Traeth Mawr -Building Mr Price's house , (mostly)

[Edwardian]

On 15/04/2020 at 22:22, ChrisN said:

This is a double update.  I decided to save time I would photograph two things side by side, but then realised I would need to cut and paste so why not just show them together.  If you have ever had a conversation on MSN where you talk about two subjects at once this will be no problem, if you have spoken to two people at once on more than two subjects this will be a doddle.  

 

 

 

On the left is the 645.  I have attacked it with Milliput and tried to fill the grooves I missed earlier.  I also gave two Preiser ladies who are going to be servants in the houses I will build eventually, skirts of the appropriate length.  I pushed it in with a knife and then using my fingers damped with water I smeared the excess off.  I assumed it would be very difficult to sand as it dries very hard.  I thought it looked good.

 

On the right is what appears to be a wagon.  It is.  Now you may ask, 1) why a wagon when the thread sub title is building coaches, and 2) why start something else when you cannot even finish all the rest?  The answer to two is that this is finishable in the short term, and I actually started it so long ago it was before I changed the thread title.  It is a Chatham Kits wagon, now sold by Chris Cox of 5and9.  (Well, actually the web site says it is unavailable but I think several of the same kits are sold with different PO transfers.)  I bought this, I think, from a stand at ExpoEM in 2016 so it has no transfers.  It is a whitemetal kit with a brass floor that I have put together with superglue.  It will be for Robert Parry, the coal merchant.  It has been sitting in a box half built for years.  I would take it to work with me to make in the evening when I was away.  It never got ade and in the end I left it at home.  I forgot to take pictures as it was being built.  The difficult bit was filing back the brake shoes so they did not foul the wheels, and putting a rod of brass between the V hanger and the brake gear.

 

 

 

So I wrapped the wagon in masking tape and sprayed it with primer so only the underside and inside was grey.  I removed the wheels and cut little squares of masking tape to cover the inside of the bearing.  I was a bit worried that if I put the springs on both sides I would not be able to remove the wheels, so the other side have not been attached yet.

 

The loco was sprayed with filler/primer to try and fill any holes.  You may notice that there is still a groove where the tank divisions were.  

 

 

It is clearer on this one.  So I got some old Humbrol filler and filled every little hole I could find, then sanded it down when dry.

 

 

So you can see it has been sanded and the funnel etc fitted, but not glued in place.

 

You can see the wagon has been sprayed Red Oxide Primer.  I taped around the bottom to try and keep it grey.  It sort of worked.  You will notice the masking tape over the bearings.  

 

I Googled Indian Red which I thought was the colour of GWR buffer beams in the 19th century, and it came back that it was Red Oxide.  Is the colour of the wagon the same as the one I should put on the buffer beams.

 

 

This is a bit overexposed and shows up where I need to sand the primer as I was a bit over enthusiastic in places.  What it also does is shows the relative sizes of the parts.  I am happy with the height of the chimney, but I do not think the dome is fat enough, as compared to here.  I am not sure what to do.  I have not seen other domes, and it will not eat the cream cakes I have offered it.  I shall continue to look out for fatter ones.  The chimney needs seating properly, in fact the dome and the valves do as well. 

 

The whistles and buffers are on order, and the rivets and Microsol arrived today.  (Well, Saturday really but they have been in quarantine.)

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

 

Chris, great work on the brass and card coaches; I am both envious and inspired.

 

I seem to have lost the point when the GW saddle tank came on the scene.  I infer it is a 3D print, and I'm wondering if it's the Stafford Road Models "1701 Class", in fact a series from the 1854 Class.  If so, that bodes well inasmuch as wheel diameter and wheel base will be the same as the 645 Class.

 

Is there any particular reason for choosing No. 772?  I say that because I fear the body you are using may not be suitable.

 

As you note, the loco started with short tanks, and you assume that it was rebuilt to full-length tanks by 1895, but I fear that this was probably not so.

 

In general, we should probably not assume a brass dome with these engines. The domes seem to have been painted when built, as with your picture of 772, though Southern Division locos are said to have gained polished brass domes and Dean chimneys early on.  Note your linked picture at Moreton shows a painted dome.

