Pragmatic Pre-Grouping - Mikkel's Workbench

[MikeOxon]

John Gibson, in his book on GW Locomotive Design, comments that "Domes are useful when there is room to make them big.".  This is in the context of Churchward's use of domeless boilers for his larger locomotives, whereas he reverted to large domes when building replacement boilers for small engines.  Collett caused some raised eyebrows when he placed large domes on his 48xx class ('517' replacements) in the 1930s.

[Compound2632]

Mikkel - S4 domes are always larger than the S2 ones as far as I can tell.

 

Yes, I've been trying to elicit authoritative guidance on whether the Alan Gibson '517' dome is a good enough match for that on the S2 boilers...

[Mikkel]

In the photos of my model above, I tried out the Finney 3232 dome for the S2 arrangement. It looks right to me for an S2. Here it is again next to the Gibson 517 dome. There's a small difference, but it isn't much!
 


For the S4 dome, I will be using a larger one.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Mikkel

[Compound2632]

In the photos of my model above, I tried out the Finney 3232 dome for the S2 arrangement. It looks right to me for an S2. Here it is again next to the Gibson 517 dome. There's a small difference, but it isn't much!

 

DSCN3740small.jpg

 

For the S4 dome, I will be using a larger one.

 

What a scene of carnage! I take it the Gibson dome is the rear one (actually attached to the engine) and the forward one is the Finney dome? The Gibson dome looks a little slimmer. Scaling off three broadside photos of engines with S2 boilers in LI 157 (using the leading-coupled wheelbase 7'3" = 29 mm as reference) I estimate the S2 dome to be about 2'6" = 10 mm diameter. Possibly closer to the Finney dome?

 

The S4/B4 dome is a great fat monster of a thing dwarfing the engine underneath it. But your 517 demonstrates that every Great Western engine should have two domes...

 

EDIT: Is that a shortened smokebox in the background? Demonstrating an Oxford blunder - the chimney was on the centre-line of the short smokebox and didn't move when the smokebox was extended because it had to stay directly above the blastpipe, the position of which was determined by the cylinders/steam chest.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Compound2632

[Mikkel]

These are not Dean goods, so forgive the distraction (oh look.. a unicorn....) I thought I would put these up to round things out. they are the final two negatives that I won and they date from the same time. The lining can clearly be seen so i think it is fairly safe to assume that the Dean goods in the  photographs are unlined. These would make lovely models too Mikkel,  just sayin......

 

Superb!

 

Like the locos, the crew all have their own styles too - as Chris has pointed out.

 

 

Another interesting point on the photos is the lamp irons.  The GWR officially moved from the plug type in 1903 but it obviously took time to move to the new pattern of iron and the socket type still appeared on new build engines in 1904.

 

But the important point is that it seems the lamp irons were supposedly updated when locos were shopped for overhaul and this would - I would expect - include shopping at which boilers were changed

 

That would make good sense (although not always it seems, Craig's No. 2358 here was fitted with that S4 boiler in 02/1905).

Edited July 11, 2017 by Mikkel

[Mikkel]

What a scene of carnage! I take it the Gibson dome is the rear one (actually attached to the engine) and the forward one is the Finney dome? The Gibson dome looks a little slimmer. Scaling off three broadside photos of engines with S2 boilers in LI 157 (using the leading-coupled wheelbase 7'3" = 29 mm as reference) I estimate the S2 dome to be about 2'6" = 10 mm diameter. Possibly closer to the Finney dome?

 

Yes, the forward one is the Finney one. If we are talking 10mms then both are too slim as they are 1-2 mms less! I will do some measurements of various domes and get back on that.

 

 

EDIT: Is that a shortened smokebox in the background? Demonstrating an Oxford blunder - the chimney was on the centre-line of the short smokebox and didn't move when the smokebox was extended because it had to stay directly above the blastpipe, the position of which was determined by the cylinders/steam chest.

 

Actually,  the short smokebox with chimney attached to a footplate in the background is the Mainline one! In fairness the front piece with the smokebox door has been removed, so it looks even shorter than it is. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Don't any of the GWR loco books cover the sort of information being discussed?

[Mikkel]

Not in all cases. The RCTS volume and other books are good, but lots of details have to be researched individually. There are well established overall eras and guidelines on GWR liveries, but also lots of grey areas and unknowns - especially around the turn of the last century. Regarding exact dome sizes, there must be documentation on this but personally I'm not sure where.

