Preston Docks Bagnalls: Impetus kit and Prototype

[Adam]

I was fortuate enough (some time ago now), to come across an Impetus kit for Bagnall's 'standard' 16" 0-6-0 saddle tank as used in Preston docks. More on the kit later, but first, I thought you might be interested in three pictures unearthed from the bottom of an old shoebox of printed railway emphemera of my dad's. We've no idea who took the photos, and how they came to be in dad's possession. Going by the lettering on the GWR open - note the ratchet-type lever guide and five and one-half planks - behind the loco' (Courageous, WB 2892 of 1948), it must be between about 1965 and 1968 when the steam locomotives were replaced by Rolls-Royce Sentinels.

 

These are not, it must be said, the best photgraphs you will ever see, the scans are from 3x3 prints which are rather brown in tone. Better photgraphs of these machines can be found here and, here - there are doubtless many more online, but I think they're of some interest and have proven useful in my build of the Impetus kit (of which more anon).

 

 

 

 

That's all for now.

 

Adam

 

Edited to add works number and tidy English

[Kenton]

I was fortunate enough (some time ago now), to come across an Impetus kit for Bagnall's 'standard' 16" 0-6-0 saddle tank

Another was up on eBay a couple of days ago - sadly, I didn't set my snipe bid high enough and so was not so fortunate.

but I'll be watching with interest anyway - just in case another comes along, or the market gets flooded

[Moxy]

Hi Adam

 

Like you, I have one of those Impetus Bagnalls salted away for a future Preston Docks style project (but not yet, I have a 5.5mm scale shed layout and an 'N' gauge american layout to build before that!)

 

I found this link on Flickr, not specifically about the railway, but some inspirational photos of the docks whilst they were still working.

 

I'll definitely be watching this thread.

 

Regards

 

Paul

[Adam]

That's a fantastic set of photo's Paul which somehow I'd missed. In all probability, that's because this loco' won't be one of the Preston Docks machines but for colliery use, but there's some gems in there for sure.

 

It does appear to be one of the more common Impetus kits out there, I think thst I've seen three or four in the last couple of years. There are a few minor issues with it but nothing worth jumping up and down over. I'll come to these in a bit. A couple of pictures for now which actually illustrate two of the issues. The first shows the body sub-assemblies so far; tank, footplate and cab, boiler. The tank and boiler will become one later and are intended to slide over the motor/flywheel which fits inside the boiler tube. I'll explain more about this later.

 

 

The second shows-up two modifications which need making. The first is that the smokebox, as supplied needs to be about 1.5mm longer than it actually is. Mocking it up with the supplied wrapper (itself too short to go over the outside which the position of the rivets embossed onto it suggest it should - I replaced this overlay with shim), and comparing it to three-quarter views of the prototype made this all too apparent. The second modification - if I'm to use this this chimney rather than the Giesl ejector also supplied - is that the chimey is 2mm too tall. This is pretty obvious when compared to the prototype photos and should be fixable with a bit of lathe work. As it is, the extra height completely alters the character of the loco which should have a sort of squat muscularity to it. As it is, it looks almost narrow gauge!

 

 

Compare this with the Giesl (mocked-up for this purpose) which seems to be the correct height and the proportions are very different - it looks much more squat and powerful.

 

 

That's all for now.

 

Adam

 

Edited to correct my spelling of 'Giesl'. I'll be talking of Bullied pacifics next...

[Kenton]

That's all for now.

I blinked and you finished it !

 

I have to say that the smoke box being 1.5mm short and the chimney 2mm too tall is not that noticeable and if the correction to the chimney is only achievable through the ownership, and expert use, of a lathe then it will be beyond probably 99% of kit builders. Probably they are both well within the margins of error. Though I applaud your efforts to correct them, let alone spot them from the photographs.

 

This photo is also interesting.

Is that a spark arrester on the chimney ? - one has to speculate on that being the excuse for the chiment being too tall in the kit

[Adam]

Ah, but I started it four years ago and various things got in the way. Yes, that is a spark arrester (also supplied in the box).

That chimney. Hmm. The odd thing is that once the drawing that comes in the box is reproduced to 4mm scale - basic maths and a photocopier - it shows a chimney 2mm shorter than supplied and this accords with the photos. The supplied Giesl matches the drawing and is the correct height, i.e. so it aligns with the top of the safety valves. This is clearly a manufacturing error since the correct info' was to hand - and is even in the box. Perhaps this is why all the built examples I've seen use the Giesl?