 

Turning to the 1895 condition of 772, she received a W3 boiler in July 1891, and was apparently not reboilered again until she became a B4 (belpaire) pannier in 1917.

 

The RCTS volume notes, however, that "Engines known to or believed to have retained short tanks when rebuilt" included 772.

 

The W3 boiler had a mid-boiler dome position, and the domes, evidently in polished brass for the members of the 645 class so treated, were noticeably larger than the (evidently painted) dome shown in your earlier condition picture of 772.

 

I do not have a picture of 772 in her 1891 condition, but below is a picture of 765, which had been rebuilt with the same W3 boiler/U5b tank combination in 1889.  Note the cab backsheet, which is associated with Northern Division class members. 

 

This is what I would expect 772 to have looked like in 1895:  

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Edwardian
spelling

[corneliuslundie]

I use HMRS transfers for my PO wagons, though the sheets are expensive for just one or two.

In 1895 I doubt if the livery would have been very flamboyant, so you might be able to cannibalise from company transfer sheets. I often do, in fact I have to for the Rhymney. And of you have any of those Slaters transfer sheets which come with their PO wagons there are usually plenty of spare numbers and other bits. I assume your coal merchant will either number his wagon 1 or the year he bought it. 

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

26 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Chris, great work on the brass and card coaches; I am both envious and inspired.

 

I seem to have lost the point when the GW saddle tank came on the scene.  I infer it is a 3D print, and I'm wondering if it's the Stafford Road Models "1701 Class", in fact a series from the 1854 Class.  If so, that bodes well inasmuch as wheel diameter and wheel base will be the same as the 645 Class.

 

 

James,

Thank you.  This is indeed the Stafford Road Models print, and it must have been bought before Christmas 2018, as I managed to buy two Hornby Railroad Pannier tanks for my grandson for his Christmas present.  He only needed one, so I took the other.  I also bought the Dome etc at ExpoEM last year.  It has taken a while to get where it is now.

 

30 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Is there any particular reason for choosing No. 772?  I say that because I fear the body you are using may not be suitable.

 

As you note, the loco started with short tanks, and you assume that it was rebuilt to full-length tanks by 1895, but I fear that this was probably not so.

 

 

When on holiday I found a book called The Ruabon to Barmouth Line, by Martin Williams which I perused and saw a photo of what I remembered afterwards to be 772 at the front of a train on that line.  It had a full length tank, and having googled the number I found it was a 645 class.  I do not have the book.  My wife said I could buy it if I wanted but I said £30.00 for one picture was a bit much.  (It is now £176.25 second hand on Amazon so perhaps I missed a trick.)    Early pictures of that line are almost like hen's teeth.  It is therefore likely, that a) I remembered the number incorrectly although I think I might have written it down and googled as soon as I got back to our flat, and b) it was later than 1895 although if it had had a date on the photo later than 1895 I would have dismissed it. I believe that 645 received its long tank in 1894 and 766 in 1893 so one for 772 in 1895 is possible

 

As for the dome.  I had thought that they were painted, however, in this photo, it appears to be polished.  I agree that the Moreton in the Marsh photo appears painted but it is very clean as it reflects amazingly.  It also has a different chimney to the Wood End photo.  The other photo of a loco with a polished dome is in fact the same loco.  All the others appear painted, which is how I was going to do it until the doubt set in.  

 

The worst outcome is that I will have to buy another set of number plates from Narrow Planet.

 

Thank you again

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

I use HMRS transfers for my PO wagons, though the sheets are expensive for just one or two.

In 1895 I doubt if the livery would have been very flamboyant, so you might be able to cannibalise from company transfer sheets. I often do, in fact I have to for the Rhymney. And of you have any of those Slaters transfer sheets which come with their PO wagons there are usually plenty of spare numbers and other bits. I assume your coal merchant will either number his wagon 1 or the year he bought it. 

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Thank you.  I need to get a sheet for the loco and coaches so I will look for a suitable one for the wagons.  Eventually I will be making wagons, after the coaches and locos which in my original plan was year three...…….

[Edwardian]

52 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

James,

Thank you.  This is indeed the Stafford Road Models print, and it must have been bought before Christmas 2018, as I managed to buy two Hornby Railroad Pannier tanks for my grandson for his Christmas present.  He only needed one, so I took the other.  I also bought the Dome etc at ExpoEM last year.  It has taken a while to get where it is now.

