2012 / 13/14.....Dukedog?

[Tomsontour]

i know these locos were more widely used on the cambrian routes, but could i realistically get away with running one on a layout set in and around Devon/Cornwall??

 

I will end up getting one as they simply look superb from the images, just wondering if i can get away with it...........

[ady77014]

How hard would it be to fit nameplates to a model though?

[oOld Harry 666]

How hard would it be to fit nameplates to a model though?

 

 

In the case 0f 9017 it would have the incorrect tender and the dome would be black instead of brass. The nameplates are the least of the problem.

Edited November 26, 2013 by oOld Harry 666

[Miss Prism]

Original Bachmann Trade newsletter, 9017, as preserved on the Bluebell Railway.

 

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks. I think there is a possible danger here of speculating about a possible Bluebell/Bachmann collaboration that maybe didn't come to fruition or suffered a change in goalposts. I have decided, on balance, not to change my name to Miss Informed, but it is a little odd that 9017's reference has been ascribed at this eleventh hour to its distinctly less-than-pristine August 1955 state.

 

It's a 'dog eat 'dog world out there, y'know...

[gwrrob]

It's a 'dog eat 'dog world out there, y'know...

 

Yes.Ruff justice.

[Froxfield2012]

I guess it depends what you mean by "as preserved", remembering that 9017 has been at the Bluebell since at least 1962, which is some 50 odd years.  I refer back to my earlier post with a picture from 1962.  It seems to me that this shows painted dome and safety valve cover and a tender remarkably lacking in rivets, which would surely have shown up sharply that much "against the light".  I have gone back to my original (larger) scan and examined it at higher magnification and (as Nelson might have said) "I see no rivets" except for those on the top of the side as modelled by Bachmann.  Indeed, there seem to be none further down where Bachmann have a few.  However, Bachmann have missed the extra line of rivets on the smokebox which are apparent in 1962 condition!!  Has anyone counted the rivets yet?? :-)

 

Richard

[Bluebell Model Railway]

I believe it should be as it is now, as preserved, but  I guess it depends on when it was looked at. In terms of the safety valve bonnet, being black instead of brass, a debate which was going on in a group of mine recently, when it was painted in to BR black, the bonnet was painted, then the paint fell off, so became brass again. Plus it didn't have the nameplates at that point in time, they were refitted after the gala it attended on return to the Bluebell, has had them on and off in the past. If it is as advertised, preserved example, the tender has rivets on it... guess shall just have to see what they deliver.

Or if they are modelling as it arrived on the Bluebell it would be correct: (apart from the red backed cab plates)
Not my picture but: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34800790@N04/5543997125/in/photolist-9rUrck-9x64fV-dVSAZb-a2VbsK-djZuYQ-b5TnUT-cc8Mxs-cc8LVs-cc8hG7-cdDJ6E-a18hjn-9rmivB-dz61Ts-cdYcpJ-bUL4cH-9ukP3H-csfUvL-8XJpcy-djZnLP-csfTrW-cdDFdG-dDvE1w-93DTxt-93GXd7-93GY2W-93DTSX-93DSE8-9xs3ss-ceKi7m-dSPhLv-9aDwRv-9F8NK3-fugcGX-bDTw2h-bwD3Fe-9x4Xdi-9tKob1-goem1g-ebeQPk-8tTVDb-ciS7M9-dUxrEz-dku9Ho-dgvpLi-csfQAE-cb3JfL-cb3HeA-cb3HMU-cb3GuG-cb3Kcm-cb3JL3

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Bluebell Model Railway

[coachmann]

In the case 0f 9017 it would have the incorrect tender and the dome would be black instead of brass. The nameplates are the least of the problem.

This is a trifle muddled. The 'Dukedog' on the bluebell Railway is green so it has a green dome. It is the safety valve cover that is polished brass. If the cover were painted it too would be green on a green locos.

 

"Original Bachmann Trade newsletter, 9017, as preserved on the Bluebell Railway".  I could say I have just built a coach as preserved by the LMS Carriage Association but it doesnt imply it is a replica, simply that one is preserved.

Edited November 26, 2013 by coachmann

[phil gollin]

.

 

I don't really care one way or another, however by using the number it means, either ;

 

a:  It has spoilt the chance of a later "name plate" version being produced,

 

OR

 

b:  All that is needed is an set of etched name plates and a "spare" tender.

 

Which would be better ?   I don't know.  If they had produced a different number version how good would the sales have to be to eventually produce a "preserved" version ?

 

. 

