Jump to content
 

Kernow GWR steam rail motor

DJM Dave

By DJM Dave,
in Kernow Model Rail Centre

 Share

Recommended Posts

Edwardian

Edwardian

Posted
Posted

Are Kernow planning a model of a mother in law? If so, will it be of a specific prototype, or something more generic to allow for a wider range of liveries?

 

I have already applied to have my Mother-in-Law preserved for the nation.  A rare survivor of a British outline colonial type, once exported across the world in their thousands, I consider her of significant historic importance. 

 

I wonder, should I now have her CAD scanned?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Edwardian

Edwardian

Posted
Posted

In full working order or stuffed and mounted?

 

I like fully working models, though this one might run a little stiff these days.  Be careful, though, because the Mother-Law-Law is quite capable of having someone stuffed and mounted.  She blasted a 12' spitting cobra to Hell with a shot-gun after it had trapped my future wife up a tree.  What they call 'Old school', my Ma in Law. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Crichel Down

Crichel Down

Posted
Posted

If you'd travelled in the preserved / retro-converted GWR steam railmotor; (as I have); I think that you'd hesitate to make that statement.

 

It put on a mighty good performance on the incline up to Liskeard on the Looe branch with a full load, and also on the steep climb from Bodmin Road to Bodmin on the B&WR.

 

I think, rather, that the railmotors were too good at what they did, and could not handle the increased traffic, even with a trailer.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

The GWR steam railmotors were probably the most succesful pre-WW1 design for this type of vehicle (I am not qualifed to comment on the inter-war Sentinel vehicles built for the LNER).  The GWR railmotors did have plenty of power; it was those built by other companies (such as the LSWR) that proved to be distinctly under-powered.

 

That said, the GWR railmotors were not so lively when called upon to haul a trailer.  There were other issues, besides this, that led the GWR to prefer an auto-fitted tank and autotrailer combination.  However, the company was in no great hurry to eliminate the railmotors, and whilst there was a steady programme of conversions to autotrailers, the last railmotor was not withdrawn until 1935. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Devo63

Devo63

Posted
Posted

The big drawback with a railmotor versus a locomotive/trailer combination is that the whole unit is out of service if repair to the boiler or motion are required. I don't know how many complete spare boiler and engine setups were available at Swindon or some of the major repair centres but I would not think they would like to carry too many on the books. Most likely they would have just enough ready for scheduled overhalls. 

 

Railmotors were also limited in their towing capacity whereas even a small to medium passenger tank locomotive could haul 3 or 4 trailers relatively comfortably.

 

Dave R. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
melmerby

melmerby

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

The big drawback with a railmotor versus a locomotive/trailer combination is that the whole unit is out of service if repair to the boiler or motion are required. I don't know how many complete spare boiler and engine setups were available at Swindon or some of the major repair centres but I would not think they would like to carry too many on the books. Most likely they would have just enough ready for scheduled overhalls. 

 

Railmotors were also limited in their towing capacity whereas even a small to medium passenger tank locomotive could haul 3 or 4 trailers relatively comfortably.

 

Dave R. 

There were 99 GWR Steam Railmotors, numbered 1-99 in a special coach sequence and 112 engine portions number in a separate sequence 0801-0912

The GWS new build engine is numbered 0913.

 

Incidentally the South Wales companies also had some railmotors (about 28), generally inferior to the GWR ones.

Barry (2), Cardiff(3) and Port Talbot Railways(1) had some similar in appearance to the later GWR ones although the Port Talbot had the engine unit articulated and the cylinders were at the inboard end.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
Miss Prism

Miss Prism

Posted
Posted
Stationmaster Mike's post #19 reflects the current Kernow announcement situation. There are therefore a number of significant mechanical areas of difference that are being attempted:

 

- Below waist panelling: present on all SRMs as built, but eventually removed (on an adhoc basis) on most of those that remained into the '30s. (Most SRMs had been converted before then into a bewildering variety of ordinary trailer diagrams.)

 

- Front sandbox location: as built, these were not visible from the outside, and were inside (or above?) the frames, but the sandboxes were eventually transferred to be on the front of the frames (I would guess from early- to mid-20s onward). (Strangely, the Lewis book does not mention this aspect.)

 

- Bunker height: initially, the bunker was not visible when viewing from the front, but bunkers begain to be raised in height c 1912. (I think this probably coincided with the fitting of protection bars inside the front windows at the same time.)

 

- Passenger door: on diagram O (as per Kernow's 61 and 63), it was a 'double', whereas diagram R (Kernow's 84, 93 and and 97) had the more modern 'single'.

 

- Trailing bogie: initially, SRMs appeared with 9' volutes, migrated to 9' fishbelly at a fairly early stage (1912-ish??) but I think all the survivors ended up with 9' Americans.

