Wenlock's Blog

Really lovely work Dave. The soldering is really fine and it does look like a nice kit to build.

 

Look forwards to the next thrilling instalment!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

Oh that is simply beautiful. The tank filler alone is almost a work of art. The rivets really do the trick.

 

Glad it will be with a round-topped firebox. The later ones might have been more effective, but they did ruin the looks of many Dean and Armstrong locos a bit.

 

If we say that we are very disappointed about the goods shed being put on the backburner, would that help? ;-)

 

Glad it will be with a round-topped firebox. The later ones might have been more effective, but they did ruin the looks of many Dean and Armstrong locos a bit.

 

If we say that we are very disappointed about the goods shed being put on the backburner, would that help? ;-)

Hi Mikkel, I completely agree about Belpaire fireboxes, functional but aesthetically pretty grim in my opinion!

 

I'm sure my Will Clarke mojo will return pretty soon, the goods shed is just gently simmering for a while!

 

Dave

Very nice, Dave, and interesting to see how few differences there are between this and the 4mm version. I see you have used socket lamp irons. Did they come with the kit? They weren't included in my 4mm version and, at the time, I had great fun trying to source appropriate ones. 1907 might be a bit late for these, but possible if it hadn't been in the works for a few years (though i suspect a works visit would not have been necessary to change these).

 

Will it still be in the 1903 livery variation?

 

Nick

Very nice, Dave, and interesting to see how few differences there are between this and the 4mm version. I see you have used socket lamp irons. Did they come with the kit? They weren't included in my 4mm version and, at the time, I had great fun trying to source appropriate ones. 1907 might be a bit late for these, but possible if it hadn't been in the works for a few years (though i suspect a works visit would not have been necessary to change these).

 

Will it still be in the 1903 livery variation?

 

Nick

Hi Nick, the socket lamp irons are from Laurie Griffins Shedmaster range, I can imagine the fun you had trying to find 4mm ones!

 

There's a great picture of number 2467 in Locomotives Illustrated, which is dated circa 1906 at Weymouth station. This clearly shows the socket lamp irons and is in the 1903 livery variation. This is the photo that I'm going to use to base the model on. Unfortunately 2467 isn't a number that severn mill nameplates stock and he's no longer taking commissions. if you know of a good number plate manufacturer I'd be delighted to hear about it!

 

Best wishes

 

Dave

Yes, I ended up making my own lamp irons, although it appears that the BGS now produce a casting.

 

That photo was one of my inspirations. It also appears in both editions of Great Western Way with very incorrect captions. In the first edition, it says "standard livery of about 1910". In the second edition it claims "as running around 1910", but also notes the garter crest on the tender "as used...from around 1903" but then says "It carries the full 1906 livery...". This, and one sentence in the text are the only mention of the 1903 livery in GWW! I'm fairly certain it is the 1903 livery because it is possible to make out the lining in some places on the tender frames and steps, and the splashers look to be a different colour from the cab and boiler.

 

Personally, I'm a little uncertain about the 1906 date in Locomotives Illustrated. The loco is in a remarkably clean condition and must have recently come from the works. Had it done so in or after 1904, it's hard to believe they would have forgotten to change the lamp irons. Unfortunately, RCTS only lists changes of boiler types and it kept the S4 until 1913.

 

As to number plates, I've used Martin Finney's parts several times. You get etched background plate plus individual digits and make your own. I believe he also does them in 7mm, though I don't recall seeing anyone use them.

 

Nick

Hi again Nick, I'm with you on the livery. The splashes definitely look to be a different colour from the cab and boiler. If we assume that all locos were fitted with the modern pattern lamp irons whenever they came for a refit after 1902, then the picture of 2467 must be before the loco was refitted. If that is the case then why as you say is the loco in a livery that didn't exist until 1903!

I'm guessing that although the socket pattern lamp irons were supposed to be replaced by 1902, if they were in good condition they weren't replaced. Maybe 2467 slipped through the net and was repainted in the 1903 livery in 1903 and the works supervisor ignored the previous years memo about changing the lamp irons!

