Westcountry class

[N15class]

Hi all

 

I am about to start making a 7mm scale kit of the Westcountry loco, I want to clarify a few bits and pieces to I get it more right than wrong.

 

If this imformation is in a thread somewhere please lead me to it my search was not very successful.

 

I am thinking of Mortehoe or Lynmouth.

 

I. The kit is of the original, loco's before rebuilding. The cab seems to be 9 feet wide so that makes it a BR build? Were any SR changed to 9 foot wide cabs?

 

2. The tender is a cut down one, did they all get cut down or did some stay with raves on?

 

3 There is no streamlining in front of the cylinders, from what date was this removed?

 

4. Did all the BR ones have 3 cab side windows and slopins front ones?

 

That is it for now but I am sure more will turn up as I go along.

 

Thanks in advance

[Brake Compo]

Can answer the last three questions:

 

2. Almost all - according to Bradley only 34069, 34072, 34074-5 & 34078 were scrapped with high sided tenders but 34075's was then transferred onto 34080; however, only 34011, 34043 & 34065 were cut down before rebuiding commenced, with cutting down on non-rebuilds tenders starting in Feb 1958.

 

3. Cannot see the date the date in Bradley for this, but they seemed disappear about 1953.

 

4. Yes.

[N15class]

Can answer the last three questions:

 

2. Almost all - according to Bradley only 34069, 34072, 34074-5 & 34078 were scrapped with high sided tenders but 34075's was then transferred onto 34080; however, only 34011, 34043 & 34065 were cut down before rebuiding commenced, with cutting down on non-rebuilds tenders starting in Feb 1958.

 

3. Cannot see the date the date in Bradley for this, but they seemed disappear about 1953.

 

4. Yes.

 

Thanks that is a start. I now have a slightly clearer idea of where I am going and what ones it will make.

 

I am sure there are lots of little quirks with them.

[cary hill]

As per "The Book of the West Country and Battle of Britain Pacifics"(Irwell Press):

 

34094 Mortehoe was new to traffic 10/49 and allocated to Bournemouth until 23/2/1958 then to Nine Elms.

 

34099 Lynmouth was new to traffic 12/49 and originally allocated to Ramsgate then Salisbury,Ramsgate again,Bournemouth,Brighton and finally Salisbury again. It appears to have kept the same tender No.3359 throughout which seems to be a relatively rare occurence.

[N15class]

As per "The Book of the West Country and Battle of Britain Pacifics"(Irwell Press):

 

34094 Mortehoe was new to traffic 10/49 and allocated to Bournemouth until 23/2/1958 then to Nine Elms.

 

34099 Lynmouth was new to traffic 12/49 and originally allocated to Ramsgate then Salisbury,Ramsgate again,Bournemouth,Brighton and finally Salisbury again. It appears to have kept the same tender No.3359 throughout which seems to be a relatively rare occurence.

 

If only I had my books here, it would be so much easier. I bought a book about them before moving here, and of coarse I have next to non here with me. I am waiting for visitors to come.

 

Thanks for that, I would think it will be Lynmouth. There are others I would prefer but they are the SR series, with the narrow cabs, unless any had them rebuilt wider.

[Guest Belgian]

If only I had my books here, it would be so much easier. I bought a book about them before moving here, and of coarse I have next to non here with me. I am waiting for visitors to come.

 

Thanks for that, I would think it will be Lynmouth. There are others I would prefer but they are the SR series, with the narrow cabs, unless any had them rebuilt wider.

 

34094 'Morthoe' never ran with a 5,500 gallon tender with cut-down raves: it acquired a 4,500 gallon one in June 1957 which was cut-down in 1/62.

 

None had the cabs rebuilt in BR days. ('Tangmere' has had it done during preservation, the only one so affected).

