RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted December 26, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 26, 2019 Does anyone know of any resin or etched parts available to reproduce the streamlined uglies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted December 26, 2019 Share Posted December 26, 2019 The Diesel railcars or the locomotives? The design of the latter was actually quite effective, but really just a '30s fashion fad and useless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiggy1969 Posted December 26, 2019 Share Posted December 26, 2019 ive done a few commissions over the last few years and im thinking of doing resin body cast but undecided yet 7 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted December 26, 2019 Share Posted December 26, 2019 The GWR didn't have any uglies or monstrosities. Seriously now. I intend on doing 6014 King Henry VII with the streamlined cab eventually. Mainly because I've got a nice set of name/numberplates for it. The conventional type not the straight nameplates. At least one of the straight plates survives. https://www.flickr.com/photos/70607220@N04/26565089363 Jason 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 The design is certainly no worse than some of the 'designer' horrors from across the pond! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted December 29, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 29, 2019 At least it's an attempt to prevent them all looking the same!! Mike. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 The streamlined King Henry VII, 6014 looks rather like something out of Flash Gordon.... Collet didn't want to do any streamlined locos, he took the view that lateral wind pressure on a locomotive-hauled train was more significant than head on pressure, and that no amount of streamlining of the loco would make things better. When pressured by the Board to come up with an answer to the LNER and LMS efforts he took a model and faired in various protruberances with modelling clay*. At least the GWR only streamlined 5005 and 6014! I would say that they were ideosyncratic rather than ugly, and it was probably a cheaper solution to a management demand than the overall casing that other railways used. The railcars were a different matter, they looked the part and being mainly single units, the streamlining effect would possibly have been more significant. * An O.S.Nock anecdote, so take with the quantity of Siberia you deem necessary.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearwater Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 I think 6014 retained its vshaped can until scrapping and a consequence to the smoke box door meant headcode numbers couldn’t be affixed but were instead attached to the buffers. Did 5005 have the same issues? If not, why not? David 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Hroth said: The streamlined King Henry VII, 6014 looks rather like something out of Flash Gordon.... Collet didn't want to do any streamlined locos, he took the view that lateral wind pressure on a locomotive-hauled train was more significant than head on pressure, and that no amount of streamlining of the loco would make things better. When pressured by the Board to come up with an answer to the LNER and LMS efforts he took a model and faired in various protruberances with modelling clay*. At least the GWR only streamlined 5005 and 6014! I would say that they were ideosyncratic rather than ugly, and it was probably a cheaper solution to a management demand than the overall casing that other railways used. The railcars were a different matter, they looked the part and being mainly single units, the streamlining effect would possibly have been more significant. * An O.S.Nock anecdote, so take with the quantity of Siberia you deem necessary.... They both date from the thirties and reflect the fashion of the day. The alleged modelling clay at least shows a knowledge of the problem, smoothing off the flat front surfaces and flaring off the rear drag areas. However the streamlining only has any effect at high speed. The first? attempts date from the 19th century http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/bec/bec.htm Stanier also thought it a waste of time, but then he learned his trade at Swindon too. I think 5005 later acquired a flat fronted cab, but may be wrong on this. Edited December 29, 2019 by Il Grifone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted January 2, 2020 Share Posted January 2, 2020 (edited) Funny thing about the much maligned Collett treatment is how many later designs are in the same vein. Most recently the 5AT proposal. Remove the blinkers and... Edited January 2, 2020 by JimC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkirby Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 (edited) I have modelled 5005 in the past, and can tell you that EMA model supplies sell (or used to?) a hemisphere exactly the right size to fit an Airfix / GMR Castle body shell. Regards, Neil Edited February 3, 2021 by neilkirby typo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiggy1969 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 i had a batched turned up in nylon 66 for both the king and the castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 Does anyone happen to know whether the parabolic nose fitted to 6014 (and a number of the PLMs express locos) was actually the smokebox door or something fitted separately, In either case how was it secured since it obviously had to be removed more or less daily to clean and service the smokebox? