David,

I look forward to seeing how this loco build progresses. As you are aware my prefered modelling period is the same as yours. So far it is looking pretty good.

If I remember correctly The Great Western Way doesn't really cover the fineries of livery very well, i.e. the fronts of the saddle black or green? the colour of the tank filler (tops of side tanks too green or black? - Obviously not an issue on a saddle tank)? Obviously the smokebox door will be black, but I think photos show the hinges and door handles steel. The chimney should I believe be copper capped (the photo of yours looks as though it is painted brass colour - but that might be just the flash). It was always my belief that the handrails would be steel rather than brass, but like you have no photographic evidence either way.

Looking good though, keep up the good work!

Ian

Ian

Thanks for your comments. You are right regarding the chimney - it should be copper capped, but I don't have copper, so brass was the nearest I could get. I suspect you are right about steel for the smokebox hinges/handles, and quite possibly on the handrails - at present I have no steel paint, so they will remain black/brass respectively until the next repaint.

Looking again at my original livery guide at the GWR modelling site I interpreted the handrail as brass, but I think steel is more likely. However, a couple of other pictures (of models) suggest otherwise - this one by Malcolm Mitchell (probably the same model) looks almost black, whilst this one by Martyn Welsh looks as if it is green along the sides (but perhaps it's just the green of the tanks reflecting from the handrails?).

There is some guidance (for the 1918 onwards period) on the Malcolm Mitchell site here, which generally agrees with your suggestions, though it specifies the handrails are green (except that the rear cab handrails are steel), if I interpret the list correctly.

David

David,

I've just looked up the 1701 class in Vol1 of Russell's Great Western Engines, unfortunately there is only a broadside photo of 1752 in very early condition (with the socket type of lamp fittings) which does show the handrails unpainted (there are extra short handrails on the saddle near the top just below and rearward of the chimney and just below the safety valve casing, and additional ones on the footplate above the front steps (which you say you haven't fitted yet).

There is also a photo of no 997 (an 850 class) showing the front of the saddle in what looks like the same livery - the smokebox ring, hinges and handles are clearly not black. A pair of photos of no 1941 (also 850 class) in works grey livery shows the saddle front and the smokebox front and door all black (but the handles, hinges and ring are also black - photos of tender engines in the grey livery show "steel" hinges and handles)!!

This early livery lark really is a bit of a minefield!!

I have many of the old RTCS volumes on GWR engines, some of which have colour plates of engines in early livery but they are paintings so artistic licence may have been adopted - next time I'm in the loft I'll look out the volume on 0-6-0 tank engines.

I hadn't noticed before, but I think that the cab roofs were black.

Hope this helps

Hi David,

Yes, handrails were steel, often polished by use. Smokebox door and tank fronts almost certainly black, handles, hinges and ring could be polished or not -- did it vary by shed?

One of the best prototype photos of GWR saddle tanks in the pre-1906 livery is in Russell vol 1. It is of 1601, a 1076 or buffalo tank, almost fresh from the works in 1902. Livery details on this photo are so clear that you can even see the lining on the indian red side frames.

btw, the 1701 class is perhaps better known as the 1854 class. 1854-1893 were built first, followed by 1701-1770 and then the ragbag of numbers which were built with S4 boilers. Talking of boilers, it's nice to see that your model has the as-built S2 boiler with forward dome. That seems to modelled less often than it deserves.

Nick

Ian, Nick

Thanks for the comments/updates.

The kit has three alternative domes, and various part-drilled holes to fit them allowing various different options to be built. For this one I have tried to build a 1701/1854 from the appropriate period (1900-1910), and I think I used the Russell vol 1 picture of 1752 as built in 1892 as my reference (with handrails which I interpreted as brass, but you have now convinced me should be steel).

One of the discussions we have had elsewhere on panniers in 2mm is the desirability of seeing daylight under the tanks. The picture of 1752 clearly shows daylight, and the model of the body does too. Whether that will still be visible after the motor is fitted I'm not sure...

But I think many of the actual locomotives in use in the area were Wolverhampton builds, so I will probably make the next one as a 1501/645 (assuming I finish this one successfully). Locomotive allocations for Wellington for 1921 (haven't got an earlier one yet) give three STs: 1510, 1748 and 1778, plus others as PTs.

