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

[81C]

There's a few here.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gwr+mogul+7325&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRsr2Pm-nYAhXkAcAKHdzwAxkQ_AUICigB&biw=1919&bih=929

[Chris Higgs]

Anyone got a side-on shot of SVR's 7325, currently running with an A112 3500g intermediate?

 

Is it still running? According to wikipedia, it's been out of service since 2000. Does it still have this tender?

 

I'm also interested in some interior shots of the tender.

 

Chris

[81C]

Is it still running? According to wikipedia, it's been out of service since 2000. Does it still have this tender?

 

I'm also interested in some interior shots of the tender.

 

Chris

She's tucked up in the SVR museum at Highley, I don't know about the tender.

[JimC]

Anyone got a side-on shot of SVR's 7325, currently running with an A112 3500g intermediate?

 

If the tender number the VCT database has is correct (2032) then its not an A112 tender, its from lot A97. The high sides and tank are known to have been built new in preservation. To the best of my knowledge the only surviving A112 tender is 2376, which is with 2800 class 2818 currently at NRM Shildon, and although that tender was almost certainly built with high sides, it received low sides at some time during its GWR/WR service. 

 

Its certainly documented that tank replacements or swaps were not uncommon in service, and we know that Swindon had fewer tenders than locomotives, but does anyone know whether it was GWR practice to maintain the tanks separately from the chassis? Were the tanks and sides routinely lifted off and repaired, then put back on the next available chassis as a matter of routine (as with boilers), or did this only happen if major repairs were required?

Edited January 21, 2018 by JimC

[Coach bogie]

If the tender number the VCT database has is correct (2032) then its not an A112 tender, its from lot A97. The high sides and tank are known to have been built new in preservation. To the best of my knowledge the only surviving A112 tender is 2376, which is with 2800 class 2818 currently at NRM Shildon, and although that tender was almost certainly built with high sides, it received low sides at some time during its GWR/WR service. 

 

Its certainly documented that tank replacements or swaps were not uncommon in service, and we know that Swindon had fewer tenders than locomotives, but does anyone know whether it was GWR practice to maintain the tanks separately from the chassis? Were the tanks and sides routinely lifted off and repaired, then put back on the next available chassis as a matter of routine (as with boilers), or did this only happen if major repairs were required?

2818 now gone from Shildon

 

Once Collett has eliminated the wells, some 'standardisation' was possible with several different tank designs now able to fit the different underframes, The idea being that if the tank needed any repairs, once the frames, running gear etc had been overhauled,then the next repaired tank in the pool could be fitted. No waiting around. This is how 2376 lost its' original intermediate tender top.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Miss Prism]

Apologies for the goosechase on 7325, I must have misread the VCT information and/or not cross-checked the number. It will be a while yet before I can muster a cogent paragraph or two on the intermediates. In the meantime, here is dibateg's intermediate, now with heavy springs, awaiting the Martyn Welch paintshop:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/tenders/3500-intermediate-geary-small.jpg

[NCB]

Seems like there's plenty of material for a GWR tenders book

 

Nigel

[JimC]

Seems like there's plenty of material for a GWR tenders book

 

I was thinking that after this discussion, but I was also thinking that the sales would never remotely match the amount of expenditure in research to do a thorough job.  There's around 12 pages on the subject in my upcoming book, if you don't mind me gratuitously plugging the gratuitous plug in my sig, but that's just scratching the surface, bringing together info from a few published sources. The discussion here has highlighted a number of things it didn't occur to me to cover - most notably the shape of the coal space. Just doing the sums using various on line calculators. I get 3,500 gallons of water to be around 15.5 tons and 560 cubic feet, while from what I can make out on line 7.5 tons of coal is going to be between 300 and 350 cubic feet, so the coal space would seem to be very vaguely half that of the water space. I think I'll try and get some more info together for my own interest, but the thing that really makes it a minefield is that so much happened in the factory to alter tenders. I haven't seen exactly what is on tender record cards (of which 90% have been destroyed). Has anyone seen them? I understand there is not much detail of what got changed in service - only when the capacity was changed.