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 The GWR nose was just a covering with two hinges on the firemans side, that open out to give access to the conventional GWR smokebox. Mike Wiltshire 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 Thanks Mike I don't know if the PLM "cigar" fronts were the same but I suspect so though sources refer to them as having been replaced by a conventional smokebox door. I don't know how much the "Prandtl" nose would have add to the time needed to clean out the smokebox of the King but I'll bet it was cursed in the sheds . This came up in an article about smokeboxes I'm editing for the next French Railways Society Journal, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 On 02/01/2020 at 13:53, JimC said: Funny thing about the much maligned Collett treatment is how many later designs are in the same vein. Most recently the 5AT proposal. Remove the blinkers and... That looks rather a lot like one of André Chapelon's proposed designs? Enough nods to streamlining to keep the image people happy but nothing that actually gets in the way. Like Collett, Chapelon too was very sceptical about external streamlining but not about streamlining the actual steam cycle inside the engine. Streamlining was though far more about image than engineering but, with the railways facing increasing competition from "sleek" and "modern" cars and aeroplanes, that wasn't a trivial consideration. They had to try to lose the image of being a Victorian transport system and streamlining steam locos (with close to bu**erall effect on performance) was one way of doing that. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium NCB Posted February 2, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2021 I've often wondered about how an A4 would look without the streamlining. Like an A3? Or maybe not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted February 3, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2021 10 hours ago, NCB said: I've often wondered about how an A4 would look without the streamlining. Like an A3? Or maybe not. https://images.app.goo.gl/q9qr6qYtpXHFLQD98 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 6 hours ago, Hal Nail said: https://images.app.goo.gl/q9qr6qYtpXHFLQD98 Those images are interesting. Obviously the unclad boiler barrel makes the boiler look very thin and you'd presumably fit a conventional smokebox and lose the curved footplate. Having done those fairly minor mods yes I think it would look very similar to an A3, rather as a GWR King looks very similar to a Castle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 As the 17ft A4 boilers were fitted to A3s which originally had 18 ft ones its a pretty sure bet an un streamlined A4 would have looked like an A3. It would have looked mighty odd if the boiler had been shortened without lengthening the smokebox to compensate. Its a feature of the Holcroft / Gresley 3 cylinder set up that the inside cylinder is slightly behind the outside ones whereas GW a( including Stanier) and North British loco co designs, Royal Scot./ B17 , and Thompson lash ups all have the inside cylinders in front of he outside ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium NCB Posted February 3, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2021 I found it interesting that the A4 streamlining seemed to disguise the bulk of the locomotive, resulting in an elegant well-balanced profile. They didn't seem as large as an A3, although they were. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 4 hours ago, DavidCBroad said: As the 17ft A4 boilers were fitted to A3s which originally had 18 ft ones its a pretty sure bet an un streamlined A4 would have looked like an A3. It would have looked mighty odd if the boiler had been shortened without lengthening the smokebox to compensate. Its a feature of the Holcroft / Gresley 3 cylinder set up that the inside cylinder is slightly behind the outside ones whereas GW a( including Stanier) and North British loco co designs, Royal Scot./ B17 , and Thompson lash ups all have the inside cylinders in front of he outside ones. Hi David, The fire box was lengthened by the addition of larger combustion chamber, this gave a larger crown sheet area for a loss of tube length of 12". Externally the only difference is how many stay heads there would be in the rear part of the boiler barrel, the front tube plates of both boiler types are in the same place relative to the rear of the smoke box. You can see the fire box outline in this weight diagram of an A4, the tube plate is about in line with the axle of the rear driving wheels. With the A3 boiler it is set a foot further back. http://www.railalbum.co.uk/steam-locomotives/images-lnera4/classa4-diagram.jpg Gibbo. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5050 Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 (edited) I remember seeing 6014 at Taunton when I was a lad, c.1958/59, and noticing the wedge shaped cab. At the time I wasn't sure what it was - but before long I did! It was coupled to a train of Chocolate and Cream Centenary stock and the recessed doors impressed me at the time - but, like the cab, I had no idea what the coaches were. If only I could go back and take another look..................... Edited April 9, 2021 by 5050 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7821 Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 6 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 On 02/02/2021 at 19:54, NCB said: I've often wondered about how an A4 would look without the streamlining. Like an A3? Or maybe not. Like this https://blog.railwaymuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/024.jpg Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now