Locomotive scale drawings

[Conory]

I've often wondered what is the original source of drawings such as Skinley and Roche.

 

Also where would magazine contributors such as Ian Beattie have got their information from?

 

I presume kit manufacturers would have used drawings by some of the above.

 

When I acquired a load of kits with no chassis I used Ian Beattie's R M drawings where available, or bought Skinleys so that I could trace the outline of the frames.

 

Just curious

 

Thanks

 

Julian

[Horsetan]

That is an interesting question. All of the protagonists in your posting are now deceased, so the horses' mouths are lost to us.

 

I would hope that some of them gleaned their information from original works drawings and / or examination of a sample prototype - not an easy thing to do. It is unfortunate that, if you are seeking actual detail other than measurements, e.g. fitting of AWS equipment, or electric lighting generators, not all drawings can do this. I suppose if you are using drawings for chassis frame purposes only, then you are probably on safer ground, as wheelbases are generally widely-known enough for mistakes not to be made.

 

It is known that Roche, Skinley and Beattie drawings all contain errors in one form or another. Roche is probably the most notorious now, because although his measurements (such as wheelbase) were generally correct, the way in which he depicted detail often wasn't! (The Maunsell "U" class is a prime example, where he managed to combine elements of new-build and "rebuilt River" on the same engine, leading to confusion all round).

 

The later drawings that the late Mr. Beattie produced for RM throughout the '80s and '90s were somewhat better presented and annotated than the early ones that he drew for the old Ian Allan book series "Locomotives to Scale" (most of which should be avoided at any cost!)

[Peter Bedding]

Hello Julian

 

It rather depends on which railway, and which period. My very narrow LSWR interests are well served by photocopies of original Eastleigh drawings, many of which have been published (albeit much reduced in size) by Bradley. The Eastleigh authorities were widely believed to have ordered the destruction of their archive, some years ago. Fortunately much was saved by amateur historians, and copies taken and distributed. (I have a small selection). The OPC aqcuired a quantity, for commercial copying, but I believe that they attempted to claim copyright. Also, much has found its way into the safe hands of the HMRS.

 

The late J N Maskelyne published two books of loco plans; samples from many pre-grouping companies. He made his own drawings, almost certainly from original DO sources, and they are works of art.

 

Hth

 

PB

[bertiedog]

J N Maskelyne was the best, he measured direct as well as having access to the then new works drawings, as a respected publisher of drawings. The Companies were helpful in the old days, the CME would want drawings and pictures of new locos to be distributed via the Railway Press. Many designers and modellers were qualified engineers, and easily got access to the works drawings, and Mr Maskelyne was a personal friend of many a CME during the period he published.

 

 

It is far more difficult these days, it is all now archive material, or in preservation, and difficulties abound about access and copyright, as well as charging for access.

 

As with all models take the drawings as basically accurate, with details taken from photographs. The Roche drawings are in the main accurate, and he got details right most of the time, bar some errors on Southern classes, mentioned above.

 

The general standard is good enough for most models, and if the detailing is not enough, then your on your own! It is a matter of a blend between practicality and how far you want to detail the model.

[Steph Dale]

Julian,

 

I've prepared the odd set of drawings for publication in the model railway press and as has been postulated above, I tend to use General Arrangement drawings (where available) as a start. From there specific Arrangements (e.g Sections, Pipe and Rod, Motion) can be used to add specific details. I always cross-refer to photos and it's not unusual to have (or at least request) 300-500 specific detail images available if the prototype is still in existance.

 

If drawing something that no longer exists then it's a case of as many photos as possible, plus details of any similar locos (or locos using the same standardisation) that are about. Great care and sensible judgement is required in these cases though.

 

I tended to master at 12mm/ft when working up on paper (with pencil). This allows me to prepare a 'composite' showing detail changes. From there I can take tracings (drafting film and ink) to make up the views for publication. If the drawing is for publication at 7mm/ft I have been known to master at 14mm/ft as it makes life easier at the reduction stage.

 

Your comment about the use of drawings by manufacturers is insightful: I have seen some drafting errors reproduced on models (though, irritatingly, can't think of an example) so I know it happens. All the best models (whether made privately or by manufacturers) seem to come about by being developed from original source information, but even then mistakes can be made.

 

Of course the advent of the home PC and things like 3d scanners have made the physical work (drafting) less back breaking and I do sometimes wonder if it's made some lazy in other areas too. The research still needs doing after all: the same as it would if you were making a model from scratch! Oh and yes, I do use a PC now for most 'quick' drawings or for formal artwork. For my own enjoyment I do still sometimes prepare drawings by hand for models I'm building, particularly if there are no easy references to the prototype; I find it helps me visualise how the model fits and establishes the line and lie of the prototype.

