MikeOxon

It is a credit to Brunel that he did 'spot' the young Gooch. Some members of the GWR Board were very critical of his choice and even hostile to Gooch, whom they thought to be far too young and inexperienced for the post. On the other hand, it was Brunel who was out of step in matters of locomotive engine design, so there were several others who could have done a good job. In an earlier post, I mentioned Richard Roberts , who was already propounding the precision engineering methods and standards that Gooch applied to his Firefly class.

Thank you for commenting @Lacathedrale. I was feeling uncomfortable about the dimensions of my model of 'Vulcan' after my previous post, so I wanted to make some more checks. Although not spelled out very clearly in a logical sequence, I think all the steps you suggest can be found in my two recent posts.

Last year (October 2021) I wrote a post under this same title in which I referred to the need for caution, when making models based on published drawings. In some cases, even manufacturers’ drawings, especially in the early days, can be suspect, since the finished product was based more on the skills of individual craftsmen, who trusted their practical knowledge over that emerging from the drawing office! When I designed my recent model of ‘Vulcan’, I derived the dimensions from sketches by the young Swindon apprentice, E.T. Lane. Although these were only sketches, they were made ‘from life’ and I feel are more likely to represent the actual appearance of his subjects than more polished drawings made many decades later. Nevertheless, I was perturbed when I realised that my use of these sketches had resulted in the driving wheels of my model appearing to represent a 7 foot prototype diameter, whereas the RCTS book on GWR Locomotives, Part Two, states that the diameter was 8 feet. This statement has been widely repeated in other works ever since. So, I have spent some time examining the evidence more closely It is in that subtle matter of ‘appearance’ that Lane’s sketches differ markedly from the works drawing of ‘Aeolus’, a sister engine to ‘Vulcan’, both built by the Vulcan Foundry. The works drawing may well indicate 8 ft diameter wheels but, on looking at the wheelbase relative to the driving wheel diameter on the works drawing, the proportions can be seen to be different from the Lane sketch, in which the driving wheel is noticeably smaller My first step was to photograph my collection of early broad gauge models together, in order to demonstrate their relative proportions: My Four recent Broad Gauge Models It was widely reported that the early engines ordered by Brunel had inadequate steam-raising capacity for main-line performance. Daniel Gooch addressed the problem when he designed his Firefly class, of which ‘Argus’ was a member, One of the reasons I had for constructing my models was to help visualise these differences. The difference between the sizes of the boiler on 'Vulcan' compared with that of 'Argus' is very apparent when the models are placed together. ‘Vulcan’ was a sister engine to ‘Aeolus’, both being from the Vulcan Foundry and all the key dimensions are in agreement between my two models. My earlier model of ‘Aeolus’ was based on a detailed sketch by E.T. Lane, which had copious annotations giving the dimensions of many features of this engine. ‘Aeolus’ had been re-built with smaller driving wheels when Lane made his sketches but other key dimensions, including the wheelbase, had not been altered, so far as we know. It appears, however that when Mike Sharman showed a drawing of ‘Vulcan’, derived from an illustration by G.F. Bird in The Locomotive Magazine, 1901, in his book of Broad Gauge engines, published by Oakwood Press, a scale based on the assumption that the driving wheel diameter was 8 feet was added. When I placed this Bird drawing below the Works drawing of ‘Aeolus’, aligned to the wheelbase, it is clear that the wheel diameters are considerably smaller in the Bird drawing and, indeed, are a good match to the sketch by Lane. Drawings Compared (based on wheelbase) I suggest that 'Vulcan' may have been delivered with 8 ft drivers in 1838 but that these were changed to 7 ft sometime during the 1840s. I note that Lane indicated on his sketch that the leading carrying wheels had 14 spokes, whereas the trailing wheels had only 12. This difference is borne out in the later photograph of 'Vulcan' as a tank engine, although not in the Bird drawing. Perhaps it is an indication that 'Vulcan' was re-fitted with wheels salvaged from other engines during the 1840s? There is an early illustration of Ealing Station, dated 1839, which includes 'Vulcan' (or one of the similar engines in the group) apparently in original form with 8 ft diameter driving wheels. Extract from illustration of Ealing Station 1839 Overall then, another reminder always to treat published drawings with suspicion. Distortion frequently occurs during publication, so that vertical dimensions may not correspond with horizontal ones! There are plenty of traps for the unwary modeller and I hope that not too many have built models of 'Vulcan' to the dimensions shown in the Oakwood Press book. I am especially pleased, however, to have found that the late Mike Sharman’s own model of 'Vulcan' does appear to have been based on the proportions shown in the Works Drawing, with its larger (8' diameter) driving wheels. A collection of photos of Mike’s models appeared in Railway Modeller, March 1968, so I was able to compare a good side-on photo of his model with the above drawings. I should also be interested to know where Mike's tender design came from - I used a 4-wheel Gooch tender with my own model

