Indian Red revisited

[The Stationmaster]

You're in gloriously mischievous mood, this morning, MIke!

Very politely put Miss P - but I hope you've read my correction  (Is that even more mischievous I wonder - but I do have the picture to prove it )

[buffalo]

Mike,

 

That postcard is the same works grey photo that I referred to. My reading of the RCTS is as follows. No 171 was built in Dec 1903 as a 4-6-0 with the short cone boiler with five cladding sections. It was named Albion in Feb 1904 and converted to a 4-4-2 in Oct 1904. On that basis, there's plenty of time to create a postcard.

 

The polished bosses on No 100 are interesting. They appear on other photos of this loco, but the only others I recall seeing it on are the French Atlantics 103/4. However, 100 is the only one that also has polished rims.

 

Nick

[Miss Prism]

I received some pics Bob Vaughan took in 2001 of the NRM (pre-2004 working order restoration) livery applied to City of Truro, and it shows red frames, red splasher fronts, black springs and a 3-panel monogrammed tender, i.e. except for the black springs, as per standard 'pre-1903' livery. (And the livery Bachmann chose to portray, as per the pic in post #39 above.) CofT appeared in May 1903, but photographic grey portraits do not of course distinguish between red and green, nor do they address spring colour, so the photographic evidence for pre-1906 green splasher fronts remains elusive. The late Dave Perkins seems to be sure that evidence existed though ("But City of Truro is painted in what RCTS describes as the post 1903 variation, that is to say with green splasher faces.") and noted "at least two paintings of engines from that period featured in publications". It is reasonable to assume Mike's No 40 pic in post #18 is probably one of those two paintings, which means there's another out there to be discovered.

 

(Personally, I much prefer CofT in its current 'classical 1906' livery, which more befits its post-1912 mechanical condition.)

[Miss Prism]

(Is that even more mischievous I wonder - but I do have the picture to prove it )

 

It could indeed be more mischievous, Mike, because if that is a doctored No 98 pic, it perhaps should be showing Great crest Western on its tender rather than a 3-panel monogram. See Nick's post #43, whee No 98 would seem to be one of the first appearances of the new tender livery style.

 

There's little doubt GWR's publicity department was in full-on revolutionary mode in 1905, but as the famous saying goes "The first casualty of revolution is truth."

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

So further mischief perhaps?  Here first is the original postcard picture of No 98 - in this case the numberplate looks genuine and it is probably the ex-works 'photographic grey view'.  The postcard is dated 1904 and was posted in Oxford.

 

Now something of perhaps more pertinent interest regarding livery development; first a view of No. 178 Kirkland which was new as a 4-6-0 in April 1905 and is clearly seen here to be painted in its 'in traffic' livery.  But second we have a view - probably from a private photographer - of 4-4-2 No.186 which was new in July 1905, note the tender livery.  If anyone would like to see an 'in traffic' view of No.98 with a three panel tender I'd be happy to scan that as well although the entire tender is not in the picture but under the glass it is clearly in three lined panels (well two of 'em).  In both cases there is no sort of dating evidence on the cards.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit to add PS - all of these pics will enlarge, quite a bit, if you click on them.  Sorry about the state of No.98 but some postcards tend to come a bit like that, alas.

Edited August 7, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[Miss Prism]

Note the absence of polished brass splasher rims on all these locos.

[buffalo]

I've been out for a few hours but since returning have been having some fun scanning, scaling, rotating and superimposing some of these images

 

Firstly, Mike is quite right about the fake plates on 'Albion'. This is very apparent when both his postcard and the printed copy in Russell are enlarged. This makes sense, really, because it's unlikely they would have repainted in works' grey just to record the addition of a nameplate three months after it was built. But, if they already had a grey picture of No 171, why would they need to change the numberplate. So, maybe they didn't have one for some reason. Obviously, as Mike said earlier, it isn't No 171. So what loco is it?

 

This is where all the image manipulation came in. Firstly, I'm now sure that the Railway Magazine painting was created directly from this doctored works photo. When scaled to the same size and overlaid, the registration is excellent and confirms my earlier belief that the people who produced these paintings did know what they were doing.

 

Now, Mike's postcard of No 98 is interesting here for several reasons. Again, this also appears in Russell so I was able to scan it at high resolution. Leaving aside the fact that the postcard caption writer appears to have confused 98 with 97 (the prototype 28XX), there are several points of correspondence between Nos 98 and 171. From the RCTS descriptions, the only differences between these locos was the boiler pressure and some internals of the firebox and grate, none of which would make any external difference. So, using the same method, I overlaid the photo of 171 on that of 98 with the result that I'm reasonably confident they are the same photo. All details match and the relationships between the wheel spokes and rail chairs is the same in both cases. Two other details confirm this. Firstly the socket lamp irons which are unlikely on any of the 1905 builds. Secondly the boiler cladding is in five bands. According to RCTS, this form was only fitted to Nos 40, 97, 100, 98 and 171. It's certainly not either of the first two, nor is it 100 which had several other visible differences.

