Jump to content
 

Pragmatic Pre-Grouping - Mikkel's Workbench


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Mikkel,

It is annoying that they did not take the photos of the equipment that we need to make our models.  You need early panniers and you get saddle tanks, I want dated 645s and 1701s and they are never dated correctly if at all and not in the angle I want.  You want coaches and they take the engine, I could go on but I will not.  Best guess I suppose.

 

I have always had a soft spot for panniers as well.  I managed to get a 3mm 94xx when I was a lad, I still have it somewhere.  Thanks to your advice my 2721 is now safe as the chimney is tapered.  I thought of using it as it appears to be taller than the one I have, but it is maybe not 1mm longer.  However when I put the chimney I have it is a lot taller than the dome even thoughwhen on it appears the same side.  I will need to look carefully at the photos, oh for more photos, as the base looks wrong.

 

I agree about taking photos, and eyesight.  My magnifying glass helps, but the problem with photos is that they make things bigger than life and you will never see the details, blemishes in real life.  I suppose, annoyingly, that if at the level of detail the eye cannot see at three feet is correct, then the model at three feet looks better.  I use both glasses and a magnifying glass and the photos still show up things I have missed.

 

Noting your comment about lockdown in DEnmark, will you have to start going in to work soon then?

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

When did pannierisation start? Or, to put the question the other way round, what chance of turning it into a saddle tank?

I seem to remember the GWR started phasing out and converting saddle tanks to panniers in 1880-90s, but don’t quote me on that. But definitely after the end of broadgauge. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

I seem to remember the GWR started phasing out and converting saddle tanks to panniers in 1880-90s, but don’t quote me on that. But definitely after the end of broadgauge. 

 

It was driven by the adoption of Belpaire boilers in the 20th century, it being inconvenient to construct a saddle tank that would straddle such a complicated shape. As Mikkel has said, for the 2721 class, this was from 1909 (that being in answer to my specific question); I doubt it started much earlier for any of the other classes of saddle tank. For my c. 1902 modelling period, the Great Western was pannierless.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

It was driven by the adoption of Belpaire boilers in the 20th century, it being inconvenient to construct a saddle tank that would straddle such a complicated shape.

Alas! Another myth. If they were capable of beating out Belpaire fireboxes (not boilers!) and shapely dome covers, the boilershops at Swindon, Wolverhampton and indeed Newton Abbot, Worcester, etc, etc, were perfectly capable of making saddle tanks to fit Belpaire fireboxes.

 

The reason for abandoning the saddle tank was much simpler: it raised the centre of gravity, and was also prone to surging, making locos unsteady above about 40 mph.

Side tanks were being used on the outside cylinder prairies, with just enough access to the inside motion, but one look at the 3901 inside cylinder prairies reveals the problem with side tanks: no access from the side to lubricate the motion: even on the four coupled tanks, you can just reach in and top up the oiling points. Hence, the pannier tanks were an ideal solution to the problem. As a further bonus, they rest on a couple of supporting brackets either side of the boiler, and can be more easily detached (when empty!) for repairs and replacement: no having to lift the tank up above the boiler/firebox/smoke box.

 

I have been reading up on various “different” ways of doing things on the GWR. It has been revealing. They weren’t always right, but there was usually a good reason behind their decisions. If you start from first principles, and look around at what was available both as new developments and existing resources, you realise that the diesel hydraulics were in fact a very good solution for the needs of the time, and just a little bit more investment, more wisely placed, might have made a massive difference.

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Alas! Another myth.

 

I am all in favour of demythologising the Great Western! Nevertheless the advent of pannier tanks goes hand in hand with the move to Belpaire boilers, but as symptoms of the same modernising thinking, rather than cause and effect. Is there any instance of an engine with a round-topped firebox being given panniers?

 

One might question how much advantage was gained with the complexity of a Belpaire boiler on small locomotives but evidently Swindon felt them to be worth-while, as did Derby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, ChrisN said:

Noting your comment about lockdown in DEnmark, will you have to start going in to work soon then?

 

Thanks Chris for your rant against inconsiderate photographers, made me laugh!

 

Yes, from this week almost everyone is back at work here, though advised (not required)  to work from home some days of the week if possible. 

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

For my c. 1902 modelling period, the Great Western was pannierless.

 

The RCTS says the first GWR panniers were fitted to 4-4-0T no 1490 in 1898. Then came the crane pannier tank locos in 1901, followed by panniers fitted to six other engines 1903-06, of which 5 were 1813s, one without Belpaire boiler. Standardization of panniers on new locos began in late 1909. Only the 633 class and 68 saddle tanks were not eventually converted.

 

Edited by Mikkel
To clarify
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It may be of some significance that there was a derailment at Loughor in 1904 that was to some extend blamed by the Report on the unsteady riding of a saddle tank being used as a pilot loco.  I am of the opinion (other opinions are available) that the adoption of pannier tanks was the result of several factors, the Loughor accident being one, the introduction of Belpaire fireboxes another, and the need to preserve access to inside motion a third.  No loco was designed for pannier tanks except the experimental 4-4-0 and the crane tank until the introduction of the 57xx class in the 20s.

 

Oddest application, IMHO, the Swindonised Rhymney Railway K class, an outside framed 0-6-2T fitted with panniers to replace the original saddle tanks, with the replacement GW Belpaire boiler.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

It took a while for the GWR to learn that stability was a more critical matter on standard gauge than on their Broad Gauge.  Pearson had designed 4-2-4 tanks that ran successfully at speed on the broad gauge but, when Dean later tried something similar for standard gauge, it didn't stay on the track long enough for any proper trials.

 

I had one of those Hornby 2721 tanks when it seemed a huge advance over their previous 57xx pannier model.  Mine went into retirement when I turned the clock back to the 19th century.  I look forward to seeing what you make of yours, Mikkel.

