Dettingen GCR might have been layout

[richard i]

Just me then.

[Poggy1165]

I think it was Sir Berkeley Sheffield that was known as the silver teapot engine. Its regular driver wrote to Sir Berkeley Sheffield to tell him how much he enjoyed driving 'his' engine, and in return received a silver teapot. Can't see that happening today!

 

Given that J.G. Robinson trained at Swindon the odd GW influence is not too surprising. Check out the steam railmotors. Very similar indeed to the GW version thereof.

[richard i]

I think it was Sir Berkeley Sheffield that was known as the silver teapot engine. Its regular driver wrote to Sir Berkeley Sheffield to tell him how much he enjoyed driving 'his' engine, and in return received a silver teapot. Can't see that happening today!

 

Given that J.G. Robinson trained at Swindon the odd GW influence is not too surprising. Check out the steam railmotors. Very similar indeed to the GW version thereof.

Yes I have been building a GCR steam rail motor off and on for the last couple of years, more off than on at the moment I must admit.

Now the question is what did the tea pot look look like, and was it carried on the firebox back plate to keep it warm, I feel a little plasticard project coming on.

Thanks for the info, as always it adds to my understanding of the era.

Richard

[richard i]

its all over bar the shouting. Well the conversion wok anyway. Just need to build the chassis for it, i think i will use a kit d11 chassis as the rest can be canabilised for a B3 which is pipe dream territory at the moment.

 

 

onwards and upwards

Richard

 

[James Harrison]

What did you use for the cab lining?  HMRS LNER lining?- and if so how did you make the arc curve around the cab cutout?  (That's the area that always gives me trouble). 

[richard i]

What did you use for the cab lining?  HMRS LNER lining?- and if so how did you make the arc curve around the cab cutout?  (That's the area that always gives me trouble).

 

Lining is fox transfers LNER lining and on the curves and corners sheet there are two long gentle curves, about two thirds of one was used on each side, the pointy bit at the front uses two of the shaper curves coming in from opposite sides, overlaying each other and a small piece of single white line laid at the end, then with a fine sharpe I colour in the white line I do not want that cuts across the black mid lining. Worth it as the forward tick was quite a distinctive part of the lining.

Richard

I may get on to red, I find the single lines do not hold together well and so are the very devil to do.

[richard i]

The simple chassis, use 9.5mm by 9.5mm plastic squaire tubing and overlay with the drawing. Drill through bothsides and a chassis you have.

 

 

Well at the fourth attempt anyway. Still as chassis go even including the mistakes it cost me less than a couple of quid, (dollars over here).

It runs well , the only other add on which cannot be seen is the extra weight in the tender to give it a smoother ride.

 

 

Not bad for a GBL i think. Worth the effort anyway.

I have put off the chassis to complete the other D11 which will be 507 and then i can set to task.

Richard

[richard i]

Yes who would have thought 9.5 by 9.5 mm would be a standard size and the correct chassis width for oo.

Richard

[ian@stenochs]

Yes who would have thought 9.5 by 9.5 mm would be a standard size and the correct chassis width for oo.

Richard

I think that it will be 3/8" square. The US still use the imperial system!

 

Ian.

[richard i]

Well thats convienent how nice of the whole country to stay imperial and yet put measurements in metric on the packet just so i can have a simple way to get a rolling tender chassis. I knew i liked the Americans for a reason.

[Caley Jim]

Instead of buying an 8' x 4' sheet of 1/2" ply, we buy 2.4m x 1.2m sheets of 12mm ply - all sizes are "nominal" in any case.

 

I can visualize 8' x 4'.  I'm d****d if I can visualize 24xxmm x 12xxmm!  

 

Jim 

[Edwardian]

No, I can't visualise in metric.  I have mentally to convert to feet and yards to visualise, say the dimensions of a room or piece of furniture.  Understanding that a "metre" is merely what Continentals and Young People call a Yard, helps, but, of course, 300mm and 12" are not exact equivalents, so I will always be a bit "out" if someone feeds me metric data!

 

Twelve is a wonderful number.  You can do so much more with it than with 10.  It's the same with fractions.  I like fractions, but the metric generation don't see the point.  Apologies; truly awful joke. 

 

The only metric measurement I find I ever use is the 4mm unit.

[richard i]

I am in the middle, it seems a couple of years older and it is all imperial, and a couple of years younger only know metric. Mine is a mish mash of small measurements in metric and over thirty cm I am in feet and inches territory.

[Bedders]

To bring this back OT, was the GCR "London Extension" (Berne) loading gauge expressed in the original metres or coverted to feet and inches? Had Watkin succeeded in a Manchester-Paris through trunk route, might there have been one or two tight squeezes due to rounding errors in the gauge?