 

The only thing I was unable to check was the number on the works plate. Neither of the Russell photos nor Mike's postcards as posted here are of quite high enough resolution to reliably make out the number, though they do look rather similar...

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

I had thought of looking at he works plate but even enlarging of the original scan I can't get either of them clearly enough to read the critical details although they definitely look very similar with the same number of digits in the same place but not clear enough to read reliably.

 

Incidentally the picture of No.98 in the RCTS history with 'Great (garter) Western' on the tender is fairly certainly from a later date.  The use of three panel lining and the entwined GWR on tenders definitely continued into later than 1903 as stated in the RCTS history - I have pictures of examples on  'Cities' (3438 & 3441of 1903) and 'Counties' (3473 and 3477, both completed in August 1904).  And just for touch of something different I've also got a postcard showing 'County' 3478 with the block letters 'GWR' in the middle panel of the tender.  Also one of 3379 with 'Great' in a different typeface ('Western' isn't visible), a coal rail tender, and socket lampirons with a later pattern lamp iron adaptor in one of them.

 

Which of course adds nothing about the colour of loco frames prior to the change to black.  (i do incidentally have a rather amusing - in a strange sort of way - colour postcard proclaiming to be 171 and using the same picture but coloured - the colours bear little resemblance to those appearing on any of the contemporaneous colour postcards of GWR locos.)

Edited August 7, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[buffalo]

...Incidentally the picture of No.98 in the RCTS history with 'Great (garter) Western' on the tender is fairly certainly from a later date...

Yes, again a larger version of the same photo appears in Russell. It must be after renaming in Dec 1907 and before the fitting of a D4 boiler in Nov 1908. In the photo it still has the short cone boiler with five cladding bands. Note also the polished brass splasher rims and leading edge of cab side sheets. Presumably it had been repainted with black frames by then, though the photos aren't good enough to see any lining detail.

 

 

...The use of three panel lining and the entwined GWR on tenders definitely continued into later than 1903 as stated in the RCTS history...

We touched on this in Wenlock's blog. It does appear that the older tender livery persisted alongside the new. Given that tenders and locos were built and overhauled separately, I'm inclined to think that they just used the first available freshly painted tender when outshopping a loco, hence the mixed picture. Perhaps this lasted until the introduction of black frames forced them to ensure a closer match.

 

Nick

Edited August 7, 2013 by buffalo

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, again a larger version of the same photo appears in Russell. It must be after renaming in Dec 1907 and before the fitting of a D4 boiler in Nov 1908. In the photo it still has the short cone boiler with five cladding bands. Note also the polished brass splasher rims and leading edge of cab side sheets. Presumably it had been repainted with black frames by then, though the photos aren't good enough to see any lining detail.

 

 

We touched on this in Wenlock's blog. It does appear that the older tender livery persisted alongside the new. Given that tenders and locos were built and overhauled separately, I'm inclined to think that they just used the first available freshly painted tender when outshopping a loco, hence the mixed picture. Perhaps this lasted until the introduction of black frames forced them to ensure a closer match.

 

Nick

I presume it goes back to then but certainly usual later Swindon practice was to use the first available tender.  However as tenders were turned round far more quickly than engines (and presumably were also built more quickly) they were in effect going to be 'newer' than the engine to which they were attached especially when liveries were in transition.  Again referring to far later Swindon practice the works always seemed to get into livery revisions fairly quickly once they had been decided and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the difference in tender livery between 178 and 186 represented a genuine watershed in livery schemes.

[buffalo]

...I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the difference in tender livery between 178 and 186 represented a genuine watershed in livery schemes.

Yes, indeed. I may have introduced a little confusion about the date of the tender livery here, and certainly did in Wenlock's blog. I'll repeat what I said there when trying to clarify my understanding of the change:

 

The appearance of tenders with GREAT crest WESTERN in a single panel probably dates from some time in 1905. There is a photo of No 182 (built June 1905) in original form (Russell 2 Fig 103) with one of these. The photo could be this early, but is no later than Sept 1907 when it received a D4 boiler (though it reverted to a D2 a year later). The frames may well be red and the splasher beading is painted in a contrasting colour, possibly black. Another early example of this tender livery is the works grey photo of 2803 (built Oct 1905). I've not found any well-dated photos showing this tender livery before mid-1905.

 

One rather interesting variant is the tender attached to the French Atlantic No 104 when it was taken into stock in June 1905 (photo in RCTS and Russell). This has the earlier three panels but, instead of a monogram, it has the crest in the central panel.

 

Nick

Edited August 8, 2013 by buffalo

[Gruffalo]

Learned contributors, a question for you.

 

I am building a large prairie in 51xx form from an SE Finecast kit with their etched brass chassis. Having looked at Tony Wright's DVD on model loco construction, I note that he has painted the inside of the frames a light Indian Red whilst the outsides are black.

