Jump to content
 

Heljan GWR 47xx Night Owl


Hilux5972
 Share

Recommended Posts

Swindon didn’t innovate too many new products, 

 

Oh really? So the country's first Pacific locomotive wasn't 'The Great Bear'? Nor did the GWR pioneer Automatic Train Control, the world's first system that protected trains from running through signals at danger, and the only one until 1947? Nor did it produce innovations like diesel railcars, steam railmotors and autocoaches in an attempt to make unrenumerative lines viable? Nor did it build a unique network of Broad Gauge permanent way which delivered superior stability for railway vehicles? Nor did it conduct bold experiments like Brunel's trial atmospheric railway? Nor was it the only British mainline railway to convert steam locomotives to oil firing at a time of acute national shortage after the war?

 

You can accuse the GWR of many things, but failure to innovate doesn't stand much scrutiny for the above reasons and more besides. Nice try at a 'wind up' though! :jester:

 

Andy.

Edited by 7007GreatWestern
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

the country's first Pacific locomotive

 

Andy.

And even more pertinent to this thread, also the first 2-8-0. Edited by KGV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill happily take the black one off your hands via trademe if your not happy with it lol

 

I shall bear it an mind, should my affliction with Swindon disappear and be replaced by my more normal demeanour.

 

I wonder if and when all the other 47XX versions will appear? I recall that that the many Garratts I bought were assembled reasonably well, and all ran smoothly, the most common fault was loose handrail stanchions. Not too hard to fix so long as they hadn't been lost while unpacking.

 

I have done an edited pic of 4704 in Hornby's Best Ever thread, better not put it here the rule being don't put edited pics in other people's threads.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82970-hornbys-best-ever-models/page-83#entry3111402 

 

edit; pic of BR black 4706 edited from Rails original now in the linked post, I think the models are stunning, a lot more 'presence' than the 02. I might even add a smokebox lance someday,  about the time pigs fly...   :)

Edited by robmcg
Link to post
Share on other sites

.... Eight driving wheels is attractive for tractive effort. That large boiler can probably have even more weight crammed inside. Its getting more tempting. 

 

The model should therefore be quite capable of hauling at least 12 coaches up my 45ft long 1 in 175 gradient from Basingstoke to the Fiddle Yard...

 Precedent suggests that it will haul any such load of reasonably free rolling stock, with no need for more weight inside the boiler.

 

Neither the O2 nor the B-G were short on weight. The O2 as supplied is easily the heaviest and thus most tractively capable 2-8-0 I have ever purchased, and realistically does the slow drag of 60 of freight up a 1 in 80 with not the slightest difficulty, and can also gallop along at need. I would hope that in this respect the 47xx will please.

 

Reports awaited with interest.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Dapol 47xx

 

I suspect the "bent" bits on the MODEL photos (which have obviously come from Rails of Sheffield) are NOT a manufacturing fault. But due to the fact the model has been damaged since leaving the factory. Note also the boiler handrail as it reaches the smokebox on the drivers side ....

 

A nice model, the only thing I'm not mad about is the "half a cylinder each side scenario". Aside from that I'm just mulling over whether I can legitimately find an excuse for one on my layout "Basingstoke 1958-67" (In Modelling real locations). 

 

19 ton axle load 47xx weren't restricted by weight or size from reaching Basingstoke. Eight driving wheels is attractive for tractive effort. That large boiler can probably have even more weight crammed inside. Its getting more tempting. 

 

The model should therefore be quite capable of hauling at least 12 coaches up my 45ft long 1 in 175 gradient from Basingstoke to the Fiddle Yard. Did one ever go to Basingstoke ? The 47xx certainly worked Summer holiday traffic, and a heck of a lot of those summer extras, headed down the Inter-regional connection from Reading to Basingstoke.....

 

71000 

 

They were permitted between Reading and Basingstoke, with a couple of local restrictions at Basingstoke, but were not allowed to go any further into Southern territory.

We once had a Western route colour map at Pontypridd Junction,  basically what could go where, what was disallowed, etc. I don't know what became of it.

 

The late Eric Mountford  once had a notification that one was on it's way to Caerphilly Works, but was stopped at Bath Road. 

 

Ian.

