GWR tender options still to be modelled (3500 and 4000 gallon)

[JimC]

Since 2014, this comes under FAIR USE as far as I am concerned.

Fair use is a USA law concept, so not applicable at all. 

 

There is a UK equivalent, Fair dealing, but I believe its more limited.

 

I strongly suspect that publishing on a internet forum is a very different concept to making copies for private use.

 

Beyond that I refuse to go, because I am not a lawyer at all, let alone a specialist in IP. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by JimC

[JimC]

Is this an adhoc strengthening mod to the rear of this frame, or was there a 4000g lot like this? (It's an earlier short-hangar style, mostly short-gusset.)

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/tenders/5999-tender.jpg

 

I have a gut feeling I've seen one of those too. I can't remember where, and it might even be your photo. I think its the sort of change that would be made by simply amending the drawing, not issuing a new one, so I don't think the build register I have will help us. Need to see the actual drawings I think, but there's no sign of such an alteration in the versions of the GAs printed in Russell vol2. The Hawksworth frames are like that at the back of course.

Edited February 4, 2018 by JimC

[Coach bogie]

Fair use is a USA law concept, so not applicable at all. 

 

There is a UK equivalent, Fair dealing, but I believe its more limited.

 

I strongly suspect that publishing on a internet forum is a very different concept to making copies for private use.

 

Beyond that I refuse to go, because I am not a lawyer at all, let alone a specialist in IP. 

 

Not sure 'limited; describes it as the UK changes are made specific for actual use.

 

For most of us, we come under the heading of research and the 2014 changes are quite specific.

 I too am not a lawyer but my legal contacts assure me that along as no-one makes any money out of it, there is no case to answer for. I had to work with old nightmare in my advertising years. If I paid a photographer to shoot a commercial, I owned the film/paper it was printed on but the photographer owned the image on it. I could use the image as much as I liked. but the moment i made any commercial gain (money) he/she was entitled to a percentage.

 

Copyright law recognises that researchers and students may legitimately need

to copy limited extracts of copyright works for the purpose of their studies.

Therefore, the law already allowed researchers and students to copy limited

extracts of some types of copyright works (books, plays and musical scores,

picture and photos, literary, dramatic musical and artistic works) as long as

they are carrying out non-commercial research or private study. Librarians are

permitted to assist researchers and students by providing limited copies of these

types of copyright works.

 

Copyright law has now changed so that all types of published copyright

works are covered by the exception allowing limited copying for the purpose

of research. This means that researchers and students (or the librarians and

archivists who are assisting them) who need to copy limited parts of sound

recordings, films or broadcasts for non-commercial research or private study

are allowed to do so. The provisions about only copying a part of a work and

sufficiently acknowledging the original work still apply.

 

[JimC]

This is not the time and place. But publishing != copying.

[Miss Prism]

 

Which is the brake handle and which is the scoop handle?

 

[Wenrash]

In the light of what has been said over copyright, Herewith find the photographs

 

These are the three tenders in question.

 

Richard Ashenden

[Welchester]

3500g-front-handles.jpg

 

Which is the brake handle and which is the scoop handle?

 

Isn't the scoop handle the one on the left by the water gauge?

[Miss Prism]

Thanks.

 

Now a tentative hypothesis, in trying to distinguish short fender early Churchward 3500g and Dean 3000g:

 

 

Whadgya rekkun?

 

 

 

 

[JimC]

Whadgya rekkun?

I greatly fear that you are more likely to be looking at a difference between vacuum braked and steam braked tenders. Unfortunately the various GWR GA drawings published in Pannier and Russell don't cover the steam/vacuum brake transition very well, and with the third party drawings its difficult to be certain exactly what you are looking at.

[Miss Prism]

I greatly fear that you are more likely to be looking at a difference between vacuum braked and steam braked tenders.

 

Ok. That gives me a better steer.

[JimC]

I've just been through my list of NRM drawings. Nearly everything that might be of use seems to have been published in Russell or Pannier. This one might be helpful, but I can't see a matching drawing for steam braked tenders. 16838 : Arrangement of details of vacuum cylinder & gear & water pickup as fitted to a 3500 & 4000g tender (1900). There's at least one roll of tender drawings, albeit probably later, that they don't dare unroll at the moment.

