Agenoria WR 1366 Pannier for Pencarrow Bridge

[The Stationmaster]

Think I've chosen 1368 by the way, seems to be the most unloved of those that reached Wadebridge. I'm hoping it didn't change much between 1/5/62 and 12/10/64.

My two pics of it (LHS side only I'm afraid) were taken on 01 September 1964.

[2ManySpams]

Chris

I think that's a bit bold!

Where standardisation saved money, GJC and his team were absolute masters at it - wheels, cylinders, horns, axle boxes, springs, pony trucks, brakes, injectors, ejectors, chimneys, firebox and boiler formers, and many other bits. When you consider the cost of patterns & masters, tools such as the die plates, machining jigs, and then the risk and uncertainty that they avoided by using and developing standardised components that could be mixed and matched into different locos (and probably a similar system for coaches, wagons, and a lot of other things too) I remain convinced that Churchward was a finer Engineer than most if not all his contemporaries, and Brunel too!

(Waiting for the hail of abuse )

I suspect where it was a case of saving time & money, many shed foremen, were masters of making do, and de-standardisation too!

And without them, our model making would be so much less fun!!!

Best

Simon

I thought that would generate a bite or two!

[MikeHemmings]

I have just found your thread, so you have started the pannier then Chris it looking good I will have a closer look at the weekend.

 

Mike

[gwrrob]

I have a photo of 1371 at Swindon taken in the 60s if of any use.None of 1368 and that's the one I modelled !

[The Stationmaster]

I have a photo of 1371 at Swindon taken in the 60s if of any use.None of 1368 and that's the one I modelled !

The problem with the 1366s was the variation in various details over the years - right nuisance for it as a class.

[gwrrob]

The problem with the 1366s was the variation in various details over the years - right nuisance for it as a class.

God help Heljan and their 4mm version then.

[2ManySpams]

I have just found your thread, so you have started the pannier then Chris it looking good I will have a closer look at the weekend.

Mike

You've found my latest modelling exploits then Mike - been meaning to put a link on the Pencarrow thread...

[Simond]

God help Heljan and their 4mm version then.

Yeah, but it will provide the volume that will justify some recording and a sound project, I hope

 

Best

Simon

[buffalo]

...Where standardisation saved money, GJC and his team were absolute masters at it...

Yes, but let's not forget that standardisation on the GWR began with Gooch's Fire Fly class and developed long after Churchward. The 1366 is, and bears all the hallmarks of, a late Collett era pannier tank. Interestingly, Churchward's only contribution to dock tanks was to give Holcroft the task of designing the 1361 class. His remit was to take all the existing patterns and templates for the old ex-Cornwall Mineral Railway 1392s and bring the details into line with current Swindon practice. The result was perhaps the most anachronistic design of the Churchward era.

 

The different routes taken by injector overflow pipes have been mentioned. The pipe through the running plate was the norm from the earliest use of injectors until at least WW2. Even 1600s were built like this under BR, although early photos of 94XX show some with an outside pipe, at least on the left hand side. All 1366s were probably built like with the pipe through the running plate though, like many surviving panniers, were probably changed in BR days.

 

Nick

 

edit to correct my spelling of 'pannier' as 'saddle'

Edited August 6, 2014 by buffalo

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, but let's not forget that standardisation on the GWR began with Gooch's Fire Fly class and developed long after Churchward. The 1366 is, and bears all the hallmarks of, a late Collett era saddle tank. Interestingly, Churchward's only contribution to dock tanks was to give Holcroft the task of designing the 1361 class. His remit was to take all the existing patterns and templates for the old ex-Cornwall Mineral Railway 1392s and bring the details into line with current Swindon practice. The result was perhaps the most anachronistic design of the Churchward era.

 

The different routes taken by injector overflow pipes have been mentioned. The pipe through the running plate was the norm from the earliest use of injectors until at least WW2. Even 1600s were built like this under BR, although early photos of 94XX show some with an outside pipe, at least on the left hand side. All 1366s were probably built like with the pipe through the running plate though, like many surviving panniers, were probably changed in BR days.

 

Nick

General agreement of course with the above.  However I did find one 1366 with an injector overflow pipe across the footplating fairly early in its life when carrying out prototype research for a project which, alas, aborted when Heljan made their announcement.

[Simond]

Nick, Mike,

 

I could not argue with your comments at all, and it think I'd particularly agree with "the most anachronistic" in reference to the dock panniers, but I have a great respect for GJC whose efforts in standardisation may well have been built on the foundations laid by his predecessors (of course!) but who, in my view, made a particularly good job of it - especially as he managed to extend it across multiple classes.

 

And Holcroft, Collet and Stanier continued the good work (I did mention his team) in no small measure.

 

I do wish I could do the same in my professional life! Sadly I don't quite have the same influence!

 

Best

Simon

[84B Oxley]

I've gradually come to the conclusion that standardisation just meant that almost any part would fit almost any loco. Any class may have started off identical but as they went through the Works I think they just took anything that would fit from the parts bin! Makes life more interesting/annoying/challenging/frustrating (choose your own word) for us modellers. And gives the rivet counters a field day!

