Jump to content




Photo

Rapido/Locomotion Models GNR Stirling Single

GNR OO gauge LNER NRM Locomotion Models pre-Grouping




  • Please log in to reply
883 replies to this topic

#876 JCL

JCL

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,808 posts
  • LocationVancouver Island, Canada

Posted 16 December 2017 - 21:44

We have a chip. ;>)

 

Well that's just taken the fun out of it right there.  :cry:


  • Funny x 2



#877 gr.king

gr.king

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,694 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 22:07

We have a chip. ;>)

 

Thanks to the local buffaloes?


  • Funny x 4

#878 gr.king

gr.king

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,694 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 18:14

Somebody understands!

#879 No Decorum

No Decorum

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,078 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 18:41

Somebody understands!

He has a dry sense of humour.


  • Craftsmanship/Clever x 1
  • Like x 1

#880 JCL

JCL

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,808 posts
  • LocationVancouver Island, Canada

Posted 21 December 2017 - 02:22

I got there in the end - I was lighting the fire at the time...


  • Funny x 1

#881 chris p bacon

chris p bacon

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,796 posts
  • LocationBedfordshire

Posted 21 December 2017 - 08:57

I got there in the end - I was lighting the fire at the time...

 

I'm still working on it. . . .



#882 JCL

JCL

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,808 posts
  • LocationVancouver Island, Canada

Posted 21 December 2017 - 09:11

Look up Stubby's single rail Indian layout - the answer is there. I'll say no more to let the thread get back on topic.

#883 CF MRC

CF MRC

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 24 December 2017 - 09:02

I was considering what I might do with one of these excellent models.
 
Ideally I would represent a different class member in 1900s condition.
 
There were several batches of these built, and, of course, there were changes.  For instance, from c.1881, locos were built unpierced splashers, and the last batch (1894-5) had different cabs and a higher boiler pitch.  Several were rebuilt with domed Ivatt boilers.
 
I have my eye on a couple of prototypes from later batches and in 1900s condition, and I am currently considering how to derive them from the Rapido model.
 
My first enquiry is to consider what the Rapido model represents as a starting point.
 
The earlier batches were built 1870-1877. As the first of her kind, No.1 had unique features, but she and the rest of the early locos were rebuilt to more closely resemble later batches built 1880-1893.
 
No.1's original dimensions differed from subsequent class members in having a shorter firebox (5' 6" as opposed to 6'2" on all subsequent locos), and this resulted in her frames being 8" shorter. That fact alone might sink any planned conversion.  However, No.1's firebox was extended to 6' 2" in 1877 and her frames extended 8" accordingly.  I have no reason to believe that she was restored to her 'as built' dimensions on preservation and, indeed, would have thought this most unlikely.
 
Other changes were made in 1880, when her boiler was changed for one with a slightly increased external diameter of the boiler, as used by subsequent locos.  I would guess that there was also a rise in boiler pitch to match subsequent locos.  The splasher slots were apparently filled with a back plate at this time.
 
I assume that No.1 is preserved with the longer firebox fitted in 1877, the boiler of the same dimensions as fitted from 1880, the deeper frames and larger trailing wheels fitted in 1880, but with open slots to the splasher.  
 
From the point of view of a conversion, I am guessing that the frame-depth and length, the firebox length, boiler dimensions and pitch, and  larger trailing wheels modelled by Rapido are all suitable for built/rebuilt locos of the 1880s, and, so, favour the conversion I have in mind.
 
For those locos built from 1881, the key differences from the Rapido model would seem to be:
 
- lower cab sheets 3" longer (introduced on last 2 of earlier batches), except, apparently, 666-71.
 
- dummy rear sandboxes (664 on)
 
- variations in curve of mainframe ahead of the smoke box, which I really haven't got my head around yet, but with her rebuilt frames, preserved No.1 should resemble Nos. 662-71 (1881-3) in this regard.
 
- Non-slotted splashers (save 662-3, but these blanked with a backing plate before the 1900s) 
 
- cast iron chimneys from 1885
 
- horizontal cab handrails to 1001 and 1002
 
I am not concerned with the last series or the Ivatt rebuilds.
 
I think this leaves the best choice No. 668, a Boston locomotive in 1905, my chosen year.  There is, I think, no extra length to the cab side sheet, and the front framing should be consistent with the rebuilt No.1.
 
I think the main changes to the Rapido model would be:
 
- non-slotted splasher
 
- dummy rear Sanderson
 
- remove side chains and add vac pipe stand 
 
- possibly replace the chimney (different by 1907)
 
An alternative might be No. 8, a Peterborough (which suits me fine) loco since the 1890s, as she was an early series, and yet had survived without an Ivatt domed rebuild. The main difference in treatment, I believe, would be to apply a blanking plate behind the splasher slots (if there is room!).  By my period, the splasher slots would be unlined green, same as the blanking plate.  668 was pictured at Peterborough in 1907.  She had lost her safety chains by then, but might not have done so in 1905, as the discontinuance of side chains only commenced that year.
 
I have a photograph on 668 in 1907, but have not, so far, seen a near contemporary picture of No. 8.  There is one of No.7, but she was withdrawn just too soon, in February 1905. 
 
A further option is simply to stick with No. 1, which was in service until 1907 and based at Doncaster.  I would have to assume a special/excursion from there.  This would, I think, require the same treatment as No. 8, blank the slotted splasher to the rear and add a dummy rear sand-box.
 
For earlier series locos with slotted splashers, from sometime in the 1890s the blanking plates would have been green and there would have been no lining to the apertures.  I prefer the 1880s treatment, the slots remained lined and the blanking plate was black, but this would not do for 1905.  
 
If anyone can provide any corrections, suggestions or further information, I would be very grateful.

The singles were effectively built in pairs. Number 547 would be a good choice James. It would fit the Rapido model condition (with false sandbox cover and filled splashers) and was long lasting. Somewhere, deep in the vaults, I have pictures of all sides of this engine.

29dfqyg.jpg
Photo by Craig Tiley, courtesy of RM.

Merry Christmas everyone!
Tim
  • Like x 16

#884 Nimbus

Nimbus

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 664 posts

Posted 24 December 2017 - 11:12

I do wish the full-size location still looked as good as that!

 

The Nim.


  • Agree x 6












Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GNR, OO gauge, LNER, NRM, Locomotion Models, pre-Grouping