Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JimC

  1. This first sketch is aimed at being post war, but pre grouping. In 1899, the Barry railway desperately needed some new locomotives, but all British builders were at full capacity. To resolve this, the five locomotives of the K class was ordered from Cooke Loco and Machine Co in the USA. It seems the Barry railway really wanted something as close as possible to the B1 class and the Americans wanted to build something as close as possible to their standard product. The result was a decidedly odd hybrid, with the top and rear halves largely complying with Barry standards, and the front and bottom halves - the cylinders and the frames - pure US with bar frames, outside cylinders and all. The combination does not appear to have been a happy one, and yet when the GWR got their hands on them they elected to rebuild two in the best GWR style with Standard 3 taper boiler and full GWR side tanks, cab and bunkers. They were numbered 193-197. The rebuilds do not seem to have been significantly more satisfactory and all were scrapped between 1927 and 1932, no industrial user having elected to purchase one. This sketch represents the two rebuilt with Std 3 boilers. The sketch owes as much to an excellent photo in Russell as to the weight diagram. I had some trouble with this one. Its the muddy shadows under the footplate, and the fact that aspects of the design are so alien. The original Barry weight diagram contains a dimensional error, which complicates my method of tracing weight diagrams as the starting point for my sketches. The odd mix of US and British practice also complicates things, because I sometimes had trouble establishing in my mind what a line represented. I hope there aren't too many errors. I was having so much trouble getting a feel for what was happening under the footplate that I even reluctantly looked at photographs of a model, which is of course a desperate and highly dangerous step indeed. In the event all I really achieved with that is spot a number of things which obviously the modeller had failed to work out either and omitted. Sensible man! Under the footplate is really troublesome, and particularly against the firebox between the second and third drivers. I also can't work out where the front sand pipe and sand box is, and the brake rigging looks odd too. I think the brake cylinder might be horizontal between the cylinders, which is quite unlike anything else I've sketched! The weights diagrams from the Barry (in Mountford) and GWR (in Russell) have been major sources, although as above there's a dimensional error in the Barry diagram which the GWR apparently caught in the first drawing in Russell. Interesting, BTW, that like Churchward's US inspired locomotives, the cylinders are horizontal with their centre line above that of the wheels.
  2. They are simply Dean Singles converted to 2-6-0. In real life some of the Sir Daniel 2-2-2s were converted to 0-6-0s. It was less complicated than you might imagine because by this stage the Sir Daniels were using the same boiler and motion as the Armstrong Standard Goods, so the biggest part of the job was realigning the cylinders. So what I did was the same process with a late variant Dean Single. Holcroft tells us that Churchward considered a 4-4-0 conversion for the Dean singles, but when they looked at it in detail it came out too expensive. I decided money wasn't a problem (!!) and given new cylinders to the same basic design I reckoned that it was just possible to fit in the existing motion with the cylinders moderately steeply inclined round a carefully positioned leading axle, whilst the trailing wheels are where they were on the single. One has the "original" boiler, while the other has a standard 4. As well as the Sir Daniels, this also riffs on the conversions of 3521 class 0-4-4T (ex 0-4-2T) to 4-4-0s, which ended up with a mix of parallel and taper boilers. In practice the more I look at it the more needs changing. In particular the amount of work needed on the frames. Holcroft tells us that Churchward didn't want to alter the cylinders, but the job proved to be impossible without making changes there. This would have been around 1908, so creating a class of sort of half baked Armstrong 4-4-0s or Aberdares when the new outside cylinder classes were so much better cannot have looked like a smart move. The Sir Daniel and 3521 conversions had been started around 1899/1900 when the future locomotive policy must have looked rather different.
  3. If you mean the green structure, its meant to be a sandbox. I appear to have left the smokebox saddle off the parallel boiler version completely! Oops!
  4. Null Pointe! Look again, and remember this is the fictional locomotives thread! Although to be fair there are a few bits of modified Aberdare in it. Right era.
  5. There are sort of precedents for these two variations on a theme so not quite as unlikely as one might think... Lets see who gets internet points for both what it is and what precedents there were...
  6. Churchward had done much the same thing when he introduced his outside cylinder standards. A Dean single with a set of dummy wooden outside cylinders was sent all round the system. The lead fingers were a neat touch though.
  7. Jus a vague approximation really. I don't have the patience to do lining (which is quite a PITA on vector drawings) and I think I grabbed a base shade from a colour photo of a model and hoped his research was adequate. The main thing is it doesn't look at all like GWR!
  8. While we're on the subject of signs, presumably this is a private siding. Should there be a sign or other demarcation of where the GWR responsibility ends and the private siding begins?
  9. Which, for those who are into such things, gives the idea of a little cameo with every rule in the book being broken, horse in the middle of the track, horseman riding on the buffer, etc etc... Or, for those of a macabre bent, the consequence of breaking all the rules...