 

Mind you the model itself won't be anything special, it's basically just chopped up bits of plastic - but so far it has offered plenty of play value 

[Compound2632]

Don't any of the GWR loco books cover the sort of information being discussed?

 

I never cease to be surprised how little has been published about the Great Western in the last quarter of the 19th century compared with the wealth of information for the Midland and LNWR.

[MikeOxon]

Don't any of the GWR loco books cover the sort of information being discussed?

FWIW, I measured a few domes in drawings in Russell's 'GW Engines'.  Unfortunately these drawings are not reproduced accurately to scale, so I have derived the scale from a known dimension, such as the wheelbase. I measured the drawings off the page with a 1/2 mm graduated steel rule and have rounded my results to the nearest quarter inch.

 

A '517' is shown in Russell Fig.335.  The 15' wheelbase measures as 63 mm and the dome diameter as 10mm, which calculates as 28 1/2 inches at full size.

Another Col Templar drawing is at Fig.342.  The 15'6" wheelbase measures as 62 mm and the dome diameter as about 9.5mm, which also calculates as 28 1/2 inches. So, good consistency between these two.

 

I'm always wary of drawings in Russell. For example Fig.337 claims to be an official diagram with 15'6" wheelbase but is clearly marked as 15' wheelbase!

 

Turning to the Dean Goods, Russell doesn't have any drawings with the dome on the front ring.

 

In the Maskelyne drawing in Fig.206, the 15'6" wheelbase measures as 62.5 mm and the dome diameter as 12 mm, which calculates as 35 3/4 inches

In the Templar drawing in Fig.219, the 15'6" wheelbase also measures 62.5 mm while the dome diameter is 11.5 mm, which calculates as 34 1/4 inches

 

I doubt whether accurate portrayal of dome diameter was a key concern in any of these drawings but it looks as though the larger dome has about 6 inches greater diameter.

[Compound2632]

Where are the Swindon drawings for this period archived?

[Mikkel]

FWIW, I measured a few domes in drawings in Russell's 'GW Engines'. [snip]

 

Excellent information, thanks very much Mike. I was looking at the drawings in Russell today while measuring up the splashers, and noticed that at least the two drawings seemed to be more or less the same scale. But I did not think to check a known dimension first!

 

I did a test build of a splasher today.

 

I made it shorter (-1mm) and deeper (+1mm) than the Oxford ones, to see if I could get a little closer to the prototype dimensions.

 

Clearances seem fine....

 

... but there was a set-back: The Oxford front splashers are right up against the smokebox, and so I can't replace them with deeper ones here. 

 

Need to think about that 

[Brassey]

Excellent information, thanks very much Mike. I was looking at the drawings in Russell today while measuring up the splashers, and noticed that at least the two drawings seemed to be more or less the same scale. But I did not think to check a known dimension first!

 

I did a test build of a splasher today.

 

I made it shorter (-1mm) and deeper (+1mm) than the Oxford ones, to see if I could get a little closer to the prototype dimensions.

 

Clearances seem fine....

 

... but there was a set-back: The Oxford front splashers are right up against the smokebox, and so I can't replace them with deeper ones here. 

 

Need to think about that 

 

Mikkel, some of the photos of the preserved DG on the Oxford threads show that the splashers were not all the same width

[Mikkel]

These are not Dean goods, so forgive the distraction (oh look.. a unicorn....) I thought I would put these up to round things out. they are the final two negatives that I won and they date from the same time. The lining can clearly be seen so i think it is fairly safe to assume that the Dean goods in the  photographs are unlined. These would make lovely models too Mikkel,  just sayin......

 

 

 

I have been looking closer at Craig's wonderful glass plates, including the Birdcage 3601s. According to RCTS part 6, No. 3614 was built in June 1902, receiving a D3 boiler in 1911. No. 3617 was  built in July 1902, first boiler change to D3 was in 1910. According to the RCTS and Russell vol 2, the original cast iron chimneys began to be replaced with copper cap ones from 1907 onwards.

 

Behind 3614 is a wagon with the 25" lettering, introduced in 1904. So the Birdcage photos were not taken earlier than that. This tallies with Craig's other photos showing the Dean Goods engines, and Craig's estimate that the Dean Goods photos were taken ca. 1905/06. E.g. Dean Goods No. 2358 received the S4 boiler seen in the photo in 02/1905, and Dean Goods No. 2455 was fitted with the S2 boiler in 10/1904.

