The Locomotives of Boulton's siding

[Nearholmer]

In theory, there could be an infinite number of gauges between any two stated limits.

 

In practice, there were lines of almost every conceivable gauge, taking 1/2" as the smallest material increment.

 

More to the point, I think this discussion of gauge-changing reveals that we see this as a bigger deal than it probably was in practice. Mr B had a decent engineering works, attuned to locomotive needs, at his disposal, and altering locos about was like so much playing with Meccano, with facilities at hand to make new bits of whatever shape needed, for him and his staff.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Ruston]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

I doubt that.  Photos of wheelsets are relatively common compared with those of separated wheels and axles. More likely they kept usable wheelsets from scrapped locos 'just in case'.

 

... and how many possible gauges could there be between 2'3" and 3"? one? two?

At least 8 if you go up in one inch increments. There was no such thing as standardisation in narrow gauge. Even in the 1960s the National Coal Board was ordering locomotives to over half a dozen different gauges in one area alone. These would have been decided upon back when the various pits were sunk. Each pit could originally belong to a different owner with different needs and preferences in supplier. I'm sure the same thing would have applied to surface lines in quarries, brickworks, iron works, contractors lines etc. back in the days when I'W. Boulton was in business, so if any company could potentially hire a locomotive to suit its own gauge you wouldn't keep a multitude of wheelsets in stock on the off-chance that you needed one particular gauge. It wouldn't make sense to do so.

 

Also, how many other narrow gauge locomotives would have wheelsets that would fit this engine and how many other narrow gauge locomotives was Boulton known to have had and scrapped that could be used for spares? I'd have to have a look through the book again but I don't think there would be many, if any at all.

 

That, of course, is just my opinion but I doubt we will ever know exactly how it was...

Edited September 13, 2019 by Ruston

[Edwardian]

 

Indeed, let Scoffers beware; the penchant of this Island Nation for variety, irregularity and eccentricity should not be under-estimated.

 

Rather than look at just at the gauges to which Ant  ran, look, like Boulton, at the pool of his potential customers.

 

Judging from various Wiki lists of UK NG lines, most of the theoretical increments were actual gauges. According to the Wiki lists, the following gauges were all in use within the 2'3" to 3' parameters:

 

2' 3"

2' 4"

2' 4 1/2"

2' 5"

2' 5 1/2"

2' 6"

2' 6 1/2"

2' 8"

2' 8 1/2"

2' 9"

2' 10 1/2"

2' 11"

3'

 

Of course, we know that even this list is not comprehensive, because Ant is reported to have run to 2' 11 1/2"

 

So, the answer to the question would seem to be "at least 14"!

 

 

 

 

[brack]

What about metric gauges? There are at least a few others to put in that list: 700mm, 750mm, 760mm, 800, 850 and 900mm. For industrial purposes at low speeds you might get away with a close match, but if you haven't got the gauge and wheel profile right the risk of derailments and excessive wheel/flange wear or poor riding must be increased. Just because gauges are close doesn't mean they're interchangeable.

[Corbs]

On 12/09/2019 at 17:07, Compound2632 said:

 

That's a 5 inch range each side. Looking at the photo, I'm wondering what Boulton did about the connecting rod etc. - the cylinder position can't have been changed?

 

When ‘Douglas’ was converted from 2ft to 2ft 3in for the Talyllyn Railway, the cylinders had sandwich plates fitted between them and the frames to space them out.

[relaxinghobby]

More smallest loco Ant.

Can anyone with a copy of the Chronicles of Boulton's Sidings tell me the wheelbase, wheel size or any other

dimension of the smallest locos in this picture.

Then I can set about drawing the plans all to the same scale?

Bristol, Amy and Ant.

The model version of Ant n the looks too much-compressed in it's length, is too short ?

[pete_mcfarlane]

The other thing to remember about gauges is that there wasn't a standard for measuring them, so some people measured between rail faces and others between rail centres. Plus some of the track was so awful that the gauge was pretty nominal anyway. 

[Regularity]

29 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

The other thing to remember about gauges is that there wasn't a standard for measuring them, so some people measured between rail faces and others between rail centres. Plus some of the track was so awful that the gauge was pretty nominal anyway. 

That was also true of model railways until about 100 years ago, and incidentally is why in North America has 1/4" scale for 0 gauge, on 1 1/4" gauge track. Make the track from 1/16" wide bar stock for the rails, and set the gauge centre to centre, and you have track at a nominal 4'9" gauge.

 

[Nearholmer]

Time rolls by, and another nearly-thirty years passes ...... the effective standardisation of model railway gauges began in 1891, measured between rail-centres, using tubular tinplate track. Our current gauges (the wider ones at least) result from the move to measuring ‘between faces’, which resulted in a 3mm (diameter of the tube formed at the top of each tinplate rail) reduction, so that G1 moved from 48mm to 45mm , for instance. I don’t think 0 was in the original set, but it came in cited as 35mm, then 32mm, shortly after.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Nearholmer

[sir douglas]

wheelbases

Bristol 6ft

Amy 5ft

Ant 3' 9"

[Edwardian]

21 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

More smallest loco Ant.

