BR 8MT 4-6-0 'Duke of Gloucester'

[TheWeatheringMan]

A topical subject this one - although I'm not sure if this should be in Kit Building & Scratchbuilding !.

 

Some 3 years ago I completed my model of this loco and I thought some Members might like to see a few pictures of the loco in view of the recent arrival of the Hornby 'Railroad' version.

My loco was produced by cutting the cab off the Hornby loco and mounting it onto the Golden Arrow resin kit bodyshell that had also had the cab removed - this wasn't as difficult as it may sound as the cut/joint was at the rear of the firebox/cab front intersection. You may wonder why I chose this approach - I do not imply and criticism of the cab on the Golden Arrow resin body but it was simply that I did feel that the Hornby cab was just that bit finer and more detailed (only to be expected as the tooling methods are very different) and the main reason being that I wished to retain the chassis rear fixing/location from the Hornby model. I should at this point say that I was using the latest Hornby Britannia - the one with the 'fixed' rear truck.

 

The loco was detailed using much of the fittings from the donor Britannia together with some of the Golden Arrow parts.

The chimney on the resin body was very slightly miss-formed (as happens very occasionally) so I replaced it with the chimney from a Bachmann 9F 2-10-0 that was undergoing conversion to a Crosti 9F at the same time (this will form the subject of another post very soon) - the chimney from the donor Britannia went onto the Crosti for the very same reason !! - how nice of BR to use standard fittings and so making modellers lives so easy!.

The dome of the resin body was likewise replaced with the one off the donor Britannia as again I felt that the Hornby interpretation was just that bit better shape.

 

The chassis was altered by substituting the cast whitemetal Golden Arrow pony truck for the Hornby one as the 'Duke' has its rear axle 12" further back due to the 12" longer firebox. The pony truck was made 'fixed' as per the Hornby method and made use of the Hornby flangeless wheels from the Britannia pony truck.

The Hornby cylinders were modified using the supplied Golden Arrow parts to produce the 'Duke' arrangement.

Lastly the Hornby valve gear was modified by the removal of the walschearts gear parts and the substitution of the supplied Golden Arrow Caprotti valve gear.

Moving on to the tender - I origionally used the Hornby BR1C (which would have made the loco as per preserved condition) but just as I was finishing the 'Duke' off Chris Meachen at Golden Arrow had the unique BR1J that was specially built for the 'Duke' available and I bought one of the first off the production line (thanks Chris) so I was able to fit this to the Hornby tender chassis and complete my 'Duke' as it ran during the greater part of its BR life, which is what I actually wanted.

 

It is particularly interesting that the new Hornby 'Duke' has been reported as having an error on the smokebox bottom where it meets the footplate plating - in pictures it seems to overhang the footplate slope slightly whereas the real loco had the cut off lower edge of the smokebox flush with the plating - this can be clearly seen to be correct in the photo of the smokebox front on my model.

 

All in all I set out to produce a good model of the 'Duke' making the best use of the parts available end I do feel that I achieved my aim. I know DJH does or did a whitemetal kit of the 'Duke' but IMHO having seen several completed models from that kit I feel that somehow it doesn't quite look right having a slightly more LMS look about it - its difficult to put a finger on it but that's my impression.

By using some of the separate detailing parts from the donor Britannia I feel a better model has resulted than that which 'design clever' moulded on parts can achieve - even if a 'main range' RTR 'Duke' appears.

 

One last point that is often the subject of a mistake on models of the 'Duke' - note that the cylinders are not lined on my model - Duke of Gloucester was the ONLY lined green BR Standard loco not to have its cylinders lined out - this was due to the shape of the top 1/3rd of the cylinder cladding making full lining impossible so rather than have an odd looking part lining BR decreed that the 'Duke' was to have all black cylinder cladding.

 

Hope you find these pictures of interest.

 

Robbie

[ikks]

A much better Duke IMHO.....well done, I agree about the DJH one, not sure what it is, just quite capture the "look". I saw it many times, often rostered on the down Mid Day Scot latterly only as far as Crewe I believe.

Rgds.......Mike

[Brocp]

Well done, I really like that. That Golden Arrow conversion kit really does make up into a top looking model. Your pipe work looks brilliant, this is one area that on somw br standards that people make falls short. Not your's though. This is the second of the Golden Arrow conversions I've seen on here and I'm really impressed, may have to invest in one myself. One thing I have noticed on both this and the equally brilliant one made my Redgate (hope I got his name right!) Is that the door dart looks a little off, as if the arms on it are a little short? But that's nothing, your model is brilliant, congrats mate

[RedgateModels]

Interesting approach, did you see my version on here and in Hornby mag?

 

 

I retained the GA cab (it's moulded from the Hornby one in any case), Brit loco drive chassis and tender chassis, but I trashed the rear bogie mountings etc and fitted the GA bogie in good old pivoting fashion. Modified Classic Train and Motor Bus Brit deflectors.

 

I guess we know why Hornby couldn't use the Brit chassis for their 71000 - That under-cab arrangement needs reworking to take account of the longer firebox for a start

[Bluebell Model Railway]

Very nice, I was just about to post mine up, good job.

[92220]

Hi Robbie

I really like what you've done there. I built a pretty ordinary effort at the Golden Arrow kit with a China tender drive Brit chassis - all faults down to me and not the kit, I must add! I then formed a plan based on the new loco drive chassis, various part damaged new Brit bodies and the GA body plus Comet detailing etc and an old Crownline conversion which has some exquisite bespoke DoG etched brass smoke deflectors, as well as etched camboxes covers, lost wax Caprotti gear and so on. The new Brit cab as you have used seems to capture the shape better than the old Brit body.

