OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[9402 Fredrick]

I have a good news update, they plan to update the CADs and have thanked Miss Prism for the contructive comment on the two model announcements, so they will be as accurate as possible.

[Miss Prism]

My Prairie comments on the Dapol Digest have opened the gates for more (and good) comment there. Richard Webster finds the comments constructive. How many he will be able to take on board will be another matter.

 

I have posted my Mogul tender and Mogul body comments. Not an easy prototype, considering the antiquity and lifetime length of the class. (Dapol is focusing on the middle-period 1919-21 construction.)

 

That little lot should keep China busy for a few months.

 

Btw, for nitty-gritty detail, Brian Daniel's flickr albums on preserved Prairies and Moguls are excellent:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/albums/72157669537628532

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/albums/72157669538653672

 

[Miss Prism]

On the Collett 93xx, was the steam pipe a bit longer than on the Churchwards, or am I being deceived by pictures?

 

Edit: Collett 93xx had standard Mogul pipes, but appeared (or some of them) to have smokebox mods when the bufferbeam weight-reducing mods happened in BR days.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Miss Prism

[rprodgers]

And the 67, HST, 87...

and the Castle was re-tooled by Hornby after originating from Airfix to Dapol Edited December 19, 2017 by rprodgers

[No Decorum]

My thanks to Miss Prism for going to all that trouble and to Dapol for not ignoring the information provided.

 

I think it’s a tricky business, producing a new tooling where a model already exists. Probably the majority of us have been buying models for quite some time and I dare say that many who want a model of one of these will already have one. I have a prairie and two moguls. Unless a new model is very good with no obvious blunders or running problems, I would probably decide not to bother getting one.

 

However, If Dapol (with Miss Prism’s help) does as good a job as on the 68, my wallet will open.

[Miss Prism]

I think it’s a tricky business, producing a new tooling where a model already exists.

 

Agree. Cosmetic body-issues aside, I think the key factor with new tooling is whether new models run and perform significantly better/smoother than older ones.

 

That's a whole area we are not in a position to comment on. We never get to see transmission designs before its too late.

[Miss Prism]

Remind me - what was the transition point from tall thin motionplate to lower flanged ones on the Moguls - was it 5380 or 5390?

[Oldddudders]

7331, the first locomotive number I really ‘spotted’, in July 1960.

[The Johnster]

On the Collett 93xx, was the steam pipe a bit longer than on the Churchwards, or am I being deceived by pictures?

 

If by 93xx you mean the rebuilt 5101 running on the WSR, then they should, in theory, be very slightly longer; they will be the same as on a 5101.  As the '93xx' no.2 boiler is pitched the same as a 5101 and not the same as the no.4 on a 43/73xx, it will not be as long as it would be on a pure 43xx with boiler replaced by a no.2 at the same centre line pitch, which would mean that the steam pipe is longer by the difference in smokebox radius, but as the 93xx smokebox is further away from the cylinders than a 43xx one by dint of the former's smaller diameter smokebox, it should be slightly longer, though I would think a fraction of an inch is involved.

 

Just read that back, and it's a bit convoluted.  Try to read it in phrases, not whole sentences, it might make some sense then!

[No Decorum]

Agree. Cosmetic body-issues aside, I think the key factor with new tooling is whether new models run and perform significantly better/smoother than older ones.

 

That's a whole area we are not in a position to comment on. We never get to see transmission designs before its too late.

Absolutely. Of course I want stuff as close to perfection as possible but I can forgive a locomotive model a lot if it runs well. In particular, if it judders into motion, any illusion of reality is shattered. A lot of detail isn’t visible from three feet away but juddering certainly is, and so is the sports-car acceleration sometimes used to overcome it.

 

Models can have a very high spec. “five-pole, skew-wound motor” for example, but unless the motors which do not perform as they should are weeded out, we can end up with very variable performance. The same goes for drive trains and motion.

 

About the only guide we have is what manufacturers have produced recently. I have an uneasy feeling that Hornby models are slipping from their formerly consistently smooth, quiet and powerful performance to rather more variable running. Dapol’s 68s give me hope but how the little B4 performs will be informative.

[Miss Prism]

If by 93xx you mean the rebuilt 5101 running on the WSR

 

No, Johnster. That's a modern oddball. I mean lot 276 of 1932. (Not covered by Dapol.) It's possible they had smokebox mods in BR days when numbered 7322–7341.

