The Farthing layouts

PS: During a recent bout of the flu I got bored and compiled data from Ian Harrison's 1921 GWR loco allocations book. The idea was to get a feel for the spatial distribution of the 1854 and 2721 classes. This led to the following overview. Wales was clearly a stronghold of both classes in 1921 - but not as exclusively as I thought, with 53% of the 1854s allocated outside Wales in that year.

I uploaded the data in an XCEL file to “My Maps” in Google Maps. Hopefully the link below leads to an online version of the map. It can be zoomed, and the class in question can be switched on or off (to avoid overlaps). The pins are just approximate indications of the general area. In some cases I had to adjust the shed name to humour Google (e.g. I‘ve labelled “Branches Fork” shed as Pontnewynydd).

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ukwWmwpqiPGZUrZvlm2pHKAHw1JLXtoF&usp=sharing

 

Perhaps the map can be expanded with other classes later on.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Mikkel

A very comprehensive and in-depth conversion / data which is what we have all come to expect from you, thank you.

 

G

I agree with @bgman  entirely. The allocations tables are useful in this format and I like the map app which you used to display them. What is that?

 

With a 2721 at Taunton I've now reason to see one occasionally on my new setting!

 

Colin

About the pannier, that's the combination of scholarship, craftmanship and ingenuity which we look forward to in 'news from Farthing' - bravo!

 

About the loco allocations, I hope you won't need another bout of 'flu to continue with the mapping - a really fascinating picture emerges.

 

About 1919, I'm interested that you're moving on through the first quarter of the C20th and have now reached 1919 - what happens when you reach 1923?

 

Kit PW

I also bought a Hornby 2721 very many years ago, because it seemed such a vast upgrade from the very crude Hornby pannier that I had before.  I eventually used the chassis from the old pannier under a Wills 1854 saddle tank kit and retired the 2721, along with other models from the time when i was dabbling in the 1930s (more or less). 

 

I now seem to have moved back into broad-gauge days, so I shall probably pass on my 2721 to my grandchildren but it's good to see how the model can be brought up to more 'modern' standards.

 

Mike

You'll probably want the chimney in the rear position for a pre-1917 unsuperheated loco (but check with Part 5 on dates).

 

Love the shed mapping exercise, it's very informative.

I'm reasonably confident the forward chimney position is associated with superheating. Whether it was moved back again after superheaters were removed is another question, but that's not your problem. I believe the pipes along the boiler top and into the smokebox are all or at least mostly lubrication runs. 

It is great to see this as one post. Your work is always inspiring and informative. I also have started this conversion on a 27xx open cab in my case. With my small exhibition layout al but finished I am back to coaches and locos. Miss Prisms comments on another site jolted my aging brain into gear re the Hornby bunker size and just in time also as I was about to go with the Hornby one!! So far I have converted the Bachmann mech to EM and fabricated a pair of replacement splashers . Next is the bunker. Your normally prodigious pace seemed to slow in recent months and I wondered if you were OK but I need not have worried ,your previous post showed what you had been up to. Keep it up. Doug.

10 hours ago, bgman said:

A very comprehensive and in-depth conversion / data which is what we have all come to expect from you, thank you.

 

G

 

Thanks Grahame. Probably too comprehensive, we have a tendency in this digital age to document every little action in great detail. It can be useful during a build though, to show up problem areas and remember how you did something.

 

9 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

I agree with @bgman  entirely. The allocations tables are useful in this format and I like the map app which you used to display them. What is that?

 

With a 2721 at Taunton I've now reason to see one occasionally on my new setting!

 

Colin

 

Thanks Colin. The app is Google's My Maps.  To try it out, go to Google Maps, click the menu top left, select "Your Places", then "Maps", then "Create Map" at the bottom. You can then import files with data. For example, the table that I posted in the above comment is a simple Excel (XCEL) file with place names in one column and the number of locos in the column beside it. This was imported into the My Maps app. Once imported Google will recognise the place names and put a pin in them. You can then tweak the settings as appropriate, e.g. to show the number of locos allocated.

