Miss Prism

WWI splasher beading removal, yes, but cab front edge beading removal? What am I looking at here?

"Some years later", according to Nock.

On a point of detail, I think all the Stars had upgraded to superheater type 3 boiler number 1 by 1913, although its long cone variant was not fully applied to the class until some years later, but the principle of what Mike says in #733 remains true, i.e. it was the pattern of cylinder set that determined the presence of and style of outside pipe. Mike's removal of 4018's steam pipe potentially opens up 4018 to become other members of the 'square front boxers' when fitted with short-safety valve covers, but there remains the annoying detail of the lhs lubricator cover, which seems to be a rarity, particularly pre-1950. (And it's not even certain whether 4018 ever carried it.) The problem with Swindon's standardisation from our retrospective view is that no two engines ever looked the same. Eric Morecombe's classic riposte "I'm playing all the right notes — but not necessarily in the right order." is apt!

As far as I know, the first 4000g tenders were (or rapidly became) 'twin-fillers' because it was discovered some water cranes couldn't clear the fender height and reach a central filler. A rapid programme of upgrading water cranes was initiated in 1927 accordingly. The Kings always had 4000g tenders, and I think the first batch were all initially twin-fillers. The Kings were especially route-restricted, so the number of non-conforming water cranes was comparatively small. Not sure when Castles started picking up 4000g tenders (1932?), but that would have meant a further programme of water crane upgrades on red routes, if that programme hadn't already been completed by that time. The water crane gang must have been busy in those days! The second batch of Kings (in 1930) were I think fitted with single filler tenders. It is possible that some twin-filler tenders got onto Castles, tender-swapping from the then-growing pool being endemic, but I understand the twin-filler tenders were later changed to single central filler, but when that was I don't know, and it is possible that one or some escaped the modification. Like the boiler pool, the tender pool was always numerically slightly larger than the number of locos.

Some late-pattern GWR 22-spoke CBS drivers were like that.

All GWR inside-framed loco bogies had 3'0" or 3'2" 10-spoke wheels.

If I read the 28xx thread correctly, the fitting of a lubricator cover on the left-hand side (as Hornby has put on 4018) indicates the presence of a 'five-sight' feed lubricator rather than a 'three-sight' as would originally have been fitted. Such five-sight feeds were I think around from c 1930 (on Halls), but I don't know when the few Stars receiving them got so fitted. Glastonbury Abbey was one that did, as did Lode Star when withdrawn for preservation, but it got correctly removed at some stage after. I do not know of a left-hand side picture of 4018.

Bachmann's brake is off, and was so in the EP.

Like the 7mm outfits, you mean? Or did you mean without adding an extra zero to the price?

4018 in 1938 did have a snaphead riveted tender, but a few years earlier was running with a flush-riveted tender. (Not 'welded', please.) Which I hope emphasises the point about tender swapping discussed previously in the thread. 4018's top lamp iron had been lowered by its shirtbutton era, so that is incorrect on the Hornby model.

My brainset has long avoided looking at Hornby wheels because they are always horrible, and Hornby is simply not the type of outfit to have a discussion about when a prototype was changed from crankpin on spoke to crankpin between spoke. You'll be wanting proper connecting rod and slidebar thicknesses next, and then some real springs so that it can haul a decent train... Anyway, apart from a couple of obvious and avoidable bloopers, Lode Star looks very good IMO as a gaudy replica of the tarted up preserved thing, which seems to be what the RTR market is perceived to want/expect. With the 'design clever' notion now exposed as an inconsistent charade, it will be interesting to see what kind of narrative the mags are going to hang their reviews on.

Power and route restriction indicator should probably be above the numberplate for your period.

The picture on the front on the box is another slice of Hornby photoshop fiction, and doesn't accurately represent what is inside the box. The differences are only of detail, and in themselves not particularly important, but it underlines to me that Hornby appears to find no mileage in pictures of its actual products these days, and indeed makes no effort to produce such pictures. I am so looking forward to the annual farce of the new year announcements. (Insert appropriate smiley.)

It is not known exactly when in 1942 Swindon abandoned lining for the KIngs, Castles and Stars. I would imagine the changeover was somewhat adhoc depending on the state of what was being painted.

Rob - read your PMs!

2010 is one of the early (1931?) 4-wheel milk tanks. They weren't particularly successful, two axles shaking the milk a bit too much, and hence the adoption soon thereafter of the 6-wheel diagrams. Looks like it has been changed for non-milk use.

They're both of the prototype. If Hornby's wheels were that good we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No clearance. The ATC shoe rode the ramp. Standard bullhead rail is 7.5" above timber top. I'm beginning to think the 'point of shoe contact 1.5" low' on the engineering drawing (a 1960 version, and confusingly titled "Automatic Warning System. Ramp" !) is a wheel tyre tolerance factor, and that a nominal tyre diameter will mean the shoe starts to contact the ramp only in the middle 1.5" of the ramp's 3.5" height differential. It's still absurdly tight though. (Edit: Have just read Mike's #407. Thanks. The 2.5" above rail level makes a lot more sense, and would mean the shoe clears the water by 1". There's something not right at all about the Reading drawing, unless I'm misconstruing it completely, which is entirely possible.) Sorry everyone for the digression offtopic - this should have been a new thread, unless someone spots some ATC gear underneath Hornby's 4018 of course... ATC fitting was standard on all new-build locos from c 1930 I think. All the Stars would have been ATC-fitted long before that.

I still don't understand. The 4" (later 3.5") height of the ramp above the rail was a maximum, the ramp being an arc. From my reading of jist of the Reading engineering drawing (no I don't have a full copy of it unfortunately), the first 'point of shoe contact' is 1" above rail level, there then is a further 1.5" of vertical travel on the ramp to make sure the shoe is correctly activated, and I'm not quite sure what the top 1" section of the arc is for! Nevertheless, the bottom of the loco shoe would seem to be below the typical water level in a trough. I can't recall seeing a decent ATC drawing, though, and the shoe being just 1" above rail height does seem to be a bit tight to me.

Ah, yes, I was still looking at the first EP pictures!

9028 had fluted rods, which I don't think Bachmann is doing. 9018 seems a better candidate, although you'd have to change Bachmann's buffers to parallel ones, but it lasted 3 years longer than 9028.

Apologies for the slight digression, but that pic on Goring Troughs has got me wondering. If the water in the trough was typically 1.5" above rail level, why didn't the ATC shoe, which was only 1" above rail level in its lowest position, dig into the water? Was there an ATC shoe 'lift-up' before entering a trough? Note the Brit has just stormed through that distant signal at about 50mph. IIRC, the down Dragon was mid-morning? Or is that the up Dragon on the up slow line, perhaps slowing to cross over to the main?

Although given already on the Great Western Archive site, I've added the shed allocations in slightly more accessible tabular form.

The cab beading was standard 'coming out at a right-angle': http://www.tyseleylocoworks.co.uk/tlw/images2/4003_tt_brw_v.jpg http://www.tyseleylocoworks.co.uk/tlw/images2/4003_5043_brw_v.jpg