Edited January 23, 2018 by JimC

[Chris Higgs]

I have used the Brassmasters instructions for the Finney tender kits as a source of information. For exaple here: http://brassmasters.co.uk/Downloads/GWR%203500%20tender%20instructions.pdf

 

They seem to have totally missed changes in the coal space.

 

EDIT: no 3500 gallon tenders were built in 1909 or 1910, ad it looks like that marks the demarcation between vertical and sloping coal space rear. Churchward 3000 gallon tender construction had ceased in 1906, so they did not receive a redesign. 

 

Chrs

Edited January 24, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Chris Higgs]

I was thinking that after this discussion, but I was also thinking that the sales would never remotely match the amount of expenditure in research to do a thorough job.  There's around 12 pages on the subject in my upcoming book, if you don't mind me gratuitously plugging the gratuitous plug in my sig, but that's just scratching the surface, bringing together info from a few published sources. The discussion here has highlighted a number of things it didn't occur to me to cover - most notably the shape of the coal space. Just doing the sums using various on line calculators. I get 3,500 gallons of water to be around 15.5 tons and 560 cubic feet, while from what I can make out on line 7.5 tons of coal is going to be between 300 and 350 cubic feet, so the coal space would seem to be very vaguely half that of the water space. I think I'll try and get some more info together for my own interest, but the thing that really makes it a minefield is that so much happened in the factory to alter tenders. I haven't seen exactly what is on tender record cards (of which 90% have been destroyed). Has anyone seen them? I understand there is not much detail of what got changed in service - only when the capacity was changed.

 

I now understand why you can see these photos of Churchward tenders with the coal piled really high.

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/tyseley/shed/gwrt2393.jpg

 

Chris

Edited January 24, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Coach bogie]

I now understand why you can see these photos of Churchward tenders with the coal piled really high.

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/tyseley/shed/gwrt2393.jpg

 

Chris

 I thought that was to hide the Swindon Patent Pancake tender drive unit.  

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Chris Higgs]

 I thought that was to hide the Swindon Patent Pancake tender drive unit.  

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Well, indeed each and every Ixion/Dapol Manor has the coal piled mighty high to conceal their beefy but bulky tender drive motor.

[Wenrash]

I Hope Miss Prism has found some more A112 Intermediate tender photographs. There are 3 in Maurice Earley book "Truly the Great Western", taken in 1926,1927 and 1933. Could be the wrong period. Also the photo Mr Le Fleming used to illustrate what is and A122 in 1953,has been republished in the Ian Sixsmith "Book of the Castles".

These books are really a publication of the "Engine Record Sheets".

 

8 early Castles were paired with 7 A112 tenders, all going by 1930.

18 Halls, of the first 100, were paired with 8 A112 tenders, the last going by late 1939.

 

Incidentally the record does not agree with the assertion that the A112's were built for Castles 4083-4092.

Only 4088 started with an A112 tender No 2374.

4091 actual first tender was No 1539, which was a Dean 4000 gal one.

All the rest started with 3500 gal tenders. 4085's first tended was No 1645. A 1906 production.

 

Richard Ashenden

[Wenrash]

I have just re-read Jim C post regarding the Dean/Churchward 4000 gal drawing list.

If Jim is still following all this, is there anything drawing numbers relating to the brake fitted? If the numbers are the same as the 3000 gal tenders, then they were steam braked.

If the brake drawing numbers are the same as the 3500 gal tenders, then they were vacuum braked.

 

Their Lot No's are in between the 3000 gal Lots. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that all the pre 1905 3000 gal tenders were all steam braked.

Comments anyone?

 

Richard A  

[Miss Prism]

Richard - I had previously assumed (ahem!!) the first three Castle lots received 'standard' Churchward 3500g units on the basis that Collett might have wanted his first prestigious design to look uniform, so thanks for the gen on the actual ragbag of tenders they were first paired with.
 
The ten A112 intermediates were built "1925-6", so it seems it is possible, in the absence of knowing the output in specific months of 1925, some could have been paired with 4083-4092. (The initial Castle lots being lot 224 for 4073-82 [1923-4], lot 232 for 4083-92 [1925], and lot 234 for 4083-99, 5000-11 [1926-7], subsequent Castle lots being 1932 onward and well into the established 4000g regime.)
 
