Jump to content
 

Little Muddle


KNP
 Share

Recommended Posts

What was the GWRs obsession with pannier tanks? I’m probably totally wrong here and making a very general assumption but only the LNWR Bissel tanks come to mind as examples of standard gauge pannier tanks that aren’t GWR ones.

“I’ve got the latest design for our new six wheel shunting locomotive”

”Um, it looks the same as our last six?”

”No, no. Not at all! As you can clearly see, this design has a cab six inches lower than previous designs!”

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 6
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:scratchhead: IIRC it was so that crews and fitters had easier access to the inside motion etc and wouldn't have to crawl underneath (a potentially dangerous activity out on the working line) in order to oil round and make running checks.

  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, MrWolf said:

:scratchhead: IIRC it was so that crews and fitters had easier access to the inside motion etc and wouldn't have to crawl underneath (a potentially dangerous activity out on the working line) in order to oil round and make running checks.

That said you have to be pretty agile to oil up reaching over the running plate into the inside motion, it is easier to do the inside and axleboxes from between the frames, standing on a old wooden chair in the pit to reach up in the old days - well when I did that back in the 70's and 90's

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

  • RMweb Gold
19 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Pannier tanks, I mean the actual tanks not the eponymous locos, fit neatly around the Belpaire fireboxes.

 

Exactly.  The change came when the GWR went from round top fireboxes to Belpaire and found that fitting a saddle tank over the different firebox shape was not an easy task.  So to go with the belpaire fireboxes they adapted pannier tanks instead of saddle tanks.

 

3 hours ago, 2ManySpams said:

 

Don't worry, will soon have the GWR bullies sorted out...

 

IMG_20211009_145136.jpg.1d28aeaf28355306981f0d78b170d741.jpg

Off which a certain Mr Churchward might well have said that any three of ours could push any eight of yours backwards :butcher:

 

BTW that would be the original Mr Churchward n known for teh design of railway engines rather than his distant relative of the same name who I used to work with - on the Western of course - in the 1970s.  I don't think that Bill Stanier, a perway supervisor at Reading, was even distantly related to his namesake who became a 'Sir' however there were men i knew on the Western in the 1980s who were directly descended from men who'd worked n the broad gauge GWR doing a simlar job (engine driving in several instances).

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 6
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

BTW that would be the original Mr Churchward n known for teh design of railway engines rather than his distant relative of the same name who I used to work with - on the Western of course - in the 1970s.  I don't think that Bill Stanier, a perway supervisor at Reading, was even distantly related to his namesake who became a 'Sir' however there were men i knew on the Western in the 1980s who were directly descended from men who'd worked n the broad gauge GWR doing a simlar job (engine driving in several instances).

Bob Urie, sometime Asst GM on the Eastern Region, came to join us in BR Projects in the mid-90s, and his grandfather had certainly designed a loco or two! And ISTR RCA Nicholls, a WR trainee in my year whom the SM probably knew, was descended from a senior luminary on the GWR.

 

And in a recent BRM, Nick Palette, a rather talented modeller of all sorts of prototypes, revealed that he came from good railway stock - father John was GM of the Southern 40 years ago. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly.  The change came when the GWR went from round top fireboxes to Belpaire and found that fitting a saddle tank over the different firebox shape was not an easy task.  So to go with the belpaire fireboxes they adapted pannier tanks instead of saddle tanks.

 

Off which a certain Mr Churchward might well have said that any three of ours could push any eight of yours backwards :butcher:

 

BTW that would be the original Mr Churchward n known for teh design of railway engines rather than his distant relative of the same name who I used to work with - on the Western of course - in the 1970s.  I don't think that Bill Stanier, a perway supervisor at Reading, was even distantly related to his namesake who became a 'Sir' however there were men i knew on the Western in the 1980s who were directly descended from men who'd worked n the broad gauge GWR doing a simlar job (engine driving in several instances).

 

9 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Bob Urie, sometime Asst GM on the Eastern Region, came to join us in BR Projects in the mid-90s, and his grandfather had certainly designed a loco or two! And ISTR RCA Nicholls, a WR trainee in my year whom the SM probably knew, was descended from a senior luminary on the GWR.

 

And in a recent BRM, Nick Palette, a rather talented modeller of all sorts of prototypes, revealed that he came from good railway stock - father John was GM of the Southern 40 years ago. 

I worked in Derby with Mike Stanier, who I believe was a nephew.

 

All part of the great Railway Family.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, westerner said:

I see Misty is still not tied up.  I know she's just about to depar

 

My plan was to have her fully moored but as the harbour is on the edge of the layout and I lean over it to get to the back of the layout I felt I would damage the rigging so both her and Snowflake live on a shelf and only come down onto layout for photo's.

Also the door handle is just the right height to hit the hull if it gets opened to far and the temporary door stop isn't there so that another reason not to have anything permanently moored.....

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

That really is damage limitation defined. They're beautiful models in their own right.

Have you noticed that you never seem to damage anything that you don't value in some way?

There's probably a theory on that somewhere.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KNP said:

Peaceful day down in the harbour....

 

3890.jpg.215eedf483157d0ecaea1391d95d1a9f.jpg

Now then young Kevin, you have been told before about climbing up that pole to take photographs. And if you tear your trousers your Dad will be having more than a few words with you.:angry:

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Andrew P said:

Now then young Kevin, you have been told before about climbing up that pole to take photographs. And if you tear your trousers your Dad will be having more than a few words with you.:angry:

In other words ‘Wait till your Father gets home ‘ :nono:

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, John Besley said:

Even the seagulls have gone...

 

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

They will have gone inland for the winter I expect..

 

7 minutes ago, westerner said:

More likely to the nearest landfill.

Or school playground . . .

except that this is the 30s and food debris in the playground was probably 30+ years in the future!

Paul.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
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...