 

 

When on holiday I found a book called The Ruabon to Barmouth Line, by Martin Williams which I perused and saw a photo of what I remembered afterwards to be 772 at the front of a train on that line.  It had a full length tank, and having googled the number I found it was a 645 class.  I do not have the book.  My wife said I could buy it if I wanted but I said £30.00 for one picture was a bit much.  (It is now £176.25 second hand on Amazon so perhaps I missed a trick.)    Early pictures of that line are almost like hen's teeth.  It is therefore likely, that a) I remembered the number incorrectly although I think I might have written it down and googled as soon as I got back to our flat, and b) it was later than 1895 although if it had had a date on the photo later than 1895 I would have dismissed it. I believe that 645 received its long tank in 1894 and 766 in 1893 so one for 772 in 1895 is possible

 

As for the dome.  I had thought that they were painted, however, in this photo, it appears to be polished.  I agree that the Moreton in the Marsh photo appears painted but it is very clean as it reflects amazingly.  It also has a different chimney to the Wood End photo.  The other photo of a loco with a polished dome is in fact the same loco.  All the others appear painted, which is how I was going to do it until the doubt set in.  

 

The worst outcome is that I will have to buy another set of number plates from Narrow Planet.

 

Thank you again

 

I see now why you have done as you have, Chris. Doubt remains, however.

 

I was in error earlier in that 772 received a B4 belpaire box in 1917, but the 'P' notation was for P Class boiler, not panniers.  This is all immaterial from your point of view, however.

 

There would seem, logically, 4 possibilities:

 

1. 772 is one of those "believed", rather than "known" to have retained the short tank when first rebuilt and that your remembered photograph proves the authors of the RCTS series to be incorrect in their belief in this instance.

 

2. You remembered the number incorrectly.  I would not presume to favour this possibility and I note that you made a contemporaneous note, which gives your evidence weight (!)

 

3. The caption writer mis-identified the locomotive number.  That possibility rather depends upon whether the number was clearly visible on the plate itself.

 

4. Without receiving a further boiler, 772 received an extended or replaced tank sometime prior to 1895.  Here I note that RCTS says nothing in support of such a practice.

 

Any of these are possible.  Only the picture can show which, or at least narrow down the choice.  I suggest you put the call out for anyone who has a copy of this book! 

 

As to domes, the picture of 766, which was given a R3 boiler in 1893, I would say that this is one of many pictures in which it is difficult to distinguish green paint from polished brass, but I would have said that we are looking at a painted dome, so I'd be interested to see the other picture of 766 you mention.  766 is not noted in RCTS as receiving a brass dome.

 

EDIT:

 

Another picture of 766, and, again, I would judge the dome to be painted.

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Edwardian
Picture

[ChrisN]

7 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I see now why you have done as you have, Chris. Doubt remains, however.

 

I was in error earlier in that 772 received a B4 belpaire box in 1917, but the 'P' notation was for P Class boiler, not panniers.  This is all immaterial from your point of view, however.

 

There would seem, logically, 4 possibilities:

 

1. 772 is one of those "believed", rather than "known" to have retained the short tank when first rebuilt and that your remembered photograph proves the authors of the RCTS series to be incorrect in their belief in this instance.

 

2. You remembered the number incorrectly.  I would not presume to favour this possibility and I note that you made a contemporaneous note, which gives your evidence weight (!)

 

3. The caption writer mis-identified the locomotive number.  That possibility rather depends upon whether the number was clearly visible on the plate itself.

 

4. Without receiving a further boiler, 772 received an extended or replaced tank sometime prior to 1895.  Here I note that RCTS says nothing in support of such a practice.

 

Any of these are possible.  Only the picture can show which, or at least narrow down the choice.  I suggest you put the call out for anyone who has a copy of this book! 

 

As to domes, the picture of 766, which was given a R3 boiler in 1893, I would say that this is one of many pictures in which it is difficult to distinguish green paint from polished brass, but I would have said that we are looking at a painted dome, so I'd be interested to see the other picture of 766 you mention.  766 is not noted in RCTS as receiving a brass dome.

