7007GreatWestern

Returning to Adrock's question about combining a body from the first release of Moguls (63xx) with the chassis and gearing from the most recent releases (43xx), has anyone actually tried a straight body swap? If so, are there any issues? Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this.

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I notice in the photos of Minerva's prototype model the whistles are fitted with a shield. Where the real locos so fitted? If so it isn't a feature on the CAD drawing (see above). Andy.

This is just a recap on what that cover straddling the forward part of the boiler and the rear part of the smokebox actually does. It actually contains three pipes that run from a device in the cab called the "Sight Feed" or "Hydrostatic" Lubricator. It was the responsibility of the Driver to manage the oil flow from the Hydrostatic Lubricator and since the Driver always stood on the right hand side on GWR locos the Lubricator was positioned on the right hand side of the cab so the pipe runs and cover were also on the right hand side of the loco. Once the pipes leave the cab they immediately run in the space under the boiler cladding but outside the boiler barrel which is normally filled with insulation. They are therefore invisible. The problem comes when the pipe reaches the forward part of the boiler. There is a thick strengthening flange formed at the end of the boiler and the smokebox is riveted directly onto that flange. The pipes therefore have to emerge from underneath the cladding to 'hop' over the flange before going back down again, this time to enter the smokebox. Once inside the smokebox one of the pipes runs to regulator valve. The other two pipes feed the left and right steam chests (and of course the piston valves they contain). The covers are really doing nothing but hiding from view there rather ugly pipes that would detract from the elegance of the locomotive. The pipes however are performing absolutely critical functions for the operation of there locomotive. Some years ago contributors on here referred to the cover as a 'Superheater Cover' but from the above explanation I hope it's obvious that name is completely incorrect. It's a 'lubrication pipe cover'.

Hi Hal Nail, Sorry, I can't help. I don't own one - I was simply weighing up options.

O Gauge GWR 2251 class please! Here are some reasons why..... 1. A small but powerful tender engine with a very wide route availability. Equally at home pulling a pair of non-corridor coaches on an 'all stations' stopper on the one hand and one the other hand hauling a prestige express train while adorned with a 'headboard'! (I'm thinking specifically of the Cambrian section). ...hauling a named passenger train...... https://www.transporttreasury.com/p962799968/ea346cd53 assisting the Civil Engineers with track relaying.... https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p384975830/e2d0bee92 THE perfect small tender engine for a branchline. A scene like this is something you could reproduce in model form without needing vast amounts of space...... https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p384975830/eb9b6a149 Only got space for very short trains? https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p384975830/e12113067 2. Despite being called 'Collett Goods' they were true mixed traffic engines. Importantly, they had a long service life and will be of use to those modelling the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s:- 1930s - heading a train composed almost entirely of Clerestory stock..... https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p384975830/ef7ddd7ef 1965 - still in service over thirty years later on account of their shear usefulness.... https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p384975830/ed079137f 3. The most difficult aspect of depicting the class in model form is the great clearance between the high-pitched boiler and the frames. This makes the inside connecting rods and inside motion very visible. This is normally a challenge for any modeller. However, Dapol demonstrated with their 57xx pannier that they are more than capable of producing a very pleasing, working representation of 'inside motion'. 4. The 2251s were the ONLY GWR type I am aware of that worked on the Somerset & Dorset - and we know how many S&D layouts there are...... ...on the S&D...... https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p384975830/ef75bb0ce ...they also wandered off-region occasionally, most notably onto the Souther region as far as Southampton... https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p384975830/ea52209e 5. Tooling up a 2251 would open up the opportunity to tool up several tender variants, some of which were common to other GWR classes that Dapol might want to release in O gauge in future.... 6. Will complement almost all of Dapol and Lionheart's O gauge rolling stock. 7. Looks and performance. A quintessentially British, exquisite little engine, highly regarded by footplatemen for their free running and lusty performance (They were known as 'Baby Castles' by GWR crews). A genuine 'made of all work'. 8. This is one prototype not blighted forever by the efforts of Dapol's main O gauge competitor nor is there a 'legacy' model likely to weaken demand for it i.e Tower models/Sancheng did NOT produce the 2251. Neither Masterpeice nor Lee Marsh have announced plans to produce the 2251. Here are the reasons why not:- 1. The anti-GWR brigade will complain. Again. I rest my case. Andy.

