Kernow GWR steam rail motor

[Mikkel]

8 minutes ago, melmerby said:

There is also fairly comprehensive information about services worked by SRMs

 

But no dates for which SRMs worked where, which I think Lewis has? 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mikkel
To clarify

[melmerby]

7 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

But no dates for which SRMs worked where, which I think Lewis has? 

 

No comprehensive records but some vehicle numbers are mentioned.

RCTS concentrates on dates and the number of SRMs allocated to the different divisions/depots and what services each depot worked..

 

Lewis is definitely the bible of SRM info and well worth the cost for a good copy.

Pity White Swan haven't re-issued it now a model is imminent.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Not listed at £40 when I go to AbeBooks.

The only copy listed is £70, as it was some hours ago.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30228499247&cm_sp=rec-_-pd_hw_i_1-_-bdp&reftag=pd_hw_i_1

 

BTW AbeBooks is an Amazon company and operates similarly with stocked items and as a marketplace for other sellers, which this book is.

 

There are three copies on ABEbooks as far as I can see. £46, £50 and £73 inc postage.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=lewis john&tn=great western steam rail motors&cm_sp=mbc-_-ats-_-all
 

[melmerby]

20 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

There are three copies on ABEbooks as far as I can see. £46, £50 and £73 inc postage.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=lewis john&tn=great western steam rail motors&cm_sp=mbc-_-ats-_-all
 

That's weird

I can only get the one however I search

[57xx]

There's only 2 now, hopefully Neal has been successful in purchasing one. 🙂

[Neal Ball]

9 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

But no dates for which SRMs worked where, which I think Lewis has? 

 

 

Pretty sure its in there - to be continued

 

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

There are three copies on ABEbooks as far as I can see. £46, £50 and £73 inc postage.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=lewis john&tn=great western steam rail motors&cm_sp=mbc-_-ats-_-all
 

 

Thanks Phil - two now 😎

 

19 minutes ago, 57xx said:

There's only 2 now, hopefully Neal has been successful in purchasing one. 🙂

 

Correct 😎

 

Thanks to @Mikkel and Ric @57xx for the messages overnight.

 

I have now placed my order for the John lewis book on the Railmotors and it will no doubt be winging its way to me after Christmas.

 

Thanks very much guys.

[Edwardian]

Allocations (summarised and simplified - for detail see Lewis):

 

No.61 (diagram O) (model in pre-1908 chocolate and cream):

 

1907-1909 Southall

From July 1909, Truro, Penzance

1910-11, Laira, Truro, Newquay, Helston

1912-15, Newton Abbott

1915-16, Penzance, Truro

1916-1918 Yatton, Bath, Bristol

1919-21, Stourbridge

`1922, Gloucester, Penzance, Bristol

 

No.63 (diagram O) (model in 1908-1912 lined brown):

 

1907-08, Goodwick, Fishguard

1909, Stratford upon Avon

1910-11, Oxford

1911, Worcester, Stratford upon Avon

1912-13, Trowbridge, Frome

1914, Penzance, Helston

1915, Southall

1916-18, Worcester, Kidderminster

1920, Chippenham, Gloucester

 

No.85 (diagram R) (model in 1912-19221 crimson lake): 

 

1908-10, Tyseley

1910-12, Stourbridge, Kidderminster, Worcester

1913, Merthyr, Aberystwyth, Neath

1914-15, Taunton

1917, Frome, Trowbridge

1922, Oswestry

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

10 hours ago, melmerby said:

RCTS Volume 14 has some more info about SRMs including some interesting photos of Steam Railmotor "multiple unit" working.

I.e. Two Steam Railmotors coupled together and presumably including the control linkages and a 3 vehicle SRM+AutoTrailer+SRM combination and a 4 vehicle SRM+Autotrailer+Autotrailer+SRM combination, effectively Steam Multiple Units.

 

 

 

Fascinating, but this raises a few questions.  Could you really connect the two pairs so that it was a multiple unit?

I note you don't suggest SRM sandwiched between two Autotrailers (like some push-pulls), suggesting no linkages available on the forward end of the SRM.  But if you can't connect to the front end, you can only link through the 3- and 4- vehicles combos you describe if the Autotrailer can be through coupled at either end and the trailing SRM is in reverse.