[Ozexpatriate]

This "problem" (should we call it such) is one that is endemic in the marketing of new model railway items today. Both of the larger manufacturers do a pretty dreadful job of describing what they plan to produce.

 

As an illustration, my particular pet peeve is listing a livery as "GWR green". Not only are there at least two "GWR greens" but there is a multiplicity of different devices applied depending on what time frame the model represents from the entwined monogram to the arms with garter to GREAT WESTERN with and without the arms, the shirtbutton, G <arms> W, "G W R", lined and unlined, etc. There is rarely any specificity in the description to really tell what we will get.

 

In the case of Hornby's new Hall we can't even be sure what colour one of the locomotives is going to be. 

 

Another interesting wrinkle is Bachmann's occasional choice to represent Era 9 "preserved" locomotives that feature electrical overhead warning flashes but are still described as "LNER". (If I recall correctly the V2 was advertised this way at one point in time.) They do at least use "Era 9" to designate a contemporary livery. (None of the DukeDogs were listed as Era 9 - they are 3 and 4.)

 

Even given that some things are subject to change - particularly when an original proposal was not well researched and new details about a livery choice come to light - it would be nice if the manufacturers would make a bit more of an effort to describe the appearance of locomotives that they plan to build.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Ozexpatriate

[coachmann]

If I wanted a replica of the preserved 9017, I could simply sand the rivets off the tender (presuming it's flush - I cannot tell), fit engraved name & number plates and paint the safety valve cover 'brass'.  Seems simple enough for the average modeller.

 

 

Or I could spray it green to suit an earlier Bluebelle condition and do the same plus put postwar G W R on the Tender.

[Miss Prism]

Froxfield2012 - reference your #268, 9017 has indeed had two tenders whilst at the Bluebell (not quite sure how, midnight raid at Didcot to get a newer riveted one?) and has had at least two rivet-styles of smokebox wrapper, for the sake of argument the '1962' and '2003' style. The '2003' style, which Bachmann has adopted, is aligned more to what the majority of Dukedogs were in the 1950s (including 9017, I think).
 
Here's Cambriancoaster's 9017 pic from his Pwllheli thread:
 


 

 

[oOld Harry 666]

This is a trifle muddled. The 'Dukedog' on the bluebell Railway is green so it has a green dome. It is the safety valve cover that is polished brass. If the cover were painted it too would be green on a green locos.

 

"Original Bachmann Trade newsletter, 9017, as preserved on the Bluebell Railway".  I could say I have just built a coach as preserved by the LMS Carriage Association but it doesnt imply it is a replica, simply that one is preserved.

 

 

 

I think you will find that 9017 is in BR black.

 

Please also note that the description went with a photo. of the loco in its preserved condition so even if it were innocent there is an element of mis representation here. However any brochure is only, legally, an invitation to treat and not an offer that is fine, however my choice is not to buy, I don't want to mess about with a model as you suggest thank you.

[The Stationmaster]

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks. I think there is a possible danger here of speculating about a possible Bluebell/Bachmann collaboration that maybe didn't come to fruition or suffered a change in goalposts. I have decided, on balance, not to change my name to Miss Informed, but it is a little odd that 9017's reference has been ascribed at this eleventh hour to its distinctly less-than-pristine August 1955 state.

 

It's a 'dog eat 'dog world out there, y'know...

The Bachmann catalogue is, I think, probably a reasonably realistic point of reference so I have checked it - from the 2011/12 issue onwards - and the descriptions of the three versions have been absolutely consistent throughout, viz:-

9017 BR black early emblem pristine finish

9022 BR blacke early emblem weathered finish

3203 GWR green, pristine finish

 

The 2011/12 and 2012/13 catalogues both used an illustration of 9017 (the real one) running on what appears to be the Bluebell Railway in pristine black finish.  The 2013/14 catalogue has a picture of the model 3203 in GWR green with the tender lettered 'GWR'.

 

So if anyone is going to get upset about it not appearing with a 32XX number and a  faux nameplate they have had the better part of a couple of years to moan (or possibly seek a deal for an 'exclusive'?) in the appropriate quarter.

[Froxfield2012]

Miss Prism

 

Thank you for that info.  I suppose we should not be surprised at changes.  9017 has been "preserved" for rather longer than it ran for GWR and BR, unless, of course, one counts it as a "Duke" but even then it would be a close thing.  Much the same could be said for most (if not all) other preserved steam and some diesels.  In BBC's "Only Fools and Horses" road sweeper Trigger has a broom, which he claims is the only one he has ever used although it has had several new heads and new handles.  I was taught as a child that steam locomotives were what I now identify as "Trigger's brooms" although clearly some classes were more variable than others.  And I guess that the practicalities of keeping preserved locomotives running have led to all sorts of borrowing and "midnight raids".

