Brassey's Blog

 

Note 3222 had a 3-arc roof.

 

Here's a glimpse of a cab (3216, at Birkenhead):

 

 

23 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Note 3222 had a 3-arc roof.

 

Yes well spotted thanks MissP.  I am only using 3222 as they are the etched splashers that came with the kit and I don't have the means to etch new ones.  

 

The build is pretty generic and, as I said, I don't have a drawing of the front, so I used the cab arc from the Mallard kit.  That way if saves me making a new roof.  On some of the engines,  the whistles moved to atop the firebox which also looks odd to me so mine will remain on the roof.

 

 

In 1912 3222 was at Swindon and made a trip to the works in August of that year.    It is unlikely to have visited the Shewsbury to Hereford line so will be a bit out of place on my layout but I fancied something different.  By 1912 it would have received the extended smokebox as per the picture in Russell; so another compromise.  Looking at this crop I notice the boiler band brackets atop the firebox so another job for the list!

Edited October 16, 2019 by Brassey

4 minutes ago, Brassey said:

I am only using 3222 as they are the etched splashers that came with the kit

 

Indeed!  Good point about the whistles, hadn't noticed that before.

 

Does the domeless BR0 have a different boiler pitch compared to the other engines, or is it just a smaller diameter?

 

15 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Does the domeless BR0 have a different boiler pitch compared to the other engines, or is it just a smaller diameter?

 

 

I think both.  Again I don't have a reliable drawing but I have based the lower pitch on the round-top S4 boiler.  These engines quickly reverted to B4 domed boilers after 1912 (as per the splendid 3216 above) so the BR0 format was not long lived and not well recorded.  

 

I have a BR0 Duke to build too.  There is a picture of 3328 Severn at Hereford in such a guise as my proof.  For that one I have no drawing at all.

 

My Mallard kit was devoid of a boiler when I bought it many moons ago, so I had to create a new one anyway;  I do also have a number of round-top brass domed locos in the kit mountain to build for those who might think it a crime to omit a shiny dome on an Edwardian Great Western loco!

Edited October 16, 2019 by Brassey

RCTS states all boilers were 7'4in pitch except for the original 1889 boilers at 7'2in. The astute will note that the drawing above shows 7'31/8 for the pitch!  

Is that drawing a composite? It looks as if it could be a composite of fig172 in Russell and the Barnum drawing in Freezer's Locomotives in outline. Fig 172 is obviously a GWR weight diagram, but it doesn't seem to match anything listed in RCTS. Even Homer nods?

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by JimC

29 minutes ago, Brassey said:

I think both.

 

That's what I suspected. So you're modifying the smokebox wrapper?

 

I've seen a pic of a BR0 on a Duke  (Penzance, with a 2000g tender) with a topfeed, so it has to be post-1912 I think. It looks very strange!

 

 

46 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

That's what I suspected. So you're modifying the smokebox wrapper?

 

I've seen a pic of a BR0 on a Duke  (Penzance, with a 2000g tender) with a topfeed, so it has to be post-1912 I think. It looks very strange!

 

 

 

Yes.  The kit includes both cast whitemetal and etched smokebox fronts.  I cut down the lower section of the etched versions to achieve the correct pitch.  I used the Mallard wrapper which is half-etched and very thin.  I filed down all the rivet detail and used this in reverse, soldering it to a 10 thou brass ring/tube to give it some rigidity.  Now being slightly over length, I filed the ends down once it was formed.  The random rivets on mine are pure guess work!  An inserted brass ring also is used to produce the brass ring on the inner side of the smokebox.

 

Ian Rice's articles on the Barnum, back in the day, showed the problems he had with the thin smokebox wrapper.

The pic I have of Severn has a 2500 gallon tender I think though I have an earlier picture of her with a 2000 gal tender in as-built condition.  Received wisdom is that the later Dukes were outshopped with 2500 gal tenders though the picture shows otherwise.  This pic is I think a 2500 gal version as seen at Hereford on what appears to be a corridor train:

 

 

Incidentally, the picture of 3216 shows straight springs on the tender which means it is a later pic also evidenced by the crews' uniform possibly 20's or 30's.  It still has a polished dome!

 

Thanks for that pic MissP because it shows a wealth of detail I did not have; I had not appreciated how close the outside cranks were to the frames for one.  Also it has justified all the fettling I had to do to get the  the splashers to curve around the shape of the firebox!  Interestingly, it appears that the top centre washout plug is through a boilerband.  If you did that on a model someone would complain...

Edited October 16, 2019 by Brassey

Yes, the 3216 pic is a later one, but I think the dome, whilst very clean, is actually green.

 

I'm looking at the pictures of 3222 and 3216 posted by Miss Prism above and in particular at the considerable difference in the distance between the top of the cabside cut-out and the roof.  Surely that difference is far too great to be explained simply by the three-arc roof?  Did Barnums have cabs of differing heights?

Barnum cabs were either 3-arc or single-arc roof, but most of them seem to share the same style of sidesheet. 3216's cab sidesheet is non-standard however, and possibly I suspect the cabfront is non-standard as well. Whether there is a resulting difference in 3216's overall height compared to other Barnums I'm not sure. It wouldn't surprise me if there were cab height differences - reminiscent of Dean Goods (which also have different cabsides).