 

34099 'Lynmouth' had the raves on its tender until 28/10/62 (date to traffic). If the tender in the kit has a raised centre portion of the water tank it will be correct for 'Lynmouth': most of the BR series which weren't rebuilt (not 'unrebuilts'!) had the earlier, 4,500 gallon tenders when these were cut down. 34091/99/102/107 were the only ones with cut-down 5,500 gallon tenders (34102 was 'Lapford', 34107 'Blandford Forum'. 34091 was withdrawn 9/64; 34099 11/64; 34102 9/7/67 - the last day - and 34107 9/64).

 

JE

[RFS]

In answer to your question 1, the first 70 were built with 8'6" cabs and tenders with a view, never realized, to use them on the Hastings line which had restricted clearances in the tunnels. The last 40 had 9' cabs and tenders and were built after the formation of BR. The 70 first series engines did get 9' wide cabs but only if they were rebuilt. It was practice to put 9' tenders behind the rebuilds, but of course there just weren't enough of these to go round.

[N15class]

34094 'Morthoe' never ran with a 5,500 gallon tender with cut-down raves: it acquired a 4,500 gallon one in June 1957 which was cut-down in 1/62.

 

None had the cabs rebuilt in BR days. ('Tangmere' has had it done during preservation, the only one so affected).

 

34099 'Lynmouth' had the raves on its tender until 28/10/62 (date to traffic). If the tender in the kit has a raised centre portion of the water tank it will be correct for 'Lynmouth': most of the BR series which weren't rebuilt (not 'unrebuilts'!) had the earlier, 4,500 gallon tenders when these were cut down. 34091/99/102/107 were the only ones with cut-down 5,500 gallon tenders (34102 was 'Lapford', 34107 'Blandford Forum'. 34091 was withdrawn 9/64; 34099 11/64; 34102 9/7/67 - the last day - and 34107 9/64).

 

JE

The tender with the kit is flat at the back not stepped, I presume this is the 4500 gallon one?

[Graham_Muz]

Yes indeed your are correct see the SeMG pages on LP tenders here

[N15class]

I have just re measured the tender. It is 8' 6" wide. The cab is not quite 9' wide but is to wide for 8' 6". So I am going to go with it as 9' I may well be able to make it the nats whisker wider.

[N15class]

Yes indeed your are correct see the SeMG pages on LP tenders here

 

It gets more complicated the more you look at it. It is looking more like it will be 34094, as the combination I have is better suited to this loco.

[N15class]

I have been looking at the SeMG site and the variations of locos and tenders. Looking at drawings and my kit. Is the cab the only bit that was made wider? If I norrowed the cab I have, it seems the the 8' 6" one had much flatter sides than the 9' one. Would this make a SR built version. This would then mean I can have a bigger choice of names.

[Guest Belgian]

It gets more complicated the more you look at it. It is looking more like it will be 34094, as the combination I have is better suited to this loco.

I have been looking at the SeMG site and the variations of locos and tenders. Looking at drawings and my kit. Is the cab the only bit that was made wider? If I norrowed the cab I have, it seems the the 8' 6" one had much flatter sides than the 9' one. Would this make a SR built version. This would then mean I can have a bigger choice of names.

Well, you've got plenty of choice of 9' cab + 4,500 gallon tender locos! The cab was the only bit that was widened, everything forward of that was the same. Much depends on what particular time/date you intend the model for. The cut-down tenders with 8' 6" cabs started to appear in 1952 when three locos were so treated. General cutting down started in 1958 following the Lewisham crash, 34066 'Spitfire' becoming the first to have a cut-down tender without being rebuilt. Do you want a full list of narrow-cab/4,500 gallon cut-down tender engines?

 

JE

[N15class]

Well, you've got plenty of choice of 9' cab + 4,500 gallon tender locos! The cab was the only bit that was widened, everything forward of that was the same. Much depends on what particular time/date you intend the model for. The cut-down tenders with 8' 6" cabs started to appear in 1952 when three locos were so treated. General cutting down started in 1958 following the Lewisham crash, 34066 'Spitfire' becoming the first to have a cut-down tender without being rebuilt. Do you want a full list of narrow-cab/4,500 gallon cut-down tender engines?