 

Edit: I'm wondering though if 3617 has a copper cap? That would make it 1907 onwards...

 

The background in all photos looks similar, although I have been unable to make a direct match for any of the buildings from one photo to another.

 

Incidentally, the Birdcage wheelbase was 7'9"+8'6"+7'9" and the wheels were 5'2" and 3'8". I am not sure about the wheelbase of the Bachmann L&Y Class 5 2-4-2T, but the wheels were 5'8" and 3'7 3/4", so no RTR help there 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Mikkel

[Mikkel]

Mikkel, some of the photos of the preserved DG on the Oxford threads show that the splashers were not all the same width

 

Oh! Thanks for that Brassey, quite important then. I'll have a look.

[Brassey]

On Craig's latest photos on, 2-4-2 3617 has the crank pin on the spoke.  This wheel format was a Wolverhampton practice which hints to me that these locos may well have been maintained at Wolverhampton. Wolverhampton is known to have followed different painting schemes and maybe they did not line goods engines.

 

All the locos have full tenders showing they are about to start work.  Although clean, I would not describe them as gleaming but the lining should show before a days work.

 

Contrarily, photos of LNWR locos on shed, even goods engines, were always gleaming.  Maybe it was the blackberry black but contemporary accounts suggest that the GWR was not as fastidious at cleaning! That went for coaching stock too.

 

Jol: LNWR locos went through far less changes than GWR ones which is why a lot of this details has escaped the books whereas the LNWR ones are more comprehensive because there is less of it. Note for example the different wheel practices between Swindon and Wolverhampton and that applied to boilers too!

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

Jol: LNWR locos went through far less changes than GWR ones which is why a lot of this details has escaped the books whereas the LNWR ones are more comprehensive because there is less of it. Note for example the different wheel practices between Swindon and Wolverhampton and that applied to boilers too!

 

One benefit of modelling the LNWR. A copy of Jack Nelson's LNWR Portrayed, Bill Finch's Portfolio on building a 5" gauge Jumbo and Talbot's LNWR Engines contains nearly of what you would need to know. The one area that is a bit thin is info on tender details.

 

I am disposing of the books from the estate of late friend which includes Russel's GWR Locomotives books, but I don't think they would be of much use from what has  been said earlier.

[Guy Rixon]

Clearances seem fine....

 

... but there was a set-back: The Oxford front splashers are right up against the smokebox, and so I can't replace them with deeper ones here. 

 

Need to think about that 

 

 

Are Oxford's splashers the correct distance from the centreline? I would not be surprised if they have been moved in from the true spacing to match the 16.5mm gauge.

[Miss Prism]

I'm wondering though if 3617 has a copper cap? That would make it 1907 onwards...

 

It's a trick of the light, on a nicely cleaned cast-iron chimney. I think the only tapered chimneys having separate copper tops were the Aberdares.

 

On the Birdcages, the original tapered chimneys could be seen later than 1907, but by then, tapered D2 boilers were being fitted to the first two batches of locos, the last batch of Birdcages having appeared with D2s from inception. 'Slim' parallel chimneys (see http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls187.htm) started to be fitted from 1907, and fattie 'Bulldog' ones later (see http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrhs1946.htm), usually coinciding with D3 long cones.

 

 

On Craig's latest photos on, 2-4-2 3617 has the crank pin on the spoke.  This wheel format was a Wolverhampton practice which hints to me that these locos may well have been maintained at Wolverhampton. Wolverhampton is known to have followed different painting schemes and maybe they did not line goods engines.

 

Crankpin on spoke was a pan-GWR characteristic, and not confined to Wolverhampton locos. (Crankpin between spokes was I think introduced by Collett.) All the Birdcages were built at Swindon. Wolverhampton's erecting shop wasn't big enough.

 

That said, you're right about Wolverhampton having different ideas about painting, but I find it difficult to believe they would have ceased lining goods engines without some sort of nod of approval, or at least following the practice, of Swindon.

 

The Birdcages were Metro tanks on steroids, and did useful suburban work, but their days were numbered from a very early stage, and they were wiped out by the large Prairies.

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Miss Prism

[Brinkly]

Cracking work sir as always! Most excellent. 

 

I also admire your bravery in hacking a £100 model up!

