Jump to content
 
  • entries
    122
  • comments
    870
  • views
    104,174

Comparing Armstrong 2-2-2s


MikeOxon

2,902 views

It's now over two years since I built my first locomotive from scratch, using brass sheet. It's still looking quite good and helped to inspire me to continue with building lots more scratch-built stock. For more information about my model, see 'Railway Modeller', July 2014, "Simply Victorian".

 

GWR_124model.jpg.4c15708f11bfa489b999bb792a4e3d37.jpg

My model of the GWR 'Queen' class

 

It really was simple to build - basically a brass tube over a brass plate, with a very simple 'chassis' to hold a set of wheels at the right distance apart! As I have commented before, it's really just a wagon that can be pushed along by a motorised tender. I would recommend an early 2-2-2 as a good subject for a first attempt at locomotive scratch-building.

 

modelcompts.jpg.a782f1c1ec3c442e18e0fd5fa297d5fe.jpg

Components of my model

 

The only real difficulty came as a result of having to make the wheels fit my 'narrow' 00-gauge track, since this meant that I had to make cuts in the sides of the boiler tube so that the wheels could be placed close enough together. That made fitting the splashers, and filling the inevitable gaps, a tricky process.

 

I've done a lot more reading since then and it is largely fortuitous that my model has a reasonable resemblance to its prototype, as running in the late 19th-century. This came home to me when I started to think about some other engines that have caught my interest.

 

When I started making earlier types of carriages, I got a lot of information from the report on the accident that occurred just north of Oxford in 1874. That train (a Paddington - Birkenhead express) was headed by two 'Sir Daniel' class engines, which started me thinking about the differences between those engines and my 'Queen' class.

 

SirDanielclass.jpg.b23c1ca7a142cea871519aff361ed819.jpg

GWR 'Sir Daniel' class

 

Started in 1866, the 'Sir Daniels' were the first standard-gauge engines to be built at Swindon by Joseph Armstrong, who was faced with the task of overseeing the decline of the broad gauge. On the other hand, the 'Queen / Sir Alexander' class were the last design by Armstrong before his untimely death in 1877.

 

Both classes remained in service for many years - the last 'Queen' went in 1914, whereas many 'Sir Daniels' had a remarkably extended life, after the rather unusual step of converting them to 0-6-0 goods engines, in which form the last went in 1920!

 

They were all rebuilt on several occasions, so it is important, when comparing drawings and photographs to consider the period when these were made. By the late 19th-century, photographs indicate that the two classes were looking rather similar so, to bring out the visual differences, I decided to overlay drawings of the two types, as they appeared after re-building by Dean.

 

Queen-SirDancompare.jpg.09a162112b592006304ef388a6612f2b.jpg

Comparison between 'Queen' and 'Sir Daniel'

 

Both these drawings are shown in Russell's 'Pictorial record of GWR Engines'. I have removed extraneous details and overlaid them, such that the driving wheel centres are aligned.

 

The front ends of the two classes look very similar, the key difference being that the leading wheels of the 'Sir Daniel' are set 10” further back whereas, at the back, the frames are shorter, with the trailing wheels closer to the drivers. Overall, the 16 foot wheelbase of the 'Sir Daniel' was increased to 17' 6” in the 'Queen' class, the extra length improving stability at high speed. The relative proportions of boiler and firebox also changed, with the Queen having a shorter boiler (by 6”) but a lengthened firebox (increased by 1 foot)

 

I was quite surprised to see how similar these two engines, with original dates around 10 years apart, had become, after their re-builds. Later, they became even more similar, when the open splashers were filled in and the driving wheel springs on the Sir Daniels were moved below the footplate, like the Queens. Of course, there were numerous detail differences, some of which depended on whether individual engines were re-built at Swindon or Wolverhampton.