 

I hope that helps answer your question.

 

Peter,

 

In the specific case of the LSWR I can assure you that much of the original material survives at the NRM, including the OPC microfilm. The OPC list is where Bradley seems to have got the versions he was using: that's why the 'T9' drawing in the Drummond book is actually a 'C8': it's not been correctly catalogued in the OPC list! There's also good stuff in the South Western Circle collection(s). There is also the curve-ball of some almost-'symbology' in use in the Nine Elms/Eastleigh GAs, which means most (particularly Drummond-era) can't be taken and used verbatim...

 

Steph

[industrial]

Mr Beattie used other peoples drawings as his main source, as in the case of the B1 he put the same mistake as was on the original drawing he used, also some of the drawings such as the School class he did a fresh drawing of the front elevation as the windows were incorrect when it came out.

[Conory]

This is fascinating information.

 

Thanks to all for the replies.

 

Julian

[Horsetan]

Mr Beattie used other peoples drawings as his main source, as in the case of the B1 he put the same mistake as was on the original drawing he used, also some of the drawings such as the School class he did a fresh drawing of the front elevation as the windows were incorrect when it came out.

 

He also made a mistake on the Maunsell "Q" class, as he forgot that the footplate is not totally straight!

[Etched Pixels]

There were lots of official publications that provided basic drawings - I've got a copy of a BR post nationalisation book for example which has outline drawings of lots of classes, but there were better ones too. Some of them were rather good and lasted as sources until the 1970s. Some of the official drawings also simply "escaped" when documents were dumped. At one point I had the complete wiring diagrams for one of the peaks (its now in the hands of one of the preserved peak groups).

 

For modern stuff a lot of it you have to do by working from photographic material unfortunately, or by finding obscure engineering publication material here and there. Most of them consider everything to be secret, controlled and to be locked up in the manner of the medæval guilds. To be fair some are helpful, and I've had general drawings from a couple of companies by return of email, and in one case the deal is that if I ever complete the kit (which given its a complex one is not going to happen until the recession is over) they get a kit for their troubles.

 

For both modern stuff and early stuff where drawings are incomplete or lost there are thankfully now a lot of very sophisticated perspective correction tools around so you can digitally flatten images with great accuracy even when taken at awkward angles.

 

In terms of sources one interesting tidbit comes from the book "British Railway Locomotives" published in 1944. It says on the inside page

 

"Compiled by THE RAILWAY GAZETTE from official drawings supplied by the Chief Mechanical Engineers of the four main-line railways, and by the Ministry of Supply"

 

(and my copy is stamped "Vulcan Foundry Ltd Library" so while its only outline drawings and statistics I hope it was accurate!)

[62613]

Never EVER take even an 'official' drawing as 'gospel'! I have lost count of the number of times I've gone on a site to find that even basic measurements as given on a G.A. are incorrect, never mind the actual plant layout, which the plant erector may modify to make it easier for him (and the operators) to fit and run, and the feedback is not fed back to the draughtsman. So even 'as built' drawings may not be correct.

[paul 27]

I was thinking of purchasing the Bradford Barton copy 1981  Br Standard Loco Drawings,  are these the same as printed in Railway Modeller.

[JeffP]

I would have a look at one first. The drawings are, shall we say, quite basic.

[KalKat]

The drawings published in Railway Modeller are much better then those in the Bradford Barton publication

[Bruciethefish]

I agree, many of the drawings in the Bradford Barton series are just plain wrong.. He couldn't even get the right number of steps on a STD 3 tank's bunker correct...

[paul 27]

Drawn & Descibed Collection of Loco Drawings  Ian Beattie,   Peco Publications  are there any Br Standards.

[kevinlms]

Drawn & Descibed Collection of Loco Drawings  Ian Beattie,   Peco Publications  are there any Br Standards.

Post 2 in this thread shows 4 standards. List is a bit blurry

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73306-ian-beatties-drawn-and-described/

 

Also

 

BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 1996 June

BR Standard Class 9 Franco-Crosti 2-10-0 1997 July

BR Standard Class 3 2-6-2T 1999 April

BR Standard Class 4 4-6-0 1990 December

BR Standard Class 4 2-6-4T 1991 July

BR Standard Class 7 "Britannia" 4-6-2 1994 October

 

 

 

That's all I have, doubtless more.

1994 April has a listing of Railway Modeller loco drawings to date, as a supplement. Since 1980?  There are 141 of them!