I guess we"ll probably never know, but I'm going to base my loco on that photo.

Thanks for the info about the name plates, they sound like they may be my best bet. It's a shame because severnmill do matching plates for the tender and splasher sides, but not for 2467!

 

Dave

Hi Dave, I think the date for the lamp iron change was 1903. GWW links it with the change in headcodes and the colour of the lamps. They also say "Photographs, dating from 1903-5, show a mix of lamps implying that these changes took some years to complete." They don't quote any official sources for the dates of these changes so maybe the livery change began before the lamp irons? The headcodes would presumably have changed immediately, but the lamps, irons and livery changes would probably have filtered in over several years. I wonder if they painted the old lamps red?

 

Nick

Classic workmanship, Dave.

 

Really skillful with the soldering iron - a hard tool to master.  Can't wait to see this all painted and running and couldn't agree more with you about painting walls!

If you're doing a 'late one' like 2467, Dave, it will have the wider footplate. The tender footplate width at the front of the tender always matched that of the loco.

 

I can't add to the livery/lamps debate, but thankyou Nick for doing your usual excellent detective work in exposing some anomalies in the textbooks. My feeling is that lampiron changeovers might have been something accomplished by most running sheds (were the fixing holes the same?), in which case could be a matter separate from fullscale livery changes at the works.

Classic workmanship, Dave.

 

Really skillful with the soldering iron - a hard tool to master.  Can't wait to see this all painted and running and couldn't agree more with you about painting walls!

Thanks Paternoster, glad you like the progress so far. In fact I'm really not that good with a soldering iron, I tend to only use it for wire work! The tender was built almost entirely using a mini flame and soldering paste. The only time I used the iron was for the leading of the flare corners at the rear of the tender. I find that with the flame, I can get in quickly, melt the solder and then use the flame to draw the molten solder along the joint.

 

Dave

...My feeling is that lampiron changeovers might have been something accomplished by most running sheds (were the fixing holes the same?), in which case could be a matter separate from fullscale livery changes at the works.

Yes, I'm sure the change or irons could have been done at running sheds. At most it would have needed drilling one or two holes per iron. Some of the mountings, e.g. on buffer beams, often look quite similar but the top front and many tender/bunker fittings were often different. The top front was usually part of the central handrail knob, so maybe they cut it off and dressed it with a file. Some bunker/tender fittings seem to have been on a bar that passed throught the back sheet, presumably the bar was threaded with a nut on the inside.

 

Nick

If you're doing a 'late one' like 2467, Dave, it will have the wider footplate. The tender footplate width at the front of the tender always matched that of the loco.

Hi Miss P. the Finney Tender kit allows the building of two widths of tender front. My picture of 2467 shows a tender that's the same width along its whole length, with no widening at the front and straight handrails. I'm assuming that the tenders that flared out at the front were for other classes of loco's with wider foot plates than the Dean Goods. Do I take it from your post that my narrow fronted tender, matches the wider footplate in the loco kit?

 

Thanks Dave

If you've chosen a narrow-footplate tender, Dave, then you'll need a narrow-footplate loco.

 

There are four combinations:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/49319-tender-loco-widths/

 

 

The last of these is extremely rare, so rare I think that it can be discounted in most cases.

 

If you've cut your tender footplate narrow, but still want a wide-footplate loco, you should add shaping bits (on the prototype, I think they were added on top of the footplate) to the front of the tender footplate to match that of the loco. There is a drawing or two in Russell I believe to show this shape: it's an S-bend. In these cases, the front tender handrails are usually* shaped differently to the all-narrow-footplate ones, and came down onto the shaped footplate pieces - I call these 'outrigger' handrails.

 

If your pic of 2467 shows a tender footplate whose entire length is the same width as the loco footplate, then that tender will be a 'all-wide' footplate one.

 

All-wide tenders have a very different 'look' to the narrow-footplate ones.

 

P.S. Don't know why my gif above has appeared so small. This software is so flaky!

