Dapol OO 14XX and 517 Class 0-4-2Ts

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

Thus, they will most likely all have been on either Wolverhampton or Birmingham services.

 

Music to my ears. I think the Great Western just gained running powers for passenger as well as goods trains over the Midland hereabouts!

[Miss Prism]

Dumb question: if 1473 was one of the final (1465–1488) 15'6" wheelbase batch with outside trailing axle boxes, why didn't it look like the others?

 

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Dumb question: if 1473 was one of the final (1465–1488) 15'6" wheelbase batch with outside trailing axle boxes, why didn't it look like the others?

 

 

Because the final batch, built with 15'6" w/b, was just 1483-8. 

 

1473 was in broad terms a member of the largest group, those built to a 15' w/b. As you know, not all were lengthened. Fair Rosamund was one of those that remained with a 15' w/b.  

[Miss Prism]

Ah yes, thanks. gwr.org.uk doesn't distinguish between the final batches, and perhaps it should.

 

[Edwardian]

Just now, Miss Prism said:

Ah yes, thanks. gwr.org.uk doesn't distinguish between the final batches, and perhaps it should.

 

 

RCTS breaks down the batches within the large 'originally-built-to-15' w/b' division or group, showing the differences in technical specifications between batches. For instance, within the 15' group, it places 1473 in penultimate batch of the group, 1465-76. 

 

RCTS chose to group the class by as-built w/b, in 3 groups. The gwr.org categorises the class in broadly the same way, but also uses different criteria. The gwr.org category for 1465-1488 might be valid against other criteria, but not in claiming all were built to the long 15'6" w/b, and indeed, most (three quarters) were not, so you could simply add that the final half dozen were built at a 15'6" w/b. 

[Miss Prism]

Oh good, I'll do that. A very pragmatic suggestion.

 

[Miss Prism]

One aspect I noticed from these Victorian pictures is rod colour. Swindon seems not to have painted rods, even before 1900. Wolverhampton however did, as seen in Adrian Knowles' lovely rendition of 517, with Indian Red rods. This is corroborated in another very early (c 1888)  saddle tank pic. Note however, not all Wolverhampton livery depictions agree with this. Regardless, it does beg the question as to when Wolverhampton stopped painting rods.

 

[Mikkel]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Most interesting; many thanks. Where - and even when - was that photo taken?

 

6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Indeed, those are the questions. I would love to know. Mikkel?

 

Apparently taken at Solihull according to my notes. If only I knew the date. It was posted on ebay some 4-5 years ago (one of those sellers who sells a wide range of railway photos, not originals),

 

Here's another loco from the 1483-8 batch:

 

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/18541864-GWR-Wolverhampton-186/Joseph-Armstrong-Standard-Goods-517-class/i-Z7xMN5P

 

 

Edited May 18 by Mikkel
Clarity

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Apparently taken at Solihull according to my notes.

 

Very nice, though Solihull is tending to the bucolic.

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

 

Apparently taken at Solihull according to my notes. If only I knew the date. It was posted on ebay some 4-5 years ago (one of those sellers who sells a wide range of railway photos, not originals),

 

Here's another loco from the 1483-8 batch:

 

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/18541864-GWR-Wolverhampton-186/Joseph-Armstrong-Standard-Goods-517-class/i-Z7xMN5P

 

 

 

Yes, that is the view of 1487 reproduced in RCTS, so good to see such a large version of it.

 

It makes particularly clear the feature also seen on the picture of 1483, the tank side arragement.

 

I recall that Harlequin of this parish has been pointing out for sometime the apparent tank side cladding seen on some of these locos. He has pointed out the large bolt-heads on tanks sides that, to my eyes, recall nothing so much as the cladding bolts to Brighton Terrier tanks.

 

Whatever the purpose or nature of the arrangement, cladding or a tank extension, there is a clear difference in the appearance of the tanks for Compound of this parish to capture. 