 

James,

Thank you again.  This is the other photo.  If it is green paint then it is highly polished.  Have they not read that real locos always get dirty really quickly!  I am surprised that they used gloss varnish and not satin varnish, it is much more realistic.  

 

I will look for a second hand copy of this book, one that does not cost £176.25.

[corneliuslundie]

I don't have the Ruabon to Barmouth book either but I have been in touch with Derek Lowe who worked with the author on the photos. If all else fails I can give you his e-mail address and you can see if he can help with the photo.

Jonathan

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, ChrisN said:

 

James,

Thank you again.  This is the other photo.  If it is green paint then it is highly polished.  Have they not read that real locos always get dirty really quickly!  I am surprised that they used gloss varnish and not satin varnish, it is much more realistic.  

 

I will look for a second hand copy of this book, one that does not cost £176.25.

 

It's really hard to tell, but I think that shows a painted dome!

[richbrummitt]

I've held back a day before deciding that I should tell you this, especially having read the discussion with Edwardian above.

 

It might be the viewing angle but in the photos I think your model has a very Swindon looking cab side sheet. Wolverhampton used a different kind of shape to the opening. This is self evident when you look at photographs. I thought I'd have to remake the ones for my model of 769 in the early-mid 1920s until I saw a photograph that showed that by then 769 was very much Swindon-ised and I did have to remake the brake pull rods and replace the front guard irons that I'd removed. I believe in the 19th century the cab was probably as built.

[ChrisN]

29 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

It's really hard to tell, but I think that shows a painted dome!

 

The later ones definitely were painted so I shall paint it.  However, if anyone says that it needs to be weathered......

 

Thank you again.

[ChrisN]

51 minutes ago, richbrummitt said:

I've held back a day before deciding that I should tell you this, especially having read the discussion with Edwardian above.

 

It might be the viewing angle but in the photos I think your model has a very Swindon looking cab side sheet. Wolverhampton used a different kind of shape to the opening. This is self evident when you look at photographs. I thought I'd have to remake the ones for my model of 769 in the early-mid 1920s until I saw a photograph that showed that by then 769 was very much Swindon-ised and I did have to remake the brake pull rods and replace the front guard irons that I'd removed. I believe in the 19th century the cab was probably as built.

 

Thank you.  It is amazing that you can look at the images and see the chimneys, the domes, the tanks, the rivets and completely miss the opening of the cab.  I shall have to think seriously how I shall deal with that as it is not an easy.

[NCB]

Chris

I have the Martin F Williams book. I think you're referring to the pic on page 126 taken at Corwen. Digging out my magnifying glass the number on the engine is clearly 772, as the caption claims.

 

I think with the domes in the pics it's just light reflecting off them, rather than them being polished brass.

Nigel

Edited April 20, 2020 by NCB

[ChrisN]

8 hours ago, NCB said:

Chris

I have the Martin F Williams book. I think you're referring to the pic on page 126 taken at Corwen. Digging out my magnifying glass the number on the engine is clearly 772, as the caption claims.

 

I think with the domes in the pics it's just light reflecting off them, rather than them being polished brass.

Nigel

 

Nigel,

Thank you, that is really helpful.  At least I know that my memory is not that deficient.  Is the stock that it is pulling visible?

 

Thank you again.

[Edwardian]

12 hours ago, NCB said:

Chris

I have the Martin F Williams book. I think you're referring to the pic on page 126 taken at Corwen. Digging out my magnifying glass the number on the engine is clearly 772, as the caption claims.

 

I think with the domes in the pics it's just light reflecting off them, rather than them being polished brass.

Nigel

 

Given this is 772, the questions are (a) is it dated? and (b) does the loco have a full-length saddle tank, i.e. extending over the smokebox? 

[NCB]

14 hours ago, ChrisN said:

 

Nigel,

Thank you, that is really helpful.  At least I know that my memory is not that deficient.  Is the stock that it is pulling visible?

 

Thank you again.

 

Yep, bogie clerestory stock. It looks as though the mouldings aren't picked out (i.e.they're cream), which suggests the pic is late 1920s, or possibly a bit later. The caption includes the statement "These engines were used extensively on the line but were gradually replaced by larger engines from the 1920s onwards". The train is said to be heading for Ruabon. The engine has a full length saddle tank.