These are surprisingly 'normal' looking engines for the broad gauge :) Like many GWR engines of the time, they had a complicated history, ending up as standard-gauge tender engines, amalgamated into the 32xx 'Stella' class. I have converted a Dean Goods model into No.3505, in its 2-4-0 standard-gauge mode.

Always interesting to see a video - especially a good one :)

Never trust the web - its run by 'other people'. Many people entrusted their photos to websites that have since disappeared. I keep all my posts as PDF files on my own computer, which is backed up to network attached storage (NAS). My son also has a copy of my backup disks at his house. Having said that, it's only for my own memories and I expect everything will go into a skip when I'm no longer around.

I've built a few BG tank engines, including the rare example of a side-tank 'Sir Watkin' and the Bogie Class 4-4-0ST.

I hadn’t intended to make another model so soon after my previous post but, having read about ‘Vulcan’ being the first engine in steam on the GWR, on 28th December 1837, I felt I should add it to my collection. Since 'Vulcan' was a sister engine to 'Aeolus', which I have already modelled, I could re-use many of the parts I had already designed, so this was a fairly quick re-build. My model of 'Aeolus' was based on the 1843 rebuild of the prototype, after the original version proved to be a poor performer with a loaded train. The rebuild involved new cylinders and smaller driving wheels. With these modifications, 'Aeolus' proved to be a useful branch-line engine, surviving until near the end of the broad gauge era. 'Vulcan' was also re-built, in this case as a tank engine, with the tank adding much-needed adhesion weight. In this form it even featured in an early photograph, as shown below: Vulcan re-built as a tank engine Fortunately, we also have a sketch by that most valuable source, E.T. Lane, of this engine in its original form: This sketch shows that the appearance was little changed by the addition of the back-tank and bunker. I’m not sure why Lane showed such a ‘stunted’ chimney, since I feel the original would have been of similar height to other engines of the period – perhaps it was something very simple, such as having reached the edge of the page in his notebook?. One point of interest is that comparative measurement between the wheelbase and driving wheel diameter, in both the photograph and Lane’s sketch, indicate a driving-wheel diameter of 7 feet. Many sources state that the diameter was 8 feet, when the engine was delivered, but it may have been altered quite early in its life, as were many others out of that initial batch of engines. I overlaid the sketches of 'Vulcan' and 'Aeolus' to check how many parts I would need to modify from those made for 'Aeolus', Luckily, the answer was “not very many” The boiler fittings on 'Vulcan' were different, with two domes, but it appears that the same frames were retained and simply lowered, when smaller wheels were fitted to 'Aeolus'. As a result, I found that I could re-use the boiler, smokebox, firebox, and frames from my previous model. I needed new driving wheels and splashers, and a new selection of boiler fittings. As an aside, it appears that, when G.F. Bird made his much later drawings for ‘The Engineer’, he copied the safety valve and Salter spring from the original version and added them onto the 'Aeolus' re-build – thus providing duplicate Salter springs. Lane’s contemporary drawings do not show this duplication and I believe are more likely to be correct. A reminder to use contemporary sources whenever possible! I created the new parts by using the methods I have already described in previous posts, and then brought my original and new parts together, to create a 3D model of 'Vulcan' in Fusion 360, as shown below: My 3D-model of 'Vulcan', based on sketch by E.T. Lane Because the modifications were minor, I was able to complete the amendments in ‘Fusion 360’ within an afternoon’s modelling. Printing Drawing on experience gained from earlier models I combined some of the smaller parts with larger ones, to reduce the amount of fiddly assembly-work needed after printing. Thus, the springs are combined with frames and the curved supports are integral with smokebox and firebox. The printed ‘kit of parts’ is shown below: 3D-printed components of my Vulcan model Following my usual method, the boiler, smokebox and firebox were assembled by sliding them over a brass tube to form a reasonably weighty rigid component. For the chassis I first set up the inside frames, linked by the buffer beam at the front and the footplate at the rear, The wheels, set on pin-point axles were slotted into the horn-guides and the outside frames were added in alignment with the axles. There is sufficient ‘flex’ in the outside frames to allow the driving axle to be inserted into the horn-guides above the frames. This structure is adequate for a static model but the chassis is rather too flexible for a working model, since I made many of the frame sections rather too thin, in order to keep the slender appearance of the prototype. To make this into a working model, I would have to add brass inner frames, as on my earlier model of ‘Fire Fly’. Painting I painted the various components separately, so minimising the need for masking between differently coloured parts. One advantages from having the central tube through boiler, smokebox and firebox is that it provides a useful finger-hold during painting! Finger hold and ‘Pringles’ palette I usually use artists’ acrylic paints, wetting the surfaces first, with an alcohol(IPA)/water mix, and then adding pigment to achieve the depth of colour I require. I mix colours such as vermilion for the buffer beam on a ‘Pringles’-lid palette! Comparisons One of my objectives in modelling these early locomotives was to gain a better understanding of locomotive development during the so-called ‘primitive’ period. Gooch, in his ‘diaries’ recalled, of the engines he had in 1838, that “The North Star and the six from the Vulcan Foundry Company were the only ones I could at all depend upon. The result was I had to begin in a measure to rebuild one half of the stock I had to work with. For many weeks my nights were spent in a carriage in the engine-house at Paddington, as repairs had to be done to the engines at night to get them to do their work next day.” Yet, by 1840, Gooch could write “I was much more comfortable with regard to our engines; the new engines ordered to my drawings were being delivered. The Firefly, started on March 1840, was the first, and they all gave every one general satisfaction. We could now calculate with some certainty, not only upon the speed they could run, but also upon their not breaking down upon the journey.” My models trace the progress in those few years. Here is ‘Vulcan’, fresh from the paint shop: My 3D-printed model of Vulcan There are various rods and pipes still to be added to the basic 3D-printed model. Seen in isolation, this looks like a well-balanced purposeful engine and, indeed, after conversion to a tank engine, it remained in service for branch-line use until 1868. It’s problem was that it was very lightly built, with a small boiler, in an attempt to meet Brunel’s stringent weight limits (which, in fact, it greatly exceeded). It’s when we look at it against Gooch’s own ‘Fire Fly’ class of just a couple of years later that we see the enormous progress that was made in that short interval. The ‘Fire Fly’ class had the boiler capacity and firebox to cope with express traffic on the newly opened line to Reading and soon afterwards, on 30th June 1841, on the completed length of the GWR between London and Bristol. The difference is very clear when I place my model of ‘Argus’ (Fire Fly class) next to my model of ‘Vulcan’: My models of ‘Vulcan’ and ‘Argus’ head-to-head This has been a journey of exploration for me into the earliest days of the GWR. I hope my readers will enjoy reading about it as much as I have enjoyed making the models Mike

That hut looks very similar to the GWR Lamp Huts, of which there are many kits available. Mike

Indeed! I have been doing a lot of reading and one thing that gets lost in all the accounts is the sense of excitement that there must have been. I can imagine the locals watching in awe as the new engines were unloaded from the barge and then following along in an excited procession as they were moved to the engine house in West Drayton. The flip side was the number of accidents that occurred, because people did not understand the hazards of the new technology.

I must study elm trees to see how it might have worked - it could make a splendid little diorama! There seems to be little recorded of the set up at West Drayton, which was briefly the end of the line. Nowadays, that whole area is dominated by the trading estates around Heathrow airport. I saw a copy of he Paddington engraving in Brian Arman's Part 3 of GWR engines and thought it would make a good backdrop for my early engines. It took quite a while to set up the poses for each of the engines and then bring them all together against the background scene. Again, a round-house like that could make a fascinating model scene.