On the subject of uniformity, some of the (Churchward 3500g) tenders the first Castles ran with had garter crests, others had the new coat of arms. This would indicate the tenders were drawn from the tender pool, and the changeover from crest to arms is thus a bit of a spectrum, particularly if factoring in the using up of old stock of crests.
 
In any event, all this does confirm that tender swapping was rife and endemic. I think the lesson here is that attempts to date 'loco livery' are fraught, because it is actually whatever is on the tender that is the clue, and that clue is only a partial one. See, for example, 5011 of 1927.
 
I am now scurrying off to rewrite a few tender paragraphs and captions.

[Miss Prism]

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that all the pre 1905 3000 gal tenders were all steam braked.

 

That seems logical.

 

Coincidentally, I have been in comms with JimC about vacuum brakes, my starting question being "If a tender has a vacuum tank/reservoir, can one assume the tender had a vacuum brake cylinder?" - I posed this question in an attempt to distinguish 3000g and early 3500g units, both of which have short fenders. My initial assumption is that if a tender had a vacuum tank, then it is a 3500g, i.e. that no 3000g tenders had vacuum tanks (at least until later times, when some 3000g tops got replacement Collett frames with tanks.)  See, for example, http://www.gwr.org.uk/tenders/4017-tender-bath-sep08.jpg, which I strongly suspect is a 3500g, if only for the fact that it looks too fat to be a 3000g.

 

What complicates the matter is that Jim has found instances in the records for Churchward-era units where "vacuum brake cylinder" is crossed out and replaced with "steam brake cylinder". 

 

Hmmmm.

[JimC]

The ten A112 intermediates were built "1925-6", so it seems it is possible, in the absence of knowing the output in specific months of 1925, some could have been paired with 4083-4092. 

There is a note in the records book - uniquely for these  tenders - stating that they were originally fitted to 4088, 4091, 4092, 4008, 4083, 4087, 4016, 4032, 4019, 4056

You'll note these are a mix of Castles, Stars, and rebuilt Stars. The note is in a different hand to the rest, and I strongly suspect it is much later, maybe even very much later.

The random nature of this list, coupled with the undoubted existence at an early date of high sided tenders on earlier style frames, makes me strongly suspect that A112 was not the only lot built with high sides.

[JimC]

What complicates the matter is that Jim has found instances in the records for Churchward-era units where "vacuum brake cylinder" is crossed out and replaced with "steam brake cylinder". 

 

Ah, maybe I wasn't clear enough about that.

 

Its obvious looking at the book that some junior had the job of filling in the pages of the register in advance with titles and headings, to in effect create blank forms. For example Lots A5 to A87 have all the headings filled in in an amazingly consistent and very florid italic hand with lots of curlicues. A88 to the end of the first volume at A126, OTOH, are filled in in a very different upright plain printed hand. 

 

So when the form came to be filled in for each lot, then 'vacuum brake cylinder' had to be crossed out and 'steam brake cylinder' written in for all steam brake tenders. I also suspect that the beginning of the book we have was filled in after the date. I don't see that the lad would have been writing vacuum brake cylinder" before many tenders had vacuum brakes!

[JimC]

I posed this question in an attempt to distinguish 3000g and early 3500g units, both of which have short fenders. My initial assumption is that if a tender had a vacuum tank, then it is a 3500g, i.e. that no 3000g tenders had vacuum tanks

 

You should have said... I typed in the drawings quickly into my spreadsheet, and didn't look at size against type... Lets see...

 

The two lots of 1900/01 4,000 gallon tenders, (16 in all) built with steam brakes, are noted as having been later converted to vacuum brake. The odd 4,000 gallon tenders built for 100, 98, 97 and 171 in 1902/4 were the first to be built with vacuum brakes.

3.000 gallon tenders up to lot A61 (1904) were built with steam brakes, 3,000 gall tenders in lots 62, 63, 64 and 71 (1905-1906) are recorded as having vac brakes.

3,500 gall tenders didn't start until Lot A65 (1905) and by that time all tenders were being built with vac brakes.

So there were a reasonable number of 3,000 gallon tenders built with vacuum brakes. The record book, as I said in the email, doesn't have a lot to say about reservoirs. Need to consult the drawings.

[Wenrash]

Note to Miss Prism and JimC. Thank you very much. Very enlightening.