 

- Water filler access: on early types, including diagram O I think, this was 'through the sliding windows', but diagram R appeared with the bespoke 'hinged filler' on its own panel. (Too many windows got smashed with the earlier arrangement.)

 
All of these mechanical variations impact on the liveries situation of course. (Buffalo's excellent summary is quoted in Mikkel's post #14.)
 
Diagram O (for 61 and 63) was completed in 1906, so would have received the pre-1908 fully-lined chocolate and cream treatment. Kernow's 61 falls into this bracket.
 
I am not convinced 63 received brown lake. (There seems to be no evidence of the small crests in the pic on Mike Morant's site.) It's first repaint window probably puts it in the crimson era. 
 
Diagram R (for 84 and 97) was not completed until 1908, and I'm not sure whether they were outshopped in the 1908 lined brown lake, or maybe they crept into the previous chocolate and cream regime. I suspect the latter, because the 1908 trailers with which the SRMs worked were still being outshopped in chocolate and cream.
 
Whilst it is a reasonable assumption 84 would have received crimson lake livery in its first repaint window, it is not clear why Kernow think its livery had "slightly different lining" to the preserved 93. (Or does Kernow mean different panelling??)
 
97's livery would seem to be a straightforward post-1927 chocolate and cream, but the waist lining (single or double) needs clarifying. (A good case can be made for either variant.)
 
On the matter of repaint windows, it is interesting to note that GWS says 93 got 'repainted in 1931'. I feel sure there would have been an intermediate repaint, maybe just before the end of the crimson era.
 
Having said all that, the SRMs were in and out of Swindon more times than you or I have had hot dinners, so there were always plenty of the bodies standing around idle if the paintshop fancied 'a quickie'.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Buzz a message to Kernow and ask them yourself. 

 

 

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/

 

I doubt if it would get you any further ahead that the information on their website, scans are one thing, getting the CADs right can be a  long (and sometimes frustrating) process and once they're signed off it will be a matter of getting the tooling and EPs and livery samples approved before the production run can even be started.   It took about 7 months from final approved CAD to first EP mouldings for the 1361 and while it is a very complex model with a massive number of parts (to cater for variants) that is only a small loco and that was a pretty quick timescale by usual standards.  I have heard of things going more quickly than that but I don't think they're necessarily the norm.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

If anyone is spotting SRM93 at Didcot in the near future, could you have a look at the underframe to see whether it is a 4-trussrod or a 2-trussrod.

 

My pic taken low down only covers one side but there is definitely what appears to be a truss rod immediately next to the tank so I would presume there is one similarly placed on the other side as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rembrow

rembrow

Posted
Posted

If anyone is spotting SRM93 at Didcot in the near future, could you have a look at the underframe to see whether it is a 4-trussrod or a 2-trussrod.

 

The Didcot website for the Steam Railmotor project includes the news archive from 2006 onwards. There is a good photo of the stripped down underframe from Jan 2008, while at Llangollen, having been shotblasted and you can clearly see there are 4 trussrods

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
BG John

BG John

Posted
Posted

 

Was down again at Didcot yesterday. Whilst I was mainly focusing on Severn Valley visitor GWR 813, I was able to get some shots of 93 and a few of 93's Autotrailer 92 working with 813.

Nice pictures, but I was hoping to see some news on the model! Is there any?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BG John

BG John

Posted
Posted

When there is any news it will no doubt be in the newsletter as that is Kernow's usual way of communicating updates etc.  And they have of course been rather busy with various other things of late.

I've given up following news and discussion on new RTR models, as I don't actually want to buy any of them. I've got enough locos that are likely to be produced, and they're too expensive. I'm not even sure about the railmotor, but it's the one I may be tempted by.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ndg910

ndg910

Posted
Posted

I think the last news some months ago was the rail motor had been scanned and the cad was complete and being checked.

 

My question is whether auto coach 92 can also be produced from the same or slightly adjusted tooling. It certainly has a corridor connection at one end but was it not also rebuilt from a rail motor like 93. I haven't my reference books to hand to check. What is certain is an auto coach can be produced in the same way 93 was converted by the GWR. I'm sure Kernow are well aware of the tooling options and possibilities. A new auto coach would be most welcome as the Hawksworth version is too modern and the Airfix version is long in the tooth ( and I have two already) for GWR modellers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
melmerby

melmerby

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)

Type U No 92 was built as a trailer under Lot 1198 in 1911. It never was a SRM

The windows look totally different to A26 ex-SRM diag R No.93, before or after conversion.

 

Keith

 

Edit

Compare diagrams in GWR Autotrailers Part 1(John Lewis)

In fact look at the two photos above!

Edited by melmerby
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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...