Jump to content
 

Kernow GWR steam rail motor


DJM Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
24 minutes ago, jonnyuk said:

these look stunning, they have never really crossed my radar but now.............

Do they have metal buffers? the one negative with the bullieds was plastic buffers.

 

The buffers are finely moulded plastic, I do not recall anyone having an issue with or even mentioning it that the buffers on the Bulleid diesels were also plastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/10/2020 at 12:28, County of Yorkshire said:

Has any thought been given to producing extra fishbelly bogies to sell as spares? There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, a fishbelly bogie done in RTR, and so I think they would be popular as individual items? I would certainly pick up half a dozen.

 

Cheers, 

 

CoY

 

 

But they are available on Shapeways.  I have them under my Hornby Siphons (G & H).  See here https://www.shapeways.com/marketplace?type=product&q=oo+american+bogie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
38 minutes ago, MG 7305 said:

It may be perspective, but is the lamp a little overscale?

An interesting question but don't forget that in the early days the GWR used some quite large/prominent lamps in some circumstances so it might not be too far off.   The only problem is whether or not an original still exists, or a drawing, or an accurate reproduction.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Graham_Muz said:

 

The buffers are finely moulded plastic, I do not recall anyone having an issue with or even mentioning it that the buffers on the Bulleid diesels were also plastic.

thanks for the confirmation, this was my personal opinion not a generalisation of forum members. i do feel a £180  loco should have turned metal buffers but thats just me, anyway lets not detract from a very fine looking model, reading some of the history i guess my late 1930's onwards GWR era is a little late for these, Rule 1? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, jonnyuk said:

.....l reading some of the history i guess my late 1930's onwards GWR era is a little late for these, Rule 1? 

 

Rule 1 will apply at Henley on Thames, feel free to follow!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I wonder if the motor is in the boiler because that was exactly what I suggested on the day scanning and photography was carried out at Didcot although the contracting manufacturer was rather uncommittal on that point.  While it would be well hidden it might perhaps be prone to overheating but it struck me as the ideal place to put it if a motor and suitable gearing could be used.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

An interesting question but don't forget that in the early days the GWR used some quite large/prominent lamps in some circumstances so it might not be too far off.   The only problem is whether or not an original still exists, or a drawing, or an accurate reproduction.

Fair question.  I had a question concerning GWR lamps some time ago and Frank Dumbleton was kind enough to show me all the lamps held in the museum at Didcot including some from the GWR Royal Train.  If anyone should be able to clarify lamp sizes, the GWS should.  Given that Kernow scanned Railmotor No 93 there, a quick 'phone call might clarify the situation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm no expert on the size of the lamps, but note in the 'photos above, as well as mine from July 2013 on the "Loco end" the lamp is placed on the lower of the two lamp irons.

 

I note the model shows both lamps placed on the upper lamp bracket.

 

Is there a reason for this? Are the GWS...... wrong in placing the lamp there? 

 

Assuming the GWS are right :-) should the model have its lamp lowered...

 

Minor detail, but it might be important.

 

Thanks again @Graham_Muzit looks great.

 

Whats likely to be the eta for these Railmotors?

Edited by Neal Ball
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with besting the GWS on GWR practice.  They have some significant resources to explain and confirm their position.  I did not query the location of the lamps on the sample model but their size.

Edited by MG 7305
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

I'm no expert on the size of the lamps, but note in the 'photos above, as well as mine from July 2013 on the "Loco end" the lamp is placed on the lower of the two lamp irons.

 

I note the model shows both lamps placed on the upper lamp bracket.

 

Is there a reason for this? Are the GWS...... wrong in placing the lamp there? 

 

Assuming the GWS are right :-) should the model have its lamp lowered...

 

Minor detail, but it might be important.

 

Thanks again @Graham_Muzit looks great.

 

Whats likely to be the eta for these Railmotors?

As at 1920 there were no differences in the daylight and 'lamp lit' positions for the head lamp on railmotor and auto train engines.  The two different headlamp positions did not come in until later but I can'r t date when they changed although they had changed by 1936.   Also, as at 1920 there was no special Instruction in respect of railmotors which differentiated their headlamp position from the standard Class B position.  Thus - except where authority to do otherwise existed - the headlamp should have been on the upper racket although it obviously wasn't at the full Class B position.  No particular bracket was specified in the 1920 Instructions for the position of the tail lamp. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have worked it out.  GWR loco lamps are side mounted and their C&W lamps are back mounted.  Given that a steam railmotor is both then there is one of each at each end.  So, the driver, loco dept, puts his loco lamp on the "front", depending on the direction of travel, and the guard his tail lamp on the "back", depending on direction of travel.  Neat eh?