  10. The only illustrations I've found show the horse in the middle of the track, and hitched to the coupling hook, which surprised me, because I thought the holes in GWR solebars were to hook on horse harness. I would think in your situation the horse probably would walk between the rails, which in turn suggests that the track would need to be ballasted at least level with the sleepers, if not right over them. I would have thought the investment in a capstan system would be a much bigger and more sophisticated yard than you seem to have in mind.
  11. Possibly, but I was also thinking there could be changes because the actual measurements and basis of calculation has changed. The GWR system was particularly simplistic and although purely on axle load GWR red - eg Castle, Hall, looks to be less than RA6, I wouldn't be surprised if the modern number is rather greater. Also it wasn't completely unknown for locomotive departments to have a metaphorical finger under the scales and report the weights they'd like to have achieved when they built the locomotives!
  12. That seems logical to me. I was wondering whether, in a simpler age, they just took a pair of dividers and adjusted the spread until they could walk them round the rim and have the last point land on the first mark. In that case there's be no need for the drawing office to provide anything but the diameter of hub and tyre and the number of spokes - which is exactly what's on the GWR drawing I looked at.
  13. Just as a thought, does anyone know of a source for RA numbers for current mainline steam. It would be interesting to see how some of the historical restrictions line up against today's much more sophisticated evaluation.
  14. After thinking about it for a bit, I wonder if the drawing office calculated the size of an segment of the circles representing hub and rim, and then gave the pattern shop a spacing between the spokes at each end. But I've just had a look through some GWR drawings and there's no sign of such a dimension - indeed nothing to give any guide as to how radially spaced items were laid out. Perhaps this was too commonplace to need instruction?
  15. I've been counting spokes a lot for the locomotive drawings I do for my publications. There was clearly no consensus for a given size, but they were rarely very far apart. There doesn't seem to have been any objection to odd numbers of spokes, nor for numbers that aren't spaced at whole numbers of degrees. It's never occurred to me to explore whether they were round numbers of radians, if indeed that's possible. I suppose one thing to consider with the BR standards is that it seems to me they must have been visualising building hundreds of each class, so standardising components between classes wouldn't have been seen as that important.
  16. If you research the 'Felix Pole' wagons on the GWR that was one initiative for higher capacity wagons, albeit still loose coupled and hand braked. Churchward's 40 ton bogie coal wagons were considered to have a greater tare weight and train length than two 20ton. But fundamentally wasn't the problem that changing over required huge capital investment at every stage of coal handling and the changeover to be substantially complete before there was any return?
  17. Excellent. I've seen the third, but not in such good quality. Still got the problem of the tenders disappearing into mud, but hopefully I can do a bit of enhancement. I reckon they confirm the presence of a small three sided frame cut out behind the tender steps which is absent on all the drawings and which I wasn't quite confident enough to add in. The locomotive balance weights are clear enough to add now too, so its good stuff. A detail I hadn't picked up on before is that the first and third both seem to be 93/1390, but in the post rebuild Barry days of the first photo 93 has very large front sandboxes which are flush with the front of the smokebox saddle, but in later years she seems to have smaller sand boxes set slightly back like the rest of her sisters. There's always something to catch you out isn't there! Look at the variations in the boiler clothing and the handrail knobs too...
  18. A project for a Bulleid enthusiast - a mixed traffic 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 with 5'7 wheels...
  19. Thanks for that... interesting that the Southern lists routes against class, and the LM class against routes.
  20. As is my wont with a topic I haven't found very accessible information for I'm knocking up a web page with what I've discovered. If you're interested its here. https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/weightrestrictions.php
  21. Especially when one considers that if the railway had an extra route serving their fictional town they would necessarily have had to have extra locomotive(s) to run the services to it.
  22. Thanks. I've since discovered that on the Western Region the detail was covered in Service Timetables, so most likely equivalent documents elsewhere.
  23. Thanks folks. So it looks as if the LNER system has continued to the present day - maybe with a bit of rounding, and the LMS and Souhern didn't have formal categories, instead having the information against classes in the sectional appendix or similar document. I have the equivalent GW document and it does go into a lot more detail about what is allowed where than basic RA would tell you, so presumably the other lines never found a need for the more formal classification. Its interesting that the GWR red route classification (which with the exception of the Kings and the Great Bear was the heaviest) is relatively light, coming just under RA 6 in LNER terms. The GW and LNER systems don't seem to be directly comparable though as Jim Snowdon suggests above. For example I note that in my late 50s Observers book the 04/ROD is listed at RA6 in the LNER scheme, but the GWR have theirs at Blue, which is nearer RA4 than RA5. Roughly the same weight is quoted for both in the book, so it doesn't seem to be a case of the specific gravity of Swindon steel. I must try and get a sight of an LMS and SR Sectional appendix and get a feel for how they are laid out. Has anyone got either (or their early BR regional equivalents) they could let me have a photo of the relevant pages?
  24. That could be my sketch of course, as the cranks and rods aren't the easiest thing to get right, but I've just checked the dimensions, and it seems to scale for a 12" throw (24 inch diameter circle) for the crank and I've redrawn with the rods at the top. Don't forget suspension movement too.
  25. Perhaps this is the trip freight version they never managed to get to work?
  • Create New...