 

Subsequent edit/addition:

 

The best known example of what I call 'outrigger' handrails is probably City of Truro. It can be seen that its 3000g tender footplate is a full-length wide one, and that the footplate width matches that of the standard 4-4-0 8'3" footplate width:

 

http://www.shirleylateknights.co.uk/mainfiles/event_reports/Event_reports_2008-09/pictures/birdlip_12.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r_8m_FaVVBs/Tk_JrPmrBAI/AAAAAAAAAWc/EHZEUDRuUZE/s1600/3440+city+of+truro#1.jpg

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/050/8/e/city_of_truro_at_svr_highley_by_ragnarokeotw-d2zlhn4.jpg

http://thehobbyshop.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/10.jpg

 

This Bulldog tender is fitted with outriggers on a tender whose footplate has the shaped curve extending to the loco footplate width (or closely thereabouts) but the rest of the tender fooplate is otherwise narrow:

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd117.htm

 

Similarly, a Duke:

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd111.htm

 

* The situation on Dean Goods is not nearly so clear, particularly for pre-WWI condition. Here's some narrow and wide loco footplates (I think the changeover was from 2380??), and none of their tenders have outrigger handrails - the first pic (a Bill Kenning pic at Slough c 1921) is perhaps the best visual of wide footplates on both loco and tender:

 

http://www.adrianvaughan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/slough-propel-ECS-copy.jpg

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls823.htm (2347)

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh55.htm (2309)

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd1631.htm (2410)

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd1634.htm (2510)

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrwm415.htm (2439)

http://www.adrianvaughan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2580.Slough-c1921-copy.jpg (2580)

http://www.adrianvaughan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2579-copy.jpg (2579)

http://www.adrianvaughan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2386.Ken_.-Jc.c1914-copy.jpg (2386)

 

I can't find an online pic of a Dean Goods with a shaped piece at the front of the tender footplate, and maybe they didn't get them until they started to inherit more of the standard 3000g tenders as they became displaced from larger locos.

 

I suggest Dave you measure what your tender footplate width currently is, and see if it matches the width of a wide-footplate loco. I can't explain your 2467 pic, because it does feel like a 'narrow' tender, but from a side-on angle, it's impossible to tell what the join is like between tender footplate front and loco footplate rear.

 

See also Nick's 2500g narrow-footplate tender and narrow-footplate loco.

Hi Miss P. Thanks for that very comprehensive answer, some lovely pictures and loads of food for thought there! I've used the same kit as Nick (buffalo) has used for his tender, although mine is the 7mm version. The kit only contains one footplate, but by modifiction its possible to make one of two types.

Version 1 is the type where a narrow footplate flares out at the front as per your 3rd diagram.

Version 2 involves removal of the flares on either side of the tender footplate to create a narrow width tender as per your 2nd diagram.

 

I removed the flares on my tender so it's definitely a narrow width version, like Nicks.

 

The tender in the picture of 2467 hasn't got flared out handrails, the footplate width looks constant along its whole length. It certainly looks like a narrow footplate tender to my eyes.

 

All very confusing if 2467 was a wide footplate loco. I think I might be better of finding another loco to base my model on!

 

I could do with a clear photo of a Dean goods that still has a round top firebox in 1905, with a narrow footplate and narrow 2500 gal tender!

 

Thanks again for your thoughts

 

Dave

I've just dug out my 4mm one from the queue at the back of the works where it is awaiting regauging and finishing...

 

The tender footplate is 30.6mm wide, the narrow plate on the loco is 29.0mm wide and the wide plate (still in the etch, so difficult to get the calipers in for an exact measurement, is 30.5ish.

 

So, the wider loco width matches Templer's 7'8" in Russell's Fig 219, and the tender is the same width. The narrow loco is about 7'3".

 

With a cab width of about 5.9", any tender is going to look wide except, perhaps, the Armstrong types that many had in their early days.

 

Nick

 

edit: forgot to add my conclusion that the tender as we've both built it will be fine with the wide footplate engine, though it does look a bit odd with my narrow engine. The flared part that we removed is, I think, only appropriate for use with the later and wider 4-4-0s which had 8'3" footplates. This is where the "outrigger" handrails come in.