 

It is clear from both the 1483 and 1487 pictures that there is a tankside panel that sits outboard of the tank and running plate, and, indeed, extends down to, and is bolted onto the face of, the valance. It extends higher than the tank top and beyond the length of the tank, allowing for inset handrails at each end. The picture of 1487 shows these features especially well.  

 

 

Edited May 18 by Edwardian
Further thoughts

[Edwardian]

8 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

One aspect I noticed from these Victorian pictures is rod colour. Swindon seems not to have painted rods, even before 1900. Wolverhampton however did, as seen in Adrian Knowles' lovely rendition of 517, with Indian Red rods. This is corroborated in another very early (c 1888)  saddle tank pic. Note however, not all Wolverhampton livery depictions agree with this. Regardless, it does beg the question as to when Wolverhampton stopped painting rods.

 

 

Note here also the painting of a standard goods used as the frontispiece to RCTS Part 1. This is intended to show the Wolverhampton livery as applied in 1885, the same year our 1483-8 batch was out-shopped. Everything below the footplate is painted to match the frames, not justthe rods, but the brake rodding too!

 

[Edwardian]

40 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Very nice, though Solihull is tending to the bucolic.

 

Quite

 

[Edwardian]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Most convincing reasoning - one would certainly want to put it to Mr Knowles. There is one more factor to be taken into account, that of the photographer. Knowles says the photo is "thought to have been taken by G M Perkins - a prolific railway photographer in the Midlands and Welsh borders at the beginning of the 20th century". One would want to see more of his oeuvre to get a feel for the date range over which he was active.

 

 

 

The "thought to be..." seems less than decisive.

 

One option, however, is to search the Warwickshire Railways site for G M Perkins.

 

He has several photographs there, including:

• Dean Single at Rowington troughs, 1903
• Springfield Tramway bridge, 1902
• An Atbara approaching Henley-in-Arden on an up West of England express service in 1912
• 3600 No 3606 working from Henley-in-Arden to Birmingham Snow Hill circa 1905.

However, although the website features the photograph of No.517 at Snow Hill - it's where I usually go to find it - the Warwickshire railways website does not attribute it to G M Perkins. Nor does HMRS, of whose collection it is part (AAY533).

 

So, the attribution may simply be a red herring that tempts Mr Knowles to think the picture was taken later than it probably was. 

[Compound2632]

49 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Quite

 

That whole area - part of the Forest of Arden (or Ardennes, if you're a character in As You Like It) - became steadily less bucolic following the opening of the Great Western's North Warwickshire line. Mock Tudor driving out the real thing.

[Edwardian]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That whole area - part of the Forest of Arden (or Ardennes, if you're a character in As You Like It) - became steadily less bucolic following the opening of the Great Western's North Warwickshire line. Mock Tudor driving out the real thing.

 

“And this our life, exempt from public haunt, finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything.”

[Mol_PMB]

Are there any hints on date from the adverts on the wall in the background?

Is that "Lamplough's Pyretic Saline"?

[Mikkel]

Good point. There's a poster just to the right of the shovel, which could be "GWR" or "LMS". I'm getting a feel for GWR poster styles and periods at the moment, will try and have a search.

 

Edited May 18 by Mikkel
Senior moment!

[Compound2632]

34 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

Are there any hints on date from the adverts on the wall in the background?

Is that "Lamplough's Pyretic Saline"?

 

Fl. 1890s, if a quick google search turning up adverts is indicative. 

[ChrisN]

According to Great Western Journal No. 74, Spring 2010, allocations January 1901

 

1473- Woodstock

1483,1485 -Stourbridge

1484-Worcester

1486- Birmingham

 

Hope this helps.

 

Edit, 517 was in Birkenhead

Edited May 18 by ChrisN

[Edwardian]

The endless rabbit hole that is the 517 class...

 

So, while trawling the Warwickshire Railway site hunting up Mr Perkins, I stumbled upon this....

