the 4-4-0s is quite complicated.

 

Tom

 

Hi.

 

I cannot understand the reason for 3'2" wheels. 3265 was built on a Bulldog frame, cylinders & wheels. The existing bogie wheels were 3'8". Were cylinders or motion changed during the rebuilding?

 

Roger.

[buffalo]

Thanks for looking up the boilers, Tom. This bogie wheel business is most odd. The 3'2" size is often repeated so I think we need an early photo to support this claim and to compare with the later ones that appear to show 3'8" wheels. Then there is the Russell drawing...

 

Nick

Edited February 11, 2012 by buffalo

[ThePipersSon]

I cannot understand the reason for 3'2" wheels. 3265 was built on a Bulldog frame, cylinders & wheels. The existing bogie wheels were 3'8". Were cylinders or motion changed during the rebuilding?

 

Remember the reason to build the Dukedogs was to provide locos to work the weight-restricted lines the GWR took over in 1923. The Dukes were worn out and they needed something for the Cambrian, DN&S and M&SWJR (although the DN&S was upgraded during the war). It could possibly be a way of keeping the weight down to keep it within limits, as the Bulldog frames were heavier than the Dukes. Only, when they built it, they could weigh the finished loco to see if was in the axle-load limits. This is just a thought, with no basis in fact.

[phil gollin]

Pennine MC is correct, I was wondering which type Bachmann would find easiest to backdate the Dukedog to.

[Gilwell Park]

Hi.

 

I have recently been helping to clear out my Father in Law's loft.

 

Apart from many old Trains Illustrated and Railway World there was a box of the RCTS Railway Observer from 1933 to very recent. I had stacked these in neat piles in our spare room and idly picked up the December 1938 issue to see what was going on at that time. I found an article on the GWR 3200 4-4-0's by F.K.Davies. It refers to 3265 being rebuilt at ther close of 1929 and being allocated to Diagram A40. It goes on to describe the reconstruction of a further 20 engines which were allocated Diagrams A43, superheated and A44 non superheated. It goes on to state that A40 is identical with A43/4, except that 3265 has 3'2" bogie wheels while A43/4 have 3'8". The author points out that all points of doubt have been cleared up through the kindness of Mr. C. B. Collett and that without the assistance of Swindon his article would be very incomplete.

 

I guess I now have to look through all the other issues to see what other gems of information I can find. I don't think my wife will let me keep them all!

 

Roger.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Gilwell Park

[buffalo]

That's fascinating, Roger. So, have you found the original reference to 3'2" wheels that has been perpetuated by others ever since? Was it correct? Was this one of the "...points of doubt have been cleared up through the kindness of Mr. C. B. Collett..." or was it a misunderstanding? Normally, I would be inclined to doubt Russell's caption as it wouldn't be the first such error in his books, but the diagram he shows is clearly labelled as 3265 in writing that appears to be consistent with the rest of the diagram.

 

Does anyone know where Diagram A40 is today, is it at Swindon or York?

 

I still think dated photos are the only way to settle this...

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

That's fascinating, Roger. So, have you found the original reference to 3'2" wheels that has been perpetuated by others ever since? Was it correct? Was this one of the "...points of doubt have been cleared up through the kindness of Mr. C. B. Collett..." or was it a misunderstanding? Normally, I would be inclined to doubt Russell's caption as it wouldn't be the first such error in his books, but the diagram he shows is clearly labelled as 3265 in writing that appears to be consistent with the rest of the diagram.

Does anyone know where Diagram A40 is today, is it at Swindon or York?

I still think dated photos are the only way to settle this...

Nick

The 3' 2" dimension is also given in the RCTS history (but that's hardly surprising in view of what has been posted above as the RCTS books clearly represent a culmination of many years of information gathering and checking). The RCTS history also quotes the same weight for the bogie on 3265 as on the 'Dukedogs'.

[buffalo]

The 3' 2" dimension is also given in the RCTS history (but that's hardly surprising in view of what has been posted above as the RCTS books clearly represent a culmination of many years of information gathering and checking). The RCTS history also quotes the same weight for the bogie on 3265 as on the 'Dukedogs'.

Sorry, Mike,it was remiss of me not to mention that the RCTS volume was my source when I first first raised the spectre of the small wheels in post #12. The weights are also the same on the "Diagram A40" in Russell. I note that the author of Roger's Railway Observer article, F.K. Davies, is also listed as one of the main authors of the RCTS volumes.

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry, Mike,it was remiss of me not to mention that the RCTS volume was my source when I first first raised the spectre of the small wheels in post #12. The weights are also the same on the "Diagram A40" in Russell. I note that the author of Roger's Railway Observer article, F.K. Davies, is also listed as one of the main authors of the RCTS volumes.

Nick

And I wouldn't mind betting that the RCTs book has been everybody else's source ever since it was published.

[buffalo]

That's exactly what has been worrying me. The problem with authorative sources is that, sooner or later, even their errors become gospel...

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

That's exactly what has been worrying me. The problem with authorative sources is that, sooner or later, even their errors become gospel...

Nick

Indeed and the other bit which worries me is the '... cleared up through the kindness of Mr C.B. Collett ...' From the example of a letter I acquired last year it is clear that Swindon was well attuned to dealing with enquiries from the enthusiast world and that 'For C.B. Collett' letters were sent to enthusiasts answering such question as 'when will the next batch of 'Castles' be coming out?" (the example I have). Similarly internally the standard reply was 'I understand from Mr Collett that .... (complete as appropriate)' where as in fact I doubt that Mr Collett himself ever saw more than a small percentage of the correspondence addressed to him and that while he might have signed the replies he undoubtedly didn't write many of them himself.