Edited by MG 7305
Clarification
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Will someone explain why the tail lamp bracket is in the middle on the SRM but to the side on the trailer?:)

Different draughtsmen?   It really could be something like that because there is no logical reason for it at all as far as I can see and in fact the single offset tail lamp bracket on teh trailer was no doubt a source of considerable annoyance to Guards who had to somehow reach it when the station platform was on the other side

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

I am not so sure that auto coach 92 has the lamp brackets 'to the sides'.  I have not inspected the vehicle directly in this regard however the photographs on the internet do not support such a statement.  The end with the corridor connection has the loco bracket centre top above the connection and the C&W bracket just left of the corridor connection and low down as viewed end on.   On the non corridor end the C&W lamp bracket is low on the mid left hand side.   I agree that main line stock had a lamp bracket on each side at mid height but you need to consider the use to which each type of vehicle was put.  Main line vehicles would travel in a single direction to the destination and tail lamps would be on the left hand side (as viewed end on from the rear).  Brackets were fitted to both sides on each end at a height convenient for the guard to fit the lamp from the platform.  This platform would most usually be on the left of the train given the direction of travel so the lamp would be fitted to the left hand side.  Such mainline trains would usually travel in a single direction to their destination where the coaching stock would be disposed of to carriage sidings for cleaning and so on.  Therefore there was no need for the guard to access a bracket other than from the platform of direction of travel.  Steps were however provided if anyone needed to reach any part of the end of any vehicle. 

 

However branch line trains worked differently.  Changing direction at each terminus several times each day and not routinely going to a carriage siding for servicing between services other than at the end of the day.  Access to the end of the vehicle was needed at each terminus and not was not available from a single platform as direction changed and the locomotive (if auto) ran round.  Therefore the brackets were fitted low down giving relatively simple access to the lamp and brackets from the 4 foot.  Form follows function.  Simples. 

 

image.png

image.png

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The only problem with access from ground level is if you are the Guard - who would then have to climb down from platform level to deal with the tail.  he might well have had a dust coat to protect his uniform but he still might have to tread ina wet and/or dirty & greasy area which would be a long way down the popularity with the vast majority of Passenger Guards

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright.  So what is the (better) alternative?  How would you arrange the layout of lamp brackets taking into consideration train working on branch lines, the requirements of operational safety and Department of Transport (DOT) rules?  I am no expert but I am trying to interpret reality in the light of requirements.  The GWR was not stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don't think the GWR were stupid and photos show that l most tail lamp brackets on coaching stock were well above the headstock while side lamp brackets were even higher.  In the case of some gangwayed stock the bracket was welded to the metal face part of the gangway so was obviously fairly high (and some GWR gangway photos show a tail lamp bracket on each side).  So in most of the cases of higher mounted brackets they could not be reached from the ground anyway which meant the only access from the 'wrong' side would be to go over the top. (which I can definitely recall seeing happen)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.5edfbb412cd607079a7ea2fd6b415ea0.png

   

 

Please see table above.

 

In fact, the there are many photographs of auto trains hauled by 48xx (14xx) locomotives with a Class G headcode.

 

So, if the railmotor is running on its own or hauling the trailer car then a Class G headcode is also correct being loco and brake, see 48xx example.  Therefore, the loco lamp bracket is bottom centre on the railmotor.

 

However, if the trailer is leading it is not loco and brake but brake and loco.  Therefore, the train becomes Class B and the lamp bracket mounted to suit.  It should be noted that it is a loco bracket as it is leading and the driver will fit a loco department lamp.  It is right at the top as there is a gangway fitted.

 

My brain is beginning to hurt. 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, MG 7305 said:

image.png.5edfbb412cd607079a7ea2fd6b415ea0.png

   

 

Please see table above.

 

In fact, the there are many photographs of auto trains hauled by 48xx (14xx) locomotives with a Class G headcode.

 

So, if the railmotor is running on its own or hauling the trailer car then a Class G headcode is also correct being loco and brake, see 48xx example.  Therefore, the loco lamp bracket is bottom centre on the railmotor.

 

However, if the trailer is leading it is not loco and brake but brake and loco.  Therefore, the train becomes Class B and the lamp bracket mounted to suit.  It should be noted that it is a loco bracket as it is leading and the driver will fit a loco department lamp.  It is right at the top as there is a gangway fitted.

 

My brain is beginning to hurt. 

Hang on - the information I quoted was for 1920, i.e when railmotors were still in operation.  The lamping for auto trains was different by the 1930s and the position of some of the lamps varied according to whether or not they were required to be alight - the train was still usually Class B.  The relative positions of the loco and trailer was largely irrelevant.  If the loco was trailing the tail lamp went on the top bracket if the lamp was not required to be lighted and on the centre buffer plank bracket when the tail lamp was required to be lighted (clarified from April 1943 to confirm that tail lamps on auto engines should be carried in the same position as tail lamps on light engines).

 

From 1936 (possibly earlier?) the engine headlamp on an auto train was carried on the chimney level lamp bracket, i.e Class B headcode but  irrespective of whether the train was loaded or empty. (and no doubt subject to local variations as was sometimes the case with Class B lamps).  From May 1950 the Class B  engine headcode applied only to loaded auto trains and from that date engines working at the leading end of empty auto trains were required to carry the (then) new Class C headcode   (But as ever I wouldn't mind betting that in soem places old habits could well have lingered.

 

As far as i can trace the trailers only ever had one headlamp bracket and normally only one tail lamp bracket.

  • Informative/Useful 4
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...