Miss Prism

One of the 517s with brown and cream bodywork. I'm not sure when the GWR began to adopt 'Halt' rather than 'Halte'. Not sure either when the bodywork was removed - it was only a fleeting fashion.

This is the interpretation of the 517 'brown' by Tony Reynalds and Martyn Welch. It is not known whether this locomotive brown has any correlation with what was used on coaching stock.

There's plenty of loco livery changes the mags didn't report.

Rep is an established term in upholstery.

Great to have that selection of pics for comparison on the same page, Mikkel. Thanks.

My personal view is that 92 and 93 are probably the preservationists' best yet crimson lake, and that the colour for the Main Line & City stock as first preserved was wrong for crimson lake, but a rather excellent version of 1908 brown.

53 minutes ago, K14 said:

5-gallon drums of a very deep purply-red/brown paint

That's the one.

I remember when Didcot wheeled out the first restoration of their Main Line & City stock. I took a couple of (old chemical film) pics, which are long since lost I think. I remember going up very close to the side of the coach and asking myself "What colour is this?" I couldn't answer my own question. All I saw was the deep dark opulent lake rather than the colour.

Maybe Pete Speller @K14can enlighten us.

My understanding is that the Hornby 2721 chassis is too long and has an inaccurate wheelbase.

I think the boiler pitch on the saddle tanks, even the earliest ones, was 6'11 3/4".

No drawing, but here's 1815 posing c 1905 according to RCTS. It has an original length, 3-segment, tank. 'Admiralty' rods.

Someone remind me, when did the changeover from single-pipe lighting to double-pipe lighting start?

2721 and 57xx cab heights were the same - 11'4 5/8", at least for the closed cab version of the 2721. I can't find a dimension for the cab height of an open cab version. There was a lot of cab height variation across the saddle tanks, but I think by pannier days there probably should have been a set dimension - the 2721 kit of parts had become fairly standardised by then I think. Probably the driver for standardising cab heights for closed cabs was the need to interface with bunkers.

Boiler pitch for the 2721 and 57xx was the same, at 6'11 3/4" (and standard for most of the large tanks).

The bottom pic, even in its unlined state, will be just what gwr.org.uk needs to fill that long-missing coach livery gap!

I've seen a pic of 94 after rebuilding as a saddle tank, and it looks exactly like a standard 850. I suspect very little if anything of the original locos were used in these 'renewals'. Remarkably, both 93 and 94 survived to receive panniers.

Your drawing looks like a prototype 633!

12 hours ago, wenlock said:

It’s more of a shame that others have contributed photos in response to questions that I’ve asked in the blog and I’ve no way of reinstating those🙄

I don't think I posted any pictures to this blog, but I do plan to revisit some attachments history and fill in some gaps.

I'm confused - I thought the K class was inside-framed

As another illustration of cab variety, here is a Wolverhampton tall cab with a small radius roof. This is 1548 of the 1501 class, c 1900. The tank main handrail does not wrap around the front, which seems to be an early Wolverhampton quirk. The handrail also continues onto the side of the cab on this particular loco.

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Except on numerous kit-built locos 🙂

I seem to remember a notorious Cyril Freezer diagram of a large saddle tank with a stumpy chimney appearing in the Railway Modeller. Whether any of the first Wills '1804' kits featured such a chimney I don't know, but certainly in later years the Wills kit was provided with a correct chimney. (As you have on yours.)

12 hours ago, JimC said:

Odd, isn't it. There were cut down locomotives for various highly restricted lines, but you'd think they'd start with an 850 or a 2021 for something like that. 

Indeed. There is a list in RCTS of the eight 850 locos fitted with very low chimneys, but it is not clear whether all of them were so fitted at the same time. Here is 863 at Laira on 15 June 1928. I think the purpose of the low chimney is to clear one of the tunnels in the docks.

Regarding diagram A18, I've never seen a pic of a large saddle tank with such a stumpy chimney.

2703, of the 2701 subclass, received panniers in 1920 and survived until just after WWII. This view is probably late-'20s/early-'30s. Swindon cab (I think) with large spectacle glasses, and 'simple' injector. The small handrail on the tank side is yet to be fitted. It was never superheated. Note the extraneous handrail knob.

14 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I guess that drawing isn’t in the first edition either…?

Edition 1 page 105 is a full-page set of sketches labelled 'Wagon Lettering 1921', so I guess that is based on dwg 61468.

5 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

It states regarding the GWR: "In 1904 the appearance of the Company freight stock was transformed. It was probably at this time that grey became the body colour for almost all goods stock . . . "

Oh.

So Jack Slinn edition 1 has 1898* as the changeover from red to grey, but John Lewis edition 3 goes for 1904.

*Actually, GWW edition 1 is remarkably vague regarding the introduction of grey, it is Atkins el al who are unequivocal about 1898.

Thanks, Kit - I'll feel comfortable to stick with 1920. Smaller sizes had been around for the lesser-planked wagons anyway, so in a sense the change wasn't that radical. Unlike locos and coaches however, old transfer stocks were not involved as far as I am aware, so the change for newly painted stuff was probably rapid.

On 17/04/2022 at 07:24, magmouse said:

I have the 2009 revised and extended edition. The quote I referred to is in the section on wagon liveries, when it gets to the 1921 to 1937 period and the change from 25" lettering to 16". Possibly it isn't in the earlier edition, or just lands on a different page number.

Leaving aside for one moment what the nature of these 'templates' was, edition 1 (which doesn't mention them as far as I can see) puts the date of the size changeover as 1920. How explicit is edition 2's '1921'?