Jump to content
 

Kernow GWR steam rail motor


DJM Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

This is the 1946 view of the Helston carriage shed from above.

raf_3g_tud_uk_211_v_5064_13May1946.png.2b75e4a6e5ddcf7564c69399f2ee0063.png

It is very enlarged but I think I can just make out a coaling stage that I have red ringed in the image?

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Yes. In the link I posted earlier from 1906.

 

 

It doesn't give a date of when they stopped using them.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watlington_and_Princes_Risborough_Railway

 

 

Jason

Paul Karau and Chris Turner's Country Branch Line, which is the definitive history of the Watlington branch, says (volume 1, page 43) "We have not discovered any evidence that stream railmotors were ever used on the line, which is hardly surprising when an engine would still have been needed to handle the goods, thus obviating any economy. It  is also doubtful whether a steam railmotor couuld have handled any worthwhile tail load on Chinnor bank. Nor is there any evidence that  auto-working was employed. Auto-trailers were simply provided to serve new rail-level halts..."

 

This passage is referenced in the linked Wikipedia entry (note 6). I don't really understand how WIkipedia works, in that it appears to accept two contradictory statements, but I would believe Karau and Turner every time.

Edited by 4069
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Watlington* had a 57XX allocated on the 31st Dec 1947 and the layout seems too complicated for a Railmotor to service.

*Sub to SLO

 

3 hours ago, 4069 said:

I don't really understand how WIkipedia works

It's user maintained, anyone can do it, so two people with differing views can upload input to the same topic.

 

I did a change a couple of months ago to a music entry where a blatantly incorrect record number was given. (there was photographic evidence on Discogs that it was wrong)

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Watlington* had a 57XX allocated on the 31st Dec 1947 and the layout seems too complicated for a Railmotor to service.

*Sub to SLO

 

It's user maintained, anyone can do it, so two people with differing views can upload input to the same topic.

 

I did a change a couple of months ago to a music entry where a blatantly incorrect record number was given. (there was photographic evidence on Discogs that it was wrong)

 

I wouldn't go by what was there in 1947 as the SRMs were long gone by then.

 

I also don't quite understand what you mean by "service". 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 4069 said:

Paul Karau and Chris Turner's Country Branch Line, which is the definitive history of the Watlington branch, says (volume 1, page 43) "We have not discovered any evidence that stream railmotors were ever used on the line, which is hardly surprising when an engine would still have been needed to handle the goods, thus obviating any economy. It  is also doubtful whether a steam railmotor couuld have handled any worthwhile tail load on Chinnor bank. Nor is there any evidence that  auto-working was employed. Auto-trailers were simply provided to serve new rail-level halts..."

 

This passage is referenced in the linked Wikipedia entry (note 6). I don't really understand how WIkipedia works, in that it appears to accept two contradictory statements, but I would believe Karau and Turner every time.

 

I don't understand the reference to tail load. They were passenger trains!

 

And I doubt any gradients on that route are as severe as Berwyn and I've been up that on a packed SRM with the trailer.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don't spend much time watching such videos but really enjoyed that one. A distinct shortage of trombone-zooming and wild panning helped. And the railmotor looked brill, of course. So glad I bought #61.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Watlington isn't mentioned in the allocations table for the SRMs or the service listings for 1911 in Lewis.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I don't understand the reference to tail load. They were passenger trains!

 

And I doubt any gradients on that route are as severe as Berwyn and I've been up that on a packed SRM with the trailer.

 

 

 

Jason

 

From what I remember of that gala, on at least one journey the SRM had to stop between Llangollen and Berwyn to raise steam.

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

Bogies...
As spotted by Robin above, the distinctive 9 foot wheelbase bogies either 'Fish belly' or 'Equalising beam' as fitted to our GWR Steam Railmotors (Diagram O and R respectively) are also suitable for use with other GWR coach types, we have therefore made these available as RTR complete spare parts with wheels, brake rigging and electrical pick ups, suitable for kit builders etc.
Click here to order https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/pg/144/GWR-Steam-Railmotor#Bogies

  • Like 6
  • Round of applause 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 31/07/2019 at 22:01, 57xx said:

They could do with producing a few (hundred) extra of those American bogies, I'm sure they would sell out.