I think it does matter, although the turning is very elegant [i reckon that it actually belongs on a Jinty], the real chimney looks quite squat and this totally alters the look of the loco. If I didn't have access to someone who could use a lathe (though it remains to be seen whether I'll even use this chimney), then it would certainly be practical to cut the top off, cut 2mm out, line the two parts up using a length of tube on the inside, solder up and make good. I may yet do that instead.

Adam

[Respite]

I was very interested to see this thread as I have an Impetus Bagnall made up by a friend and I also saw the Prston Dock locos on frequent trips to see the shipping with my father in the 1960s.

The Bagnall I have is an NCB one namely William that was at Sneyd Colliery near to Stoke. Allan Baker of Deltic fame at Finsbury Park knew this loco well and gave me some livery details. As I am modelling an NCB line a suitable prototype was important.

 

 

 

The chimney has always struck me as wrong but it was more the size of the top rim that stuck out rather than the height. The real William had flangeless centre drivers but I wasn't going to introduce even more hurdles into its operation! It runs fine, we used it on Phil Baggleys Coperass Hill layout at York and Birtley shows.

 

The Preston Dock Bagnalls were well thought of by their drivers although they were operating on level track unlike the steeply graded NCB railways. A Bagnall Birchenwood No.4 is now being restored at the Ribble Steam railway at Preston Dock and will be named Courageous. Its restoration is well advanced. Steam at Preston Dock finished very shortly after BR steam did in September 1968 I think it was. Princess was the last loco to be used, although Courageous was retained as a spare loco for a while. I was amazed to see the £126.50 price the unmade kit went for on Ebay recently.

[Adam]

Thanks for sharing the pictures of yours and welcome to RMweb too. I've checked, that ebay price tag is more than double what I paid for mine. Modern gearboxes mean that the transmission should be all but invisible. Here's the last view before I do some more to it over the weekend. I see that I've replaced the bunker back with Nickel sheet for some reason (I think because the original didn't fit, though I can't be sure). The reverser is from Mike Edge (of Judith Edge Kits*) as none is provided in the kit.

 

 

Adam

 

* They're 'etch fillers' sold at exhibitions: their availability is dependent upon what Mike's etched lately. Alternatives can be had from Mainly Trains, for example.

[Kenton]

I was amazed to see the £126.50 price the unmade kit went for on Ebay recently.

But to be fair - if that was the one I linked to above - it was sold inclusive of a complete set of Sharman P4 wheels. The Sharman wheels alone are now very rare and unobtainable, and I'm not sure what the going rate for an equivalent set would be but maybe of the order of £30 ? That brings it down in price quite a bit. Though as we keep saying - these quality kits sell for a premium and there are many on here who are prepared to pay handsomely for them which tends to fuel the bidding.

[Adam]

But to be fair - if that was the one I linked to above - it was sold inclusive of a complete set of Sharman P4 wheels. The Sharman wheels alone are now very rare and unobtainable, and I'm not sure what the going rate for an equivalent set would be but maybe of the order of £30 ? That brings it down in price quite a bit. Though as we keep saying - these quality kits sell for a premium and there are many on here who are prepared to pay handsomely for them which tends to fuel the bidding.

 

A bit less than that - 3x pair of Alan Gibson drivers @ £5.70 plus crankpins, bushes, etc. for same @£5.30 gives £22.40 before p&p... More later

 

Adam

[Kenton]

A bit less than that - 3x pair of Alan Gibson drivers @ £5.70 plus crankpins, bushes, etc. for same @£5.30 gives £22.40 before p&p... More later

 

Adam

Ah, but Sharman wheels were so much more prized than AG

 

... and if you thought £126.50 was expensive for an unbuilt Impetus Bagnal another went recently for £155 with only Romfords !

[Barry O]

mine came complete with motor, gears, romfords for a grand total of £50 a year ago - quite an inflation hike. Watching the bits being changed on this build means it will go below Judith Edge kits I have to build

[Kenton]

mine came complete with motor, gears, romfords for a grand total of £50

excuse me

[Adam]

To be fair to the designer, I've changed nothing in terms of construction technique or, really, design. I've simply replaced two parts that were the wrong size (or in the case of the tank wrapper, mangled) and am contemplating shortening one of the two supplied chimneys. Now you know, you can make a neater job of it! None of these are show-stoppers and the rest of it has gone together very well, though the chimney may be a bit of a nuisance. We shall see...