[Karhedron]

Remind me - what was the transition point from tall thin motionplate to lower flanged ones on the Moguls - was it 5380 or 5390?

5380 I think (need to check my books when I get home).

 

There was another change introduced with 5390 that basically set the standard for the rest of the Churchward locos up to 7321 but I cannot remember off the top of my head what it was.

[Miss Prism]

There was another change introduced with 5390 that basically set the standard for the rest of the Churchward locos up to 7321 but I cannot remember off the top of my head what it was.

 

The repositioning of the reversing rod and right-hand side splasher changes.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Miss Prism

[Miss Prism]

6390 in 1929 at Paddington, on ECS duties I think - note the target marker. Still with flush-riveted smokebox, and the coverpatch over the old superheater damper position, tall safety valve, reversing rod outside the splashers and 'box' over the vacuum pump, cab portholes plated over, steel roof (not sure when these became standard for new-build), largeboss COS driving wheels, early Churchward taper buffers, early flush-riveted 3500g. And red-body headlamp of course.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6 by Miss Prism
image-reinstated

[MGR Hooper!]

Still cannot figure out why people are terming this as a surprise announcement and saying Dapol are hurriedly announcing it as they've heard someone else is doing it... thought this was the general style of announcements from Dapol?

[Miss Prism]

Possibly because we have become used to an era where there are 'announcements about announcements' etc, so Dapol's style is unique amongst the big RTR outfits.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Miss Prism

[gwrrob]

Richard Webster [Lionheart] now of Dapol has stated on the digest that the 43xx will follow his 7mm version in what they intend to reproduce.

 

[The Stationmaster]

No that’s unlikely as you say. I’m thinking here Hornby King and Hattons/DJM King where the early bird most definitely captured the worm . But how likely is it that an unannounced model is going to be on dealers shelves in March 2018?

 

But equally how likely is it that an announced model will be on the shelves by March 2019?

 

I've not looked at the mogul in details so can't comment but if the prairie CAD represents something like about 9 months of work to get it to the stage where just a few minor changes will be needed before pressing the buttons to start tooling then we're either going to get a not very good large prairie or the CAD has been unveiled with much work left to do, and not just a few simple mods and minor adjustments.  Just read what Miss Prism has posted on Dapol Digest and the size of the task to get the prairie right becomes apparent; in fact it might be quicker to start again above footplate level rand throw away a few thousand £s worth of work?

 

So are we looking at a couple of 'place grabbers' which might have been timed to beat January announcements or are we seriously looking at what, on usual timescales, are meant to be near final CADs which would shortly be going to tooling in order to give time for EPs, corrections, then production prototypes and any further corrections,  and finally livery samples in order to really get them into the shops by March 2019?  That's an awful lot to squeeze into what amounts to little over a 12 month timescale before one starts allowing for Chinese holiday periods and shipping dates if these aren't as near the final CADs as we're going to get.

[tomparryharry]

Still cannot figure out why people are terming this as a surprise announcement and saying Dapol are hurriedly announcing it as they've heard someone else is doing it... thought this was the general style of announcements from Dapol?

 

Well, it is a bit of surprise, but we've been talking about an uprated large prairie for a couple of months now. It's a pretty low-key affair, given the indifference shown by the so-called 'large' producers. However, RM webbers have by and large kept it polite, informal & informative. Dapol have shown their hand, and are to be congratulated. Miss P, on post 217, seems to have hit the nail on the head. Surprises are just that, surprises. As it stands, no-one has mentioned the words 'rush' or hurried. In fact, that's probably the very worst terms you want to hear. 

 

Give them a chance. The Dapol announcement is now only 5 days old...... 

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Marshall5]

Remind me - what was the transition point from tall thin motionplate to lower flanged ones on the Moguls - was it 5380 or 5390?

Off the top of my head (I can't get to my notes or copy of David Andrews' excellent book on Moguls at the moment) the last 53xx to have the old style motion plate was 5384 and the first without the long splasher on the driver's side was 5390 so 5 locos had the long splasher but 'new' style motion plate! The class is a modellers nightmare as there are so many anomalies like this. Around 5390 the cab roof became 6" longer, it seems.  As time went on most of the class received now cylinders with outside steampipes but not all - many went to the scrapyard without them.