 

The GCR loading gauge in 1895 was 13' 5" high by 9' 3" wide as seen here - http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/27_CLEARANCE_DIAGRAM.jpg

 

The Berne convention was established in 1912 and is 4,280 mm (14' 1") high by 3,150 mm (10' 4") - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge#European_standards

[billbedford]

Ah, but that is the MSLR 1895 LG. I have read (somewhere or other) that the London Extension was built to accommodate Berne LG stock. Assuming that to be true, did they convert metres to inches, etc?

 

 

Nope. mainly because a ) it was built 17 years the Berne Gauge was invented, b ) the French Nord lines were not rebuilt to the Berne Gauge until after WW1 and c ) no one gave a thought about how to up grade the MET and SECR lines.

Edited January 21, 2016 by billbedford

[Poggy1165]

The GC loading gauge was not as generous as a lot of people think. I have an Appendix somewhere with the full SP, but most of the GC was built long before any one dreamed of a connection to that lot abroad, and most of it was to the same LG. For example, the original Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester Railway was built to the same LG as the London extension.  (There are odd exceptions that are notably tighter, like the Buckley Railway).

 

I think it was mainly the Scottish lines (and a few others) that had a notably smaller LG. The GC had some special coaches built for running onto the LSWR as that lot couldn't accommodate the 'normal' Robinson stock profile. The GWR, on the other hand, had no problems. 

 

I have a funny feeling (which I can only confirm by digging out the said appendix) that the Met&GC Joint was marginally tighter than the rest of the Manchester-London line.

[ChrisN]

The GC loading gauge was not as generous as a lot of people think. I have an Appendix somewhere with the full SP, but most of the GC was built long before any one dreamed of a connection to that lot abroad, and most of it was to the same LG. For example, the original Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester Railway was built to the same LG as the London extension.  (There are odd exceptions that are notably tighter, like the Buckley Railway).

 

I think it was mainly the Scottish lines (and a few others) that had a notably smaller LG. The GC had some special coaches built for running onto the LSWR as that lot couldn't accommodate the 'normal' Robinson stock profile. The GWR, on the other hand, had no problems. 

 

I have a funny feeling (which I can only confirm by digging out the said appendix) that the Met&GC Joint was marginally tighter than the rest of the Manchester-London line.

 

Whereas, the Cambrian did not even know what its loading gauge was and had to run a special train through one of its tunnels when the GWR asked if one of their clerestories would fit.

 

Back on topic.  Steam traction through the channel tunnel, or would they have electrified it?

[t-b-g]

For them what is interested....

 

http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/24A_BRIDGE_GAUGE.jpg

 

Not a true "Loading gauge" drawing but the "load gauge" (which is presumably what we modellers call the loading gauge)  is marked on it just inside the radius of the bridge minimum dimensions.

 

Lots more lovely GCR/MSLR drawings on that site.

 

Tony

Edited January 21, 2016 by t-b-g

[Andy Hayter]

If only I could access them

[t-b-g]

If only I could access them

 

That is sad! I really know very little about computers or how they work but using Windows 7 and Google Chrome I have no problem going via the main site at 

 

http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/plans.htm

 

There are some clever computer people on RMWeb so hopefully one of them will see your problem and be able to help.

 

Good luck,

 

Tony

[Andy Hayter]

Many thanks Tony, that link now gets m to the drawings.  Like you I profess minimal understanding of these electronic abacuses and I was getting access denied messages whatever I tried to do.

[richard i]

I have used the drawings to make buildings and gates etc. they were / are indispensable

[cheesysmith]

Looking at that link, there is drawings of both the GC steel and wood buffer stops. Anybody care to send them to Dave F and start saying please?

[richard i]

I have not really been near the model desk for ten days as i was busy and could not find my modeling mojo. I did today get to finish off the second improved director today as kids are ill and i am at home watching over them.

I know it needs a crew which will be the next job.

It is 507 to go alongside 506. I tried to ring the changes with weathering level and amount of coal loaded, the crew will also be differently positioned.

 

 

Still need to make the chassis for the D10 and the carriages that the engines will pull for that matter.

Richard

[richard i]

It shows how little modeling has been achieved when you can no longer see your thread on content you follow. Busy at work.

On the plus side my Christmas present from swmbo arrived.

Mousa model GCR 4 wheel coaches. First and third.

 

 

Must get the composite and brake for my birthday.

Looking forward to the build. If it is as good as the wagons, it should go together really well.

 

Richard