 

Adam

[Adam]

Ok, a quick update. All the various casting thatneed to be attached to the footplate/cab sub-assembly are now soldered in place. The springs and injectors are as supplied, though the latter are perhaps slightly overscale and thus compromises the fitting of the springs on the cenrte drivers a tad, but nothing serious. The footsetps have also been fitted and a piece of angle soldered to the rear to support them. The whitemetal sandboxes don't come with the kit (they're spares from a High Level RSH) and I've used these - having removed the beading round the top, not because there is anything wrong with the cast brass ones in the box, they simply represent a later pattern than those that locos with the traditional cab with seperate (roof rather than the welded one-piece as sported by Florence no. 2 at the Foxfield) were fitted with.

 

 

The cab roof has been made in such a way that it clips in place. 0.7mm diameter wire has been soldered along the tops ofthe side sheets to provide an anchor for the clips. These are made from little pieces of 1mm angle soldered back-to-back which make a sort of strightened out 'Z' shape. I've offset them so as to prevent the rof twisting off during handling. Two more bits of angle are soldered fore and aft as locators. Obviously, this needs a little bit of tweaking to get right but it's worth the effort.

 

 

Adam

[Adam]

There has been a little progress since I last posted in this topic. The body is now complete and primed (I went for the Giesl Ejector over the standard chimney in the end), but I haven't any pictures of that. We now come to the chassis, where work has been somewhat slow. A couple of pictures for now showing the crossheads, cylinders, and some small deviations from the original design.

The design of these components is quite good: everything is self-jigging from the frames as will become clear in due course, but the piston rods were way overscale at 1.5mm (4.5" full size, 3" is much nearer the mark). They were also supplied as steel rod which looks nice but is a bit of a pig to solder. Having thought about it, thought again, prevaricated and so on, I used 1mm Nickel silver rod and 1.5mm OD x 1mm bore tube instead. More of the tube was used to bush the now heavily oversize bore in the cylinders.



The crosshead itself is a little problematic, being assembled from several little bits of etch with the little end of the connecting rod sandwiched in the middle pivoting around a 16BA bolt. All very proper, Guy Williams sort of stuff. I couldn't make the 16BA approach work - I'm a little uneasy about having to file off the cheesehead bolthead from the back in any event - and substituted a brass lacepin, having blackened the small end of the rod in an (almost successful) attempt not to solder the whole thing solid. The first took about five goes, the second only two. Persistence reaps its rewards! That said a nice brass casting would have been much easier.



Adam

[avonside1563]

Just in case you haven't already seen it, below is a link to Florence No.2 on the Foxfield virtual stocklist. She is a later 16" bagnall with a giesel ejector which I believe was only fitted to her and one other Bagnall at Florence Colliery. If you have a look you'll see she has the rounded one piece cab and roof, I don't think any of the earlier locos with the separate cab roof were given giesels but I am prepared to be proved wrong!

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/foxfield/florence_no2.htm

 

As an aside Florence will be in action this coming weekend at Foxfield with myself driving on Saturday.

[Adam]

Yes Nigel, I had seen it, and even linked to it in post # 15 of this thread!

 

Since the cab is not a determining factor with regard to the chimney and this model is not representing any of the machines as actually built, this minor deviation from prototype fidelity is something I am happy with. I happen to like the appearance of both the 'traditional' cab and the Giesl (a post-build feature as you rightly point out), I am not concerned with absolute prototype fidelity here. My reasoning is that it went back to the makers for overhaul and recieved the new chimney and a replacement tank and smokebox - I've given it the later, fully welded type for each: my choice. It'll bear the name of one of the Stewart and Lloyd's Kitsons - Carnarvon* (plates available form AMBIS Engineering) - in any event.

 

Adam

 

*Because I'm a medieval historian in the 'real' world and happen to like the castle. It isn't my fault that Stewarts and Lloyds used the Anglicised spelling.