 

Given that photographs can give such partial, distorted and damaged images (and colour rendering is so variable in colour images) it must be a nightmare for manufacturers and it looks to me as though Bachmann have done a reasonable job at the probable price pint for RTR.  Although I am inclined to agree Bluebell Model Railway that the best chance of accuracy would be as preserved TODAY taken from life.  But that might limit other options for the majority who want to replicate locomotives in GWR or BR service.

 

Richard 

[David32424]

Yes I tend to agree with what Richard has said. Maybe Bachmann were originally going to bring out 9017 with the plates but their Researchers, presumably Bachmann have them lol, looked through some internet enthusiasts forums such as National Preservation and discovered that when the Dukedog has been brought up in discussion the Earl Of Berkeley nameplates on the BR Black version are shall we say not exactly popular. For example I can remember reading on the forum that when 9017 visited the South Devon Railway for their Cambrian Gala they were inundated with message requests not to put the plates back on, they had been taken off before the gala weekend for a set of photo charters, so the loco would staying looking authentic. The SDR received that many requests that their members were wondering why the Bluebell kept putting the plates back on if they're that unpopular with the majority. So I guess Bachmann may have feared for a drop in sales figures if 9017 had come with plates attached and the majority of dedicated modelers/enthusiasts/purists not bought it as a result. Who knows maybe that's the case or maybe not? Personally I'm pretty happy there's no nameplates with 9017 but I do admit some surprise that it hasn't come with any seperately in the box.

Edited November 27, 2013 by David32424

[coachmann]

Liveries on preserved locos are transient. When I went to the Bluebelle Railway website yesterday the heading picture showed the Dukedog in GWR postwar green livery with nameplates and a polished safety valve cover. Total fiction historically but that's preservation. More recently is has carried BR black livery and those spurious nameplates...blaady saatherners.

Edited November 27, 2013 by coachmann

[The Stationmaster]

Liveries on preserved locos are transient. When I went to the Bluebelle Railway website yesterday the heading picture showed the Dukedog in GWR postwar green livery with nameplates and a polished safety valve cover. Total fiction historically but that's preservation. More recently is has carried BR black livery and those spurious nameplates...blaady saatherners.

It was a big surprise to me when it went to the Bluebell but at the same time that at least meant it was being preserved and there wasn't really anywhere else it could go at that time when you think about it - what it really meant was that it had been saved.

 

But beyond then you are absolutely spot on Larry - some preservationists go to considerable trouble to do things as well as they absolutely can in terms of historical authenticity while others seem to work off a few photos while the third group go with the idea of 'that's how we would like it to be' (hence 9017 with its faux nameplates one presumes - probably an attempt at punter appeal perhaps?).

 

The plain fact is that there have always been very few engines in preservation which are even in BR condition let alone an earlier state and I wonder if any of them at all are now still in that state?

Edited November 27, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[Miss Prism]

Is 9023 definitely the "pilot" or is 5148 coupled behind the train engine as an assisting engine? 9023 seems to be a Swindon based loco and 5148 Laira based at the time of the photograph.

 

As I understand it, the usual (G)WR arrangement was for the assisting engine to be 'inside', i.e. in this case Laira's 5148 is the assisting engine and 9023 is the train engine. 6th August is at the height of the summer season, where loco resources for trains to the west country were stretched, which is probably why a lowly Dukedog has been pressed into service on a Manchester to Penzance.

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2013 by Miss Prism

[The Stationmaster]

As I understand it, the usual (G)WR arrangement was for the assisting engine to be 'inside', i.e. in this case Laira's 5148 is the assisting engine and 9023 is the train engine. 6th August is at the height of the summer season, where loco resources for trains to the west country were stretched, which is probably why a lowly Dukedog has been pressed into service on a Manchester to Penzance.

 

 Well yes, almost but not exactly and it was in any case changed in October 1948.

 

So if we go back to 1936 and, for the sake of simplicity, ignore anything to do with 'Kings' and look at assistance where a falling gradient or level track is involved - as in Newton Abbot to Plymouth - the pre 1948 Instruction was very clear that when assistance was required '4-6-0s and 4-4-0s may be coupled in front of any engine and if available an engine of one of these types should always be the leading engine'

 

The Instruction then went on to say that 'If the engine to be attached is not of the same type as the train engine or of the 4-6-0 or 4-4-0 type it must be placed between the train engine and the train.'   This clause is the bit which was altered in October 1948 to read as follows -

'In all other cases, an engine with a pony truck (i.e. 2-8-0, 2-6-0, 2-4-0, 2-82T, 2-8-0T or 2-6-2T type) if available should be the leading engine.  Otherwise the more powerful engine must be placed in front.'