 

This of course really boils down to establishing exactly what or who was the source of the 'smaller wheels' information? And even if it came from a drawing did that drawing accurately reflect what was on the loco? It would for instance be interesting to establish what the scrapping size was of a 3' 8" diameter bogie wheel or of any other wheels of roughly that sort of diameter - 'somebody' might well have found a note referring to the actual diameter of the wheels on the bogie which subsequently went under 3265 as opposed to the nominal size. I hasten to add that is pure conjecture on my part but a clerk unfamiliar with the details might simply have copied, or miscopied, a figure off a file or the loco history card without it occurring to him that it didn't sound right?

[Unknown Warrior]

I can find no reference to 3'2" wheels fitted to GWR 4-4-0's although of course they were fitted to GWR 4-6-0. Certainly Cities, Dukes, Bulldogs and Atbara 4-4-0s were fitted with 3'8" wheels, confirmed by J.M. Maskelyn in his books "Locomotives I have known." Bearing in mind all the scale drawings he did were of locomotives he knew well andthat his research was meticulous, I have no hesitation in accepting his work as accurate.

[buffalo]

I can find no reference to 3'2" wheels fitted to GWR 4-4-0's...

If you have read any of this thread then surely you have found references to 3'2" wheels on the single locomotive No 3265, all in otherwise well-respected sources. We are already well aware and have said so several times that all other 4-4-0s that you mention were fitted with 3'8" wheels.

...I have no hesitation in accepting his work as accurate.

Just as others have, no doubt, had blind faith in those who compiled the RCTS histories. We all make errors, some, unfortunately, are perpetuated by others. The simple question here is whether the 3'2" dimension is such an error. As I've said before, given the uncertainty of the written evidence, we need dated photographic evidence to reach a conclusion.

 

Nick

Edited February 13, 2012 by buffalo

[Mikkel]

Been looking through my books and the web for early photos of 3265, as I thought it would be fairly easy to find a works photo of the prototype of a rebuild . But no luck. If someone can find one, we could compare it to this shot of 3265, which claims to be 1936: http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/p1047678591/h11eab066#h11eab066

 

 

Edit: the link had changed, so replaced with current one.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Mikkel

[buffalo]

3265 does seem to have been rather camera-shy. I'm sure I've seen other photos, but can't lay my hands on them at the moment. However, studying that photo and the undated one in the RCTS volume, and comparing them with the large number of photos of Dukes in GWRJ 66, I'm reasonably convinced that both photos of 3265 show 3'8" wheels. From the Duke photos, ignoring the prototype Duke of Cornwall, there appear to be at least three slightly different types of bogies which can be distinguished by the patterns of rivets on their side plates. However, the overall dimensions of each type looks the same, or very close. I've only noticed one Duke, 3258 The Lizard, with the same rivet pattern (two rows towards the bottom of the side plate) as on the photos of 3265, though something similar also appears on various Bulldogs in Russell.

 

One characteristic of all of these bogies is that the amount of spoke showing below the side plate is about the same as, or slightly more than, the thickness of the wheel tyre. I would estimate that the amount of visible spoke is about 4". If the same bogies were used with a wheel whose radius was 3" less, then I would expect only an inch or so of spoke to be visible. This is not the case in either photo of 3265. On the basis of these photos and the drawing in Russell, and until someone can produce a photo with a smaller wheel, I'm going to stick my neck out and claim that 3265 probably always had 3'8" wheels just like all the others.

 

So, returning to the original question, or somewhere near it, the Bachmann model could be made into a representation of Tre Pol and Pen with GREAT WESTERN on the tender. There would, however, be the small matters of the tapered chimney, larger cab windows, whistles on the cab roof, and any other differences from the preserved 9017 that I haven't yet spotted. Oh yes, and those rivets on the bogie side frames, but I doubt that will worry most of us.

 

Nick

[craigwelsh]

The diagram is in the NRM in the ex-OPC aperture card collection, card 644:

 

644 Microfilm aperture card 1 Great Western Railway Maker of original drawing 4-4-0 Tre Pol and Pen 102 A40 Weight Diagram

 

You'll note it was a one off weight diagram specifically for Tre Pol and Pen. I don't think it was one of the weight diagrams I found when I went through a couple of boxes of the originals though.

Edited February 14, 2012 by craigwelsh

[M.I.B]

Tre Pol and Pen would therefore be suitable for the final three types of "branding":

 

GREAT WESTERN then "Shirtbutton" then G W R

 

 

 

Just one question- with the interest in Tre Pol and Pen, which kept its name until the bitter end - any chance of someone filling the gap in the nameplate market - with of course the different number options for TP&P.

 

C.G.W and Modelmaster Jackson Evans are both offering 4mm Tre Pol and Pens - Modelmaster even has both number options....

Edited February 23, 2012 by M.I.B

[The Stationmaster]

Tre Pol and Pen would therefore be suitable for the final three types of "branding":

 

GREAT WESTERN then "Shirtbutton" then G W R

 

Always assuming of course that it happened to get a repaint when the second and third were in vogue.

[buffalo]

Well, the photo that Mikkel linked to above (and someone else earlier as well) does, I think, show a shirtbutton. I can't see anything on the tender in the RCTS photo, so maybe there's a fourth possibility, a tender with no visible markings. Maybe this livery should be modelled more often?

 

Nick

[Ed-farms]

Now in the tool room according to Bachmann Collectors Club Mag.