 

What would be the manning? 

You clearly need driver + fireman in the leading SRM, fireman in the rear one. 

If you can't connect the controls through for the leading driver to work both SRMs, driver would also be needed for the trailing SRM, would there be any point in his being in the second Autotrailer, or would he be in the rear SRM? 

And if you can connect the two, would you have had two drivers anyway (perhaps because of union agreements etc).

Finally, does one guard in rear autotrailer suffice?  He has no access to the other autotrailer whilst in motion, but could move from one to the other at intermediate stops if necessary.

[Michael Hodgson]

SIgnalling question ...

This would have been signalled as 3-1-3, ILC for Rail-motor car, auto-train or Streamline Railcar (1936 regs).

But if there is a second rail-motor coupled at the rear, would they have sent 2-2 Engine assisting in rear?

[Oldddudders]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Finally, does one guard in rear autotrailer suffice?  He has no access to the other autotrailer whilst in motion, but could move from one to the other at intermediate stops if necessary.

Plenty of trains on which coaches were non-corridor and all-compartment, so lacking any access whatever. 

[Ian Hargrave]

13 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Plenty of trains on which coaches were non-corridor and all-compartment, so lacking any access whatever. 

 
Indeed….which could be vexatious on certain occasions,such as excess ale consumption before & after an international rugby match at Cardiff Arms Park when Valleys trains,a standard 5/6 Collett/Hawksworth load ,were packed with returning supporters.No toilets until you got to Ponty…if you were lucky enough to achieve relief before the train headed off to Treherbert or Merthyr.If not it was a wait for the next train.

[GeoffBird]

In the Middleton Press book "Craven Arms to Wellington" , the first picture is at Craven Arms and is of Railmotor No. 74 about to haul two coaches to Much Wenlock.  No date but the railmotor is in chocolate and cream livery.  Given the hilly route, I would have thoight two extra coaches would have been a bit too much for a rfailmotor.  Comments please.

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

But no dates for which SRMs worked where, which I think Lewis has? 

 

But there is some information in respect of dates of allocations plus a complete list of diagrams, albeit only listing the routes/destinations involved, in Part 14 of the RCTS history.

 

And of course you shouldn't be without that part as it updates and amends quite a lot of information shown in certain other parts of the series.

[Edwardian]

On 10/12/2022 at 09:21, Mikkel said:

Looks like a lick of brown paint will be needed for the upper glazing panels at the passenger end of No. 61. Not to worry, that will help individualise it and actually looks better aesthetically, I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On this issue, I agree that I think the darker surrounds to the toplights looks better in this livery. However, I think for No.61, you might need to stay your paint brush!

 

You picture two diagram Os pictured in Lewis in official views showing as-built condition.  These are No.61, the subject of the Kernow model, on pp.84-5, and No.67 on the cover and again on p.56

 

These are, of course, both Kerr/Hurst Os, but also of the number series out-shopped in 1906 with the 'prize' monogram, so called because there was a monogram competition in 1905. The winning design appears to have been applied in 1906 only, superseded by the more familiar Garter. Thus, based on this, logically the Kernow model of No.61 should exactly resemble the examples you posted. 

 

You conclude that the toplight frames should be painted chocolate. We do see dark, not cream, frames in the picture of No.67. We see it also on O No.70, which may have worn the garter from the start. This car had dark framing to the toplights when photographed in March 1907 (Lewis p.50).

 

However, see No.62, pictured at p.13 of Lewis at Southall, probably in 1908 according to the caption. She was at Southall until early summer 1909, according to Lewis, and again in 1911-12, and 1925-26.  In the picture she has cream surrounds to the toplight, what looks like the Garter, and the modified windows with tank filler. I do wonder (as I mention in the edit to my original post), whether this is a 1908 picture, but rather is from c.1925? The other possibility is that changes came early, both retrofitting the tank filler and tweaking the livery. But, your comment holds good because, when married to the original 'prize' monogram, the toplights seem to have dark frames.  

 

Yet, at Swindon, in 1906, in as-new condition and sporting the 'prize' monogram, we have No.62 again, and this appears already to have cream frames to the toplights. But, you may say, you posted a picture of No.61, the very car in the very same livery, and this has dark frames! Well, no, I think not. Looking at the reproduction full-size in Lewis, it seems clear to me that inside the beading the toplight frames are cream.