Explains how you can get a 3000 gal tender behind a Saint.

Also 8 or the early Saints appear to have 4000 gal tenders attached. See Waters book. This is all before any 3500 gal tenders were made in mid 1905.

After that date future Saints received 3500 gal tenders.

 

Now Dean/Churchward 4000 gal tender statistics.

 

9 early Castles had 8 D/C 4000 gal tenders in their lifetime. All gone by mid 1943.

21 Halls, of the first 100, had D/C 4000 gal tenders attached in their lifetime. 12 different tenders were used. Last one Feb 1953.

All the same group of tenders, usually for 2-3 years.

There must be photographs of these.

 

So far I have found one 1947 dated photograph in GWRJ,  of which the engine record sheet lists a D/C 4000 gal at that period

 

The quest for the elusive Dean/Churchward 4000 gal tenders continues.

 

Richard Ashenden

[Chris Higgs]

 

So far I have found one 1947 dated photograph in GWRJ,  of which the engine record sheet lists a D/C 4000 gal at that period

 

Which issue?

 

Chris

[Miss Prism]

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

[Wenrash]

I have seen another photo of a Collet 4000 with framing just like that. If only I had noted where!!!!!

Will have to look again.

 

Richard A 

[Wenrash]

A premature reply concerning Dean 4000 gal Tenders.

 

1. In the Ian Sixsmith "Castle" book there is a photograph of 4088 with a Dean 4000 gal tender attached. Also in Part 1 of the Hall book in the tenders section, there is photograph of 4985 with a Dean 4000 gal tender. Both Engine Record Sheets say that it is 1513. This is the only Dean 4000 tender that either had attached.

 

 

It show that spring brackets have been added and the fender goes around the back  Collet style.

 

2.GWRJ No 93 page 243, shows a Brian Penney photograph of 2938 Corsham Court with a Dean 4000 gal tender. It is labeled as such.

It has a modern frame. Only two foot brackets on the back wall and not a snap head rivet to be seem anywhere. Even on the fender. Oh fender is the Collet style right round the back.

 

3. GWRJ No 35 page 152. Now this interesting photograph has been labeled as a 3500 gal tender attached to 4958 Priory Hall.

It has a new modern frame, which has raised the tender a bit. The fender is a long 3500 gal style. The front hand rail is higher than the cab cutout indicating a tall tender. The construction is flush riveted.

The  photograph was taken in early April 1947.

The Engine Record sheet says that Dean 4000 gal tender No 1509 was attached 6/2/46 and the next tender, 2412 was attached 10/10/47. The photograph was taken within that period.

 

I worry about posting copyright photos to a forum, so please forgive me.

 

Richard Ashenden

[Coach bogie]

 

I worry about posting copyright photos to a forum, so please forgive me.

 

Richard Ashenden

Since 2014, this comes under FAIR USE as far as I am concerned. Clearly we are all genuinely studying, despite not a registered course, but we can all prove we have learnt from the submissions and make no commercial gain. The 'private study' is being shared with others who are also engaged in 'private study', and no commercial gain is evident.

 

Even prior to 2014, unless you are making money out if it, then there is no case to answer and no small claims court would take it on as any damages awarded would by a percentage of monetary gain, eg 45% x £0.00 = £0.00.

 

I had some clown from an awarding body try and void a students work over copyright, who clearly had not read the rules since the 1970's. The work was resubmitted with the below, questioning the external verifiers ruling which was instantly reversed and full award given.

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Exceptions to copyright

Non-commercial research and private study

You are allowed to copy limited extracts of works when the use is non-commercial research or private study, but you must be genuinely studying (like you would if you were taking a college course). Such use is only permitted when it is ‘fair dealing’ and copying the whole work would not generally be considered fair dealing.

The purpose of this exception is to allow students and researchers to make limited copies of all types of copyright works for non-commercial research or private study. In assessing whether your use of the work is permitted or not you must assess if there is any financial impact on the copyright owner because of your use. Where the impact is not significant, the use may be acceptable.

If your use is for non-commercial research you must ensure that the work you reproduce is supported by a sufficient acknowledgement.

 

• does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair
• is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Edited February 4, 2018 by Coach bogie