OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[MG 7305]

On 25/11/2020 at 17:07, Miss Prism said:

6372 at Dulverton in 1953, running with an intermediate 3500g tender. I think it was a regular on the Barnstaple line.

 

6320, not long after nationalisation, probably 1949/50, somewhere on southern territory maybe (there's an 8-wheel watercart tender in the background):

 

 

 

That is a GWR water crane behind the mogul, so I suggest it is on ex GWR territory or a GW depot.

[dessire_luvals]

22 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

And Eastleigh,  Southampton, Portsmouth

I think it looks like a GWR water column, so unlikely to be any of these IMHO.

[tomparryharry]

It's very easy to take a photo out of context. After all, they found a London Transport double-decker bus on Mars. 

 

It's true, I'll tell you. I saw it in that bastion of journalism.....   The Sunday Sport. 

 

Yours truly,

Ivor Nibb,  space & science  (domestic)  correspondent.

[Ian Hargrave]

2 hours ago, dessire_luvals said:

I think it looks like a GWR water column, so unlikely to be any of these IMHO.

  
If that is the case,then it narrows it down to Yeovil Pen Mill ( 82E from 1948 to 1958) and Weymouth ( 82F  from 1948 to 1958 ) .Source GW Archive.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

  
If that is the case,then it narrows it down to Yeovil Pen Mill ( 82E from 1948 to 1958) and Weymouth ( 82F  from 1948 to 1958 ) .Source GW Archive.

What's wrong with Basingstoke or Salisbury?

 

[Oldddudders]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

What's wrong with Basingstoke or Salisbury?

 

Did they have GWR water columns?

[Jenny Emily]

Further to the pictures I posted, here is the full video I produced looking at the model. Includes DCC fitting and running footage. 
 

 

 

[melmerby]

Yippee.

6336 Mogul on the way from Derails.

[217 RIVER FLESK]

5 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

  
If that is the case,then it narrows it down to Yeovil Pen Mill ( 82E from 1948 to 1958) and Weymouth ( 82F  from 1948 to 1958 ) .Source GW Archive.

Well it can't be Yeovil Pen Mill, way too many tracks

 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Did they have GWR water columns?

Yes

As did Andover junction, all GWR sheds with interfaces with the LSWR

Salisbury's looks identical to gthe one in the picture.

Edited November 27, 2020 by melmerby

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, melmerby said:

What's wrong with Basingstoke or Salisbury?

 

I can't make it fit the layout at Salisbury and the point rodding looks not to be GWR anyway although it can't be clearly enlarged.  And if it is not GWR point rodding that rules out Basingstoke and Salisbury.

[melmerby]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I can't make it fit the layout at Salisbury and the point rodding looks not to be GWR anyway although it can't be clearly enlarged.  And if it is not GWR point rodding that rules out Basingstoke and Salisbury.

I am assuming it is a GWR shed where the two companies meet hence the water crane and the tracks running past could be LSWR

Hence my later pick of Andover Junction

GWR shed with Mogul and water crane with LSWR shed to left

Note point rodding and telephony wires are similar to that pic.

 

 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 26/11/2020 at 09:30, Ian Hargrave said:

  
Likely candidates being Salisbury,Weymouth and Basingstoke 

 

Any chance that it could be Newbury or Didcot? T9's worked the DN&S at one time.

[Bulwell Hall]

6320 was a Swindon engine around this time I believe and, whilst it could obviously turn up anywhere, Andover Junction would be particularly appropriate as it could have come down the ex MSWJ line from Swindon.  6320 was also the only mogul to have been oil fired and the photo shows how the cabside horizontal handrails were lowered to accommodate sliding shutters.  Although the engine has reverted to coal firing and the shutters removed the handrails have not been restored to their original position.

 

And whilst I am on, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by the Dapol Mogul?  I'm especially disappointed with the lack of rivet and platework detail on the die cast footplate - especially the front footplate below the smokebox -  and the rear of the footplate beneath the cab. 

 

Gerry

[melmerby]

17 minutes ago, Bulwell Hall said:

6320 was a Swindon engine around this time I believe and, whilst it could obviously turn up anywhere, Andover Junction would be particularly appropriate as it could have come down the ex MSWJ line from Swindon.

 

Gerry

Looking at a 1930s OS 25" map and other photos it's my opinion that the photo is Andover Junction and the picture was taken from the east end of the down platform across the LSWR main line.