My favourite 'oddball' is 5399, well known on the Ruabon - Barmouth line up to 1964. It was, of course, built with the new style motion plate and inside steampipes and ran so through 1956 but It came out of Swindon early in 1957 with outside steampipe cylinders, an old type motion plate and long driver's side splasher!  AFAIK no other Moguls swapped motion plates (even if it is possible to do so) and my supposition is that Swindon did one of its 'identity changes' and that the loco outshopped with 5399's plates was reassembled on the frames of 5307 or 5317 which were being scrapped at the same time. To add a further variation 5399 buffers were changed from the taper type to the parallel pattern a couple of years later.

As always the advice is to study a contemporary photo.

Ray

[The Stationmaster]

Remind me - what was the transition point from tall thin motionplate to lower flanged ones on the Moguls - was it 5380 or 5390?

 

According to the RCTS work the change to the motion bar cross frame was made from 5384 onwards, i.e. part way through Lot 209 and even partway through the batch of 10 built in 1920.  This does sound a little odd and as yet I am unable to find photographic confirmation or indeed any sort of original source confirmatory evidence.

 

The original 93XX series were of course considerable different in appearance from earlier engines with not only outside steampipes (which many earlier engines acquired of course when cylinders were renewed) but also side window cabs and screw reversers.

[The Stationmaster]

Off the top of my head (I can't get to my notes or copy of David Andrews' excellent book on Moguls at the moment) the last 53xx to have the old style motion plate was 5384 and the first without the long splasher on the driver's side was 5390 so 5 locos had the long splasher but 'new' style motion plate! The class is a modellers nightmare as there are so many anomalies like this. Around 5390 the cab roof became 6" longer, it seems.  As time went on most of the class received now cylinders with outside steampipes but not all - many went to the scrapyard without them.

My favourite 'oddball' is 5399, well known on the Ruabon - Barmouth line up to 1964. It was, of course, built with the new style motion plate and inside steampipes and ran so through 1956 but It came out of Swindon early in 1957 with outside steampipe cylinders, an old type motion plate and long driver's side splasher!  AFAIK no other Moguls swapped motion plates (even if it is possible to do so) and my supposition is that Swindon did one of its 'identity changes' and that the loco outshopped with 5399's plates was reassembled on the frames of 5307 or 5317 which were being scrapped at the same time. To add a further variation 5399 buffers were changed from the taper type to the parallel pattern a couple of years later.

As always the advice is to study a contemporary photo.

Ray

5399 Ruabon 7 Apr 1962.jpg

That's a number swop I think.  The motion bar cross frame would have remained with the original frames - they certainly didn't change when the cylinders were renewed (as that picture shows) so as you suggest it is probably 5399's number plate put onto what had been either 5307 or 5317 (both of which were withdrawn in November 1956)

[The Stationmaster]

Which is why I qualified my assumption with 'possibly'.  It's not exactly like for like, as the Duchess is one of the flagship models, a front line pacific, liable to attract a lot more attention and probable sales than a run of the mill prairie not even that suitable for branch line modelling, but I accept your point!

 

I would think a really good re-work of the prairie would attract quite a lot of attention - as well as depleting my bank balance and giving my 'local' model shops some profitable cheer.  In the meanwhile I have a Wills kit sitting on the sidelines with wheels and motor already in stock  (unlined green livery and a 41XX number of course)

[6892 Oakhill Grange]

 

According to the RCTS work the change to the motion bar cross frame was made from 5384 onwards, i.e. part way through Lot 209 and even partway through the batch of 10 built in 1920.  This does sound a little odd and as yet I am unable to find photographic confirmation or indeed any sort of original source confirmatory evidence.

 

The original 93XX series were of course considerable different in appearance from earlier engines with not only outside steampipes (which many earlier engines acquired of course when cylinders were renewed) but also side window cabs and screw reversers.

In Maidment’s Moguls and Prairies, there is a photo of 5380 showing old type and 5384 showing the later (Pages 124 and 128).

[Miss Prism]

Just read what Miss Prism has posted on Dapol Digest and the size of the task to get the prairie right becomes apparent; in fact it might be quicker to start again above footplate level rand throw away a few thousand £s worth of work?

 

I hope I'm not going to be sent the bill...