Jump to content
 
  • entries
    63
  • comments
    344
  • views
    10,542

Barry Railway D Class


JimC

1,994 views

 

 

I've rather struggled with this one. There were only four of them, and they were all built by one builder. How difficult can it be? Well, one source of confusion was that I had 4 drawings, one Barry weight diagram, two GWR weight diagrams and a distorted photo of a drawing by Trefor L. Jones, whose work is generally excellent, but I think may have been struggling with some of the same issues. They were contradictions all over the place. I also had few photos, and all of those were front 3/4 view, so particularly muddy in the tender region. 
So lets go through some of the issues, and the choices I made. 
These locomotives were built by Sharp Stewarts for the Swedish and Norwegian Railway, and the Barry acquired them. They were from two different batches, and the first ones were acquired unused, but the second two were older and had seen some service in Norway. The first two were Barry 35/6, GWR 1387/8, and the second two Barry 92/3, GWR 1389/90.
The first sketch is intended to represent 35 and 36 from around 1902 when they received the tender weatherboards.  At this stage the locomotives seem to have been mostly used for heavy local coal trains in the Barry area.

1861196560_BarryClassD.JPG.af34c60e9e7c61de424f3021e6fcd471.JPG
In 1909 however the Barry decided that the second two should haul main line coal traffic, and they were modified with new boilers, and new cabs, and the tenders given increased water capacity. All the references state the increased water capacity was from adding a well tank between the frames, but I think in photos I see the tank above the frames as having been extended to the end of the frames, and so I've chosen to draw that. I don't have anything that gives me any clues about the well tank. Another puzzle is the cutout in the tender frames. Both the later GWR weight diagram (B) and Jones draw a cutout coming nearer to the top of the frames, but I don't see that in photographs, so I've chosen to ignore that. Another feature drawn in GWR diag B and Jones is coal fenders on the tender, but there's no photographic evidence for these and RCTS states they weren't fitted so I've chosen to omit them. 

1377303301_BarryClassDGWR.JPG.9dec9b65e2e154bdedd7633de7c79dfb.JPG
On the locomotives there is variation in sanding arrangements. According to the photos at least 1390 lost the big sandbox alongside the firebox and had it replaced by one in the cab, so I've attempted to reproduce that.
So the second drawing is intended to be representative of the second two in their GWR days, but the only external modifications that are GWR are the safety valve cover and chimney. Other differences from the first drawing were made in Barry days. The first two retained the round side window cab and tender weatherboard into GWR days, although at least one of them acquired a GWR safety valve cover.
Other issues - tender brakes were especially contradictory, and the result is little better than a guess. I'm also getting footplate height variations between drawings, so I'm not as confident as I might be about some of the detail and proportions in that sort of area. 
But for what its worth, this is my first pass at this interesting and unusual class, but modelers especially should note all my caveats. The NRM have an appreciable collection of detail drawings from the D as well as the weight diagrams. I can't possibly justify purchasing copies, but the prospective modeler might want to consider a trip to York to see if they provide more useful information.

Edited by JimC

  • Like 6

6 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Gold

Some locos are almost too good to be true. The combination of a heavy industry 0-8-0 arrangement with that side porthole in the cab and an almost whimsical tender... delightful! The GWR version isn't bad either, in fact that one almost looks stylish if I half close my eyes :)

 

Once again thank you for bringing them back to life, Jim. The puzzles of sorting out the inconsistencies of historical documentation must be frustrating but also, I imagine, part of what makes it an interesting exercise.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Having built one of these I can certainly agree that information is vague, very few photos to work from, mostly undated. They all spent most of their lives shunting in Barry docks, I believe the two that were tried on the main Barry line were modified to be of similar performance to the B1 0-6-2 tanks.

 

What surprised me when I had finished the model was how small they were, you expect an 0-8-0 to be a big beast but there are posed photos with the crew standing by the smoke box which give a good idea.

 

There are photos of my model on my Llanforen thread and also 88C’s workbench.

 

Brian

  • Like 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, 88C said:

There are photos of my model on my Llanforen thread and also 88C’s workbench.

The weatherboard on the tender really got to me. I'm fairly sure it ought to be a bit more than a flat plate in profile, but I couldn't see anything I trusted in photos. Did those spectacles have frames? You'd surely think so...

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

There was a new to me photo in the latest WRRC Archive magazine showing 36 which clearly shows spectacle frames. It is virtually impossible to get every detail right for any particular date, there just isn’t enough information. My aim was to get a model that looks right, I think I managed it.

 

 I have enjoyed looking at your blogs, something a bit different.

 

Brian

Link to comment

Excellent. I've seen the third, but not in such good quality. Still got the problem of the tenders disappearing into mud, but hopefully I can do a bit of enhancement. I reckon they confirm the presence of a small three sided frame cut out behind the tender steps which is absent on all the drawings and which I wasn't quite confident enough to add in. The locomotive balance weights are clear enough to add now too, so its good stuff.
A detail I hadn't picked up on before is that the first and third both seem to be 93/1390, but in the post rebuild Barry days of the first photo 93 has very large front sandboxes which are flush with the front of the smokebox saddle, but in later years she seems to have smaller sand boxes set slightly back like the rest of her sisters. There's always something to catch you out isn't there! Look at the variations in the boiler clothing and the handrail knobs too...

Edited by JimC
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...