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

  • RMweb Gold

The RCTS volume seems to think that the Loughor accident merely contributed to a process that was already set in motion, with drawings for new panniers drawn up well before the 1904 accident. Horrible accident though. 

 

27537438344_07f2451181_c.jpgGWR Train Wreck at Loughor nr Llanelli Wales 3rd Oct 1904 by Paul Clarke, on Flickr

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I am in need of enlightenment. I'm aware of the different types of smokebox door. But I have always been a bit confused by the terms "plain front" and "pressed steel front". Two heavily cropped photos here. Is the former plain, and the latter pressed?

 

Udklip3.JPG.569c638d0f4e297f6f775a0af89ba95e.JPG

 

Udklip2.JPG.7372caa153d684c9fbca9bd488c55d15.JPG

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/06/2020 at 15:39, davidbr said:

They are hackle pliers, used for fly tying and available from angling shops.  Veniard is a common make.  Price: about £2.75 with the comfortable finger pieces; £2.50 without.  The jaws are very nearly parallel and they have a good grip.

I've had a couple of the long nosed ones for  nearly 40 years, very good.
I hadn't realised you could also have 'finger comfort' pieces,

which with my encroaching arthritis would be useful to retaining a grip on them,

........ they have a strong spring.
Thoroughly recommended.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Oddest application, IMHO, the Swindonised Rhymney Railway K class, an outside framed 0-6-2T fitted with panniers to replace the original saddle tanks, with the replacement GW Belpaire boiler.  

 

I think that the Dean Goods that operated in North Africa  during The Great War,

would be contenders for that title!

Edited by jcm@gwr
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

I think that the Dean Goods that operated in North Africa  during The Great War,

would be contenders for that title!

Runs it a close second; might have won if it had outside frames!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/06/2020 at 18:25, Compound2632 said:

Is there any instance of an engine with a round-topped firebox being given panniers?

 

 

645 class No. 764 received both an S4 and Pannier tanks 7/1913.  4 other locos with S4 boilers and Pannier tanks were 1519/1549/1554 and 1811.

 

Nos. 1501/1516/1517/1521/1523/1542 were rebuilt with B4 Belpaire fireboxes and three course saddle tanks in 1904-06

 

I've almost finished building a 645/1501 class no. 1505 so have delved quite deeply into the class.  in 1912 1505 was at Shrewsbury.  This class was Wolverhampton built and was different to the 1854/1701 class

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Two heavily cropped photos here. Is the former plain, and the latter pressed?

 

Yes. The former, a Dean design, is more often referred to as a 'dished' front. The latter is called pressed because the door has a pronounced lip which fits neatly inside another pressed ring of the smokebox front itself. The pressings were highly standardised.

 

94xx-smokebox-front.jpg.0653360fb5ddea2fd490661b53205809.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks Miss P, you can see how the pressed front becomes increasingly widespread in photos of the 2721s as the years go by. The instructions for the Finney 1854/2721 kit (which I think were written by Malcolm Mitchell), nicely summarize key developments:

 

Quote
  • Pannier tanks: Early, up to c.1917 flush riveted. From c.1917 to 1924 snap head riveted. After 1924 welded seams.
  • Smokebox/tank front: Early plain front with ringed door. Later snap head rivets. From c.1920 smokebox had pressed front with Churchward type door without the ring.
  • Bunkers: Early short with railed top later sheeted in. From c.1924 enlarged type were fitted.
  • Cabs: As built were open with a canvas covered wooden roof which was later replaced with steel. A significant number were rebuilt from c.1924 onwards with new enclosed cabs some whilst carrying the old style bunker.
  • Steam heating:  Although essentially shunting and light freight engines many were fitted with steam heating. 
  • Balance weights: Changed from large type with visible rivets to a smaller plain design.

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 20/06/2020 at 19:38, Mikkel said:

The RCTS volume seems to think that the Loughor accident merely contributed to a process that was already set in motion, with drawings for new panniers drawn up well before the 1904 accident. Horrible accident though. 

 

I found Lt.-Col. Yorke's report most interesting - and unusual, in that he includes in an appendix evidence given by expert witnesses at the Coroner's Inquest, in addition to the usual evidence taken from the railwaymen involved. One of the experts is C.E. Stretton, introduced as an expert on permanent way. He was also an author of popular railway histories, in which capacity he is nowadays recognised as having been rather inventive. 

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

According to the RCTS books, The 1661 class locos do not seem to have been greatly liked, and several were sold off to Welsh lines, They were the largest and heaviest of the outside-framed saddle/panniers,and spent most of their lives hauling heavy coal trains. 

It seems extraordinary that an engine of this type was attached as a pilot to an express which, according to some accounts, could have been travelling at up to 60mph at the time of the Loughor accident.  At that speed, it doesn't seem too surprising that a goods saddle tank could have jumped the rails.

Edited by MikeOxon
correction
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yorke's report appears to agree with you Mike:

 

Udklip2.JPG.5d6b9900ec27b0ab98d5a44cc6e7ff0c.JPG

 

Udklip.JPG.350008278586f5facec1e09ae34db627.JPG

 

Thanks Stephen for the link, most interesting.

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Many thanks, I do find this RTR bashing quite relaxing. Maybe because there's less (self-imposed) pressure!

 

2 hours ago, Bluemonkey presents.... said:

What rolling road is that, please? I think I should be looking into adding one to 'the tools of the trade'.

 

It's the KPF Zeller, which I bought from Ten Commandments. I took my cue from this RMweb thead and am so far happy with it. I particularly like that it is light and non-intrusive, yet feels sturdy. But then I used to have the old Gaugemaster one, so everything will feel light after that :) 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 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...