Kernow Models Beattie Well Tank

[SRman]

Going back the other way in time, at least one of the round splashered examples had "British Railways" in full in tiny letters across the splasher. That must have been around 1949 or 1950 or so, as the adjacent train in the photo has a T9 at its head with no emblem or crest of any kind on its tender.

[Garry D100]

This is a limited edition, a one off.

Limited edition yes, one off, not necessarily.

 

I thought this was a model that was limited by being exclusive to them, rather than limited in the sense of the one issue. Indeed, on the their webpage they say "At present three models are proposed:", which suggests later runs are a possibility (presumably subject to the model being a success).

This was my understanding too and I asked the question to Kernow as I too did not want to miss out on certain variations and this was the reply;

 

"At present these are the only three that are planned. We would have to see how these models sell before deciding if we produce any more"

 

There is a second run of Silver Bullets due to demand so its totally possible reruns could happen of the Beattie Well Tanks, if demand confirms viability.

 

Garry

[Gwiwer]

You only have to look at how fast all iterations of the silver bullets sold out to realise the success of those wagons. The Kernow editions were also extremely limited in number (250 of each) compared with 750 of each well tank model. As well the very fact of being a loco requires significantly more investment due to the cost of tooling the motor. You also require more wagons than locos per train and would therefore expect them to sell in greater numbers than locos. The Beatties appear to be selling well. But nowhere near as fast as the silver (and "unsilver") bullets which, in the case of Kernow's editions, were sold out to pre-orders months before they arrived.

[dibber25]

After looking at the cad models I'm very disappointed if this is what they will use to make the model from as the attention to detail is very poor (quote)

 

They'd have to pay great attention to getting the detail WRONG - as the Beattie was SCANNED at the same time as our Sentinel project! The CADs are produced direct from the scan.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Peter Bedding]

I understand the Southern livery for the well tanks by the 1930's was black. The only problem will b scrapping those @#$%& BR number plates off the smokebox door. These should always be a separate item. I have removed a lot of BR emblems to return locomotives to their true heritage.

 

I believe that Autocoach is correct. My reading of history (Bradley) is that all three were painted in lined goods black at Grouping, and probably remained so until the major modification work in the 1930s which brought them to the condition which lasted to the end (minor changes excepted) and which Kernow appear to have copied. The dates for modification were: 1931 - 0314, 1933 - 0298, 1935 - 0329. They were renumbered by adding "3000" shortly after, then painted (or repainted?) plain black 1935 - 3329, 1938 - 3298, 1939 - 3314. Bulleid livery was applied to 3314 in November 1942, but the others retained Maunsell livery until after Nationalisation. (1948).

 

So, to produce one, two or three options in Southern livery after the rebuilding would hardly be a major cost. I shall delay my purchase(s) until that happens.

 

PB

[phil gollin]

I don't think 30586 (the only one with square splashers) ever wore "late BR" livery; it was withdrawn wearing the cycling lion. Of course we all have a modeller's licence so if you choose to disregard absolute reality anything can become possible.

 

 

I had assumed that all three went to the late livery.

 

A quiick "google" found this ;

 

http://www.google.co...%26tbs%3Disch:1

 

which seems to confirm 30586 with the late livery.

 

THUS, I am hoping for at least one more option.

 

.

[Gwiwer]

seems to confirm 30586 with the late livery.

 

Fair enough. My comment was based upon records from a family member who drove from Wadebridge including on the well tanks. I'll accept what appears to be an unaltered photo as evidence that personal notes are not always as accurate as we might wish.

[phil gollin]

Fair enough. My comment was based upon records from a family member who drove from Wadebridge including on the well tanks. I'll accept what appears to be an unaltered photo as evidence that personal notes are not always as accurate as we might wish.

 

If you go onto Google you will find many other photos.

 

.

[Pete Harvey]

After having looked at the pictures of the real loco and then re looking at the cad images I can see where the mistake lies.

 

If you look at the side one photo of the real loco you can follow the running board and can see that at the rear of the loco it finishes in a higher position than at the front of the loco granted it may only be 1- 1.5 inches in difference but it is a difference.

 

 

Now if you look at the cad image you can see that the cad model's running board does not change in height which gives the effect that buffer is in a different vertical position to the front buffer set.

 

 

Chris I understand that the real loco may of been scanned but if the person modelling and interpreting the information from the cad image is not a modeller or an engineer that understands how a loco is built then her will make assumptions of how something should be which is what has happened here I fear.

 

Pete

[cctransuk]

After having looked at the pictures of the real loco and then re looking at the cad images I can see where the mistake lies.

 

If you look at the side one photo of the real loco you can follow the running board and can see that at the rear of the loco it finishes in a higher position than at the front of the loco granted it may only be 1- 1.5 inches in difference but it is a difference.

 

 

Now if you look at the cad image you can see that the cad model's running board does not change in height which gives the effect that buffer is in a different vertical position to the front buffer set.

 

 

Chris I understand that the real loco may of been scanned but if the person modelling and interpreting the information from the cad image is not a modeller or an engineer that understands how a loco is built then her will make assumptions of how something should be which is what has happened here I fear.

 

Pete

 

This is undeniably the case - and will make me reconsider my pre-order unless it can be corrected before production.