 

JE

I am limited to post 1953 I think as this is when the streamlining in front of the cylinders started to go.

 

I was thinking I would have to build it as of circa 1960 so it is then down to which ones were not rebuilt. There is a list on the SeMG but all information is welcome.

 

If I do reduce the cab width I think I would go for Watersmeet or Combe Martin. Hope fully when I check they will have the right tender.

[Guest Belgian]

I am limited to post 1953 I think as this is when the streamlining in front of the cylinders started to go.

 

I was thinking I would have to build it as of circa 1960 so it is then down to which ones were not rebuilt. There is a list on the SeMG but all information is welcome.

 

If I do reduce the cab width I think I would go for Watersmeet or Combe Martin. Hope fully when I check they will have the right tender.

Yep, they did! But no shields, just nameplates. Coombe Martin was one of the ones to have its tender cut down in 1952.

 

JE

[Brake Compo]

I understand your difficulties now - I always feel naked when removed from the santuary of my precious reference books!

 

Need to say more about cabs: V cabs were only fitted from 21C164/5 on and the combination of three cabside windows from 21C166 (34066) on. Retrofitting was a slow process the following still had flat fronted cabs and two side windows after 1953: 34001 (to 1/55), 34013 (5/54), 34014 (12/54), 34015 (3/57), 34017 (1/54), 34019 (1/56), 34023 (10/54), 34024 (3/55), 34025 (9/54), 34028 (2/54), 34029 (1/55), 34034 & 34038 (4/55), 34040 (3/54), 34044 (3/54) & 34046 (1/54). So this means that everything had a V cab by the time that tenders were cut down, so you should be alright there.

[georgeT]

You've stepped into a mine field here Peter, l never knew how different they were, everyone of them had some difference, its best to stick to one of them and model it to a photo, the trouble l had with '229 squadron' was amazing, good luck anyway. (will be watching the build)

 

Whose kit is it Peter ?

 

george

[N15class]

I understand your difficulties now - I always feel naked when removed from the santuary of my precious reference books!

 

Need to say more about cabs: V cabs were only fitted from 21C164/5 on and the combination of three cabside windows from 21C166 (34066) on. Retrofitting was a slow process the following still had flat fronted cabs and two side windows after 1953: 34001 (to 1/55), 34013 (5/54), 34014 (12/54), 34015 (3/57), 34017 (1/54), 34019 (1/56), 34023 (10/54), 34024 (3/55), 34025 (9/54), 34028 (2/54), 34029 (1/55), 34034 & 34038 (4/55), 34040 (3/54), 34044 (3/54) & 34046 (1/54). So this means that everything had a V cab by the time that tenders were cut down, so you should be alright there.

Thanks for that it is even more information to help to help me hopefully get it right.

 

I have now certain I am going to make the cab narrower and but I am down to Combe Martin or Watersmeet.

 

 

You've stepped into a mine field here Peter, l never knew how different they were, everyone of them had some difference, its best to stick to one of them and model it to a photo, the trouble l had with '229 squadron' was amazing, good luck anyway. (will be watching the build)

 

Whose kit is it Peter ?

 

george

 

Hi george

I am going to blame you for making such a good job of yours, mine was quite happy sat in the back of the cupboard.

 

The kit is an old Carriage and Wagon kit. I have a feeling it has done the rounds, I think it was drawn by Jim Harris of Acorn etc, the chassis was done by Oldbury, his name will come to me again soon.

 

It was one of those I aquired from ebay, I need to sort the body out as someone attemped to form it in one piece, when it is easier to cut at the gutter and do three bits.

 

It came with cast wheels for the loco, which are pinned like Alan Harris's. But whoevers they would of cost more than I paid for the kit.

 

I will get cast injectors and slide bars, and crossheads from Tim Hughes of Meteor.