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Miss Prism

9 hours ago, JimC said:

RCTS states all boilers were 7'4in pitch except for the original 1889 boilers at 7'2in. The astute will note that the drawing above shows 7'31/8 for the pitch!  

Is that drawing a composite? It looks as if it could be a composite of fig172 in Russell and the Barnum drawing in Freezer's Locomotives in outline. Fig 172 is obviously a GWR weight diagram, but it doesn't seem to match anything listed in RCTS. Even Homer nods?

 

 

Yes Jim well spotted the drawing is a merge of two other drawings.  My modelling skills are not up to a difference of 2" on a boiler pitch in 4mm but I based my earlier comment on the Mallard kit's pitch coming out higher.  I had assumed the Mallard model's pitch was higher because it represented a later iteration of the loco.  However it may have been higher to allow for the 00 wheel flanges not fouling the boiler.  Either way mine is now lower as I model in P4.

 

The Mallard kit included two discs for the boiler one of which measured 19mm and the other 18.8mm.  I clad this with 10thou Nickel Silver so one end of my boiler is narrower than the other.  The larger end is 19.5mm which is 4' 10 1/2 inches.  RCTS gives the boiler dimension as 4' 5" though I have assumed that is unclad.

55 minutes ago, Brassey said:

RCTS gives the boiler dimension as 4' 5" though I have assumed that is unclad.

I think that's a sensible assumption.

Hurrah, a Barnum! I've always wanted to see someone build that Mallard kit.  You're well underway already, too.  Any thoughts on livery yet?

 

 

11 hours ago, JimC said:

Even Homer nods?

 

Thanks Jim, a new expression learned.

5 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Hurrah, a Barnum! I've always wanted to see someone build that Mallard kit.  You're well underway already, too.  Any thoughts on livery yet?

 

 

Hi Mikkel.  

 

I have based the Barnum on a pic of number 3214 which I paid for and may well be subject to copyright so I can't share on here.  So, as in that photo, this one will be in the post 1906 livery sans Indian Red as too will be the BR0 Duke as evidenced by the pic of its tender above.

 

The wavy footplate has been quite a challenge and I was helped by an Ian Rice article from the 80's in the model press in doing this rather than follow the instructions.  Cast springs for the drivers are included but there is no mention of these in the paperwork.  Fitting springs is my next challenge.  There is also no brake gear in the kit so it's back to my spare box for those.

 

There are some stretchers across the footplate that initially hold the whole together.  Removing these too early could send the whole thing banana.  It is only now when I have fitted the cab front and firebox, and given it some lateral strength, that I have cut these out and thankfully the Mashima 1420 with HighLevel RoadRunner does fit up into the tall firebox.  These kits were designed for the XO4 motor!  Next step is to paint the chassis before fitting the wheels and gearbox.

 

 

2 hours ago, Brassey said:

I have based the Barnum on a pic of number 3214 which I paid for and may well be subject to copyright so I can't share on here.  So, as in that photo, this one will be in the post 1906 livery sans Indian Red

 

Sounds good. Won't be far removed from 3212 in this photo then, with respect to roof arc and livery: 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd1602.htm

 

In case you haven't seen this: https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Dean-Locomotives/Dean-240-locomotives/Dean-3206-Barnum-class/i-VV682rf/A (wondering about the caption though).

 

Sorry, you've probably seen these already - I'm just enjoying a bit of window shopping :-)

Edited October 17, 2019 by Mikkel

24 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Sounds good. Won't be far removed from 3212 in this photo then, with respect to roof arc and livery: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd1602.htm

 

That has a non-standard (short radius) single-arc roof.

 

2 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

That has a non-standard (short radius) single-arc roof.

 

Trouble is with this 19th C Swindon versus Wolverhampton rebuild era one is often dealing with two standards... I've never really explored the when and who of the separate drawing offices and their policy, although I've seen it said the Wolverhampton rolled chimney cap disappeared pretty soon after Armstrong retired. Holcroft gives us some clues of course.

23 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

That has a non-standard (short radius) single-arc roof.

 

 

I had to check other photos to see what you meant. You have a good eye. 

 

23 hours ago, JimC said:

Trouble is with this 19th C Swindon versus Wolverhampton rebuild era one is often dealing with two standards... I've never really explored the when and who of the separate drawing offices and their policy, although I've seen it said the Wolverhampton rolled chimney cap disappeared pretty soon after Armstrong retired. Holcroft gives us some clues of course.

 

How were Swindon and Wolverhampton differences reflected in official drawings? Some of the official drawings for GWR horse drawn vehicles explicitly illustrate and name the "regional" pattern variations. Not quite the same of course, but is there something similar in loco drawings? 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Mikkel

My understanding is that they retained separate drawing offices, at least up until the early Churchward era. I have a feeling I've read that the Wolverhampton archive was destroyed, but one imagines that if Wolverhampton were to work on a Swindon design then they would have been sent tracings, and adapted as necessary (and vice versa). Its unclear to me though how much basic sheet metal like cabs and bunkers were designed in the local drawing office, and how much was simply done on the fly. Interestingly RCTS notes that even Newton Abbot factory seems to have devised bunker styles about WW1. I don't think I've seen any GA drawings from the Armstrong/Dean era though, which is where one would expect variations to be noted.

Thanks for the insights Jim. Always interesting how plans and designs are carried out in everyday practice. I need to re-read the Wolverhampton story.