I have one question about the model and one about the prototype locomotives. Regarding the model: has anyone tried removing the safety valve bonnet yet? Regarding the prototype: does anyone know which 4500s (if any) has red-painted number plates? Thanks in advance for any help. Andy.

Perhaps the person who wrote the article for The 82045 Steam Locomotive Trust made a typo or cut-and-pasted an inaccurate article from elsewhere? Alternatively there could be some red faces when they try fitting that boiler into the frames.........😅🤣😆 http://www.82045.org.uk/news/82045_news-jly22.html

Really? "As no existing LMS boiler was available which would suit a Class 3 loco, whilst still allowing weight to be kept within acceptable limits, it was decided to use a slightly adapted version of the Swindon No.2 boiler (the barrel was shortened by 5 13/16 inches) as fitted to the GWR Large Prairies and 56XX 0-6-2 tanks." I expect the source of this quote know what they're talking about:- http://www.82045.org.uk/82045_history.html Can you explain to me why Robert Riddles would base his design for a new standard tank locomotive on one of Stanier's least successful designs?

"Do you honestly think a manufacturer proposing a new model is going to start their research by asking on here?" Errrrr, no I'd be horrified if they did! I would expect them to 'start their research' with original drawings and photographs, followed by site visits to preserved examples (where they exist) to take measurements, laser or otherwise. Then I would expect them to go away to produce CADs, which they or may not choose to share with interested parties such as RMWeb. It's at this point a manufacturer could choose to listen to feedback, before they move on to the expense of tooling to produce an Engineering Prototype. It has long seemed to me that some manufacturers simply don't understand that we want to help them produce the most accurate models possible. We are trying to collaborate! Andy's recent posting however confirms what I have suspected for some time: "Whilst I don't disagree with elements of what you say there are some manufacturers who rubbish the whole membership whilst actively ignoring evidence based information provided, I can think of a case with a different manufacture that they didn't want to address something highlighted here because it was on here and think of the place as an existential inconvenience." To these manufacturers I would say : treat us as an existential inconvenience if you like but you are ignoring freely given, well-intended advice that can help you avoid inaccuracies and the resulting adverse effects on sales and reputation! Your choice!! Andy.

"difficulties at their production end and a certain haste to get the models here ahead of Accurascale may have inadvertently caused what seems to me and others here plain wrong in plain sight". Personally, I suspect the problems with the Dapol model go back much further than that. Accurascale's tooling was derived from a laser scan of 7808 preserved at the Great Western Society, Didcot, in addition to engineering drawings. Did Dapol actually physically scan a prototype locomotive or did their toolmakers rely on works drawings alone? To my eye, in addition to the exaggerated slope of the firebox and the tapered chimney, the coning of the boiler barrel is also too pronounced on the Dapol model. I take absolutely no pleasure at all in making these criticisms - I greatly appreciate what Dapol have done for the GWR modeller in both 4mm and 7mm. For me however, the Accurascale model is streets ahead....

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but the chimney appears to have a very pronounced outward taper. I don't believe any Manors had such a chimney at any stage in their careers:-

With respect, you may feel the white paint applied to buffers and smokebox straps was 'ridiculous', but that is simply a matter of personal taste. Aberystwyth shed master Danny Rowlands instructed that the shed's 'Manors' had this embellishment, especially those allocated to the shed's top duty, the "Cambrian Coast Express". It was known locally as 'Danny's Bull'. It may or may not be to people's personal taste, but it IS historically accurate and it was a symbol of professionalism and pride in the job at a time when moral on the railways was low and many were leaving the industry. To my mind it should be celebrated.

I agree entirely with Rob's observation. I am really impressed with both the model that Accurascale have produced and their attitude as a business to constructive, respectful feedback. Glib marketing phrases like 'raising the bar' are so often thrown around by 'new-entrant' manufacturers. In the case of Accurascale that actually seems to be justified, based on what I have seen from them so far! Outstanding!! Why was this so hard for their competitors?

