Vacuum Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Looking at the real thing and the CAD in broadside, I think the relative heights of the cab, SVC and chimney look pretty much correct. KingHeight.jpg Agreed but I wasn't referring to the height of the cab roof or any other components. What I was referring to was the profile of the cab roof as viewed from the rear of the locomotive, in particular the transition between the curved sections and the central flat section. The latter on the CAD looks to me still to be too wide, albeit by a small amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Agreed but I wasn't referring to the height of the cab roof or any other components. What I was referring to was the profile of the cab roof as viewed from the rear of the locomotive, in particular the transition between the curved sections and the central flat section. The latter on the CAD looks to me still to be too wide, albeit by a small amount. Bearing in mind this is an N-gauge model have you viewed the prototype cab rear from above at an angle looking down from at least 30 degrees- which is the angle that the model will be seen from for approximately 90% of its existence? Even Andy York struggles with N-gauge to get below this angle when taking layout photos - and only achieves his brilliant low-angle results by parking a small camera in places where one can't actually get ones eyes..... Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 ok, i think it would help if i posted a back of the roof shot of the cad/cam, so we can kill or cure this issue. i'll do it later when i'm home. feedback, even asking questions about something i might have missed and think its ok, is always welcome. After all, we are all on a learning curve i think, and it will benefit the project. cheers Dave 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 It might be an optical illusion but it is difficult to tell. Several (non-Swindon) drawings show things slightly differently which doesn't help but what does appear incorrect - by a smidgeon in 2mm scale - is the relative height of the safety valve cover and the cab roof. One drawing clearly show the top of the sv cover as higher than the cab roof, another (the Charles Lake version) is less clear and at a small scale which makes it more difficult to judge although it too on the original 1930s printed version indicates the sv cover is higher. The Westbourne Park incident would tend to confirm this in that it reportedly left the chimney and cab roof undamaged but took off the sv cover. I was on the train involved in this incident (in 1991). 6024 had been diverted onto the relief line on the approach back to Paddington instead of the main which it had used safely on two previous tours. What I believe happened was that the studs securing the safety valve assembly were sheared off by the underside of the bridge which the locomotive struck owing to the fact that the body then responsible for infrastructure (Railtrack?) had elevated the height of the relief line during the course of routine maintenance. As a result the entire safety valve assembly took off like a rocket taking the safety valve bonnet with it. The boiler emptied rapidly and it was only thanks to the quick intervention of the fire brigade, which had been alerted by some residents of the flats neighbouring Paddington, that a possible explosion was averted. Can you imagine the thermal shock to the boiler? Yet 6024 was up and running again within a few weeks - a tribute to Great Western engineering. The chimney and cab roof indeed came through unscathed, otherwise there might well have been fatalities or serious injury to the footplate crew. Some will remember that a similar accident befell KGV between Hereford and the Severn Tunnel on its way to an open day at Swindon a few years before the 6024 incident Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Bearing in mind this is an N-gauge model have you viewed the prototype cab rear from above at an angle looking down from at least 30 degrees- which is the angle that the model will be seen from for approximately 90% of its existence? Even Andy York struggles with N-gauge to get below this angle when taking layout photos - and only achieves his brilliant low-angle results by parking a small camera in places where one can't actually get ones eyes..... Les Noted but it is either correct or it isn't and if there is an opportunity of getting it right let's grab it. IMHO the Farish Castle is absolutely correct on this aspect and were it not so then to me, at least, it would stand out like a sore thumb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Here is a comparison of the CAD from the rear with the real thing. The roof profile looks pretty close I think. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) Here is a comparison of the CAD from the rear with the real thing. The roof profile looks pretty close I think. kingroof.jpg The profile yes. But surely the bit where it curves back towards the tender is narrower in the CAD than it is in the photograph? Can we have a shot of the roof from above? Whilst I'm here, can we have a shot of the smokbox front from the side so we can see the profile of the smokebox door. It just looks like a cone on the general CAD views although I am sure that it isn't. Chris Edited July 11, 2018 by Chris Higgs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Here is a comparison of the CAD from the rear with the real thing. The roof profile looks pretty close I think. kingroof.jpg O.K. but as I have pointed out before the rear extension to the cab roof curves in towards the cab sides too early and I think this is evident from your illustrations. On the CAD the curve starts inside the line of the spectacle plate windows whereas on the prototype the curve starts well into the line of those windows. In other words, imagining you are looking directly down onto the top of the cab roof, the rearmost straight section of the cab roof extension between the curves is too narrow. If this is corrected then I think the flat central section of the cab roof about which I have been commenting will look better without any adjustment. Sorry I don't have the technical expertise to illustrate this and I hope I have made myself clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 The profile yes. But surely the bit where it curves back towards the tender is narrower in the CAD than it is in the photograph? Can we have a shot of the roof from above? Whilst I'm here, can we have a shot of the smokbox front from the side so we can see the profile of the smokebox door. It just looks like a cone on the general CAD views although I am sure that it isn't. king cab.PNG Chris I posted no. 408 without having seen Chris's post above. Precisely, Chris! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalfytich Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 OK, I've had a look in my J H Russell and the safety valve bonnet is slightly higher than the cab roof on the drawing but it looks as though the capuchon on the chimney is the same height as the bonnet.. Has anyone mentioned that on the top row of washout plugs on real thing there are 4 in front of the boiler band on the firebox and three behind but on the model they are the other way round? I'm not sure I quite understand the talk of the curve towards the tender. Do you mean where the roof gets narrower and curves in starting exactly in line with the handrail behind the rear cab window? If so the lower edge of the roof after it curves back is pretty well in line with the rear of the firebox on Colonel Templar's drawing while it is a bit higher on the cad so I would tend to agree. Are the front cab windows square? Templar's drawing shows them virtually square which is correct if you look at pictures of the real thing, while Swindon drawings showed them rectangular. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) OK, I've had a look in my J H Russell and the safety valve bonnet is slightly higher than the cab roof on the drawing but it looks as though the capuchon on the chimney is the same height as the bonnet.. Has anyone mentioned that on the top row of washout plugs on real thing there are 4 in front of the boiler band on the firebox and three behind but on the model they are the other way round? I'm not sure I quite understand the talk of the curve towards the tender. Do you mean where the roof gets narrower and curves in starting exactly in line with the handrail behind the rear cab window? If so the lower edge of the roof after it curves back is pretty well in line with the rear of the firebox on Colonel Templar's drawing while it is a bit higher on the cad so I would tend to agree. Are the front cab windows square? Templar's drawing shows them virtually square which is correct if you look at pictures of the real thing, while Swindon drawings showed them rectangular. Dave There was apparently one King that had rectangular cab windows like on the Swindon drawings, but all the rest were always as you see in the photos. I would not trust Swindon drawings unless they are GAs. Those found in the Russell book were never intended by Swindon to be used to build the loco, either the prototype or in model form. Photos are preferable over any drawing as they show what really was. Chris Edited July 12, 2018 by Chris Higgs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalfytich Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 Sorry, I meant is the window on the cab in the CAD drawing square? It looks rectangular to me so it would only be correct for one King. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 (edited) Sorry, I meant is the window on the cab in the CAD drawing square? It looks rectangular to me so it would only be correct for one King. Dave I think it's an exaggeration to say they are square, just squarer then on the Swindon drawing. Attached are a number of cab shots, from which I deduce that 6001 is the one with the narrower cab window (am I right?). Based on these photos, I reckon the CAD has it about right. However I think it's also clear from these photos that the rear of the cab roof is too narrow (when looked at from above). And where are the cab roof hatches that can be seen on all the photos (sometimes open)? Overall, the cab roof looks more like one off a Manor than a King. Chris Edited July 14, 2018 by Chris Higgs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr chapman Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 I'm sorry Dave but this is awful. Looks nothing like a King Arthur! Start again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinZaPint Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 (edited) I'm sorry Dave but this is awful. Looks nothing like a King Arthur! Start again... Now that would be nice! I have ordered a King as I model GWR & SR. Edited July 15, 2018 by MinZaPint Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 (edited) Whatever is the poor modeller to do when they get it different at 12" to the foot scale? On a more serious note we have seen two cab roofs in scans, and Dave has mentioned more than one version.... Les Edited July 15, 2018 by Les1952 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 I think it's an exaggeration to say they are square, just squarer then on the Swindon drawing. Attached are a number of cab shots, from which I deduce that 6001 is the one with the narrower cab window (am I right?). Based on these photos, I reckon the CAD has it about right. However I think it's also clear from these photos that the rear of the cab roof is too narrow (when looked at from above). And where are the cab roof hatches that can be seen on all the photos (sometimes open)? Overall, the cab roof looks more like one off a Manor than a King. Chris King Window.PNG6000 cab.PNG6001 cab.PNG6012 cab.PNG6019 cab.PNG6020 cab.PNG Chris, See points 1 and 3 in my post no.356. I have already backed up your comments regarding the width of the rear cab roof. Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 proto king.jpg Whatever is the poor modeller to do when they get it different at 12" to the foot scale? On a more serious note we have seen two cab roofs in scans, and Dave has mentioned more than one version.... Les They have probably been removed in preservation for 'Elf and Safety' reasons. Seem to have been universally there in service days though. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 Now that would be nice! I have ordered a King as I model GWR & SR. We can live and hope. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr chapman Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 We can live and hope. Chris Buy a king, grow the business then maybe one day:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 Buy a king, grow the business then maybe one day:) I'm in for one, might make it two. But I cannot imagine Dave getting his money back on an Arthur if I am being realistic. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 I'm in for one, might make it two. But I cannot imagine Dave getting his money back on an Arthur if I am being realistic. Chris Luckily this is where crowdfunding works, if there isn't enough interest then no one loses any money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 On a more serious note we have seen two cab roofs in scans, and Dave has mentioned more than one version.... I think this refers to with and without the cab roof vents which were inserted in the early 50s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 (edited) They have probably been removed in preservation for 'Elf and Safety' reasons. Seem to have been universally there in service days though. Chris The cab roof vents were actually a BR addition, presumably because the cab was considered too hot and BR had to care a bit more about their enginemen's welfare than the GWR did. This begs the question- if the cab roof changed shape at the top in the fifties (ventilators take up vertical space and there would be a loading gauge to consider), did it also change shape at the BACK at the same time? Of such little details are minefields made...… Les Edited July 16, 2018 by Les1952 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 The cab roof vents were actually a BR addition, presumably because the cab was considered too hot and BR had to care a bit more about their enginemen's welfare than the GWR did. This begs the question- if the cab roof changed shape at the top in the fifties (ventilators take up vertical space and there would be a loading gauge to consider), did it also change shape at the BACK at the same time? Of such little details are minefields made...… Les The ventilators were installed on the sloping sections of the cab roof and did not in any way alter the profile of the cab roof which remained unchanged to the end of the Kings' B.R. days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts