Miss Prism

The footplate cutaway at the top of the steps was a feature of many, but not all, tank loco classes.

645/655/1501 class front guard irons were small protrusions on the end of the front brake hangers:

1 hour ago, richbrummitt said:

Not relevant to a model but would that require the tanks to be modified to have the space for the top feed?

I don't think so. There was usually plenty of room between the top of the tanks and the boiler, so piping (for lubricator and blower) could go into the space,

Quote

It was this detail on the picture of 1693 that made me wonder if there was a pipe exiting the cab on each side. This isn't visible elsewhere that I recall seeing and is not on the image of 2772 above.

The lubricator pipe cover at the cab end was I think always, or at least usually, on the right-hand side, as per this detail pic of 7714, because the lubricator and blower pipe cover was always on the rhs of the smokebox.

So I'm not sure what that thing/cab hole is on the left-hand side of 1693. It is just possible it is one of the boiler feed pipes (with the other on the right-hand side), but why go into the cab when their destination is the injectors below the tank?

Quote

There are other pictures of engines with vents in a rear position including 1815 and 1747 on the GWR.org.uk/nopanniers page.

There are always exceptions. The difficult thing to judge is whether they are class exceptions or just unusual exceptions within the class.

4 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

I've been looking at the page with that picture on all this time too! Where are the top feed pipes routed - straight out of the cab front above the tanks?

That's what I was looking for as well!!!! My feeling is that the feed pipes do not go along the top of the tank, a la classical later 57xx, but go straight down the sides of the boiler, like the arrangement in the Dean Goods pic above. The only other class I can think of having pre-1940 topfeeds is the 2021 class, and even so they were extremely rare. I will need to modify my 1693 picture caption.

I don't think 1673 is topfeed fitted. The thing behind the filler is the filler lid bouncer (or whatever it was officially called).

The pipe visible in the 1673 pic is I think the lubricator or blower pipe. Usually, these were hidden under the tanktops.

Tank vents seem to be fairly standard, about a foot or so to the rear of the filler, but 1673 is clearly non-standard.

Ok.

Having said I had not encountered a topfeed on a P class boiler, this one (which I assume is a P class boiler or a subclass) was staring me in the face all the while:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/pannier-pics/1693.jpg

When was 769 withdrawn?

Clarification - pre-1942 top feeds probably didn't have covers. (But I'm still sceptical about one on a P class boiler.)

Found this top view of 2772:

I don't think I've encountered a topfeed on a pre-1942 P class boiler, but if 769 did have a topfeed, it would have been one with a small cover, but a cover that had a flatter bottom (compared to that fitted on untanked boilers, as per this Dean Goods):

Tank tops - not quite sure what a 645 pannier tank top would look like, but it was probably closer to a 1854 top than a 57xx top, the latter having a slightly more pronounced bump in the boiler.

Your bunker looks good.

On 16/09/2019 at 17:32, richbrummitt said:

Further research with access to the diagrams listed in RCTS suggests that 645/1501 class only received 1200 gal. tanks, I.e. large panniers.

Agreed. Even when born in saddle mode, the 645, 655, 1501, 1701, 2701 classes were 'wide' locos, i.e. with 8'6" footplates, 8' bufferbeams, and the pannier tanks they were subsequently fitted with were 8' wide. These dimensions were carried on by Collett in the 57xx/8750.

You're right: generally, boiler type and tank capacity was not necessarily linked, although I don't think I've seen a pic of a 645 pannier with a boiler other than a P class. Offhand, I don't know how many had been panniered by your 'early 20s', and most did seem to be northern based. I get the impression the short-bunker locos tended to be used for shunting purposes.

5 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Were the tanks on 2721 larger than those on other engines that received P type boilers?