Can anyone with a copy of the Chronicles of Boulton's Sidings tell me the wheelbase, wheel size or any other

dimension of the smallest locos in this picture.

Then I can set about drawing the plans all to the same scale?

Bristol, Amy and Ant.

The model version of Ant n the looks too much-compressed in it's length, is too short ?

 

You have a PM

[relaxinghobby]

Oh dear I got a PM from Edwardian in my email. It's a bit like a notification and summons from the head boy. Or a brown envelope waiting on the door mat when you get home.

Phew no need to worry, when checked, Edwardian had sent me a copy of the Engineer drawings of Ant and her earlier incarnation as Queen of the Forest.

 

Along with Sir Douglasposting the wheel base measurements of some of Boulton's other small saddle tanks.

 

So with their help I've loaded the drawings into the drawing package Inkscape and fused them into one big picture. Each is scaled to the same scale using the wheelbase measurement. For comparison is the LYR-LMS dock shunter from the Hornby box art diagram and a Manning Wardle 3 foot gauge Cape Town Railways shunter by Paxton from their website.

The buffer heights are all over the place so which is right? One of the problems of trying to develop a working drawing as the first step to take for making a model from.

 

LY 5'9” wheelbase standard gauge, original Vulcan design 6' wb.

MW 4'6” wb 3 foot gauge

Bristol 6' wb std

Amy 5' wb std

Ant 3' 9"

 

The buffer heights are all over the place so which is right? One of the problems of trying to develop a working drawing as the first step to take for making a model from.

Vertical red line is 3' 6" buffer beam centre.

Edited September 21, 2019 by relaxinghobby

[Edwardian]

57 minutes ago, relaxinghobby said:

Oh dear I got a PM from Edwardian in my email. It's a bit like a notification and summons from the head boy. Or a brown envelope waiting on the door mat when you get home.

Phew no need to worry, when checked, Edwardian had sent me a copy of the Engineer drawings of Ant and her earlier incarnation as Queen of the Forest.

 

 

 

Cripes. How other people see you ...

 

Since brown envelopes are traditionally associated with (a) the passing of cash bribes; and, (b) "artistic" photographs, I'm now curious about what sort of school you went to!!!!

[Ruston]

1 hour ago, relaxinghobby said:

Oh dear I got a PM from Edwardian in my email. It's a bit like a notification and summons from the head boy. Or a brown envelope waiting on the door mat when you get home.

Phew no need to worry, when checked, Edwardian had sent me a copy of the Engineer drawings of Ant and her earlier incarnation as Queen of the Forest.

 

Along with Sir Douglasposting the wheel base measurements of some of Boulton's other small saddle tanks.

 

So with their help I've loaded the drawings into the drawing package Inkscape and fused them into one big picture. Each is scaled to the same scale using the wheelbase measurement. For comparison is the LYR-LMS dock shunter from the Hornby box art diagram and a Manning Wardle 3 foot gauge Cape Town Railways shunter by Paxton from their website.

The buffer heights are all over the place so which is right? One of the problems of trying to develop a working drawing as the first step to take for making a model from.

 

LY 5'9” wheelbase standard gauge, original Vulcan design 6' wb.

MW 4'6” wb 3 foot gauge

Bristol 6' wb std

Amy 5' wb std

Ant 3' 9"

 

The buffer heights are all over the place so which is right? One of the problems of trying to develop a working drawing as the first step to take for making a model from.

Vertical red line is 3' 6" buffer beam centre.

When were buffer heights standardised? The only one there that would definitely have a standard (RCH?) height is the Lanky pug. The Manning and Ant are narrow gauge, so there's no standard there, which leaves Amy and Bristol.

 

The build dates of both of these engines are not given but Bristol was bought, by Boulton, in 1866 and Amy was already in Boulton's ownership by 1875. They could have been built before buffer heights were standardised and so you can't take that one measurement on a drawing and say the drawing is wrong.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Ruston

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Ruston said:

When were buffer heights standardised?

 

Not an answer and this is for wagons not locomotives, but the 1887 RCH drawing in A.J. Watts,  Private Owner Wagons from the Ince Waggon & Ironworks Co. (HMRS, 1998) shows 3'5"; GAs of 19th-century LNWR wagons in LNWR Wagons show 3'5 1/2"; on the Midland, 3'4" giving way to 3'5" by the 1890s.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Compound2632

[wagonman]

58 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not an answer and this is for wagons not locomotives, but the 1887 RCH drawing in A.J. Watts,  Private Owner Wagons from the Ince Waggon & Ironworks Co. (HMRS, 1998) shows 3'5"; GAs of 19th-century LNWR wagons in LNWR Wagons show 3'5 1/2"; on the Midland, 3'4" giving way to 3'5" by the 1890s.