 

There is a downloadable copy of the GWR RA map available on Michael Clemens website but beware as it does not show all relevant restrictions, especially for 47XX which were not allowed over a number of Red routes notwthstanding the fact that they were 'Red' RA.  Also the routes permitted for 'Kings' did not correspond with those for 47XX as some places where 47XX were allowed 'Kings were not and vice versa

 

http://www.michaelclemensrailways.co.uk

 

Oh really? So the country's first Pacific locomotive wasn't 'The Great Bear'? Nor did the GWR pioneer Automatic Train Control, the world's first system that protected trains from running through signals at danger, and the only one until 1947? Nor did it produce innovations like diesel railcars, steam railmotors and autocoaches in an attempt to make unrenumerative lines viable? Nor did it build a unique network of Broad Gauge permanent way which delivered superior stability for railway vehicles? Nor did it conduct bold experiments like Brunel's trial atmospheric railway? Nor was it the only British mainline railway to convert steam locomotives to oil firing at a time of acute national shortage after the war?

 

You can accuse the GWR of many things, but failure to innovate doesn't stand much scrutiny for the above reasons and more besides. Nice try at a 'wind up' though! :jester:

 

Andy.

 

In the interest of strict accuracy GWR Automatic Train Control was neither the first such system in the world nor the only one until 1947 and it definitely didn't stop trains passing signals at danger as it was only associated with distant signals.  Steam railmotors weren't of course a GWR innovation and in fact the first appeared after an L&SWR car had been borrowed for trials but even that one post-dated earlier experiments in the 19th century.  Similarly internal combustion powered railcars appeared on other railways at about the same time as the first GWR vehicles although the company's development of a fleet of diesel railcars in the 1930s was unique in Britain at that time and in fact followed a series of trials using Sentinel locos on branchline working as a hopefully more economical alternative to auto train operation.

 

The GWR definitely did innovate in engineering and workshop practice and it also made well know use of things which were appearing on other Railways at broadly the same time but in various areas it was not the originator of some of these ideas.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Precedent suggests that it will haul any such load of reasonably free rolling stock, with no need for more weight inside the boiler.

 

Neither the O2 nor the B-G were short on weight. The O2 as supplied is easily the heaviest and thus most tractively capable 2-8-0 I have ever purchased, and realistically does the slow drag of 60 of freight up a 1 in 80 with not the slightest difficulty, and can also gallop along at need. I would hope that in this respect the 47xx will please.

 

Reports awaited with interest.

T

Edited by 71000
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Stationmaster,

 

The operative word in post #553 is 'innovate', meaning "make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products". That is not the same as 'invent', meaning to create or conceive something entirely original.

 

Had the OP used the word 'invent' rather than 'innovate' my answer in Post #558 would have been different.

 

The GWR may or may not have invented the things listed in my post but then invention wasn't being discussed: innovation was.

 

I will stand corrected about the GWR ATC being the only system of its type in the world between 1906 and 1947. That appears to be a false claim originating from Adrian Vaughn and I am happy to retract. Paragraph 3 of the following article is very illuminating:-

 

http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/rail/atcgwr.htm

 

It is true to say that the GWR's ATC system was developed entirely 'in-house' rather than being 'bought-in' technology. It was of such originality that it was protected by two UK patents. It therefore passes the the tests of being both 'innovative' and 'inventive'.

 

Andy

Edited by 7007GreatWestern
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They were permitted between Reading and Basingstoke, with a couple of local restrictions at Basingstoke, but were not allowed to go any further into Southern territory.

 

There is a downloadable copy of the GWR RA map available on Michael Clemens website but beware as it does not show all relevant restrictions, especially for 47XX which were not allowed over a number of Red routes notwthstanding the fact that they were 'Red' RA.  Also the routes permitted for 'Kings' did not correspond with those for 47XX as some places where 47XX were allowed 'Kings were not and vice versa

 

http://www.michaelclemensrailways.co.uk

 

 

 

Edited by 71000
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But they were NOT four cylinder, and therefore not quite as wide as such things as Stars Castles and Kings.

 

Was there much difference?. I've just looked at some drawings, and King and Castle are listed as 8ft 11.5in over cylinder cleating, and the 47s as 8ft 11in dead, but wouldn't the throwover on curves be different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Was there much difference?. I've just looked at some drawings, and King and Castle are listed as 8ft 11.5in over cylinder cleating, and the 47s as 8ft 11in dead, but wouldn't the throwover on curves be different?