 

My question is simply:

 

Would the frame have been black or Indian Red (or something else even) on the inside?

 

Thanks in anticipation,

 

Tony

[Miss Prism]

Tony: insides of frames in that period were 'Venetian Red' (red oxide in modern parlance). It is a somewhat lighter and redder tone than Indian frame red (compare to the swatches I gave in post #1).

 

Here's an approximate Venetian Red:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Miss Prism]

Here's another 1905 tender:

 

 

compared with the class prototype in 1903:

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by Miss Prism

[Gruffalo]

Tony: insides of frames in that period were 'Venetian Red' (red oxide in modern parlance). It is a somewhat lighter and redder tone than Indian frame red (compare to the swatches I gave in post #1).

 

Here's an approximate Venetian Red:

 

venetian-red.gif

 

 

 

 

Many thanks Miss P!

[brian777999]

Why did they paint the insides of the frames red ?

[The Stationmaster]

Why did they paint the insides of the frames red ?

I could make slightly tasteless comments about injuries (men did get trapped in valvegear if engines were inadvertently or carelessly moved) but I suspect it was probably because it was harder wearing than white paint and was brighter than black thus giving better light and visibilty.

[Miss Prism]

In correspondence with Lee Marsh, he acknowledges some variations, but says that springs on the inside of indian red frames were always black, and that the top of springs on outside indian red frames were black. (I'm in the process of clarifying what he understands by 'top'.)

 

 

 

[buffalo]

Top, as in upper horizontal(ish) surface, makes perfect sense to me. This would fit the general pattern of vertical surfaces in indian red and horizontal surfaces (running plate, steps, tops of splashers, etc) in black. For example, the red top surface of the springs in the photo of a river class on this page should be black.

 

What puzzles me is "...springs on the inside of indian red frames...". Is that between sandwich frames as, for example, on the drivin axle of a rover, or does it really mean inside the wheels?

 

Nick

[Miss Prism]

Top, as in upper horizontal(ish) surface, makes perfect sense to me. This would fit the general pattern of vertical surfaces in indian red and horizontal surfaces (running plate, steps, tops of splashers, etc) in black.

I agree there is a degree of logic behind this, although it seems excessively fussy to pick out the top surface of the uppermost leaf of a spring.

 

 

What puzzles me is "...springs on the inside of indian red frames...". Is that between sandwich frames as, for example, on the drivin axle of a rover, or does it really mean inside the wheels?

 

I'm still cogitating about this one. I think 'springs on the inside of indian red frames' would encompass sandwich frames, like a Barnum for example, but also would apply to a saddle tank or a Dean Goods, say, and presumably would apply to overslung and underslung springs.

 

 

[wenlock]

Hi all, I've got the paint on my model of 2467, so now it's time to start lining and detailing. I'm presuming the green splasher sides are lined in a similar fashion to the previous Indian red livery, but I'm unsure about the buffer beam. GWR org states From 1907, the practice of painting the engine numbers on the right-hand side of loco buffer beams, thought to have started c 1904, became general. The numerals were yellow shaded black. The shade of yellow used probably varied, from a dull shade ('gold') to pale to middle.

 

Do you think that this 1903-1906 transitional livery had numbered and lined buffer beams?

 

I've decided to use one of Martin Finney's " make your own number " type plates for the 2467 number, but any bright ideas where I can get some splasher side works plates and an oval plate for the tender rear?

 

Dave

[Miss Prism]

Do you think that this 1903-1906 transitional livery had numbered and lined buffer beams?

 

It's anyone's guess as to when particular locos got numbers on their bufferbeams, but given the tender of your 2467 shows a post 'mid-1905' garter crest, and seems to have been recently repainted in its '1906' Weymouth shed pic, it could have them, but the picture doesn't seem to show any, at least on the rear of the tender.

 

The bufferbeam itself would be lined, but exactly how is not clear. (There are a couple of possibilities shown at the bottom of the GWR org 1900 livery page.) Anyone got a front pic of City of Truro in its current 1906 livery?

 

Splasher sides would be lined for your era. (I'm not sure when it fell out of favour for tank and goods engines.)

[Miss Prism]

Here's City of Truro's current post-1906 style bufferbeam lining.

A couple of contemporary pics are:
 
http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrag1071.htm
http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd1632.htm
 
(Both post-1906.)
 

[wenlock]

Thanks Miss P, all useful information. Particularly nice picture of Royal Sovereign, shows the buffer beam really clearly.

 

Dave

[Rabs]

On the original question.  How variable were the paints used?  I know that most modern paint manufacturers can specify a colour within a certain tolerance but would that have been the case back then?  When we're talking about digging ore out of the ground from (probably) a number of different quarries in Bengal, shipping it around the world and mixing it with (probably variable) oil - how consistent would the colour have actually been?

Or to put it another way, how far off can I get and still claim that it's correct?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Rabs