 

Another point I forgot earlier was that the coal rails were half round section. I managed to get some suitable brass section (Eileen's IIRC) when I built my Buffalo and it does look much better than the flat etch on the Finney tender.

Thanks, Nick. I think that establishes that the 30.5mm ish, say 53.5mm in 7mm, tender footplate width will match a wide loco footplate, which is what Dave wants for 2467. (I think the Finney loco instructions detail which locos had wide and which had narrow footplates.)

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the GWR trimmed its tender footplate widths to match locos.

 

The flared part that we removed is, I think, only appropriate for use with the later and wider 4-4-0s which had 8'3" footplates. This is where the "outrigger" handrails come in.

Yes, I think you're right, and my apologies for diverting into the outrigger handrail saga, which seem not to have been applied to Dean Goods of either width. It's been a while since I visited this subject, but as usual with the GWR, nothing is straightforward!

 

So it would seem that Dave is on the right course for 2467, which I think will have a 'low cab roof'. Here's Lee Marsh's early 2487 and John Petcher's slightly later 2487, which would seem to be close to the style that Dave wants. Note no cover over the lubricator pipe between boiler and smokebox. Unsuperheated in those days, of course.

Beautiful models, though John Petcher's looks very much like the photo we discussed earlier of 2467 except for the black frames. I wonder if he followed Jack Slinn's misinterpretation? He even has the socket lamp irons on it.

 

Apart from the lack of cover on the lubricator pipe, there's also the shutoff lever for the sight gauge on the left hand cab side sheet. Most of these seem to have removed by 1910.

 

Nick

Hi Nick, thanks for taking the time to measure up your loco and tender, it's reassured me that I haven't made a pigs ear of mine, well so far anyway!

 

I'll have a look on Eileen's site and see if I can get some half round wire to bulk out the coal rails, It's the only bit of the kit that I've not been impressed with.

 

I'm sure that once I start construction of the loco there will be loads more questions that I hope you and Miss P will be able to answer for me!

 

Hi Miss P. No need to apologise about the outrigger handrails, I for one find the subject interesting and I'm learning loads along the way! Great pictures of Lee and John's locos, if mine turn out that well I'll be more than happy!

 

I'll keep posting pictures of my build of 2467, if anything looks wrong or needs changing/adding let me know.

 

Dave

A word on rods. Dave's 2467 has got standard fishbelly style, although some Dean Goods had fluted parallels. For the standard fishbelly, I think many Deans were refitted in the late '20s or early '30s with stronger, taller versions, possibly coinciding with new wheelsets, and this is what Martin F provides in the kit. For the early era, Dean Goods fishbelly rods were very skinny, so some judicious filing will probably be in order to capture the right 'look'.

Both types of rods were included in the 4mm kit, though I hadn't noticed that the fluted ones were deeper until you mentioned it.

 

Nick

I'll have a look in the 7mm kit, I'm pretty sure that if the 4mm version had them then the 7mm will too. What most people think of as "the ubiquitous Dean Goods" is turning on closer inspection into anything but!

 

Dave

Am I right in thinking that in my period (circa 1905) my tender wouldn't have steam heating pipes? They are included in the kit, but I think they are for a later period. There is also a "loop" on the bottom of the rear buffer beam, that I can't see in pictures of the period, was this used for the steam heating pipe and if so should it be removed on my tender?

 

Thanks guys!

 

Dave

I doubt the loco would have been fitted with steam pipework in your era, and it's not clear whether any Dean Goods locos were so fitted in any era. Tenders were supposedly more generic, however, so might have had standard steam pipework underneath, albeit that the hose attachment was not connected to the fitting. I think I'd be inclined to leave it all off.

 

I've never been able to work out what the 'loop' was for!

Thanks Miss P. I'm going to take your advice and leave it off! I wonder if Nick can help with the buffer beam loop, I'm all intrigued now!

 

Dave