 

So in other words if a 4-4-0 or 4-6-0 wasn't available to assist then an engine with a pony truck could be used and coupled in front of the train engine unless the train engine was more powerful in which case the engine with the pony truck had to go inside the train engine.  As far as the photo is concerned we are now left with a quandary - if the 2-6-T had been attached to assist in accordance with the 1948 Instruction it could have gone on the front as a 2-6-2T and it should have gone on the front as the more powerful engine.  However if someone hadn't looked at the amendments the 4-4-0 should have been on the front - I suspect there were some old hands at Newton who reckoned the original Instruction was better and simply did things the way they had long done so.

[Froxfield2012]

Stationmaster

 

I am not sure I quite follow your last paragraph in italics which seems to suggest that an engine with pony truck could not go in front if the train engine was more powerful.  I think that the instruction you quote means that an engine with a pony truck could go in front of a more powerful engine.  I have certainly seen a fair few shots of Dainton over the years with the Prairie in front of a Castle:  as shown in this one of my father's pictures.  But maybe it's just me not understanding.  If so I apologise.

 

Richard

Edited November 28, 2013 by Froxfield2012

[The Stationmaster]

Stationmaster

 

I am not sure I quite follow your last paragraph in italics which seems to suggest that an engine with pony truck could not go in front if the train engine was more powerful.  I think that the instruction you quote means that an engine with a pony truck could go in front of a more powerful engine.  I have certainly seen a fair few shots of Dainton over the years with the Prairie in front of a Castle:  as shown in this one of my father's pictures.  But maybe it's just me not understanding.  If so I apologise.

 

Richard

 

Yes Richard you might be right regarding my first sentence in that final paragraph (that's me rushing, I think) which perhaps needs to be made clearer.

 

 

So to clarify - again ignoring 'Kings' - and this was if the duration of the assistance involved level or falling gradients

 

Prior to October 1948 a 4-4-0 or 4-6-0 assistant engine could be attached in front of the train engine, or,  

If a 4-4-0 or 4-6-0 was not available to assist the assistant engine had to be attached inside the train engine,

Or if the assistant engine was not of the same type (i.e. wheel arrangement as the train engine) it had to be attached inside the train engine.

 

From October 1948 a 4-4-0 or 4-6-0 assistant engine could be attached in front of the train engine, or,

If a 4-4-0 or 4-6-0 was not available an assistant engine with a leading pony truck should be attached in front of the train engine, or,

Otherwise the more powerful engine should be placed in front - which effectively means that if the assistant engine does not have a leading pony truck it must go inside the train engine if the train engine is more powerful than the assistant engine and if the assistant engine is more powerful than the train engine it should go in front (think of a 2-8-0T assisting a pannier and vice versa).

 

All of which makes no difference to my comment on the way the 'Dukedog' and 2-6-2T were paired.

[BR(W)]

Hello, Froxfield2012.

 

I think you may have missed the qualifier in Stationmaster's reply: "...assistance where a falling gradient or level track is involved...". I think your photo shows an upgrade. Also, I believe other qualifiers may involve the train's passenger carrying status and its operating speed; the train in your photo is an empty stock one not timed at class A speeds.

 

And, of course, there could always be special, local permissions - particularly in areas of high traffic density. Don't forget, the Great Western always entrusted its operating personnel on the ground a high degree of autonomy in order to keep the traffic flowing; this was also true on the Western Region of BR to a lesser extent, I believe.

 

Cheers,

 

BR(W).

[Froxfield2012]

Hello BR (W)

 

You have a point, and are right to point out the qualifier.  In fact I did notice it.  However, the shot was taken just before Dainton Summit showing a westbound train which is just about to hit a pretty significant downgrade.  In my initial post, I was just checking what Stationmaster meant (just in case that picture was really rare!!!) and I think his revised post clarifies things precisely.  And as he further says, it doesn't affect in any way the accuracy of his comment on the Dukedog Prairie combination.

 

I should thank the two members who have liked the post/picture.  I have the original criticism sheet from the Railway Photographic Society circulating portfolio for this shot.  Suffice to say that some of those comments were acidic and negative concerning its quality!!  Things have changed over the last 50 years. 

 

Regards

 

Richard

[gwrrob]

 

 

 

 

I should thank the two members who have liked the post/picture.

 

 

 

No problem and I'll like any photo taken on Dainton so if you have some more post away.Very modellable.