 

12 hours ago, Kernow MRC said:

Bogies...
As spotted by Robin above, the distinctive 9 foot wheelbase bogies either 'Fish belly' or 'Equalising beam' as fitted to our GWR Steam Railmotors (Diagram O and R respectively) are also suitable for use with other GWR coach types, we have therefore made these available as RTR complete spare parts with wheels, brake rigging and electrical pick ups, suitable for kit builders etc.
Click here to order https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/pg/144/GWR-Steam-Railmotor#Bogies

 

As someone who pushed for this 5 years ago, I had better put my money where my mouth is! Well done Kernow, hopefully a good decision for you, it certainly is for those of use who can find a use for them on other projects.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I too have applied a little weathering to the roof and underframe. Can't bring myself to do any thing to the crimson paintwork, except a little panel wash around the doors. Fitted passengers and crew, filled up the coal bunkers.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/04/2024 at 18:33, gwrrob said:

A heads up from the Kernow newsletter to say that both bogies are available as separate items now.

 

https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/89421/K9009-Kernow-Models-GWR-Steam-Railmotor-Fishbelly-Bogie

 

Fishbelly.jpg.0f368e605892fc4f8094750673e9830d.jpg

 

Equalising.jpg.bc2835a520d410a4aaa9b179a85a587e.jpg


Is the price £7.99 per bogie or per pair?  I think it’s the former but I want to check before ordering as I don’t want to purchase twice as many as I need.!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, Penrhos1920 said:


Is the price £7.99 per bogie or per pair?  I think it’s the former but I want to check before ordering as I don’t want to purchase twice as many as I need.!


That's the price per bogie.  Not per pair.

I blagged four of the Fishbelly type for my B-set project as soon as I was aware that they were available.
They are very nice and great vale for the money IMHO.  Arrived in the post PDQ too. :-)

 

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

Hi,

 

I've just had delivery of one of the sound fitted versions and as I finally bit the bullet and got one as there starting to get thin on the ground.

 

It's a wonderful little model and being my first sound fitted model it's a nice treat for myself. The whistles sound a tad tinney but being a novice at DCC especially sound it's the only tiny gripe as I'm not confident in working out how to turn just the whistles down a tad.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by keith9111
Missed point out
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 11/04/2024 at 20:20, Phatbob said:


That's the price per bogie.  Not per pair.

I blagged four of the Fishbelly type for my B-set project as soon as I was aware that they were available.
They are very nice and great vale for the money IMHO.  Arrived in the post PDQ too. :-)

 

 

I didn't know I needed any Fishbelly bogies, so imagine my surprise when a pair fell in to my basket along with a couple of pairs of American bogies. Now I need to start combing the books to see what I can put them under!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 31/03/2024 at 09:21, Harlequin said:

Watlington isn't mentioned in the allocations table for the SRMs or the service listings for 1911 in Lewis.

 

The 1910 Service Timetable shows 'Autocars' for the passenger service but the trains atre not shown as 'auto' in the timing column headings.  Taken together the two pieces of information could be read ambiguously in either direction meaning either that the cars were worked as auto trailers (and there was no need to spell it out)  or that they weren't (because it wasn't spelt out).

 

The line had a fair coverage of 'Goods' services back then and the ST quotes freight train loads for both 'Passenger' and 'Goods' engines with Passenger Engines being restricted to c.60% of the Goods Engine load in between Princes Risbro' and Watlington  (i.e. descending the steepest gradient) and a slightly greater percentage, c.66%, in the opposite direction.  Thus the loads were clearly based on stopping power not on haulage capacity which makes sense when one considers the wheel arrangement of the types of engines in use for the different types of traffic

 

As far as tail traffic on rail motors is concerned (if they were used?)  Karau and Turner note in GW Branch Line Termini' that a spare 4 wheel coach was at one time kept at Watlington.  That, and more, would have been well within the capacity of a steam railmotor on the steepest gradient on the Watlington branch which was officially listed as 1 in 100. (Railmotors were allowed a tail load not exceeding 24 wheels on a 1 in 100 rising gradient.)  Not that it answers whether or not they were ever used on the branch - an answer to that presumably lies in a 1906 Timetable (if the Wiki entry is based on anything at all).

  • Like 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
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...