The fixed wheelbase should give you a clue as to the problems with the long locomotive. The overall width is about 8'11" (Check that) at the point of the leading driving wheelset. Any scrapes would possibly occur at the rear of the cylinder cover, as the leading wheels pass through, but the rear drivers are, as you say, 'throwing over'.

 

A 40xx shouldn't get the same problem. It has larger wheels, but a smaller fixed wheelbase (once again, that needs checking).

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there much difference?. I've just looked at some drawings, and King and Castle are listed as 8ft 11.5in over cylinder cleating, and the 47s as 8ft 11in dead, but wouldn't the throwover on curves be different?

O

Edited by 71000
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On four cylinder GWR locos much of the problem was not just the width but the position of the cylinders, and their basically flat sides. On the two cylinder types the widest point was lower down

 

...

 

This side effect of the "Modern Railway" has meant many modern multiple units built since the days of BR have actually had to be built slightly smaller than previously.

 

71000

I found this all fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone got one in the flesh yet?

 

Kind regards Neil

 

I have two 'en route' but that will take a week or more, I like you await with interest any postings about how these models look in the flesh.  

 

My guess is that quality control will be similar to the Beyer Garratts, that is, some bits bent or not quite right but generally good. (my opinion of course having had 11 of the models).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two 'en route' but that will take a week or more, I like you await with interest any postings about how these models look in the flesh.  

 

My guess is that quality control will be similar to the Beyer Garratts, that is, some bits bent or not quite right but generally good. (my opinion of course having had 11 of the models).

11 Garratts !

Edited by 71000
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more good news, as I have no experience yet with Heljan steam models only diesels (Cromptons mainly).

 

Report as requested:

As my exhibition layout Basingstoke 1958-67 is rather large (87ft x 25ft), full length trains are "de rigour". As Worting Junction and Battledown flyover are included this unavoidably introduces gradients. Although I had to reduce the real life 1 in 90 to 1 in 100 because early tests (10 years ago) quickly revealed haulage problems with British outline steam. (No Traction tyres generally). The current layout although not yet complete can be seen here on RMweb in the "Modelling real locations" category.  

 

All my steam locos have been carefully tested as acquired to reveal their haulage potential as bought. Most needed added weight to improve haulage capacity, and all the tests and details carefully recorded. So I will reproduce here the current situation with regard to my current and still expanding loco fleet, up to December 2017:

 

LOAD TESTS ON A 1 IN 100 GRADIENT.

The columns left to right show:

1 Locos weight as bought;

2 Haulage capacity as bought;  

3 Added weight if any;

4 Haulage capacity with added weight:

5 Average haulage capacity is Loco weight divided by maximum hauled weight.

The test train used comprises a mix of Bachmann Mk1's (up to 4) Bulleids (as required) and Hornby Maunsells (up to 4). 

attachicon.gifLoad haulage 1 25-12-17.jpg

attachicon.gifLoad haulage 2 25-12-17.jpg

attachicon.gifLoad haulage 3 25-12-17.jpg

 

The above tables give a reasonable idea of what various British outline steam models can achieve. The bottom section deals with some of my diesel and electric locos for comparison, which reveals none of them need any additional weight.

 

 

71000

Many thanks for posting the results of all your hard work.  It takes a lot of time and effort to do these sorts of tests. 

I've posted a more detailed reply in under "Gradients" Layout&Track Design

Peterfgf

Edited by peterfgf
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I am aware that the 47xx were (GWR) red route. But they were NOT four cylinder, and therefore not quite as wide as such things as Stars Castles and Kings. Which were banned beyond Basingstoke due to width not weight. The 47xx with a 19 ton axle load was lighter than certain Southern types. 

 

The link to Michael Clements site only reveals their red route and certain restrictions on the WR. Most likely due to their two cylinder hammer blow, and/or their 8 axle rigid chassis' abilities to negotiate curves at line speeds. The WR Civil Engineer had an ongoing "thing" about hammer blow and his bridges !

 

Bulleid on the SR tended to ignore the SR Civil engineer. Indeed he was quite happy to start running his "overwidth" Bulleid coaches along routes they should have been barred too. Such as Lewes tunnel, and the line beyond Dartford (where sideswipes occurred on both routes). So I cannot find any reason for the 47xx to be barred from going beyond Basingstoke !