 

In summary, I can see that I could make a model of a 'Sir Daniel' by using exactly the same methods that I used for 'Queen'. At the moment, I feel tempted but concerned that the two would end up looking too similar! If I do tackle a 'Sir Dan', I shall have to choose a prototype with significant differences from my existing model but, if anyone else is thinking of having a go, it should be quite straightforward and I'll be interested to see the result :)

 

GWR_124_NorthLeigh.jpg.9c4e34fca73aec0d5efe158d4e5e1327.jpg

'Queen' class at North Leigh

 

Mike

Edited by MikeOxon
Restore images

  • Like 12

10 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Gold

If you did the 0-6-0 version the Sir Daniel would look quite different!

 

Don

Link to comment

If you did the 0-6-0 version the Sir Daniel would look quite different!

 

Don

Indeed - but a bit late for my period and I'd have to tackle coupling rods and quartering :)

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

That's an interesting comparison, Mike. The GWR was leaning towards standardization even before Churchward - except they didn't know it  :) Or more likely they did, and it's how design and knowledge develops I suppose, one thing leading to another and so things have a common origin and certain dimensions and ways of thinking are or become the same. Just look at the Swindon 0-6-0s!

 

A good reminder also of your 2-2-2 design. As mentioned earlier I might do one at some point - probably also a Queen or a 157 class - but I wonder if there's a way of getting past the Hornby tender, which isn't my favourite. Maybe a 3-axle Bull Ant mechanism from Hollywood Foundry would do the trick... 

Link to comment

Hi Mikkel.  Until I made the comparison by overlaying the drawings, I had thought that a 'Sir Dan' might make a 'halfway house' between my No.184 and 'Queen' class engines.  Now I feel it wouldn't be sufficiently different from 'Queen', so I'll cast my thoughts for future models in a different direction!

 

I agree about tender drives.  The 'ring field' unit is rather clumsy with its exposed gear train and solid wheels.  I'll keep looking for an easy-to-fit alternative.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Which ever loco you decide on, I'm sure it will be something interesting.

 

As for tenders, it strikes me that a basic tender body would be an interesting 3D print project. Not that I have a clue how to go about it, but when I get around to looking closer at it some day a tender would be a place to strart I think. And then one of those bull ants underneath maybe. Some day!

Link to comment

I think I should get on with a tender for No.184 before I start new loco projects.  I think I shall stick with brass sheet, though.  Now, I wonder if one could fit a fibre optic lead from a CO2 laser into the pen holder of a Silhouette cutter :)

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

You could do a single with the boiler some of them finished up with, parallel dome less barrel and raised belpaire firebox, with would look distinctively different, but I suppose that might be after North Leigh's bedtime?

Link to comment

Thank you for the suggestion, Northroader.  It's certainly a possibility, since I am already running a 'Stella' with a Belpaire firebox, which was not fitted to No.3505 until 1905. 

 

On the whole, though, I tend to prefer earlier designs.  Perhaps I should look to the 'Sharpies' (157-class), with their slotted sandwich frames, since they shared turns with 'Queens' and had a distinctive appearance.  Cutting out the frames could be an interesting exercise :)

Link to comment

Hi Mike,

Thanks for showing me this method of comparing drawings...  Never thought of doing it on the computer (Durrr!).

 

I used this method to compare an outside frame 1076 Buffalo with an early version 57xx pannier.  Turns out that except for the dome and a slightly different sized cab, they are virtually the same loco...  So this is going to be a really easy conversion.

 

I'd have posted a picture but I'm new to this site and haven't worked out how roo yet.

 

All the best,

Ken

Link to comment

Thank you, Ken.  I find this method of comparing drawings can be very useful when considering conversions, like you are planning.  Outside frames can be quite tricky, especially if you are working in '00', where you can get awkward gaps between wheels and frames.

 

Posting pictures into a blog is tricky - you have to copy them from another website.  It's much more straightforward in the forums. 

 

I'll look forward to seeing some of you work, when you are settled in :)

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...