 

[Miss Prism]

4088 Dartmouth Castle.jpg

 

A Castle with a tall safety valve. I've never seen that before.

 

(The picture caption's rationale of "so this would date from the period September 1942 - March 1943" is elusive.)

[Chris Higgs]

A Castle with a tall safety valve. I've never seen that before.

 

(The picture caption's rationale of "so this would date from the period September 1942 - March 1943" is elusive.)

 

Relates to the loco/tender cards showing this pairing.

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=locodata&type=S&id=4088&loco=4088

 

Chris

Edited February 6, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Coach bogie]

Relates to the loco/tender cards showing this pairing.

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=locodata&type=S&id=4088&loco=4088

 

Chris

100A1 LLoyds had one as well in 1936!!!!

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/leamingtonstation/leamington_locos/gwrls154.jpg

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Miss Prism]

100A1 LLoyds had one as well in 1936!!!!

 

Possibly kept from its days as a Star.

 

A Castle with a tall safety valve cover must have been dangerously close to infringing the loading gauge.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Miss Prism

[bécasse]

A Castle with a tall safety valve. I've never seen that before.

 

(The picture caption's rationale of "so this would date from the period September 1942 - March 1943" is elusive.)

 

Did GW trains carry roof boards by that stage of the war?

[Chris Higgs]

In the light of what has been said over copyright, Herewith find the photographs

4088 Dartmouth Castle.jpg

2938 Corsham Court 25-6-1952.jpg

4958 Priory Hall early April 1947.jpg

 

These are the three tenders in question.

 

Richard Ashenden

 

Do you reckon that the first two tenders are one and the same? It has the feeling of being a unique modification.

 

Chris

[81C]

Sixsmiths books reveals 4958 had tender No1509, the only Dean tender 4088 had was No 1513 in 09/42.

Edited February 6, 2018 by 81C

[NCB]

Fair use is a USA law concept, so not applicable at all. 

 

There is a UK equivalent, Fair dealing, but I believe its more limited.

 

I strongly suspect that publishing on a internet forum is a very different concept to making copies for private use.

 

Beyond that I refuse to go, because I am not a lawyer at all, let alone a specialist in IP. 

 

It's is pretty clear from reading the Government guidance on copyright that publishing copyright material on the internet is definitely NOT OK. As a particular example, publishing material from a book which is or was commercially available is a breach of copyright.

 

Copying something from a book you own and sending the copy to somebody privately with whom you are engaged in a joint research exercise may be OK. Just about. It would depend on the particular exercise and what was copied.

 

Exceptions are such things as quoting short paragraphs from a book to illustrate a point ("fair dealing"). Publishing a picture from a book wouldn't be fair dealing. You might get away with publishing a small portion of a picture to illustrate a point, but don't bank on it.

 

Nigel

[JimC]

While we're considering the 1900/1901 4,000 gallon tenders, what locomotives did they run with when new? The tender records book doesn't associate them with any particular lot, which is unusual. RCTS associates the last 4 with the Churchward prototypes, but seems silent on the first 16. The question was asked at the beginning of the thread,but unless I'm blind I don't see an answer. Later on they're associated with Stars and Castles, but that leaves a good few years unaccounted for. As we've discussed they were not fitted up for vacuum brakes until some time after they were built, which one assumes was so they could be used with Stars.

 

Locomotives being built at the time of these tenders included Atbaras Krugers and Aberdares, although there's a photo of single 3027 in RCTS (G9) which looks almost as if it could be the large variety. Was there some special duty, perhaps running onto another line, that the large tenders were allocated for?

Edited February 6, 2018 by JimC

[JimC]

Ok. That gives me a better steer.

Dammit, I just realised. The clue is in the engine. If the tender is being towed by an Atbara, Aberdare or the like, it must be steam braked, and if its behind a Churchward standard it must be vacuum braked. That's correct isn't it? So if you compare photos of 3,000 and 3,500 gallon tender brake standards by the locomotive being hauled then it should tell you whether the angled brake standard is related to vacuum brakes or tender size.