 

No. 71 also appears to have had cream toplight frames (Lewis p.157) and this is seen also on No.69 in 1908 (p.159). Both of these are in-service, one is undated and the other a couple of years old, so a change is possible.

 

Overall, though, it seems to me that there were variations. If keeping the No.61 identity, I would suggest keeping the cream. Ditto if going for No.62. On the balance of probabilities I'd keep No.69 in cream, but No.67 would have them painted dark, I would say varnished inner frames and chocolate or black outer frames. 

 

Turning to the minor accuracy points:

- The roof feature I mentioned previously is the most bothersome, as it would need craving off and the roof repainted

- The aforementioned point about the driver's door handrails is that, judging from the picture of No.61 on p.84, there are rails, but differently positioned and angled in. Could be amended if could be bothered.

- The only other thing is that the little pip for the whistle cord should be located on the right-hand beading above the passenger end window, not on the adjacent cream panel.

 

No doubt there are other minor issues that I have failed to notice, but this seems minor, minor stuff. Overall I think the pre-1908 lined chocolate and cream looks the most accurate of the 3 pre-Grouping options and, so, I'm sticking with it. 

 

 

  

 

 

[melmerby]

13 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

 

Fascinating, but this raises a few questions.  Could you really connect the two pairs so that it was a multiple unit?

I note you don't suggest SRM sandwiched between two Autotrailers (like some push-pulls), suggesting no linkages available on the forward end of the SRM.  But if you can't connect to the front end, you can only link through the 3- and 4- vehicles combos you describe if the Autotrailer can be through coupled at either end and the trailing SRM is in reverse.

 

What would be the manning? 

You clearly need driver + fireman in the leading SRM, fireman in the rear one. 

If you can't connect the controls through for the leading driver to work both SRMs, driver would also be needed for the trailing SRM, would there be any point in his being in the second Autotrailer, or would he be in the rear SRM? 

And if you can connect the two, would you have had two drivers anyway (perhaps because of union agreements etc).

Finally, does one guard in rear autotrailer suffice?  He has no access to the other autotrailer whilst in motion, but could move from one to the other at intermediate stops if necessary.

Quite clearly linkages are provided both ends* as there are some pictures with a SRM sandwiched between two trailers.

Note also some vehicles had corridors and some SRM + trailer combos (with corridors) were close coupled with no buffers.

 

EDIT *Not according to Lewis so not a combination that can be controlled from both ends.

The second trailer could be a strengthening vehicle in the same way as an ordinary coach was occasionally used.

Edited December 22, 2022 by melmerby
Incorreect assumption.

[The Stationmaster]

Right let's try to answer a gew of the questions mentioned above and perhaps add a few other bits (source the relevant Instructions as they stood in 1920.

 

Block signalling  Motor train to be signalled 3-1-3.  No reference anywhere to use of banking engines so it would therefre have always been signalled as a train.

 

The Instructions state that when a mor tor car is worked with vehicles attached the Driver must always work the regulator at the leading end of the train.  This implies - but does not specifically state - that if a motor car was formed at each end of a train the Driver must work the regulator in the leading car.  Obviously in practice motor cars could only be formed at either end end of a train with the driving end outwards and the regulators connected through the rodding system.  Thus there could - by implication - be multiple-unit working of two cars coupled or with suitably equipped vehicles (with regulator rodding) between them.  Clearly the GWR dd not consider any need for specific reference to the working of coupled motor cars because the basic Instruction was quite clear - the Driver had to work the regulator from the leading driving cab and that would equally apply if there was more than one regulator.

 

The staffing Regulations requiring Guards to travel in specific vehicles or to provide more than one Guard varied according to train formation.

 

Tail loads.  Motors were allowed to take tail loads.  These varied according to gradient and - as was usual prior to 1927 - were calculated on the basis of the number of wheels, not on tonnage.  Thus

1 in 40. 10 wheels permitted as trailing load. (equivalent to a 59'6" auto trailer vehicle).  

1 in 50.  12 wheels.  (equivalent to a 70ft trailer vehicle).