[Brake Compo]

Note that Combe Martin was one of the batch with the coupling rod knuckle joint located in front of the gudgeon pin, I also think that they might have had different types of buffers - I think that Watersmeet had the stepped buffer shanks, whereas Combe Martin had the parallel type - perhaps someone who knows more than me could confirm/deny.

[N15class]

Note that Combe Martin was one of the batch with the coupling rod knuckle joint located in front of the gudgeon pin, I also think that they might have had different types of buffers - I think that Watersmeet had the stepped buffer shanks, whereas Combe Martin had the parallel type - perhaps someone who knows more than me could confirm/deny.

So the coupling rod joint was in front of the centre wheel rather than behind. I think I have a set of each buffers so should be ok there.

 

I am looking for decent photos of each at the moment.

[Guest Belgian]

Note that Combe Martin was one of the batch with the coupling rod knuckle joint located in front of the gudgeon pin, I also think that they might have had different types of buffers - I think that Watersmeet had the stepped buffer shanks, whereas Combe Martin had the parallel type - perhaps someone who knows more than me could confirm/deny.

These items seem to have varied on engines throughout their lives - there's a photo on page 37 of Derry's tome showing 'Combe Martin' very clearly having the coupling rod joint behind the driving wheel on 14 June 1952 and its tender has parallel buffer shanks. In the photo above it, 34107 'Blandford Forum' has the coupling rod joint ahead of the centre wheel on 30 July 1960. Whilst the parallel buffer shanks generally appeared on later batches, there are pictures of early engines with them and vice versa - and it's quite possible that a tender would have one type and the engine the other, in view of the many tender swaps, especially after rebuilding commenced.

 

It just goes to show that to get everything spot-on you have to have prototype photographs for the exact time that you are modelling.

 

JE

[Brake Compo]

I suppose that one must also question whether locos retained that same identity throughout their lives - I have heard it said that at least one group of restorers of a preserved unrebuilt found a different number stamped onto the middle cylinder casting than the supposed identity of the loco. But is this just an 'urban legend' on the enthusiast grapevine, or is it based on fact? Does anyone have any hard evidence one way or the other?

[N15class]

The LMS changed identities of locos, so I can't see why others should not.

[Guest Belgian]

Going slightly off-topic, the Southern certainly did change loco identities in some instances, notably with the M7 class. This is if one takes the frames as the 'real' identity of a locomotive. At least four M7s changed from short-frame to long-frame but kept the identity of the short-frame engine, one example being the solitary rebuild, no. 126, which was dismantled in 1937 and whose frames were re-assembled with the other parts of short-framer no. 254, returning to service as 254.

 

Similarly, back on the Light Pacific thread, when 34005 'Barnstaple' was stripped down to become the first Rebuilt Light Pacific, it received new frames. Thus it 'should' have been regarded as a new locomotive, incorporating standard parts recovered from the scrapped 34005 and sent into traffic as 34111.

 

Most locomotives, built in some large numbers, were a hotch-potch of standard parts - the numbers were really just a convenient way of recording the complete collection of such standard parts that were bolted - or welded - together to form a functioning machine. It's the Grandfather's hammer syndrome!

 

JE

[PhilH]

Most locomotives, built in some large numbers, were a hotch-potch of standard parts - the numbers were really just a convenient way of recording the complete collection of such standard parts that were bolted - or welded - together to form a functioning machine. It's the Grandfather's hammer syndrome!

 

Absolutely - no need to get to hung up on what went where on what. It's almost as if Eastleigh (or wherever) had a pile of bits for a particular class of engine and simply reached for the bit at the top of the pile when needed.

 

People would be amazed at what we've found nailed on to what (from BR days) when we have started to do a first time restoration on an engine. What should be remembered is that for a branch of engineering often regarded as agricultural there was a high degree of accuracy attained where needed - for instance out of all the Bulleids we have done up or repaired on the MHR we have never found more than 10 thou discrepancy between coupling rod bush centres (and found rods which were fitted during BR days marked up for different locos.) which basically means that they were not bespoke items for individual engines but an interchangeable, sometimes disposable, item.