 

I think buffer heights were more or less standardised fairly early on – whenever inter-running of stock was introduced – as not to do so would have been dangerous. No chapter and verse though.

[relaxinghobby]

On 21/09/2019 at 15:26, Edwardian said:

 

Cripes. How other people see you ...

 

Since brown envelopes are traditionally associated with (a) the passing of cash bribes; and, (b) "artistic" photographs, I'm now curious about what sort of school you went to!!!!

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by relaxinghobby
too much

[relaxinghobby]

 

 

 

I'm away from home and I'm using my free time working on the lap top developing a cutting drawing from the side drawings found in The Engineer that people have been so kind to supply.

Half way through the process and I now have a set of shapes to cut out and glue together for a trial run.

The material to hand is a cereal packet. There is only some pritstick and clothes pegs so, as pritstick is a slow glue to make a strong joint I have to wait a few hours for the glue to harden with the parts being clamped together with pegs before the assembly is strong enough for some more bits can be stuck on.

It would have been quicker to have used plasticard and solvent if I were at home.

So in pursuit of the smallest and cutest little engine to have run on the four foot, I've built this based on Boulton's Amy which was Ants standard gauge sister.

There is a profile of a 15 foot wagon for comparison and I can still not resist the original Ant from the magazine article that started off this inquiry. Compared to the Engineer drawing above Ant looks far too short, I guess made from a three-quarter front view photograph, correct in height but fore shortened in length?

Mr Boulton's young assistant there is 5 ft 6 inches without his tall hat and like the wagon serves merely as a comparison. Such is life for an assistant.

To get even smaller and cuter that Amy in the standard gauge I think we will have to investigate the possibilities of Mr Boulton's small geared locomotives.

 

[relaxinghobby]

More cardboard Amy, no point in making a 3D model of a loco and and then only showing front and side views of it.

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

The September issue of the Industrial Railway Record has an article on John Smith of Coven, builders of 'Lion' amongst other interesting engines. 

[sparks]

On ‎21‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 14:26, relaxinghobby said:

Oh dear I got a PM from Edwardian in my email. It's a bit like a notification and summons from the head boy. Or a brown envelope waiting on the door mat when you get home.

Phew no need to worry, when checked, Edwardian had sent me a copy of the Engineer drawings of Ant and her earlier incarnation as Queen of the Forest.

 

Could I ask which issues of The Engineer these drawings are from please? Are they the same as the Locomotive Magazine ones or different?

 

Thanks

[Regularity]

On 23/09/2019 at 17:01, relaxinghobby said:

 

More cardboard Amy, no point in making a 3D model of a loco and and then only showing front and side views of it.

 

Is this an example of how Boris Johnson would approach railway modelling?

[relaxinghobby]

On 10/10/2019 at 18:55, Regularity said:

Is this an example of how Boris Johnson would approach railway modelling?

Please expand I don't get the joke. I was trying to make a quick cardboard mock up to see how the drawing appeared in 3D space.

Therefore is the PM making a cardboard government and Brexit arrangement to see how it looks?

[relaxinghobby]

 

 

 

 

 

The Spirit Of Boulton's Yard

Amy Ertle.

Sometimes at toy fairs and model railway exhibitions there are trays of broken toys, many basedon the Thomas the Tank Engine club. They are often broken and chewed but the dicast metal ones survive bestand can form the basis of one of my scale ? models.

In small locos where cramming in enough weight is difficult a metal saddle tank moulding like this is very handy but does it match any prototype?

Nearly matches many of Boulton's industrial tanks which he and his workers made up from a mixture of scapped reused and new parts. JUst like the photo ?

So in the Spirit of Boulton I have been assembling an Amy style tanker.

One step on from the carboard Amy that was an exercise in size comparison in an earlier post above.

OK,metal cab and cabsides after hacksawing from the Ertle original.

Footplate is palstic and from the same toy, the smoke box too, cut down from the longer original.

Paper, cardboard and wooden coffee stirers for a temporary chassis just there to hold the wheels apart.

Wheels 10mm from some defunt Bachmann USA shunter.

In the spirit of Boulton I'll leave the step at the back of the footplate as it is.

So next how can I motorise such a little jewel maybe an n-gauge chassis can be wideded to run on 00 track? Are Nigel Lawtons 009 motorised chassis kits still in production.

Or will it just be a static model painted rust clour and put behind the engine shed in the scrap siding?

 

 

What make was the original toy, pre-loved and battered I always refer to them as Ertles although there are other makes.

 

 

[Regularity]

6 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

Please expand I don't get the joke. I was trying to make a quick cardboard mock up to see how the drawing appeared in 3D space.

Therefore is the PM making a cardboard government and Brexit arrangement to see how it looks?

When asked how he relaxed, the PM claimed that he painted cardboard boxes to look like buses full of people.