 

As an aside a "banned" 4 cylinder Castle was discovered at Portmouth Harbour near the end of WR steam (1964). Examination of the loco revealed it had bashed one of its cylinders (fortunately only the cylinder cover). Further investigation revealed Fratton and Portsmouth & Southsea (high level) platforms also revealed signs of scrapping. The "banned" Castle was towed back to Fratton depot (at 5mph) where it languished for a couple of weeks while the "authorities" decided what to do with it. Until someone pointed out it had already passed back through the problem stations. So off to Reading MPD it finally went, supposedly under its own steam, without further problem....

 

71000 

 

Alas the map on the Michael Clemens site doesn't reveal the extensive list of Red routes from which 47XX were barred including a number of useful diversionary routes,  they were also quite heavily restricted as far as sidings etc were concerned - far more so than 'Castles' in fact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Mines arrived.post-20773-0-24152900-1522753939_thumb.jpeg

 

1 piece loose in the box...

post-20773-0-92881600-1522753969_thumb.jpeg

Which when refitted took off the vacuum pipe.

Comes fitted with vac pipes, steam pipe and metal shank couplings.

 

post-20773-0-20191000-1522754514_thumb.jpeg

 

First off.. a little bump in the frame..

post-20773-0-19082600-1522754064_thumb.jpeg

 

2nd off, with couplings fitted, at the front there was not enough clearance between the underside of the vacuum pipe for the pony to swing..I also noticed the coupling was point to the sky, indicating the spring on the coupling was too tight.

post-20773-0-88406500-1522754134_thumb.jpeg

I removed the pony, and bent slightly the pony truck (it’s unsprung plastic) to straighten it a little..

post-20773-0-89219700-1522754233_thumb.jpeg

Also noted the front frame is also bending slightly upwards, I’ve untightened the screw holding the chassis at the front and this has lessened the bending. (Note the improved clearance for the coupling)

post-20773-0-84376400-1522755619_thumb.jpeg

 

Ok, now to look at..

 

It’s a whopper In weight...592g... but that’s the loco and tender ! post-20773-0-53467500-1522754382_thumb.jpeg

 

The tender itself packs 104g..!!! The loco alone is 488g... (by comparison Bachmann jubilee is 284g).

 

post-20773-0-35559900-1522754535_thumb.jpeg

 

The loco is permanently coupled to the tender, with no unplug option. Speaker holes in the tender. An option to closer couple the loco and tender is possible.

post-20773-0-36438000-1522754628_thumb.jpeg

 

Onto performance, it runs very well prototypically fast, with a draw of 0.2 amps.

 

post-20773-0-27313200-1522754680_thumb.jpeg

 

I’ve not put it on the layout yet, but with the packed weight greater than some diesels i’m expecting great things from this loco. Apart from the pony truck (and the frame support being loose, leading to the vac pipe coming off ) it’s a great little loco.

 

Paint finish is a nice matt, I see some slight oil marks that will need a wipe off the rivets aren’t nearly as bad in the flesh as some pictures I’ve seen, I suspect studio lighting is picking them off.

 

The only thing i’d Say needs working on is the cab side numbers (they take me straight back to the days of Mainline in the 1980’s) so Brass ones will be on order. However on the plus sides, the cab fittings are painted, Also the rendition of the BR lion on wheel is very good.

 

post-20773-0-97869300-1522755001_thumb.jpeg

 

I’m happy with it, I hope the few tips above regarding the front end clearance and frame bending is helpful.

Layout video of what it can pull on my silly gradient is to follow... I wish all steam locos were as heavy as this. Overall I don’t think this is a bad job and await the green one, I suspect this will out sell the LNER O2.

 

Joys of working from home, but Back to work now, playtime later.

post-20773-0-96935000-1522755072_thumb.jpeg

post-20773-0-48167900-1522756109_thumb.jpeg

post-20773-0-74107000-1522756121_thumb.jpeg

post-20773-0-39569300-1522756132_thumb.jpeg

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks very promising - I'd remove the front coupling anyway. I think those wanky smokebox-stays will have to be replaced when I get mine, an easy job. The grotty BR scheme rather detracts from what is, in reality, quite a handsome design. I've ordered mine in it's original GW scheme needless to say. This looks like a real slogger - exactly what I need. The loco appears to be very good value for a prototype that was small in number and few would have expected to be available as RTR. I think I will be very chuffed when it arrives, it looks a beaut'..... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...