Brassey

Why not abandon weathering powders and just weather with enamel paint?

14 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

The cab on my Beyer Goods actually wasn’t too horrible, mainly depends on how accurate you want things to be.

I am assuming that the cab windows on a round top boilered loco were larger and in a different position to those on a belpaire which firebox was higher.  Such was the case with the DEan Goods.

7 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

interesting, Brassey - do you know which version the Jidenco kit represents?

The Jidenco kit is of a later version with a belpaire firebox but I will build it as an S4 round top boiler.  I also have a K's Beyer Goods that will get a similar treatment.  Both will entail new boilers and probably cab fronts.  I've done the same to a Mallard Dean Goods.

I have an old etched brass Jidenco kit of an Armstrong Goods in my round-to-it pile.  I have acquired a broad gauge outside frame tender to run behind it (obviously narrowed to standard gauge).  Will watch with interest.

On 24/05/2020 at 12:55, drduncan said:

Is a straight framed County on the cards too?

DrDuncan

A straight framed would be nice but there is no kit.  David Geen was supposed to be developing a kit for a straight frame but when I asked him, he said it was reduced down from 7mm artwork and didn't work.   I could cannibalise a 4-6-0 but there are a number of other projects on the list ahead of this that need my attention and would fit the role not least a BrassMasters LNWR Experiment 4-6-0 and GWR City 4-4-0. 

Famous last words but, as I've fixed the County's roof in place yesterday, it hit the bridge both on the up and down lines right on the edge.  I assumed that the chimney would be the most vulnerable but these must have been built to the extremes of the loading gauge.  No problem will just have to raise the bridge which thankfully is also not yet fixed in place.

As an express, the County will never stop at Berrington and Eye.  I did check but it hits the loading dock which is built in the yard to tighter tolerances so no dropping off horse boxes!  I set the platform edges in Templot when designing the layout and built them to that.   It was still worth checking; I have a couple of 70' coaches to build that will go behind the County.  They were marshalled on the Birkenhead to South West services.  I think I might have to check the swing on these too for clearance as both platform are on curves.

29 minutes ago, MonsalDan said:

Are you doing a straight framed version?

No I am using the South Eastern Finecast kit which has the later curved frame.  I would have liked a straight frame but no kit exists.  David Geen was developing one but when I asked him, he said it was scaled from 7mm and didn't work.  I could scratch build but I have other express locos to build for the layout including a City and a couple of LNWR examples so time will be devoted to those instead.

This County will have a Malcolm Mitchell etched tender not a whitemetal one

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

air my thoughts on the additional things I need to do / take into account for c. 1902 condition

I am sure you know this but there would have been none of the plating and the handrails were not painted white pre WW1

"I've also had a first short at the toilet block..." - happens to us all at some point!

On 8 November 2019 at 22:49, PenrithBeacon said:

In the early fifties there was a line up of them at Stretton, though I never did see one fly. 

The main runway at Stretton is now under the M56.

 

Looks like a good build

 

Cheers

I live in Stretton.  There are a number of Naval graves in the churchyard including a number of young ladies from the base that were killed on the road one night either to or from a dance in Warrington.  Very sad.

Most cattle wagons were fitted so would have been near the engine with a fitted head or in a complete cattle train.

To elaborate on my previous reply on horse traffic, if you intended to travel with your horse, you would likely need to order a horse box to your local station a couple of days beforehand.  I do not think a train arrived with a horse box marshalled somewhere therein and you put your horse into that, though no doubt this did happen.  So under the first scenario, the train engine would have to collect the loaded horse box from whatever siding or bay it was left.  This is why most horse boxes ended up next to the engine.  Also at the other end of the train the horse would be more likely to be thrown around even with passenger stock.

My memory of this comes from the LNWR/GWR joint handbook which IIRC stated that all horse boxes on the Shrewsbury section ordered would be GWR and on the Birkenhead LNWR.  I will look and see what the arrangements were.

Obviously at large termini arrangements could have been different but most of us do not model large termini.