Hi Adam, I think you may have spotted an error. The Accurascale model of 'Draycott Manor' does not have the lining on the top fender as shown in the three photos of the prototype. I've just checked Laurence Waters' "Great Western Manor Class". There is an excellent Norman Preedy photo of the loco dated 1956 again showing the fender as lined out. The combination of lined green livery with the 'Cycling Lion' crest was actually rare (except for the ‘Kings’, ‘Castles’ and some ‘Stars’) because the introduction of lined green in around 1956 more-or-less coincided with the replacement of the 'Cycling Lion' with the 'Ferret and Dartboard' crest. I know of three Manors that ran in lined green with the 'Cycling Lion': 7810 Draycott Manor, 7818 Granville Manor and 7828 Odney Manor. All the photos of 'Draycott' and 'Granville' I am aware of show the top fender lined out. Odney Manor was attached to one of the 'Intermediate' tenders at that time, a design not depicted by Accurascale's tooling or indeed any other manufacturers.

In case anyone is interested, this is the Crosshead arrangement on the driver's side of a typical GWR 2 cylinder 4-6-0. This photo clearly shows that the Slipper Block and Vacuum Pump Arm are separate items, bolted together. The arm has been disconnected from the Vac. Pump Spindle since the loco is out of traffic. This close-up view is of 4930 Hagley Hall in preserved condition was taken in 2008 at the Severn Valley Railway. The SVR elected to paint both the Slipper Block and Vac. Arm black. This may or may not have been true in the GWR era, but photos of ex-works locos in the late 50s and 60s suggest to me that the vac. arm was usually unpainted by BR(W).

The crosshead on the Fireman's side was painted black. On the Driver's side it was a bit more complicated. The part that rubbed against the slidebars, called the Slipper Block, was painted black. On GWR 2-cylinder locos a linkage was bolted outside the slipper block that worked the crosshead-driven vacuum pump. This was left unpainted. So, on a four cylinder engine like a Castle you would just see a plain black Slipper Block. On 2-cylinder locos like Manors the painted Slipper Block was partly obscured by the vacuum pump arm where the arm was mounted externally.....but it was still painted black. To confuse things further, some locos had the vac. pump arm mounted internally (eg 43xx, 61xx)...... https://railphotoprints.uk/p254437496/e9de0550b https://railphotoprints.uk/p254437496/eeb90f2c0 https://railphotoprints.uk/p200288452/e8e4fec https://zenfolio.page.link/d2CRj

Ah, yes, got it! People 'on the spectrum' aren't legitimate human beings in their own right are they? So why on earth would anyone produce YouTube content they enjoy? Even if your ridiculous assertion could be factually justified, the terms 'on the spectrum' and 'learning difficulties' have nothing to do with "Political Correctness". You say that "None of those comments are coming from adults who are buying expensive models." Do you know that for a fact? Is it possible that a significant number of people who are "buying expensive models" do watch his videos but don't comment? "PS if anyone thinks a Bachmann ROD and GWR 94XX are amongst the worst models of 2021 then he needs psychiatric help or a good slap." No mate, you need to accept that other people will occasionally reach different conclusions to you. Get over it! " He's causing more harm for the hobby than good." I disagree. It's opinionated gobs**tes like you getting irate over trivia who bring the hobby into disrepute. Personally I suggest you seek psychiatric help for you anger and disinhibited behaviour. PS. Why has no Moderator removed Steamport Southports post?

Well spotted Blandford - that was exactly what I was thinking of! For those not 'in' on this particular joke, this was one of the Severn Valley Paintshop's offerings from around 1984 - an April 1st spoof. When the photographs appeared in Steam Railway Magazine there was practically rioting in the streets! The photos were credited to one Nula Seer. No individual of that name was ever found responsible, though former SVR Chief Mechanical Engineer Alun Rees had very strong LMS leanings.......

The team restoring 4930 Hagley Hall on the Severn Valley Railway are now very much in the 'home straight' on that loco's lengthy restoration. They've decided to return their loco to traffic in the 1930s GWR livery and the tender was painted just last month:- https://www.facebook.com/groups/176898859005308/permalink/5113105308717947/ Of interest is the method they have used to replicate the 'roundel' - it was 'hand gilded', meaning that actual gold leaf, rather than paint was used. Of course this is not proof of historical accuracy, but the SVR paint shop generally has a very high reputation for quality and historical fidelity.....

