Jump to content

JimC

Members
  • Content Count

    353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

272 Good

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/

Recent Profile Visitors

214 profile views
  1. Well, I'm not going to argue that Churchward was wrong to abandon the big boiler Atbara, that's for sure. My understanding is the LNER considered belpaire boxes too expensive to build and maintain, so it wasn't just loading gauge considerations. As for the Bear, that I think was one of Churchward's rare errors of judgement. I believe Churchward vetoed a combustion chamber because they'd been so troublesome on the Krugers, but with the benefit of hindsight I reckon he should have resolved the problems rather than end up with a boiler that was surely too long in the tubes and too short of heating area in the firebox. The result AIUI was that even with the very large heating area in the superheater the steam chest temperature was too low - a good bit less than the Stars I believe. Of course the other advantage the GWR had was that they didn't need to get a single locomotive all the way to Scotland without clogging up the grate.
  2. Churchward, at the instigation of one of his deputies, trialled one of the Atbara Class with a large round top firebox boiler and a large cab. Apparently the crews hated the big cab, and it was taken off in short order, and the large boiler wasn't a success either and was replaced a couple of years later. But what if it had been a success? Here's a Churchward County 4-4-0 boiler with the big boiler and side window cab, and I've matched it with a much larger 4,000 gallon Hawksworth tender, as the original 3,500 gallon tender looked out of proportion to me.
  3. JimC