Is it likely that such a train was not initially marshalled with the carriage truck but rather that was collected at a station en route.  The train engine would have had been detached to enter the yard or bay to pick it up hence the carriage truck being next the engine.  It's easier to do that than reverse a whole train into a siding.  Also IIRC, carriage trucks were mainly end loading so could not be delivered with stock between them and the offloading facility.  Makes for interesting movements at a small country station.

Whilst on the subject, the land for the station that I model, was acquired from the Rodney family the then inhabitants of Berrington Hall.  A condition of the sale was that the station was provided for their use and Lord and Lady had their own waiting room in the station building for their exclusive use.  I rather fancy that the cattle/loading dock was also built for their own use for horse traffic movements.  Again, I also assume the hunt might have come and gone by train in those days.

The Working Timetable would designate to which trains such vehicles could NOT be attached.  But I seem to recall that the most highest levels of society in those days had the power to stop any train, even expresses, to pick up their horse box particularly if the line crossed their land.

I am sure this has been raised before but I wonder whether Horseboxes were ever finished in Crimson Lake.

Interestingly there is no mention in your references of a GWR carriage livery change in 1912 unless I missed it.

5 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Hurrah, a Barnum! I've always wanted to see someone build that Mallard kit.  You're well underway already, too.  Any thoughts on livery yet?

 

Hi Mikkel.  

I have based the Barnum on a pic of number 3214 which I paid for and may well be subject to copyright so I can't share on here.  So, as in that photo, this one will be in the post 1906 livery sans Indian Red as too will be the BR0 Duke as evidenced by the pic of its tender above.

The wavy footplate has been quite a challenge and I was helped by an Ian Rice article from the 80's in the model press in doing this rather than follow the instructions.  Cast springs for the drivers are included but there is no mention of these in the paperwork.  Fitting springs is my next challenge.  There is also no brake gear in the kit so it's back to my spare box for those.

There are some stretchers across the footplate that initially hold the whole together.  Removing these too early could send the whole thing banana.  It is only now when I have fitted the cab front and firebox, and given it some lateral strength, that I have cut these out and thankfully the Mashima 1420 with HighLevel RoadRunner does fit up into the tall firebox.  These kits were designed for the XO4 motor!  Next step is to paint the chassis before fitting the wheels and gearbox.

9 hours ago, JimC said:

RCTS states all boilers were 7'4in pitch except for the original 1889 boilers at 7'2in. The astute will note that the drawing above shows 7'31/8 for the pitch!  

Is that drawing a composite? It looks as if it could be a composite of fig172 in Russell and the Barnum drawing in Freezer's Locomotives in outline. Fig 172 is obviously a GWR weight diagram, but it doesn't seem to match anything listed in RCTS. Even Homer nods?

 

 

Yes Jim well spotted the drawing is a merge of two other drawings.  My modelling skills are not up to a difference of 2" on a boiler pitch in 4mm but I based my earlier comment on the Mallard kit's pitch coming out higher.  I had assumed the Mallard model's pitch was higher because it represented a later iteration of the loco.  However it may have been higher to allow for the 00 wheel flanges not fouling the boiler.  Either way mine is now lower as I model in P4.

The Mallard kit included two discs for the boiler one of which measured 19mm and the other 18.8mm.  I clad this with 10thou Nickel Silver so one end of my boiler is narrower than the other.  The larger end is 19.5mm which is 4' 10 1/2 inches.  RCTS gives the boiler dimension as 4' 5" though I have assumed that is unclad.

46 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

That's what I suspected. So you're modifying the smokebox wrapper?

 

I've seen a pic of a BR0 on a Duke  (Penzance, with a 2000g tender) with a topfeed, so it has to be post-1912 I think. It looks very strange!

 

 

Yes.  The kit includes both cast whitemetal and etched smokebox fronts.  I cut down the lower section of the etched versions to achieve the correct pitch.  I used the Mallard wrapper which is half-etched and very thin.  I filed down all the rivet detail and used this in reverse, soldering it to a 10 thou brass ring/tube to give it some rigidity.  Now being slightly over length, I filed the ends down once it was formed.  The random rivets on mine are pure guess work!  An inserted brass ring also is used to produce the brass ring on the inner side of the smokebox.