There's a picture in Russell vol 1 of 1543 (in 1907), which ought to be useful for this discussion, but the brasswork looks so dull that it's darker than the tanks, and the front is obscured by the attached snowplough!

David

Kris

Thanks for the comments.

The photo probably flatters the body at that point - I think I took it from its "good side", the other was worse. It's now been repainted, and looks somewhat better (including getting the roof in black), and cab handrails have been added. Unfortunately one of the sandboxes came adrift during the repaint, and hasn't been stuck back in place yet.

It's not as good as I would like, but it's not too bad as a first attempt, and I hope to improve it further.

David

I see what you mean about the handrails in that photo of 1752 but, as it's a works photo, I think they've been highly polished or even painted. The rods also seem to have a suspiciously non-metallic finish.

Nick

I shall follow your progress on the chassis with interest as I have plans to built the one for a 48xx once the wheels are back in stock.

A key point for me will be how you get on with the motor and worm. It is a shame that the 2mm shop does not stock the shaft adaptors - for me being overseas it is a bit awkward having all the parts except one available from the Association but having to get the adaptors from elsewhere with added postage costs.

Best wishes for teh rest of the build.

John

Hi John

Thanks for the comments.

I see your point on the adapter - cost £1, overseas post and packing £5, with a further £5 to pay if you choose the "signed for" option, and probably some currency exchange costs on top. Have you suggested to the Association (or shopkeeper 3) that the adaptor should be stocked at shop 3?

Recent correspondence on the VAG has also highlighted potential problems for the 48xx build - the motor is going to be rather a tight squeeze. I assume the second shaft will need to be removed if the new flat-can motor is used, otherwise it will poke out of the back.

Richard Brummitt's blog includes an entry on building the initial prototypes of the 57xx and 48xx. It also mentions the difficulty of getting enough weight into the 48xx body to provide good traction - which was highlighted on its recent performance on Highbury Colliery.

David

The shorter the motor the better the weight distribution would be. Chris confirmed that the FH 0816 probably won't fit with the tweaks he made for the final production version. I am going to swap it for a Nigel Lawton Midimotor at some point but I have to pull my finger out and buy some before that happens. I also need to get another shop 3 order in for axle muffs for gears so that I can start my builds (the ones I wanted were out of stock). In the meantime I could be starting a ROD tender to go with a PECO body but instead I have been playing on the milling machine making footboards for 5 horseboxes.

Richard

I also recall brief discussion on the VAG of mounting the motor in the boiler on the 48xx, which should help by moving the centre of gravity forward, as well as leaving the cab clear (useful for the open-cab version of the '517). I think it concluded that it's not an easy conversion - would need to raise it a couple of millimetres to clear the gears, and it's not clear from a quick glance at the drawing how the various motor options would fit with the boiler/tanks. Probably feasible for a scratchbuilt body, but I suspect the existing Dapol 48xx or Dean Sidings '517 body would need significant work to make enough space there.

My Nigel Lawton order included a midimotor, and I have no specific plans for it at present, so perhaps we can arrange another mutually beneficial swap.

I suspect the gear muffs I received from Shop 3 aren't going to fit the gears, so will need replacing, but haven't checked them yet. I have a couple more PCB spacers to cut and solder in place before I start worrying about assembling all the gears/wheels etc.

David

I'll probably buy three or four. I need to replace the one I destroyed at Oxford when my pannier tank spat it's worm gear onto the floor in the hall.

The revised position of the gearing in the production chassis no longer maintains the motor at the boiler pitch. The boiler is the same size as an 8mm motor though, which makes things difficult with building this 'possibility', especially for a beginner (the level at which the replacement chassis kits are aimed).

Richard

Unfortunately you have confirmed what I feared - boiler mounting of the motor in the 48xx is likely to be beyond the capabilty of the beginner (i.e. me).

I suppose the Nigel Lawton micromotor, which is only 6mm in diameter, might be part of the solution - subject to power/reliability questions about a motor that small.

David

As demonstrated the other weekend weight is the limiting factor with an 8mm motor so I would have thought a 6mm would be adequate. I don't know how much Chris moved the motor axis for the production version. It may not actually be possible.