 

Nigel

[ChrisN]

9 hours ago, NCB said:

 

Yep, bogie clerestory stock. It looks as though the mouldings aren't picked out (i.e.they're cream), which suggests the pic is late 1920s, or possibly a bit later. The caption includes the statement "These engines were used extensively on the line but were gradually replaced by larger engines from the 1920s onwards". The train is said to be heading for Ruabon. The engine has a full length saddle tank.

 

Nigel

 

Nigel,

Thank you.  If the coaching stock appears to be late 1920s then 772 was a survivor if the class was replaced from the 20s.

 

I have looked for early photographs of the Ruabon Dolgelley line but they seem few are far between for per 1900.  I think I may have seen two.  The books I have seen are GWR at the earliest and often much later.  I wonder why it was so little photographed, or was it photographed and I am looking in the wrong place?

 

What do we know then?  The 645s were used extensively on the line, although there is no date for their introduction.  The other pictures I have seen have had saddle tank locos with full tanks although probably not 645s. 645s worked the line to Newcastle Emlyn in the 1890s so it is more than possible they were further north at the same time. It is possible that a 645 with a full length tank, maybe of the 1501sub class worked the line.

 

So what to do.

1) The loco is required for a service that never happened.  It is due to pull the last Dolgelley to Traeth Mawr train of the day to Traeth Mawr.  The timetable indicates that the Cambrian train meets the train from Ruabon and takes at least two through coaches from it.  It seems perfectly logical that the Ruabon train could run through.  (This of course would never have been allowed by the Cambrian but in later years Cambrian locos did take whole trains ex Ruabon through on their metals.)  It will add even more variety to the coaching stock displayed, although their is already a large number of GWR through coaches.

2)  The loco is an easy conversion from the 850 to give a reasonable representation of a 645, a loco that was used between Ruabon and Dolgelley.

3) As it is on an R-T-R chassis I know it will work and pull a reasonable amount of stock.  (It will need to pull 4 x 4 wheelers and at least 2 x bogie clerestories.)

4)It is not clear what other 645s worked the line.  I have no idea if shed rotas are available for the GWR for that area.  I know that there is some information for the Cambrian but what is published is patchy.  If it is clear that another 645 was around in 1895 then Narrow Planet will get another order for a number plate.

 

The build is continuing with an update in hopefully a day or so.  I have no paint yet for the body and that will have to wait at least until the lockdown is over so it will probably be running in works grey and un-numbered until then.

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

772 was next re-boilered in 1917.  She never received panniers and was withdrawn in 1934.

 

Given that NCB notes unlined coaches and full length tank, I'd be tempted to assume that she received full a length tank in 1917 and is here pictured in the twilight of her days.

 

It seems, then, that the picture is no kind of evidence that RCTS is wrong to say that 772 retained her short tank at your chosen period and that this, plus the boiler type fitted, would leave her resembling the condition of 765 in the picture below.

 

 

Before we go further, do we know if 645s ran on the line at your period (1895) and, if so, whether 772 was one?

 

If not, then there would seem little point in bothering with a 645!

 

I would say, though, that allocation in the Southern Division seems to have been the exception, rather than the rule; these locos appeared mostly to work in the Northern Division, so the class seems a reasonable choice.

 

If so, and we know which 645, we can have a stab at working out her 1895 condition, from which you might fabricate an alternative body.

 

It seems to me that you have the choice of (a) Northern Division 645s that were rebuilt with a long tank and (b) 1501 class locos, built with full length 6-section tanks. You're pretty safe with the latter, as all save 1501 were Northern Division.

 

How about 645/1501 class No.1805, built 1881?

 

Why?  Well, we have a picture as built. Nos. 1801-1812 were the first of the class to be built with polished brass domes, so that might cheer you up!  Further, she was not re-boilered until 1900, so at your chosen date, would have remained much as built and as shown in this picture.

 

 

I daresay you'd need to make some modifications to the print, such as cab cut outs and bunker, but that shouldn't be difficult. Note the absence of a centre step.  The 645s had curved ones, your print has straight.