 

The subtle difference in level is the raison d'etre for the raised front bufferbeam, and the 'straight-through' running plate of the model image completely undermines the character of the model.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[dibber25]

I've struggled to get my head round this and I have checked our file of Beattie photos. The CAD appears to me to be perfectly correct. The running plate IS straight and, beyond the rear splasher opening, it returns to the same level as it is at the front. Run a ruler over the broadside picture and all you get is slight distortion caused by the wide-angle camera lens. The buffers on the real thing ARE, indeed, at slightly different levels front and back. Also, in its twilight years on BR 30587 appears to have had a 'droop' distinctly noticeable on the right-hand side from the cylinder forwards to the buffer beam.I suspect it still has that droop (old age and rough shunting?) which is exaggerated by the camera lens. Unfortunately I can't post the illustrations that I've been checking against, as they are copyright of various different photographers.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Gulliver]

It definitely is correct on the CAD, this "droop" is an optical illusion. The running plate is straight all the way across, but looks to lower to the left of the centre splasher. However, if you look closely the running plate is below these splashers and is straight all the way.

 

On edit Chris Leigh has explained it at the same time, but far better than me!

[Neil]

I've tweaked both of the prototype photos already posted to bring out what was in shadow. To my eyes it looks as though the model's running board is correct (follow the bottom edge of the running board) with a stepped up section (double valence depth) between the crankpin splashers that returns to the same level as the front footplate at the cab end. My guess (it is only a guess) is that the rear buffers are set lower than the front, look at the mismatch between the Beattie and the diesel next to it.

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

So in short, the CAD accurately represents 'interesting' prototype construction; that's priceless. Just looking at the side on photo, my guess would be that the buffer plank height was determined by where it was possible to make a strong connection to the frames. At the front the frame height is to the top of the buffer plank, at the rear the bunker obscures the frame, it is quite possible the frame top lies beneath footplate level. It would be interesting to know if the original drawing has the buffers centred identically for height front and rear, but the deviation crept in as a constructional expedient at the works. Presumably the deviation is not so large as to place the buffer centres out of the acceptable range of height above rail applicable at the time this arrangement was made?

[cctransuk]

I've struggled to get my head round this and I have checked our file of Beattie photos. The CAD appears to me to be perfectly correct. The running plate IS straight and, beyond the rear splasher opening, it returns to the same level as it is at the front. Run a ruler over the broadside picture and all you get is slight distortion caused by the wide-angle camera lens. The buffers on the real thing ARE, indeed, at slightly different levels front and back. Also, in its twilight years on BR 30587 appears to have had a 'droop' distinctly noticeable on the right-hand side from the cylinder forwards to the buffer beam.I suspect it still has that droop (old age and rough shunting?) which is exaggerated by the camera lens. Unfortunately I can't post the illustrations that I've been checking against, as they are copyright of various different photographers.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Well - I'm convinced and my pre-order stands!

 

Amazing what you think you can see when directed to it by another.

 

I take it all back!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Pete Harvey]

The only way that this question will be solved if an independent person measures the height of the rear an front buffers on the real loco from the top of the rail.

 

And submits it on here, then the scale distance can be calculated and posted here also if there is a problem just say so and get it sorted out?

 

Just give us some sort of confirmation as the cad images are not doing you any favours at present and I for one would just like a model that was correct as it has taken so long for an RTR well tank model to be produced.

 

Pete

[Hammer]

Pete, why don't you contact Dapol and Kernow with your concerns. Surely they can do far more about it then the forum and they'd be able to check with their designers.

[Guest stuartp]

Does this pic help ? It looks to me as though it was meant to be straight but has wobbled a bit over the years. Note that the flanges on the rear buffers are above the top of the headstock.

 

No interest/involvement in this other than as a bystander. Even the good captain's book "Implausible Motive Power Over The Mendips" makes no mention of any of them being transfered to Galloway...

[Pete Harvey]

Stuart

 

That picture does help but unfortunately Daplo neglected to supply a close up cad image of the rear of the model, so we cannot see if its right or wrong?

 

But that picture show what is missing from the cad images if we get to see a cad image that shows what is in the picture then it will answer the problem and it will all hopefully have been a storm in a tea cup.

 

Hammer

 

Dapol and Kernow monitor this forum so they know what is being said and I'm sure are looking into this.

 

Pete

[dibber25]

We've looked at lots more pictures here, including shots of two Beatties coupled front-to-back. There is no question - the CAD is correct and the buffers on the real thing are at different heights. The back ones, despite having the top part of the mounting flange cut off to clear the overhang of the running plate, are still significantly lower than the front buffers. The top edge of the front buffer plank actually being above the running plate.

We should remember that there probably wasn't a 'British standard buffer height' when these locos were built and so long as they met well enough with anything they coupled to, that would do.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Andy Y]

Compare

 

 

 

Published under copyright licence

 

with

 

 

Both are straight and the buffer differential is clearly evident.

[Graham_Muz]

The Beattie well tanks were substantially rebuilt three times in there lives the first time between 1884 and 1892 and again between 1921 and 1922 and then lastly after frame fractures were experienced between 1931 and 1935. Up until this last rebuilding the front and rear buffers were the same height (I am happy to confirm that the running plate as evident in the photos above were straight not joggled) The front buffer beam was somewhat more substantial after the rebuilding and now started higher than the running plate with the buffers also mounted higher (if this was as a direct response to prevent further issues with cracking frames I can only surmise).

 

I am certainly happy from the CAD drawings that the designers have captured the prototype very well indeed.

[craigwelsh]

Certainly shows the camera can lie sometimes!

 

The lack of external bearings on the front axle will be an interesting one to conceal.

 

Another nice picture http://paulbiggsgcrailway.fotopic.net/p65128409.html , they are quaint little engines.

[Andy Y]

Further evidence (thanks to Dave @ Dapol) is shown in the rear 3/4 views below.

 

 

 

I think this and my previous post serve to show how closely the CAD does actually relate to photos of the prototype.

 

 

 

[Pete Harvey]

Thank you Dave and thank you Andy for posting those images, that does make things a lot clearer and with Chris and Graham's post it emplanes why the buffers are as they are.

 

Pete