 

As mentioned, Google may not know the place name (e.g. historical ones), or it may assume that you mean Newport USA. In that case the names can be adjusted (eg to "Newport UK") by clicking the three dots and then "Open data table".

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Mikkel

10 hours ago, kitpw said:

About the pannier, that's the combination of scholarship, craftmanship and ingenuity which we look forward to in 'news from Farthing' - bravo!

 

About the loco allocations, I hope you won't need another bout of 'flu to continue with the mapping - a really fascinating picture emerges.

 

About 1919, I'm interested that you're moving on through the first quarter of the C20th and have now reached 1919 - what happens when you reach 1923?

 

Kit PW

 

Many thanks Kit. The plan is to do - at some point - a Farthing layout set in 1919. It's after the pooling, so I could run more wagons from other pre-grouping companies. And a mix of panniers and saddle tanks. And build some of the motor lorry kits that I have.  As for post-1923 it's not unheard of at Farthing, though so far only during the occasional out-of-period operating sessions.

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

I also bought a Hornby 2721 very many years ago, because it seemed such a vast upgrade from the very crude Hornby pannier that I had before.  I eventually used the chassis from the old pannier under a Wills 1854 saddle tank kit and retired the 2721, along with other models from the time when i was dabbling in the 1930s (more or less). 

 

I now seem to have moved back into broad-gauge days, so I shall probably pass on my 2721 to my grandchildren but it's good to see how the model can be brought up to more 'modern' standards.

 

Mike

 

I like this mixing and matching approach of bodies and chassis, we're fortunate that the GWR were fairly consistent with its wheelbases for the tank locos. It's nice to think that your rather good 1854 ST will be enjoyed by your grand children. I wonder how she will take to top speed around the curves, though 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Mikkel

9 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

You'll probably want the chimney in the rear position for a pre-1917 unsuperheated loco (but check with Part 5 on dates).

 

Love the shed mapping exercise, it's very informative.

 

Thanks for that Miss P. The plan is that this will be No. 1899, which received B4 boiler and panniers in Nov. 1911 and was superheated in May 1922 (later received a non-superheater boiler, no date given for that). So non-superheated it is.

 

It would be interesting to have the allocations for all the GWR classes mapped together - but also very time consuming. Ian Harrison lists the allocations by class and by shed, but to arrive at the number of a class at each shed you have to rework the data, which is a bit mind numbing for the larger classes.

 

 

9 hours ago, JimC said:

I'm reasonably confident the forward chimney position is associated with superheating. Whether it was moved back again after superheaters were removed is another question, but that's not your problem. I believe the pipes along the boiler top and into the smokebox are all or at least mostly lubrication runs. 

 

Thanks Jim, I'll move it back then. Typically, this is the position that requires most work on the Hornby smokebox, as the hole from the original chimney will then need to be filled in.

 

I considered modelling the A19 diagram version which features on page 211 of your book, but the round top firebox would have involved cutting up the Hornby body even more. Incidentally, I am a bit puzzled when the firebox was raised above the boiler. Lee Marsh's lovely build of an early 1854 PT using the Finney kit shows the raised Belpaire firebox as per the Hornby body, but the drawings in the kit instructions for that same kit show a firebox that seems to be level with the boiler.

 

1 hour ago, gwr517 said:

It is great to see this as one post. Your work is always inspiring and informative. I also have started this conversion on a 27xx open cab in my case. With my small exhibition layout al but finished I am back to coaches and locos. Miss Prisms comments on another site jolted my aging brain into gear re the Hornby bunker size and just in time also as I was about to go with the Hornby one!! So far I have converted the Bachmann mech to EM and fabricated a pair of replacement splashers . Next is the bunker. Your normally prodigious pace seemed to slow in recent months and I wondered if you were OK but I need not have worried ,your previous post showed what you had been up to. Keep it up. Doug.

 

Thanks Doug, yes it's all been a bit slow recently as work has taken up too much time. What time I had left has been spent mostly on scenic work. It's nice to be back to this project though.

 

Your 2721 build sounds interesting, I can imagine the Bachmann chassis would be very useful for EM modellers, assuming the conversion isn't too tricky. One compromise about the Hornby body that I can't see how we can overcome is the distance between the footplate and bottom of the tanks. I measure this as 1mm too high. I think the cab may also be a little too high, although not too bad when compared to some 1854 drawings.

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Mikkel

5 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Probably too comprehensive, we have a tendency in this digital age to document every little action in great detail. It can be useful during a build though, to show up problem areas and remember how you did something.

information is never wasted and you never know which little nugget will solve a problem for someone.  I write quite a lot of the details simply for myself - I frequently have to remind myself how to do things by reading my own posts.  On the other hand, I can also have a good laugh over my clumsy earlier attempts

 

Little things, like how to recognise a superheated engine, are always useful, too.

 

Mike

Like the rest, I thought the map presentation for the allocations was a brilliant way to bring clarity. Amazed at the amount of detail work added to the basic shell.

10 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Amazed at the amount of detail work added to the basic shell.

Careful there: some on this forum classify such attention to detail as being a nerd and wish us all to distance ourselves from them.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Regularity

18 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

information is never wasted and you never know which little nugget will solve a problem for someone.  I write quite a lot of the details simply for myself - I frequently have to remind myself how to do things by reading my own posts.  On the other hand, I can also have a good laugh over my clumsy earlier attempts

 

Little things, like how to recognise a superheated engine, are always useful, too.

 

Mike

 

Yes, I can't count the number of times I have assumed that I would remember how I did something, only to completely forget. Or I experiment with something, forgetting that I have already experimented with it  

 

 

8 hours ago, Northroader said:

Like the rest, I thought the map presentation for the allocations was a brilliant way to bring clarity. Amazed at the amount of detail work added to the basic shell.

 

One issue with the allocation map is that it only shows the home shed. Some classes would obviously have wandered far during their daily work. I'm not sure about these particular classes though. Something to investigate.

 

 

8 hours ago, Regularity said:

Careful there: some on this forum classify such attention to detail as being a nerd and wish us all to distance ourselves from them.

 

If a nerd is someone passionate about a subject and interested in detail, then I don't mind being called a nerd.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

One issue with the allocation map is that it only shows the home shed. Some classes would obviously have wandered far during their daily work. I'm not sure about these particular classes though. Something to investigate.

 

For Farthing, I guess Salisbury is the obvious first choice for an 1854 loco. (Presumably Salisbury GWR shed was probably closed when the GWR station closed, but I'm not sure.)

 

And another thing, the presence of the old 27xx model can’t be escaped, you see them all over the place and want to give them a good home, so I can see why you did it, but would turning a Bachman 57xx bodyshell into a half cab have been simpler? (Just asking for a friend)

20 minutes ago, Northroader said:

but would turning a Bachman 57xx bodyshell into a half cab have been simpler? 

But maybe not as much fun? There's probably more than might be thought to "back reving" a 57xx. The shorter front overhang of the pre group classes is quite distinctive, and the valancing under the footplate needs quite a lot of extra material added.  

I did have a quick go at the Bachmann 57xx body during a moment of doubt about the Hornby 2721 body. This is the 57xx with the bunker removed.

 

 

 

I got to the point of removing one of the top feed pipes: 

 

 

 

But as per Jim's comment: The more I looked, the more it became apparent that the 57xx body would also need a lot of work.

 

 

 

There are things to address on the 57xx that you don't notice at first, e.g. the footsteps, cab profile etc. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it was enough to put me back on track with the Hornby 2721.

 

 

Edited for precision

Edited November 12, 2021 by Mikkel

4 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

For Farthing, I guess Salisbury is the obvious first choice for an 1854 loco. (Presumably Salisbury GWR shed was probably closed when the GWR station closed, but I'm not sure.)

 

 

Yes, or maybe Farthing had its own shed.... I considered adding it to the map, but didn't want to lead anyone astray!

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Mikkel

35 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

Yes, or maybe Farthing had its own shed.... I considered adding it to the map, but didn't want to lead anyone astray!

 

I wonder just how big the GWR route map including everyone's fictitious lines would be [grin]

Salisbury shed closed in November 1950 according to Lyons.

Edited November 12, 2021 by JimC

Even Newbury didn't have its own shed, which is a bit strange considering its status as a significant junction. I guess nothing originated or terminated there.

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Miss Prism

In GWRJ No 102 (p 323) Chris Turner discusses the working of Newbury yards in the 1940s:

 

"... official instructions show a No. 1 Pilot leaving Didcot at 4.0 a.m. each day and running light to Newbury, where it arrived at 4.40 and covered passenger shunting work until 9.0 a.m. For the next 21 hours until 6.0 a.m. (sic) the following morning, it became the Town yard pilot goods engine. It returned to Didcot working the first passenger service at 6.45 a.m."

 

"No. 2 engine was supplied by Reading, leaving there at 5.0 a.m., calling at the Racecourse, just before 6.0. a.m. to pick up a shunter [...]. After shunting at the Town Yard, the engine returned to the Racecourse yard and became the pilot engine there. In addition to trip workings to and from Hungerford, the Racecourse engine shunted as required and returned working the 5.55 a.m. goods to Reading the next day, whilst a fresh engine left Reading at 5.0 a.m. to begin the daily cycle again."

 

I found this quite interesting, not just because of the mixed goods and passenger work, but also because several engines (four?) would be required to make this happen. Mind you this is the 1940s so I'm not sure about 1919.

 

For the DNSR, there was the Winchester shed (and Didcot), and Lambourn had its own shed. IIRC the DNSR locos sometimes also did Lambourn workings, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Mikkel

That's wonderful work, Mikkel!

 

I'm not quite as ambitious, so my pre-Great War pannier 2764 conversion/alteration (when I get round to it) won't be as accurate as yours, but I can still learn a lot from your experience here.

 

Looking at the Bachmann 5700 in your pictures, I was surprised to see that as good as it is (especially compared to the old Hornby version), the body is not vastly superior to Hornby's 2721 Class, though the chassis obviously  is.

 

On 10/11/2021 at 17:53, Miss Prism said:

You'll probably want the chimney in the rear position for a pre-1917 unsuperheated loco...

Though definitely not an expert on GWR locomotives, I thought I would hazard that the position of the chimney is not a guarantee of the engine being superheated or not superheated. From the gwr.org section on pannier engines, referring to the photo of 2752:

 

"2721 class 2752, with its chimney in the forward position, has never been superheated, although it has been fitted with an S-shaped blastpipe casting used for locos that have been superheated. Any superheater elements in its boiler will have been removed."

 

So, clearly, reference to the books is a must, as would be a good photo for the chosen period. Unfortunately, there's no picture of your chosen engine....  (and for many of us, not enough books). Decisions, decisions....

 

Dana

 

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Dana Ashdown

The vows taken by Benedictine monks are not as is popularly supposed, obedience, chastity, and poverty, but obedience, stability, and conversion of life.

 

We're seeing the last vow in action here but it's the second I am particularly interested in. To what extent were these locomotives moved around from shed to shed? Can your list of allocations for 1921 be taken as any sort of guide to allocations in, say, 1902? There were many Midland 0-6-0 goods engines that would have met with St Benedict's approval, remaining at the same shed for sixty years or more through successive rebuildings, ending their days as Venerable 3Fs.

 

There is something about a steam shed that evokes the cloister or chapter house:

 

 

[NRM DY 2743, embedded link.]

 

... with the Shed Foreman as Abbot?

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Compound2632