 

Whereas I would check the positions of the boiler fittings, perhaps best done once you've divided the tank into its 6 sections, the cast dome you have looks pretty suitable and you'd essentially be swapping its position with the tank filler.

 

Otherwise, isn't the exercise to see what loco of what class in its 1895 that might have run on the line you can make the Stafford Road print fit?    

 

Sorry to have been the bearer of so much bad news!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Edwardian
spelling!

[NCB]

When looking through the book, I think there were another one or two saddle tanks. I'll look them up.

 

Ah, found one, page 130. 655 shunting at Corwen in 1910. Full length saddle tank.

 

And another, page 164. 1511 at Bala around 1900. Full length saddle tank.

Edited April 21, 2020 by NCB

[MikeOxon]

When you have an 'unplottable' station like Traeth Mawr, you never know what might turn up there, on a special working.  As an example, most people think the Tri-ang clerestories are based on a fictional prototype but they are certainly to be found at North Leigh - clearly, a lost diagram

[NCB]

1 minute ago, MikeOxon said:

When you have an 'unplottable' station like Traeth Mawr, you never know what might turn up there, on a special working.  As an example, most people think the Tri-ang clerestories are based on a fictional prototype but they are certainly to be found at North Leigh - clearly, a lost diagram

 

 

My approach as well. Dealing with the Cambrian and even the GWR I find there's a lot of instances where it's not possible to determine exactly what did or did not happen, and of course where you're dealing with an imaginary prototype you know that nothing happened anyway so it's OK to work in terms of what might have happened. And it's OK to have one's own particular take on what might have happened. Like the Triang clerestories; Dean could have designed them, even if he didn't!

 

At the moment I have several pannier tanks which have bunker steps, which I have recently found were acquired a bit later than my period. Does it worry me? Not a lot, although I might alter them. Eventually.

 

Nigel

 

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, NCB said:

When looking through the book, I think there were another one or two saddle tanks. I'll look them up.

 

Ah, found one, page 130. 655 shunting at Corwen in 1910. Full length saddle tank.

 

And another, page 164. 1511 at Bala around 1900. Full length saddle tank.

 

The 1501s were built with full-length saddle tanks.  One reason why they're a better bet for Chris. 

 

As a loco seen at Bala, would 1511 work for you Chris? 1511 was built with a W3 and large dome (though not polished brass!).  This was a boiler requiring a mid-boiler dome position.  1805 pictured above is also a large dome W3 with mid-position dome, so you're looking at the same outline for 1511.

 

"Around 1900" is intriguing, as 1511 received a R2 boiler in November that year.  As that conferred a forward dome position, the caption writer really ought to be able to say which side of the rebuild the picture represents.  If the picture shows a front dome position, Chris should not follow it.

 

655?  This brings up another issue.  655s were also built with full length tanks. 655s were built with longer frames than 645s, though some 624/1501s had their frames extended. I suspect the 1854/1701s also had longer frames than 645/1501s; a point to check.  

 

NCB, are you referring to a 655 or No.655?  If the latter, she was at least in existence, having been built in 1892 (the class was built through to 1897).  The 1910 picture should show her with her original R3 boiler with mid-position dome, as she retained this until conversion to a pannier in 1920.     

 

Another point to think about is the valance.  You are trying to make a Swindon class look like a Wolverhampton one, and you may need to sand the bottom of the valance to reduce its depth to something shallower. 

[ChrisN]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

772 was next re-boilered in 1917.  She never received panniers and was withdrawn in 1934.

 

Given that NCB notes unlined coaches and full length tank, I'd be tempted to assume that she received full a length tank in 1917 and is here pictured in the twilight of her days.

 

It seems, then, that the picture is no kind of evidence that RCTS is wrong to say that 772 retained her short tank at your chosen period and that this, plus the boiler type fitted, would leave her resembling the condition of 765 in the picture below.

 

Before we go further, do we know if 645s ran on the line at your period (1895) and, if so, whether 772 was one?

 

If not, then there would seem little point in bothering with a 645!

 

I would say, though, that allocation in the Southern Division seems to have been the exception, rather than the rule; these locos appeared mostly to work in the Northern Division, so the class seems a reasonable choice.