    GWR Barnum

    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.
  4. JimC

    GWR Barnum

    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.
  5. JimC

    GWR Barnum

    I think that's a sensible assumption.
  6. JimC

    GWR Barnum

    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?
  7. Here's a modern photo of the equivalent cover on 9017 at the Bluebell.
  8. I wasn't sure whether the cover was absent or shadowed on some Bird photos. I've just started to wonder though about an analogy to the absence of reach rod covers on early Dukes. If we hypothesize that the reverser was moved within the cab on the Dukes, might this also be true of the Birds? In which case might the reach rod cover indicate a later installation of screw reverse? The other thing that occurs to me was the earlier question about cabside rivet patterns. I wonder if they correlate to different reversing gear installations, at least on that side. Got to be careful though, this could be a lot of castle-in-the-air.
  9. OK, thanks for that. Going through RCTS, starting with the Dukes, RCTS says screw reverse was fitted to (post 1912 numbers) lots 97, 101, 102, & 105. Of lot 113 it says that most were very similar to those before, the exception being 3300 Bulldog. 3300 started of with steam reverse and changed to screw reverse with an extended cab to cover the gear in 1899. A photo in Russell tells us Bulldog in this form was different to every other member of the classes with the reach rod external to the boiler. Earlier Duke photos in Russell don't seem to show a reach rod cover. Photos of Duke of Cornwall in Russell vol1 show the screw reverse as being mounted hiigh in the cab and well back. Later Duke photos on smugmug show a reach rod cover close under the handrail, Under the Dukedog/Earl heading RCTS states that screw reverse was fitted. A 1940 GA drawing for the class published in GWR Journal shows this. The reverser is located appreciably lower and further forward than in the photos of Duke of Cornwall mentioned above. We may speculate that the covers appeared when the reverser was moved. Final mention in RCTS is under the Birds, where it states that "a return was made to screw reverse... the intervening engines having been turned out with the steam apparatus." Moving on to Russell, he states, when talking about the Bulldogs that they had steam reverse, but that the Aberdares were the only class to keep it. A Col Templar illustration in Russell describes the cover as being 'certain engines only'. So I think we can be fairly confident that on a Bulldog the cover means screw reverse, and also means later in the locomotive's life. When, however, seems to be a completely open question. I also note that the cover seems to vary a little in shape and size. I suppose its possible its a job that would have been done by eye as required, rather than by strictly referring to the drawing.
  10. This is my current interpretation of the Atbara/City steam reversing gear from the GA drawing I have.There are huge caveats to this: the drawing was reproduced in GWRJ from one of the early low quality microfilm copies of the original the NRM have, and I have previously interpreted the drawing very differently in some places. Its easy to get the sanding gear and the reversing gear confused as they are drawn over each other. I have particular doubts about the area round the outer end of the reach rod and the upper end of the cylinders and the linkages round there. The key thing is that the reach rod appears to come out of the cab rather low - about the bottom of the boiler - and it may well be completely within the firebox casing and then is behind the splasher. When it comes to any hypothetical Bulldog arrangement - for I've seen no drawings for them - again it seems likely there would be minimal external evidence of a steam gear, should it be laid out like this gear is. I have two questions - the first is whether anyone reading this has a copy of 'Great Western Small-Wheeled Double-Framed 4-4-0 Tender Locomotives' or any other book featuring the Bulldogs, and can comment on whether it has much to say about reversing gear arrangements, and the second is whether anyone reading this has a scan of a Swindon Bulldog or Duke GA drawing (weight diagrams don't help) that they would be able to share with me.
  11. 3306 6/33 3308 8/33 (both rebuilt Dukes), 3369 3/33 (wd 7/36) 3374 9/34 (wd 6/37) 3376 6/34->12/36 3380 2/33 (wd 3/38) 3383 7/34->9/41 3389 11/33->11/37 3391 3/44 (wd 5/48) 3395 1/44 (wd 8/48) 3400 4/44 (wd 5/49) 3428 6/34 (wd 10/36) 3430 1/44 (wd 12/48) 3452 12/44 (wd 4/48) according to RCTS.
  12. This post has been through multiple edits! 9017 has a cover there, and she has screw reverse. I have a Dukedog GA, and that shows the reach rod clearly running on that alignment. Yet I don't see the cover on all Bird photos, and I also see it on Bulldogs. I shall look a bit further, and also see if there are different shaped covers in that area. The trouble is I don't have enough drawings, and the GA drawings, while they show all the bits superimposed, can be very difficult to interpret. If I read the Atbara/City drawing I have correctly (and I am by no means confident I've worked it out) then the steam reverse on those had a couple of bell cranks in the cab and a low level rod to the steam cylinders. City of Truro now has screw reverse and a similar cover, so no help there. At the moment I suspect that a flat angled downward cover seems to be over the reach rod for screw reverse, which for inscrutable reasons disappears inside the boiler casing. Smugmugs photo of 3390 (#22) appears to me to show the cover missing and the reach rod beneath. I have no idea yet whether no cover indicates a steam reverse, or whether there were versions of the steam reverse with a reach rod in a similar location, rather than low down as I interpret the Atbara drawing. There's a recent book on the Bulldogs, Dukes etc, it would be useful to see what it has to say.
  13. Its a bit odd because superheated Std 3s were being built as late as 1933, and apart from the Bulldogs the 14 3521s, gone by 1931, were the only tender class using them. There were quite a few absorbed 0-6-2Ts using Std 3s though, most notably TVR O4s. Presumably as RCTS suggests it must just have been a question of not wanting to scrap decent boilers. Its odd, looking at RCTS there was one batch during a short period in 1933, and a handful more in 1944, by which time some of the earlier ones had been scrapped. It would probably make some sense if I could be bothered to do a complete inventory of Std3 engines. Maybe in 1944 it didn't matter too much what boiler was on a Bulldog as they weren't being used that heavily anyway. As you probably know the last 36s were in service until 1934, and did overlap with the earlier Std 3 Bulldogs so you can justify both:-)
  14. 3306, 3308 (both rebuilt Dukes), 3369, 3374, 3376, 3380, 3383, 3389, 3391, 3395, 3400, 3428, 3430, 3452 (Penguin) according to RCTS.
  15. One little thing for @Hattons Dave, my understanding from GWW is that for this pre 1906 style livery the GWR firsts would have had a garter crest rather than the entwined monogram, but doubtless this isn't your top concern right now...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.