Ian Rice's articles on the Barnum, back in the day, showed the problems he had with the thin smokebox wrapper.

The pic I have of Severn has a 2500 gallon tender I think though I have an earlier picture of her with a 2000 gal tender in as-built condition.  Received wisdom is that the later Dukes were outshopped with 2500 gal tenders though the picture shows otherwise.  This pic is I think a 2500 gal version as seen at Hereford on what appears to be a corridor train:

Incidentally, the picture of 3216 shows straight springs on the tender which means it is a later pic also evidenced by the crews' uniform possibly 20's or 30's.  It still has a polished dome!

Thanks for that pic MissP because it shows a wealth of detail I did not have; I had not appreciated how close the outside cranks were to the frames for one.  Also it has justified all the fettling I had to do to get the  the splashers to curve around the shape of the firebox!  Interestingly, it appears that the top centre washout plug is through a boilerband.  If you did that on a model someone would complain...

15 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Does the domeless BR0 have a different boiler pitch compared to the other engines, or is it just a smaller diameter?

 

I think both.  Again I don't have a reliable drawing but I have based the lower pitch on the round-top S4 boiler.  These engines quickly reverted to B4 domed boilers after 1912 (as per the splendid 3216 above) so the BR0 format was not long lived and not well recorded.  

I have a BR0 Duke to build too.  There is a picture of 3328 Severn at Hereford in such a guise as my proof.  For that one I have no drawing at all.

My Mallard kit was devoid of a boiler when I bought it many moons ago, so I had to create a new one anyway;  I do also have a number of round-top brass domed locos in the kit mountain to build for those who might think it a crime to omit a shiny dome on an Edwardian Great Western loco!

23 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Note 3222 had a 3-arc roof.

 

Yes well spotted thanks MissP.  I am only using 3222 as they are the etched splashers that came with the kit and I don't have the means to etch new ones.  

The build is pretty generic and, as I said, I don't have a drawing of the front, so I used the cab arc from the Mallard kit.  That way if saves me making a new roof.  On some of the engines,  the whistles moved to atop the firebox which also looks odd to me so mine will remain on the roof.

In 1912 3222 was at Swindon and made a trip to the works in August of that year.    It is unlikely to have visited the Shewsbury to Hereford line so will be a bit out of place on my layout but I fancied something different.  By 1912 it would have received the extended smokebox as per the picture in Russell; so another compromise.  Looking at this crop I notice the boiler band brackets atop the firebox so another job for the list!

I don't know why London Road set the valances so thick because on most Webb engines the valances were rather thin; almost non existent.  Mine maybe still overscale: coloured photo from LNWR Society Facdbook

7 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Nice header picture for the blog,  very evocative!

Thanks Mikkel.  It has been the photography of the period that has always drawn me to the pre-grouping era rather than any other.  

The shot is of Shrewsbury circa 1910 with a LNWR train behind a Precedent 2-4-0 in the far platform and GWR trains in platforms 5 and 8.

On 10 January 2019 at 11:17 AM, RobMG said:

I look forward to further instalments. I have a couple of Comet chassis kits waiting to be built. 57xx pannier and 28xx. I will be interested to see how yours turns out, and if the spring system works well enough to consider using. In the past I have only made compensated chassis. Scratch built, but haven't done one for quite a few years. So a bit lacking in confidence now..

 

Rob

I have the chassis working now and my initial thoughts are that it is not as effective as compensation for my purposes.  The deflection of the hornguides is minimal resulting in quite a rigid chassis.  This shows up some differences in track levels that hitherto I was unaware of.  I will see how it gets on over time.

Good to see another fellow P4 LNWR modeller (though I do have a foot in the GWR too).

Where did you come by the information that Lilleshall supplied loco coal to the GWR please? I thought they used Welsh steam coal exclusively. 

Very nice wagons. P4?

I've now found a measuring tool in Photoshop that is good for scaling drawings directly in Photoshop