 

If so, and we know which 645, we can have a stab at working out her 1895 condition, from which you might fabricate an alternative body.

 

It seems to me that you have the choice of (a) Northern Division 645s that were rebuilt with a long tank and (b) 1501 class locos, built with full length 6-section tanks. You're pretty safe with the latter, as all save 1501 were Northern Division.

 

How about 645/1501 class No.1805, built 1881?

 

Why?  Well, we have a picture as built. Nos. 1801-1812 were the first of the class to be built with polished brass domes, so that might cheer you up!  Further, she was not re-boilered until 1900, so at your chosen date, would have remained much as built and as shown in this picture.

 

I daresay you'd need to make some modifications to the print, such as cab cut outs and bunker, but that shouldn't be difficult. Note the absence of a centre step.  The 645s had curved ones, your print has straight.

 

Whereas I would check the positions of the boiler fittings, perhaps best done once you've divided the tank into its 6 sections, the cast dome you have looks pretty suitable and you'd essentially be swapping its position with the tank filler.

 

Otherwise, isn't the exercise to see what loco of what class in its 1895 that might have run on the line you can make the Stafford Road print fit?    

 

Sorry to have been the bearer of so much bad news!

 

James,

What is clear is that an 850 did not run over the Ruabon Dolgelley line so whatever I do it will need modification.  I have removed the tank markings so when I decide what I will finally model I will mark them with Archers rivets.  The fewer tank divisions the better really but I cannot put them on until it is painted.  What I do not have is a really clear picture of a 1501 to enable me to mark the divisions.

 

I know the back end of the loco is too long but it is governed by the length of the chassis.  I could cut the chassis down but the body is a push fit onto the chassis, not secured elsewhere by a screw so any modification will weaken the body, and the fit so I have decided to live with the compromise.

 

I shall see what other information I can dig up.

[corneliuslundie]

I agree that since Traeth Mawr exists in an alternative universe (like Sarn) "anything could have happened" but one does one's best to stick to what is likely to have happened. Which is why I have chosen a small ex Cambrian tank loco for Sarn, even though I don'tr think they ever appeared on the Kerry branch. I now have lots of evidence (thanks to Tanat Valley) that 2021 class class did appear at Kerry, so that is an option, but I shall still run the ex-Cambrian loco both because it was in the general area (OK, Oswestry) and because I like it. But I shall not for example be running a Large Belpaire Goods on the branch as it would have been too heavy.

So I think Chris's approach is sensible. But he needs to stick to Northern Division locos, not types which only appeared in the south. which is what he is doing. And like Chris I shall try to ensure that any model I make is an accurate model of that prototype whether it is actually known to have run on the line or not.

I am most impressed with your work Chris, and you challenge me to do better.

That does not mean that I am not glad to see Edwardian providing prototype information to help us get things right. I certainly need all the help I can get.

Jonathan

Sorry if the above sounds like pontificating.

[ChrisN]

3 hours ago, NCB said:

When looking through the book, I think there were another one or two saddle tanks. I'll look them up.

 

Ah, found one, page 130. 655 shunting at Corwen in 1910. Full length saddle tank.

 

And another, page 164. 1511 at Bala around 1900. Full length saddle tank.

 

Thank you. 

 

I have just Googled 'GWR Shed allocations' and found that there is nothing in the public domain for the pre-grouping era.  They are at Kew but only back to 1902, and before that who knows?  Maybe in the Board minutes.  However, this is not a main project, so I think it more likely if I go to Kew I will be looking for Cambrian shed allocations, but maybe not as I do not have unlimited time.

[richbrummitt]

An 850 is a small pannier 0-6-0T and all the others discussed on this page are large. Are there not problems of height, splasher size and other issues to overcome also? Might be better to look amongst the small classes rather than the 646/655/1501/1813/1854/1701/2721 &c. large classes.

 

I'd not realised before today that the body was meant to be an 850. It doesn't necessarily explain the cab looking Swindon-esque since 850/1901 were also ' Northern'.

 

Edit: I've looked back at pictures of the body and it doesn't look like an 850. Probably best just to build it. Maybe make up a number that wasn't used, but could have been, for the sake of (y)our fictional satisfaction?

Edited April 21, 2020 by richbrummitt