[Wenrash]

Not necessarily so Jim. If the loco was set up with the combined steam brake valve and vacuum ejector, then the tender could be steam braked. Conversely if the engine was vacuum only, then the tender had to be vacuum.

 

If all the early Saints were vacuum engines then the tenders had to be vacuum. ie the Dean 4000 gal had to be converted to vacuum. Which they were or some were.

An 2251 engine, which were steam braked engines, could have a vacuum tender as they were fitted with the combined steam/vacuum brake system. see the link to 2251 photos earlier.

You will see the steam part of the brake above the vacuum. There is a drawing of all this in GWRJ.

 

Now a little puzzle. There is three photos of 38xx loco in RC Riley's first book, taken by WL Good. I think two of the are Dean 4000 gal tenders. Only judged by the height of the hand rail in relation to the cab cut out. The third  photo is of a 3500 gal tender which is much lower.

 

The puzzle is that the 4000 gal tenders are attached to loco's of the first batch. These were fitted with steam brakes. The brake hangers are in front of the driving wheels, and they had outside pull rods, probably double which pulled to the back, with steam cylinders, as did the Dean era 4-4-0's.

The later batches were like normal Churchward Saint's and Star's with a vacuum cylinder up front.

Now were those tenders steam braked, as were the loco, or were the loco's  fitted for both systems.

 

Has anybody seen a photograph, or point me to a photograph, of the inside of the cab of one of the first batch of the 38xx?

M Early has a photo of a later batch, which has vacuum brake only. This then meant generally 3500 gal tenders or a convert.

 

Incidentally the GA on HRM web site says that the first two batches were the same. Photographic evidence does not bare this out!

 

I am away from home so can not give references.

 

Richard Ashenden

[JimC]

Not necessarily so Jim. If the loco was set up with the combined steam brake valve and vacuum ejector, then the tender could be steam braked. Conversely if the engine was vacuum only, then the tender had to be vacuum.

 

[snip]

 

Now a little puzzle. There is three photos of 38xx loco in RC Riley's first book, taken by WL Good. I think two of the are Dean 4000 gal tenders. Only judged by the height of the hand rail in relation to the cab cut out. The third  photo is of a 3500 gal tender which is much lower.

 

The puzzle is that the 4000 gal tenders are attached to loco's of the first batch. These were fitted with steam brakes. The brake hangers are in front of the driving wheels, and they had outside pull rods, probably double which pulled to the back, with steam cylinders, as did the Dean era 4-4-0's.

 

[snip]

 

Incidentally the GA on HRM web site says that the first two batches were the same. Photographic evidence does not bare this out!

 

Should have realised it wouldn't be that simple...

 

Just been reading the current GWS Echo, which has a feature by Adrian Knowles on the Counties. He states that 3801 on (ie Lots 165 and 184) were built with vacuum brakes, and only lot 149 (3800, 3831-9) with steam brakes. RCTS says the same. The third lot, of course, had Holcroft ends and lowered cylinders as well as the other later developments.

 

The first 16 4,000 gallon tenders were certainly recorded as steam braked, and must have been so for some time. The drawings records book has written in "Converted to Vacuum to Drawing No 38109" in pencil on both relevant pages. The significance of this is that 38109 is the GA for lot A79 on, so that means the conversion must have been after 1910, That drawing was in use for all subsequent well tank tenders. The other interesting detail in the books about these tenders (including the last 4)is a note written in red ink against the water pick up gear drawings which says "converted to hand gear now". This suggests that they were built with water pickup apparatus that wasn't hand gear - steam operated perhaps.  The relevant drawing numbers only appear for the 4,000 gallon tenders. 

[Miss Prism]

Aha! So this is a short-fender Churchward 3500g with vacuum brake:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/tenders/3818-tender.jpg

[JimC]

Aha! So this is a short-fender Churchward 3500g with vacuum brake:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/tenders/3818-tender.jpg

 

It seems to match the drawings I worked up for A65 to A78 very well, so I would think so, but I'm learning about this all the time.