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[MikeOxon]

Mikkel, some of the photos of the preserved DG on the Oxford threads show that the splashers were not all the same width

If you are referring to Clearwater's photos, it seems that the centre splasher on the RHS is narrower, in order to clear the reversing rod.  I'm not sure that will help Mikkel with his current difficulty but is a point to note if making new splashers.  It's hard to judge from my photo below (because of the perspective effect) but I think the LHS splashers are the same width.

 

[Mikkel]

All the locos have full tenders showing they are about to start work.  Although clean, I would not describe them as gleaming but the lining should show before a days work.

 

In which case, 3617 appears to be unlined, unlike its sister? There's a line at the bottom of the tank but it could be a light or noise effect perhaps.

[Mikkel]

Mikkel, some of the photos of the preserved DG on the Oxford threads show that the splashers were not all the same width

 

Are Oxford's splashers the correct distance from the centreline? I would not be surprised if they have been moved in from the true spacing to match the 16.5mm gauge.

 

If you are referring to Clearwater's photos, it seems that the centre splasher on the RHS is narrower, in order to clear the reversing rod.  I'm not sure that will help Mikkel with his current difficulty but is a point to note if making new splashers.  It's hard to judge from my photo below (because of the perspective effect) but I think the LHS splashers are the same width.

 

DeanGoods2013.jpg

 

Well, this is one of those issues that is difficult to determine as most photos are taken from an angle where the width and position of splashers is difficult to assess. The best I have found so far is a photo of an unidentified roundtop Dean Goods on page 46 of Jeremy Clements "William Dean: The greatest of them all". This is taken from a slightly elevated position allowing a view down along the footplate. The splashers seem to be the same width, and there does not seem to be a cut out or similar for the splasher alongside the (extended) smokebox. 

 

The Oxford model splashers may well be a bit too far inwards (though it does not appear too bad compared to the photo in the Clements book), but I'm reluctant to move them outwards as I will then have to make them wider to cover the wheels which are too far in due to the 16.5 gauge. It's a compromise I can accept as it comes with the gauge I have chosen to live with 

 

Interestingly, the front splashers in the Finney kit incorporates a cut-out of the front splasher alongside the smokebox. It is evident from the Brassmasters site and can be seen in the 5th photo down of Dave's superb 7mm Dean Goods here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1131/entry-12130-dean-goods-part-5-ready-for-paint/

 

I just might nick that solution.

 

 

 

I also admire your bravery in hacking a £100 model up!

 

 

You don't think they would take it back if there's a motor failure?    It's a lot of money of course, but on the other hand - people spend more on a single night out sometimes.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Mikkel

[Edwardian]

Well, this is one of those issues that is difficult to determine as most photos are taken from an angle where the width and position of splashers is difficult to assess. The best I have found so far is a photo of an unidentified roundtop Dean Goods on page 46 of Jeremy Clements "William Dean: The greatest of them all". This is taken from a slightly elevated position allowing a view down along the footplate. The splashers seem to be the same width, and there does not seem to be a cut out or similar for the splasher alongside the (extended) smokebox. 

 

The Oxford model splashers may well be a bit too far inwards (though it does not appear too bad compared to the photo in the Clements book), but I'm reluctant to move them outwards as I will then have to make them wider to cover the wheels which are too far in due to the 16.5 gauge. It's a compromise I can accept as it comes with the gauge I have chosen to live with 

 

Interestingly, the front splashers in the Finney kit incorporates a cut-out of the front splasher alongside the smokebox. It is evident from the Brassmasters site and can be seen in the 5th photo down of Dave's superb 7mm Dean Goods here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1131/entry-12130-dean-goods-part-5-ready-for-paint/

 

I just might nick that solution.

 

 

 

You don't think they would take it back if there's a motor failure?    It's a lot of money of course, but on the other hand - people spend more on a single night out sometimes.

 

Not really the view you need, but the best I've got.

[Edwardian]

Don't any of the GWR loco books cover the sort of information being discussed?

 

Yes, you'd think so.

 

The RCTS Preliminary Survey is great on boilers, good on chimneys and smokeboxes, but somewhat cursory on domes:

 

... In 1892, the G.W.R. went to the other extreme by fitting most of their domed boilers with a very large pattern. 

 

That there was variation in dome size is clear from the comments on the S4 boilers fitted as standard from 1894:

 

... some of the earlier and smaller boilers had small domes in contrast to the very large domes generally fitted.