Really? A bit like saying a Ferrari is a Ford because it has four wheels and an internal combustion engine. Yes, it's true the GWS County boiler is ex Stanier 8F and it's true the original County boilers where dimensionally very similar to the 8F boilers the GWR had been forced to build during the war by the Ministry of Supply. There was however nothing particularly advanced or mould breaking about that boiler. Swindon simply adopted it because they had the tooling on to hand. You could argue that the use of plate frames instead of the traditional Churchward 'extension frames' was inspired by developments at the other railway companies, but that simply speeded up workshop assembly and had no bearing on performance. I'd say the Hawkworth County was a missed opportunity precisely because it didn't embrace the lessons of Stanier and/or Bullied more than it did! In particular, a redesigned steam circuit, high degree superheat and possibly a 3-cylinder configuration might have satisfied the original brief for the design : a loco with performance similar to a Castle but significantly cheaper to build. .....Oh, and 'Yes Please' Accurascale, I'll have a County as well!!

I'm thinking Lionheart wouldn't produce a model with those God-awful bendy slidebars. No, that is Dapol 4mm.

The Manor looks absolutely superb! Well done Accurascale! Can't believe it's taken 40 years for someone to actually supersede the old Mainline tooling. One minor pedantic point : The fire-iron tunnels appear to be black on both samples. I think they should be green. I hope these sell like hot cakes and leave Bachmann and Hornby kicking themselves.

Generations of Footplatemen attended informal training groups, in the own time called Mutual Improvement Classes. This seems to have been the case in most if not all the Railway Companies in the steam era. In his book "The Great Western's Last War : Efficiency in Adversity", Adrian Vaughan says the following:- "Footplatemen took a profound interest in their work. Most engine sheds had 'Mutual Improvement Classes' where experienced Drivers gave weekly lessons to any member of the loco staff on the technicalities of driving, firing and how the locomotive and its brakes worked......The 'MIC' was entirely a voluntary activity...The GWR had no official part in the proceedings which were supported by the time and money of the men' I should be added that the Company Rule book, the bedrock of safe operations on each railway would also be taught at MICs and enginemen were expected to commit much of it to memory. There was even a National Federation of Mutual Improvement Classes - an indicator that this level of diligence and professional commitment was not specific to the GWR. As a former footplate volunteer at a well known preserved railway, I had the pleasure of attending a few MICs around 2000 delivered by two former GWR footplatemen! That's a memory I will cherish. My point is this: I believe Railwaymen have always taken their responsibilities incredibly seriously. The difference is that H&S is now enforced 'Top-Down' by a branch of Government. In the steam era it was driven 'Bottom-up' by men who knew only too well the responsibilities they had to the travelling public, their workmates and themselves. They were to a large extent, simply left to their own devices. If installations such as engine sheds were run down and neglected towards the end of the steam era I believe that has more to do with the shocking run-down of the railways due to underinvestment, than the attitudes of individual railwaymen.

"Another snail-racing situation was drawing up to an adverse signal with a loose-coupled freight; here, the game was to keep the train in motion, even at a very slow speed, and not to actually stop, as this took time and was harder work for the loco, and even at a snail's pace, it is easier to pull away when the signal clears." It would also have the advantage of making wheel slip less likely which was both inefficient and brought with it the attendant dangers of priming (carry-over). Additionally it would keep the couplings taught, thereby reducing the uncomfortable 'jolting' of wagons banging together. Here is an excellent article on the LNER Encyclopaedia website describing the techniques used to safely control heavy unfitted freights in the steam era:- https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4280 As you can see, this was a job requiring considerable skill and judgement, even in the ideal conditions of a 'good' locomotive in dry weather conditions. Managing such a train at night, in foul weather on a loco that was struggling for steam or adhesion must have been a nightmare!

My apologies Jenks465 for doubting your adherence to Company Regulations! On a serious note, the extract from the Working Timetable I uploaded implores "Inspectors, Signalmen and Others" to report any observed speeding though paintwork to their Divisional Superintendent or District Traffic Manager. Clearly the GWR took this very seriously indeed!! I apologise for the thread drift and hope this was interesting and informative rather than inappropriate.