Then Hornby brought theirs out, or at least announced it, and I decided to wait. There is something about yours that looks better than the pics I've seen of the Hornby one, admittedly with no detailing on them. I can't quite put my finger on it, but well done!

 

One question I have is that I've got several pics of the prototype in 1958-62 in various books, that clearly show the cylinder chests lined out in orange-black-orange as normal. What dates were you working on with black cylinders?

 

Iain

[Horsetan]

Just as a nitpick, this was always an 8P, never 8MT. Yours is far better than the recent Hornby effort, but I'd still go for the DJH kit simply because it is a kit which offers just a bit more flexibility.

 

The 9F, by the way, was probably the least Standard of all the Standards. There wasn't a great deal on it that could be fitted to other Standards, and vice versa.

[TheWeatheringMan]

Hi Horsetan,

You are of course quite correct in that the 'Duke' was indeed an 8P not an 8MT.

I know this only too well and cant explain my daft slip - I was thinking about my Clan's and Britannia's while I was typing the post so perhaps therin lies my excuse !!.

 

The 9F did in fact contain a very large number of 'standard' parts as did all the Riddles locomotives - granted that the boiler and some chassis parts were unique to the 9F but they still were very Standard overall

Regards,

Robbie

[Horsetan]

....The 9F did in fact contain a very large number of 'standard' parts as did all the Riddles locomotives - granted that the boiler and some chassis parts were unique to the 9F but they still were very Standard overallRegards,Robbie

Cylinders, wheels and much of the motion were unique to the 9F. The very large number of Standard parts that you refer to relate to small fittings in the main.

 

The original intention - particularly when planned as a 2-8-2 rather than a 2-10-0 - had been to use as much of the Britannia as possible.

 

The German "Einheitsloks" did standardisation so much better than BR. They did have a 25-year head start, after all.

[Guest 47107]

Am I missing something ?  Isn't the Duke a 4-6-2 not a 4-6-0 ?

[TheWeatheringMan]

Hi 92220,

Many thanks for your post.

 

Oh dear, this just shows what happens when you make a statement without  explaining yourself fully !.

You are quite correct that there are several pictures in books that show the cylinder cladding lined out.

I should have been a bit more specific about my model in this respect.

There are photos of the loco posed outside Crewe works (and several of it in service) that show lining.

The information I have (from former Crewe works employees) is that when taken back to the works to be united with its new and unique tender, classified BR1J, after several years service running, that someone in a senior position in the mechanical side of BR, possibly but not deffinatly, J.F. Harrison (then BR CME) did not like the lining on the 'Duke' which of course did not, and could not, go to the full height owning to the valve chest area and an instruction was issued the the 'Duke' was to have its cladding painted plain black - as my model is intended to depict the loco soon after receiving its unique tender I have followed that information.

It is obvious that at a later date the lining was added again - possibly by its shed fitters/painters - as is well know engine sheds were often known for not towing the line on official instructions if they felt like it - a good example on a BR Standard is the unique green painted cylinder cladding on 72009 Clan Stewart following its last overhaul.

The preserved 'Duke' does as far as I remember have the lining and additionally has raised brass numbers on the cabside - something that BR would almost certainly never have allowed !.

 

Perhaps I should have been a little more specific in what I wrote in the OP.

 

Regards,

Robbie

[TheWeatheringMan]

Am I missing something ?  Isn't the Duke a 4-6-2 not a 4-6-0 ?

 

How the heck did I make that mistake ?????

I was working on my laptop late into the night when I did the OP and all I can say is I must have been more tired than I thought - I'm very sorry All.

 

However I cant resist this 'tongue-in-cheek' answer as well :

 

As described in the OP I modified the GA cast rear truck to copy the Hornby 'fixed' arrangement of the Britannia and therefor used the original Hornby flangeless wheels in the rear truck. I would suggest that as my model has those flangeless wheels it could be described (if one stretches a point) as a 4-6-0 !!!!!!!!  -  on that basis though could not a BR 9F (see my post on my Crosti model made in a similar way) be described as a 2-4-0-4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There is another post re the Hornby 'Duke' close to my OP and interestingly it does indeed show the incorrect overhanging smokebox front.

 

Thankyou all for your nice comments on my model.

[Elgar]

Very nice job! I contemplated using the Golden Arrow kit but the gallery photos on the GAP website don't seemingly do justice to the quality of this kit which you have managed to bring out. Perhaps you should offer your pix to Chris! Glad to see he is now doing a BR1J.

 

As a small nitpick, the two reversing gearboxes on your model seem to be turned through 90 degrees thus facing sideways not forwards - was the Caprotti gear supplied in one piece a la Hornby or does it have to be made up?

 

I had hoped to get an RTR model in BR1E tender guise but don't hold out much hope of the promised earlier version coming in my lifetime!

 

In view of this, am trying to modify the BR1D top from my old 70050 tender drive Brit. I've coaxed out the coal load complete with rear platform and am now trying to simulate the coal pusher. Can anybody tell me if the divider across the tender depicted about 1 cm ahead of the rear bulkhead moved with the advancing coal pusher? The only decent pic I have is in David Clarke's Standard Pacifics book (p42) but this doesn't clarify the above and drawings always show the forward bulkhead some distance ahead of the rear.

 

Best regards

 

Bob