[Adam]

After something of a hiatus, I've returned to the Bagnall which has now reached the rolling chassis stage. Having replaced the slidebars with a set which actually reach the motion brackets and adapted the motion brackets so that there is actually something for the slide bars to attach to. The slidebars are made from some of the fret which held the frames, some nice, chunky - but probably still underscale - nickel silver. I think the modifications to the original kit design are now complete!

 

To anyone else out there with one of these kits, I'll describe (briefly) the motion bracket mod's. The bracket is tabbed into the chassis and has the usual 'C' shaped cut-out to allow the connecting rod to reach the wheels. Unless you are modelling in P4, a small amount of the bracket which protrudes from the frames will need to be removed to provide clearance for the flanges of the front pair of drivers. The depth of the 'C' also neeed to be reduced in size to provide support for the slidebars. I used a small piece of scrap etch, filed to size after the slidebars were fitted.

 

 

That done, a couple of coats of paint followed and the usual round of fiddling and adjustment ensued to make sure that the thing actually runs. I have never understood the logic behind making everything run well and then taking it all apart to paint and having to re-make half the adjustments. Barring one stiff hornguide which needed easing, for reasons which are not entirely clear: it was fine a couple of months ago, this was not, in fact, too painful though a notch had to be filed in the motion bracket all the way to the rear of the slidebar.

 

I had ascertained early on that the coupling rod bosses needed a certain amount of thinning and the second layer of boss - the rods are laminated from two layers of nickel-silver - behind the crossheads was removed altogether (a common ploy). There is sufficient clearance (in EM), however, that the actual crankpin only needs to be filed flush with the nut while the nut itself can retain it's full thickness. I should have worked out that drastic thinning of the 'big end' of the connecting rods was also needed, but one learns through experience!

 

The next job is to apply some blackening solution to that gearbox...

 

Adam

[Adam]

I do like that 0-4-0 Paul, like the six-wheeled version, a chunky, characterful machine and the High level 'boxes really are the business. Do you know what ratio you have in yours? I can't remember offhand whether mine has 54 or 80:1 gearing, I find that the full 108:1 makes the acceleration a bit sluggish to 'feel' right for a steam loco' though it's spot-on for a diesel geared down to very low top speeds.

 

Adam

[Adam]

I've had five minutes to have another look at the prototype shots at the top of this thread and they look much better with some sharpening and colour correction:

 

 

 

 

Adam

[Arthur]

Hi Adam,

This months Bylines, September, has a four page photo spread on Preston docks with four good photographs of the Bagnalls.

 

Arthur

[Adam]

Some months after applying a coat of etch primer to the various sub-assemblies, the Christmas break saw the opportunity to do some more work to the Bagnall. Reassembly following painting is one of those stages of model making which is fraught with apprehension. Will those assemblies, which went together so snugly in bare metal still do so with a coat of paint? Normally, this would wait until the topcoat was on, but we needed to check running clearances with the fully completed chassis. More suspense: will the wheels still turn? Does the flywheel get caught in the boiler? Will the newly installed pick-ups get tangled up in the brakegear and short? Have I put the motor leads on the right way round?*

 

 

No, I couldn't resist the Giesel. Happily, it works and works well. Well enough to take it all to bits again and to think about painting it properly. The plans to take advantage of the rather nice springlike weather to apply a topcoat were stymied by our pots of the chosen colours having either run out or succumbed to old age. I did manage to prime all the required bits of the chassis however and took a couple of quick photos in this afternoon's sunshine. For those of you who are wondering how this motor/gearbox fits, remember that the boiler has been made to slide off. You still have to screw the motor on after the footplate and cab have gone on, but this is much, much better that squeezing a little Mashima 1016 into the firebox...

 

 

 

Adam

 

* It's a 50:50 chance, so why do I always guess wrong?

[Kenton]

Have I put the motor leads on the right way round?*

 

* It's a 50:50 chance, so why do I always guess wrong?

Colour code them, write it down and don't lose the paper your wrote it on. Either that or start taking out bets.

 

Oh, and I like the way it has turned out and the imaginative work round for the motor.

[Adam]

Thanks Kenton. Once I've got the leads the right way round they stay that way, but the first time is always guesswork!

 

I reckon that work around must be a pretty old idea, but I first saw a version of it in Chris Gibbon's RSH 0-4-0 tank though on that one, it's the bottom half of the boiler which clips to the chassis rather than the boiler/saddletank assembly being slid along the motor and bolted to the footplate. That's properly ingenious!

 

Adam