 

 

The caption "Class 517 No 566 is seen shunting stock on the up middle road in the shadow of the hotel at the South end of Snow Hill station circa 1904."

 

Like the picture of 1475 at Snow Hill I posted earlier, I post it to show what No.517 was likely to look like after her visit to Wolverhampton works in July 1900 to have her w/b extended to 15'6". For reasons that become evident below, I favour 566 over 1475 as a guide to how 517 looked at this time.

 

Only 18 conversions to 15'6" were made at Wolverhampton, the rest were done at Swindon, and No.517 was one of the Wolverhampton ones, in July 1900, as Mr Knowles notes in his article for the GWS. It may be remembered from an earlier post that I mentioned some of the Wolverhampton converts had received an extended smokebox (with wing-plates), and I gave the example of 555, converted to 15'6" in April 1902 (see RCTS and Russell for pictures), while other converts did not have extended smokeboxes, e.g. 1475, converted in February 1900.

 

I suspect that 517 had an extended smokebox fitted at the time of her conversion and reboilering (see below re boilers), but I cannot know for a certainty, and it is worth pointing out that Wolverhampton's apparently random fitting of extended smokeboxes to some 517s took place over the period of 1895 to 1905 independently of any frame extensions, in that it would be a boiler replacement that prompted the work. Thus we have the example of the very next loco in the list, 567, which received the extended smokebox whilst still a 15' loco and was sold to the Bishop's Castle Railway in 1905 in that state, so while the GWR eventually removed the extended smokeboxes, 567 retained hers.

 

So, I wanted to look at this picture of 566 as particularly instructive, because in many ways 566 led a parallel developmental life to 517 and, more than any other picture, it seems likely to tell us what 517 probably looked like after July 1900.

 

Like 517, 566 was originally built as a short w/b saddle tank. Like 517, she was lengthened to a 15' w/b and converted to side tanks by Wolverhampton. In the case of 566 this was done 3 years after 517, in 1883. Thus, in the period 1883-1900, we might expect 566 to have looked similar to 517 in the picture Mr Knowles colourised.

 

Like 517, she was later one of the Wolverhampton conversions to 15'6", and, indeed, she had this done at the very same time as 517, in July 1900.

 

Like 517, 566 was reboilered at the time, with R2/3u boilers in both cases. The extended smokeboxes were, according to RCTS, "particularly favoured on the ten engines rebuilt with U class boilers" , though not limited to these. The R2/3u boiler was a type built by Wolverhampton from 1897, characterised by two rings of unequal length with the dome sitting on the rear portion of the front ring.

 

 

RCTS states that 10 of these R2/3u boilers were fitted to 517s in 1900-1902.  These, then, are the "ten engines rebuilt with U Class boilers" that the later section on extended smokeboxes is referring to. 

 

Was 517 one of these? Well, if you understand RCTS to be saying all 10 R2/3u boilers fitted at the time caused extended smokeboxes to be fitted, then, yes. That is what the text seems to imply.

 

I referenced the Wolverhampton convert 1475 earlier as an example of how 517 might have turned out in 1900. Now I would revise that view. While 1475 is still evidence of a Swindon livery being applied by Wolverhampton at this period (see below), 1475 was reboilered on her conversion in Februrary 1900 to a R4s boiler, thus:

 

 

This fitting of a R4 boiler to 1475 in February 1900 was not accompanied by the fitting of an extended smokebox. In the case of 566 (July 1900) and 555 (April 1902) R2/3u boilers are fitted and extended smokeboxes too are fitted.

 

 

Compare this picture of 555 with the leading picture of 566, and you will see they have been rebuilt in the same way, both with R2/3us and both with extended smokeboxes, though this was done the best part of 2 years apart.