1 in 60.  14 wheels

1 in 80.  18 wheels

1 in 100. 24 wheels

 

A 'converted coach' (whatever one of those happened to be?) counted as 8 wheels.  Based on the notes for 'foreign company vehicles' in the 1927 Passenger Train Loads Book a 4 - 6 wheeled coach or brake van was counted as 20 tons, an 8 wheeled coach was counted as 30 tons, and a 70ft coach was counted as 40 tons.

 

To explain the loads situationa bit further I'll use the Henley branch as an example looking also for comparison at the loads permittr ed for an 0-4-2T auto engine (basically a 517) based on the 1920 figures the auto engine would be allowed a load, in addition to the auto-trailer, of 40 wheels from Henley to Twyford and 56 wheels from Twyford to Henley.  In the 1927 loads tables the same engine was allowed a total load of 196 tons from Twyford to Henley and 140 tons from Henley to Twyford.

 

If you bother to do the maths you'll find that a 59'6" auto trailer plus 40 wheels could theoretically equate to a total of 6 x 8 wheeled coaches = 180 tons.  Suggesting to me that the loads given by wheel count in 1920 were perhaps based on the weights of older vehicles or were somewhat on the optimistic side.  However whatever the official figures said everyday practice would have fed back the reality which should have then been reflected in the figures.  However still using the Henley branch as an example the 1927 permitted loads for a 517 were different from the loads given for specific gradients in the 1936 table in the new General Appendix but they were unaltered from the 1927 loads in the 1948 STT.  You pays your money and you takes your choice - not unusual when going back to original source information🤨

[Mikkel]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But there is some information in respect of dates of allocations plus a complete list of diagrams, albeit only listing the routes/destinations involved, in Part 14 of the RCTS history.

 

And of course you shouldn't be without that part as it updates and amends quite a lot of information shown in certain other parts of the series.

 

Thank you Mike. I have RCTS vol 11, but was not aware that No. 14 has additional information. Another one for the wish list then.

 

 

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

On this issue, I agree that I think the darker surrounds to the toplights looks better in this livery. However, I think for No.61, you might need to stay your paint brush!

 

You picture two diagram Os pictured in Lewis in official views showing as-built condition.  These are No.61, the subject of the Kernow model, on pp.84-5, and No.67 on the cover and again on p.56

 

These are, of course, both Kerr/Hurst Os, but also of the number series out-shopped in 1906 with the 'prize' monogram, so called because there was a monogram competition in 1905. The winning design appears to have been applied in 1906 only, superseded by the more familiar Garter. Thus, based on this, logically the Kernow model of No.61 should exactly resemble the examples you posted. 

 

You conclude that the toplight frames should be painted chocolate. We do see dark, not cream, frames in the picture of No.67. We see it also on O No.70, which may have worn the garter from the start. This car had dark framing to the toplights when photographed in March 1907 (Lewis p.50).

 

However, see No.62, pictured at p.13 of Lewis at Southall, probably in 1908 according to the caption. She was at Southall until early summer 1909, according to Lewis, and again in 1911-12, and 1925-26.  In the picture she has cream surrounds to the toplight, what looks like the Garter, and the modified windows with tank filler. I do wonder (as I mention in the edit to my original post), whether this is a 1908 picture, but rather is from c.1925? The other possibility is that changes came early, both retrofitting the tank filler and tweaking the livery. But, your comment holds good because, when married to the original 'prize' monogram, the toplights seem to have dark frames.  

 

Yet, at Swindon, in 1906, in as-new condition and sporting the 'prize' monogram, we have No.62 again, and this appears already to have cream frames to the toplights. But, you may say, you posted a picture of No.61, the very car in the very same livery, and this has dark frames! Well, no, I think not. Looking at the reproduction full-size in Lewis, it seems clear to me that inside the beading the toplight frames are cream.

 

No. 71 also appears to have had cream toplight frames (Lewis p.157) and this is seen also on No.69 in 1908 (p.159). Both of these are in-service, one is undated and the other a couple of years old, so a change is possible.

 

Overall, though, it seems to me that there were variations. If keeping the No.61 identity, I would suggest keeping the cream. Ditto if going for No.62. On the balance of probabilities I'd keep No.69 in cream, but No.67 would have them painted dark, I would say varnished inner frames and chocolate or black outer frames. 