 

The depot had two sheds (to the right), the GWR (ex MSWJ) close to the main line with the ex LSWR one further back with a common turntable between them.

There was a coal stack near the shed throat (left) and in later years the GWR side had a GWR water crane in exactly the right position as well as those distinctive light columns.

The point rodding/trackwork would be to SR(LSWR) practice

[Mallard60022]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

I am assuming it is a GWR shed where the two companies meet hence the water crane and the tracks running past could be LSWR

Hence my later pick of Andover Junction

GWR shed with Mogul and water crane with LSWR shed to left

Note point rodding and telephony wires are similar to that pic.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent investigation and detective work. I have no knowledge of Andover Junction and do not think I have ever seen a pic of the Shed(s) and so this is fascinating for me. Thanks buddy.

Phil

[Mallard60022]

If anyone wants my 7310 Cab Plates then let me know by PM. Postage only.

P

[gwrrob]

5 hours ago, Bulwell Hall said:

And whilst I am on, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by the Dapol Mogul?  I'm especially disappointed with the lack of rivet and platework detail on the die cast footplate - especially the front footplate below the smokebox -  and the rear of the footplate beneath the cab. 

 

I'm sure someone of your modelling calibre Gerry will wave a magic wand over it and definitely work wonders on it.

 

I think it's excellent value for money.

[Welchester]

On 26/11/2020 at 16:57, Miss Prism said:

Beware of considering renumbering 6308 - its tender has a unique style of lining.

 

Not to mention the Caerphilly reversing lever.

[Budgie]

6 hours ago, Bulwell Hall said:

And whilst I am on, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by the Dapol Mogul?  I'm especially disappointed with the lack of rivet and platework detail on the die cast footplate - especially the front footplate below the smokebox -  and the rear of the footplate beneath the cab. 

 

Gerry

 

I think the loco is too light, and could do with an extra 100 grams at least.

[Ian Hargrave]

2 hours ago, Budgie said:

 

I think the loco is too light, and could do with an extra 100 grams at least.

 
So if you think that is the case,then given your experience in running it....presumably......how does this affect its performance ?  

 

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, Bulwell Hall said:

And whilst I am on, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by the Dapol Mogul?  I'm especially disappointed with the lack of rivet and platework detail on the die cast footplate - especially the front footplate below the smokebox -  and the rear of the footplate beneath the cab. 

 

I think there are a good few of us who are underwheleed byt it, Bulwell.  A poor gear ratio, (resuluting in overfast top speed and poor low speed performance) poorly represented crosshead, running problems, and in particular the slide bars, which on some models are splayed out at the ends and are an incorrect distance apart, which has to be an inexcusable error because had they been correctly located clearance for the coupling rod is improved, so Dapol have gone out of their way to make an incorrect model that makes things more difficult for themselves, have all been mentioned on this thread within the last week or so.  It is a shame, as this is a near miss, a good model spoiled for a ha'porth of tar.  It is easily the best RTR mogul there has ever been, and beats most  kits as well, and my interest in was as a result of my possible future purchase of a 5101 prairie, the Dapol model of which will use the same mechanism. 

 

For me, the very low gear ratio precludes the smooth slow running, stopping, and starting that are of prime importance to me with my small BLT, and the slide bar issue is not acceptable; when I buy a 5101, it'll be a Hornby, a model that has proven itself to be accurate, well detailed, and a good slow runner.  Dapol are, unless they radically redesign the mech by the time the 5101 appears, out of the running as far as I'm concerned, even if they are cheaper.  I already have an inferior 5101, earlier Hornby body on an Airfix chassis. thank you very much...

[Budgie]

2 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
So if you think that is the case,then given your experience in running it....presumably......how does this affect its performance ?  

 

It doesn't like dragging just 4 bow-ended suburbans up my 1 in 75 helix without slipping. As for 8 coaches ...

[tomparryharry]

8 minutes ago, Budgie said:

It doesn't like dragging just 4 bow-ended suburbans up my 1 in 75 helix without slipping. As for 8 coaches ...

 

Just like the real thing, where trains took on a banker, either at Newport or Severn Tunnel for the haul through to Patchway. 

[Clearwater]

Mine’s been hauling 6 bogie coaches around our 6 by 4, second radius, happily enough.  No slipping.  Nice model, I like it...

 

David