 

1475, on the other hand, was reboilered before Wolverhampton switched to a run of R2/3u boilers. As a convert receiving a R2/3u in July 517, at the same time as 566. I think it very likely indeed that 517 received an extended smokebox and wing plates at this time and that the picture of 566 c.1904 is a good representation of how 517 looked after July 1900 (subject to the 555 livery point below). 

 

In terms of Mr Knowles' erroneous conclusion that his picture represents the post July 1900 condition of No.517, the point to note regards 566 is that it displays the consistent features of all the Wolverhampton 15'6" conversions I have thus far seen i.e. (a) outside bearings to the trailing wheels (as, in fact, with every 15'6" loco), (b) Wolverhampton R33 coal-rail flared bunker (Swindon fitted the straight-backed (61) pattern), and (c) Swindon livery* applied by Wolverhampton.

 

566, in common with the pictures of 555 (also extended smokebox) and 1475, we see a single tank side lining panel edged in a colour that does not show up in the B&W images (orange) as opposed to the two Wolverhampton lining panels edged white. We also see that the number plates have moved to the centre of the tank in order to reflect the single lining panel.

 

*But, of course, you will have noted the completely non-standard lining of 555 in 1902. Yes, it is a single lining panel as Swindon would have it, and I would say it is likely to be orange-black-orange, as Wolverhampton's white lines tend to show up better in B&W, but the corners are incurved, which is neither Swindon nor former Wolverhampton, practice at this point! 

 

So, wild suggestion of the day: Is it not at least possible that the ex-works views of 555 of 1902 represent a Wolverhampton take on Swindon livery and that (a) this might account for the belief that Wolverhampton painted differently to 1902 and that (b) 555's non-standard livery could have been applied to all its 517 15'6" conversions, including No.517 back in 1900, meaning that the pictures of 1475 and 566, thought to be c.1904-5, show the Swindon livery in amended form on repaints? I do not contend this is likely, but it seems logically possible. 

 

Just when you think you've understood a subject ...! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18 by Edwardian
clarity

[The Stationmaster]

On 17/05/2024 at 10:57, Methuselah said:

....and is it just me - or do the sizes of the buffer heads vary too......? 517 here has dimples too......

 

Then there is the question of 'Wolverhampton Green'...... My Grandfather said Wolvo' engine were 'beer-bottle green' - whatever that meant,  when he was a youngster. I have noted that in period colourised images do tend to agree with that, as they seem to have more of a blue tinge - or is that just me again.....? I hope Dapol take a punt at this, as the later Chrome Yellow wouldn't look right.

Bonds ('O'Euston Road' - as they proclaimed in their ads) used to sell two different shades of GWR green and I was given to understand that one of those was 'Wolverhampton Green' while the other was a Swindon Green.  The colour difference was apparently that the Wolverhampton shade had a bluer tinge than the Swindon version although I only bought a tine of the Swindon shade.

[Miss Prism]

14 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

The caption "Class 517 No 566 is seen shunting stock on the up middle road in the shadow of the hotel at the South end of Snow Hill station circa 1904."

 

Umm, isn't that Wolverhampton (Low level) ?

 

[Edwardian]

7 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Umm, isn't that Wolverhampton (Low level) ?

 

 

Looks like it, I'm afraid I was not paying attention to the locus in quo and simply offered the quoted caption de bene esse.

 

[Miss Prism]

I've sent a correction note to Mike Musson, but he hasn't been replying to e-mails for about six months now (very unlike him), so I do hope he's ok.

 

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I've sent a correction note to Mike Musson, but he hasn't been replying to e-mails for about six months now (very unlike him), so I do hope he's ok.

 

 

Well, I am not well-versed in matters West Midland, but I do note that the Warwickshire railway site consistently identifies this location as the south end of Snow Hill near the Great Western Hotel (all before the 1906 rebuilding). 

 

So, while I was not putting any thought into identifying the location, now you have drawn attention to it, I wonder if it is not, in fact, Rail Online's caption that is wrong, rather than Warwickshire Railways caption to the picture of 566?