Miss Prism

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Yes, large G W rules out a date earlier than 1904 even before one considers the wagons.

Yes.

Actually, I'm questioning my Laira attribute. Offhand, I don't think the Singles went west of Newton, but I'm probably wrong about that as well!

My notes for this picture are 'Laira, c 1900'. Without checking the build dates of the wagons portrayed, I'm inclined to think the GWS date of c 1906 is more correct!

I'll be back...

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/shopimages/sections/normal/4 5322 in ROD livery 02.jpg

Note the Going Loco article says, of the khaki, "The colour is not confirmed."

Not impressed by the colouring of the garter crest.

1 hour ago, K14 said:

I've never seen any with a backing plate.

I was looking at the pics of W6265W (page 100) and W251W (page 124) of Harris 2nd edition, but most of the preserved examples do seem to be just numerals (followed by a strange yellow circle).

They always look like prison vans, don't they?

Hornby do/did one, for their Grange, but that's RTR of course. It looks decent enough though.

I did wonder about Falcon.

17 minutes ago, 88D said:

Is there a kit for a Collett 3500 gall tender, 4mm?

I don't think so.

I think the numerals are cast ones. Don't know when they first appeared - is it a Collett-ism? By Hawksworth days, they had a thin backing plate.

7 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Thank you; from that diagram and the subsequently posted photos, I'd say that the backward rake of the firebox top is a little excessive on the model.

Much discussed in both (Dapol and Accurascale) Manor threads.

18 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Looking at these Swindon shots of 4301 and 4302, which presumably have the wooden rooves, I'm wondering whether the rooves are notably different from the model in visual terms.

The wooden roof is canvas covered and the capping strips are thin (like the ones on goods vans). I assume they were painted black. The later metal roof has side strips. There's a definite difference in appearance in my opinion, but many people won't be bothered.

On the subject of rooves, I notice from the Dapol blurb that the roof is 'New cab with higher and shorter roof'. That's a new one on me, and I must check out previous discussions (this thread is very long!)

7 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Was the boiler/ firebox angle really this accute.

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/drawings/loco/loco185.jpg

(I can't comment about how accurate this weight diagram is, but it's probably close.)

2 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

The incoming locos, are they from batch 1, or the new revised tooling?

It's probably misleading to describe them either as batch 1 or revised new tooling. To me, these are variations in the toolset as originally planned by Dapol. (Although it looks like the slidebars have been improved, as promised, which is very welcome.)

4321 represents the earliest prototype state (actually not quite, the short cab/short frame 4301-20 were never intended to be covered by Dapol).

I feel Dapol has probably gone as far as it reasonably could without busting the tooling bank, and there are lots of excellent things about 4321 that make it good for the early period - portholes in the cab front, longitudinal vacuum cylinder on the tender, flush-riveted tender body, early pony truck cover, flush-riveted smokebox, small boss wheels, parallel chimney, tall vacuum pipe. What is not included in the Dapol tooling for the very early locos are:

- a wooden roof for the cab (steel cab roofs started to appear c 1919 - the first loco so built is cited iirc somewhere on one of the RMweb Mogul threads);

- an early style of lubricator pipe cover and/or smokebox damper;

- light tender springs;

- early brake hangars (on both loco and tender).

Painting-wise, it should have polished splasher beading for the very early state (disappeared mostly during WWI I think), and I'm fairly certain wheelboss lining was not being applied to service paints by that stage (1911). Dapol probably got the notion from the works grey portraits of 4302 and 4331. My view is that wheel boss lining on service paints probably disappeared c 1906-7, but I could be wrong. It's one of those 'transitional' painting phases.

The cab/tender handrails are too gaudy in my view.

Overall though, Dapol has pushed the boat out for such an early style, and commendably so. It looks a cracker.

46 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

I am not sure what size this is, but it looks larger than others that I have seen attached to Saints

That's a Collett 3500g.

I have not seen a pic of a Saint with a Collett 4000g.

Some Saints (mainly Scotts) ran with Dean 4000g units in their early years.

Body wobble is a common phenomenon on many RTR bogie coaches. The cause of the oscillation is a combination of bogie hunting (more apparent on straight track) and the lack of secondary (i.e. bogie to body) springing. The interface between bogie and body at the bogie pivot point is also an important factor. 10 years ago, CLAG took some video comparisons to examine the issue, the guinea pig being a Bachmann MkI. The video confirmed the roll plane frequency of the oscillation reduced considerably when secondary springing was present.

(Unfortunately, we never uploaded the video because we felt a more thorough examination was needed before publishing any quantified conclusions. And then time moved on.)

Preservationists seem fond of red reverser handles and regulators. Is that wrong? Or was there a change from unpainted to red at some stage?

2 hours ago, John Besley said:

And in the top left hand corner by the water level gauge glass is the simulation of the steam heating pressure gauge which should have a white face ...

Looks white to me, or am I getting confused?  (More than possible!)

When you say 'shake', do you mean wobble from side to side?

SRM 63 in what is thought to be brown livery.  (There was an RMweb discussion about this somewhere, iirc.) It retains its below-waist panelling. The Kernow has below-waist panelling, because that is what the preserved 93 has. It's engine compartment windows have been updated. (Again, like the preserved 93, although the prototype 93 never had the early-style windows.) It has an original low bunker.

Here is 63, later, in crimson lake. Date unknown. All its below-waist panelling has gone. Bunker state unknown. Front sandboxes are not yet in front of the bogie frame. My guess is c 1920.

I can't find any evidence of whistle shields.

I think that's Castle 100 A1 Lloyds on a running-in turn. (BTM to Swindon?)

1 hour ago, stevel said:

And no front step or higher handrail on the 1873. It is a minefield of differences.

Yes.

When the filler moved forward on later (3-segment or 5.5 segment) tanks, front steps and a higher handrail were fitted. Here's 1874, still with old-style lamp spigots, but post-1904 when it got this S4 boiler. (It was panniered in 1912.) Looks like Weymouth.

The most contentious area of saddle tank design is the tank cross-section. Judging by the build span (1890-5), I am reasonably sure the 1854 saddle cabs were 8' wide, but I've have not seen a good end elevation for the class, and the saddle tank end elevations that do exist do not match most of the 1854/2721 photographic evidence. These two pics show how much narrower the 1854 tanks were than the cabs. I would estimate these tanks are 7'2" wide. That said, it's probably certain that some 1854 locos ran with different width tanks at various times. 

There was considerable variation in cab fronts on saddle tanks, even within the same class. Note the extra large spectacles on 1736 (at Laira, 1904). 1873 has a short tank, an old-style cylinder cover and an early injector.