No, and sorry for giving any misleading impression earlier. I've been delving into various cross-section diagrams. 655, 1501, 1854/1701, 2721 classes are all 8' body, 8'6" footplate. These dimensions are standard for all large pre-Hawksworth pannier tanks. (Buffalos are not included in this 'large' moniker.) There are differences in bufferbeam widths: most are 7'6" but 1501 class has a 8' bufferbeam. Over bottom step dimensions also vary, most being 8'2", but the 1701 is 8'8", with the later Collett standard becoming a slightly safer 8'7". A confusion over these matters is that some of the cross-section diagrams are generic maximum cross-sections, with the individual class diagrams carrying the differences - I haven't tracked down a specific diagram for the 2721, but I'm fairly certain its bufferbeam was 8'.  The 8' bufferbeam became the later Collett standard.

Could be a 655 (shortie bunker) or 1854 (longer bunker). The Farish tanks are too high, and possibly the best bet for a big tanks open-cabber would be a 2721, which are quite imposing. A parallel chimney is de rigeur for early 20s. Whatever it's going to be, that cab doesn't look like its going to be high enough. (Had it been outside-framed, you could have got away with it.)
 

Sure.

4 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

But, and this is quite a big "but", the angles of the pushrods doesn't match those in photographs. The lower pushrods (right-hand end) are almost always nearly horizontal, whereas both sets on the BB fret are resolutely parallel. I say resolutely, as I tried a little gentle bending to see if the pushrods could be persuaded into a more prototypical alignment. Unfortunately, they just ended up doing an impression of a banana. Which is why there's no photograph.....

Fair comment, although there does seem to be some variation in the angles of DCI pushrods. The first key dimension is from bottom of solebar to brakeshaft axis. Here's what I was suggesting many years ago to Coopercraft (before it went tits up):

Here's one built by a friend of mine many years ago. (BB W-irons, Maso brake gear, Exactoscale drawbar hooks.) It shows up the need to continue the side stanchions on the underside of the side and the face of the solebar.

http://www.clag.org.uk/pics/bb-w-irons/V5.jpg

50 minutes ago, richbrummitt said:

Do you think that might have included the roofs of iron bodied (and roofed) vans prior to the1935? change?

No. The context of the discussion in the last few posts is what might have been happening in the war. The GWR had already adopted grey for roofs from 1939 as part of the official livery. There were no new iron-roofed vans built in the war, and no (or scant) effort would have been expended on repainting existing roofs, the majority of which were looking like filthy grey anyway.

11 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said:

which implies (to me, at least) that while the woodwork was left unpainted (apart from the patches mentioned for serial number etc), the ironwork and underframe would have been painted.

I agree. And it seem illogical for a body to be painted in one colour and the chassis in another.

To be honest, I can't get too excited about reports of adhoc non-official liveries - they're prone to error and exaggeration, and can become lodged in folklore,

If it were me, I'd shlapp grey over everything, like wot they always did.

7 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said:

Was not O30 the all-steel diagram?

Sorry, my typo. 'O30' should have read '037'.

6 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said:

Apropos wagons, the passage on GWR.org says that open wagons built at that time were "unpainted", which presumably refers only to the wagons' sheets. So equally presumably, ironwork was (all?) painted in austerity red.

It says new opens probably only received patches of red-brown for markings. Not sure about ironwork - black would be the most obvious, but I've never seen a pic of the treatment given to wagons built between 1942-5, and remember that only new-build was affected (so O30 and O38 and V34 and V35, for opens and Minks), and there is nothing to say that grey was discontinued. It's probably a case of whatever pot of paint was handy.

I think it very unlikely existing wagons were repainted in WWII.

Thanks.

Any chance of restoring the blog content pics, Mikkel?

(The awful new software can't hack it.)

Two more pics (the first of which was my original gwr.org reference before discovering the above wiki pic):

A deep red oxide with a slap of varnish describes it very well. (There is negligible blue in the colour, cf maroon, which has a significant blue content.) 

Edit: I've subsequently re-instated/added the urls for the above pics in the gwr.org livery page.

Excellent.

The most common cause of 'repatriation' was the much-envied sheet supporters on the GWR opens.

Mark - a 40 thou floor isn't going to do you much of a favour in respect of showing the bottom plank on the inside of the wagon, which is why Mikkel chose 20 thou.

A floor won't bow because it is rests down and is fixed to the solebars. The floor doesn't need to have any strength. It helps if a floor has any bow bent out of it before putting it into the body of course.