Jeff

[2ManySpams]

Some positive steps tonight.

 

I've taken the slop out of the interface between the piston and cylinder. Two sizes of brass tube used to replicate the gland thingy.

 

This is the gland fitted to the cylinder that hasn't had the slide bars fitted yet - easier to see.

[2ManySpams]

Lots of scratching of head regarding the various lack of clearances between the front wheels and the piston fixings.

 

Step 1 was to dismantle everything yet again!

 

Step 2 was to do away with the screw at the rear of the piston. The nut and bolt was removed, the bolt head soldered to the outside and then filed down. The bolt shaft was soldered to the rear of the piston and filed flush.

 

Step 3 the front of the coupling rod was reduced down a bit further. The bearing was reduced to match too.

 

Step 4 the sideplay in the front axle was heavily reduced. This required the bearing s and spacers to be removed from the fronts of the compensation beams. The bearing s were replaced without the spaces. The end result was the the bearings protruded further out of the frames.

 

Well that little lot took about 2hrs to achieve!

 

[2ManySpams]

Before putting everything back together the bearings on the crankpins were reduced down to match the thickness of the various rods, plus a little play.

 

The driving rod had a very subtle Z bend applied so that both ends were flat on their pins.

 

At long last we have a chassis that runs freely with one set of valvegear. Just the second set to fit now. Phew!

 

[N15class]

Lots of scratching of head regarding the various lack of clearances between the front wheels and the piston fixings.

 

Step 1 was to dismantle everything yet again!

 

Step 2 was to do away with the screw at the rear of the piston. The nut and bolt was removed, the bolt head soldered to the outside and then filed down. The bolt shaft was soldered to the rear of the piston and filed flush.

 

Step 3 the front of the coupling rod was reduced down a bit further. The bearing was reduced to match too.

 

Step 4 the sideplay in the front axle was heavily reduced. This required the bearing s and spacers to be removed from the fronts of the compensation beams. The bearing s were replaced without the spaces. The end result was the the bearings protruded further out of the frames.

 

Well that little lot took about 2hrs to achieve!

 

rps20140806_212738.jpg

Sometimes with these things it is all you can do. I have taken work to bits quite a few time. That is why it is always good to progress as you are making sure each bit you add does not interfere with the good work so far.

 

I have had a devils own job with the dummy valve gear in the pannier I am building. It stopped the compensation working. After waht seemed like a lifetime I found a wire a couple of rubs of the file too long.

 

You are making a grand job of this. I wish I had of started my kit building in 7mm not 4mm.

[Donw]

When you consider that a GWR loco of some classes could go in for an overhaul and come back with a different pattern boiler that meant the dome was not in the same place, you can see how standardisation could lead to variations.

 

However whatever variations you end up with you are doing a good job so far.

Don

[2ManySpams]

Thanks for the continued support folks. I'm guessing that the next chassis challenge will be resolving any electrical shorts, particularly when the body is fitted.

 

Feeling fairly pleased with achievements so far though.

[Stubby47]

If you only use the loco the same way every time, you don't need to do the second lot of valvegear...

[Siberian Snooper]

If you only use the loco the same way every time, you don't need to do the second lot of valvegear...

 

I think that's cheating, and anyway it's not really valve gear it's the piston, crosshead and con rod, if Spams really wants a challenge it would be to fit inside working valve gear. However I think that would be a step to far for a novice loco builder.

[Guest Isambarduk]

"you can see how standardisation could lead to variations."

 

Exactly! 

 

Standardisation isn't about having all the finished item identical (handy though that might be for modellers of railways) but about building them from as few interchangeable parts as is feasible so that costs all-round are reduced, and repair and maintenance are simplified.  It's as true today as it was in GJC's time - and well before that.

 

David  

[2ManySpams]

If you only use the loco the same way every time, you don't need to do the second lot of valvegear...

If I'd have thought of that earlier I'd have done the side without the crosshead pump! Doh!!

[84B Oxley]

Chris

 

Persevere and you will get there-it's called a learning curve! I have fitted working inside motion to some of my pannier tanks, where it is visible, but on 1367 it would be pointless as the gap under the boiler is minimal. My next Pannier will be a 16XX and that will have working motion.

Fitting the body to the chassis shouldn't give you any problems with shorting, depends where you fit the pickups. Mine are under the chassis so the body can't interfere. The only shorting from the body could come if it touches both terminals of your motor.

Incidentally, if you are going to Telford on the Sunday I will have my pannier on display on the North West O Gauge Modellers stand. You can then see its imperfections. Just like the real ones! (That's my excuse.....)

Jeff

[gwrrob]

Two nice photos of 1368 on ebay right now of interest shewing both sides albeit late 50s.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GWR-Loco-1368-/201130269667?pt=UK_Collectables_Railwayana_RL&hash=item2ed44c5be3

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GWR-Loco-1368-Under-repair-at-Weymouth-1957-/191251110442?pt=UK_Collectables_Railwayana_RL&hash=item2c87745a2a

[Stubby47]

Thanks for the continued support folks. I'm guessing that the next chassis challenge will be resolving any electrical shorts, particularly when the body is fitted.

 

 

Something like this ?