 

Turning to the minor accuracy points:

- The roof feature I mentioned previously is the most bothersome, as it would need craving off and the roof repainted

- The aforementioned point about the driver's door handrails is that, judging from the picture of No.61 on p.84, there are rails, but differently positioned and angled in. Could be amended if could be bothered.

- The only other thing is that the little pip for the whistle cord should be located on the right-hand beading above the passenger end window, not on the adjacent cream panel.

 

No doubt there are other minor issues that I have failed to notice, but this seems minor, minor stuff. Overall I think the pre-1908 lined chocolate and cream looks the most accurate of the 3 pre-Grouping options and, so, I'm sticking with it. 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Thank you James, also for the allocations which are very useful. They got around!

 

I don't know if this partial photo of no 70 in is in John Lewis' book - it has the brown frames in 1907, but with the garter livery: 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/zrailmotor93/archivenews_11/archivenews_11.html

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Mikkel
Typos

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

Thank you Mike. I have RCTS vol 11, but was not aware that No. 14 has additional information. Another one for the wish list then.

 

 

 

Thank you James, also for the allocations which are very useful. They got around!

 

I don't know if this partial photo of no 70 in is in John Lewis' book - it has the brown frames in 1907, but with the garter livery: 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/zrailmotor93/archivenews_11/archivenews_11.html

 

 

Thanks. Not same picture, but same occasion as the two in Lewis I referred to. The Garter was inferred there by the presence of a 'supporter', but good to see it. 1907 and already the filler tank mod with worn paint. 

[melmerby]

Having read a bit more detail, it says in Lewis that the SRMs only had control linkage at the trailing end, so any vehicle coupled ahead of the SRM cannot be controlling.

Trailers had linkage both ends. So trailer+SRM+trailer can only operate in one direction.

A trailer for and aft would need the SRM & one trailer to run around to enable driver control when changing direction.

 

Two trailers is a heavy load for a SRM and would only be used on an easy route.

 

Original post edited

Edited December 22, 2022 by melmerby

[Colin_McLeod]

Christmas present sorted. No 61 pre ordered.

[The Stationmaster]

On 22/12/2022 at 15:48, melmerby said:

Having read a bit more detail, it says in Lewis that the SRMs only had control linkage at the trailing end, so any vehicle coupled ahead of the SRM cannot be controlling.

Trailers had linkage both ends. So trailer+SRM+trailer can only operate in one direction.

A trailer for and aft would need the SRM & one trailer to run around to enable driver control when changing direction.

 

Two trailers is a heavy load for a SRM and would only be used on an easy route.

 

Original post edited

Officially they would have been allowed two x 70ft trailers where gradients were less steep than 1 in 100 (and anything steeper than 1 in 260 is of course a 'steep gradient').   

 

But note the requirement I mentioned above for the Driver to control the regulator from the leading end of the train.  If, as Lewis states, there was no control linkage at the leading end of a motor then they obviously could not be worked with a trailer in front.  And the ability to run round a motor + coupled trailer was highly unlikely at most places, there simply wasn't enough headroom  plus it would be a lot of shunting involved in order to do it.  So if two trailers were required they had to be coupled to the non-powered end of the motor or between two motors which were formed powered end outwards.

 

So simple question - is there any evidence that trailers were coupled to the powered end of a motor?

[The Stationmaster]

Having just studied one of my Christmas present books I can even answer my own question above because I came across a motor+trailer+motor formation with the powered end of the leading motor coupled to the trailer.  But that is only part of the story because in that formation the rods to one of the motors were not connected (even when it was possible to connect them) because the arrangement had been found too stiff to work - probably due as much as anything to the profile of the route.  Accordingly each motor had its pwn Driver with bell cpmmunication used between the leading driver and the trailing Driver.

[RateTheFreight]

Out of interest, does anyone know the length of the forthcoming model? 
 

Very tempted to build an Edwardian micro covering a branch off the North Warwickshire Line (perhaps a fictional station at Lowsonford on the Rowington branch) where they once operated.

 

G 

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, RateTheFreight said:

Out of interest, does anyone know the length of the forthcoming model? 

They are 70ft excluding buffers (about 11" at 4mm scale)

[E100]

January update is that they are due Q3 this year.

 

https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/pg/144/KMRC-Locomotive---GWR-Steam-Railmotor