It was only after I took the photos that I realised how empty it looked underneath. I could certainly fit something into the space, although working gear might be a step too far for me! Thank you for commenting.

When I started my first pre-grouping blog in 2013, I entitled my first post “Turning Back the Clock”. Ever since then, I seem to have been turning it further and further back, until I’ve reached the very first engines of the GWR. Some early GWR Engines Although the story of Swindon Works is well documented and there is some information and illustrations of the first establishment at Paddington, I have so far found virtually nothing about the original engine-house at West Drayton, to which the first engines were delivered and then worked on by Daniel Gooch. MacDermot in his ‘History of the GWR, Vol.1’ tells the delightful tale of Vulcan’s delivery: “the first engine actually tried in steam was Vulcan. It was shipped by Messrs Tayleur to London Docks, whence it came by canal to West Drayton, arriving at the latter place, together with Premier, from Mather, Dixon & Co, about 10th November 1837. Gooch had to get them and two other engines, which arrived later, from the wharf to the engine-house about a mile distant. An elm tree, which happened to be handily situated, was used to support the tackle for lifting the engines from the barge.” I can’t imagine the Directors having been over-pleased, when they learned how their precious engines had been hauled aloft! The canal tow-path remains a pleasant walk but the wharves have long since disappeared, along with the elm trees. The earliest large scale map I have found is the OS 6 inch, surveyed in 1864, after the Uxbridge branch had been added but while West Drayton station was still located West of the road bridge - the station was moved to the East side in 1884. This map shows the De Burgh Arms already present, although whether it was there in time for Gooch to enjoy a welcome pint after a day’s hard work on the engines is uncertain. I found an artist’s impression of the first station but nothing about the first ‘works’ of the GWR. OS 6-inch – extract showing West Drayton Station, surveyed 1864 Nevertheless, this was the place where Gooch wrestled with the problems posed by all those engines that were delivered against Brunel’s specifications. My current model of ‘Eagle’ is one of those engines and it has been difficult to find much information about its detailed design. By looking at early illustrations of other engines built by Sharp, Roberts & Co. for the standard gauge, I have found a few indicative details of how the boiler was mounted on the frames. An illustration of ‘Vortimer’, built for the SER, indicates supports for the boiler at the motion plate and at the side of the firebox, so I have appropriated these features for my model of ‘Eagle’ Standard gauge 2-2-2 by Sharp, Roberts & Co., 1842 Creating the Tender for ‘Eagle’ The illustration above also shows the style of tender produced by the firm, although this one is a few years later than ‘Eagle’. On the other hand, there is a similar-looking but smaller tender shown with the earlier engine ‘Hibernia’ that was supplied to the Dublin and Kingstown Railway in 1834. Overlaying the drawings of ‘Eagle’ and the ‘Hibernia’ tender suggests what might have been used as the tender to ‘Eagle’: My suggestion of a Tender for ‘Eagle’ Furthermore, E.T.Lane made some contemporary sketches of a tender supplied by Charles Tayleur & Co. for the engine ‘Venus’: Tender for Venus, sketch by E.T.Lane The style looks familiar and shows the interesting point that the wheels were mounted outside the frames, suggesting that this is simply an adaptation for the broad gauge of one of the firm’s usual tenders. In correspondence with the GWR Directors, Sharp, Roberts & Co. wrote: “The engine tenders made by us are entirely of metal, and consequently much more durable than those made of wood. We have not however had time to make drawings of one adapted to your line, and therefore cannot name an exact price, but we presume it will be from £220 to £250.”. This seems to confirm my ‘adaptation’ theory. So, on the basis of all the above sources of information, I set about designing my own interpretation of a tender for my model of ‘Eagle’. I suppose it is fair to say that any resemblance to the prototype is largely coincidental! I amalgamated the design of the tender for ‘Hibernia’ with the wheels and splashers from the ‘Venus’ tender, keeping the standard-gauge body inside the wheels. The result does look rather high-sided but this must be balanced against the body being narrower than on other broad gauge tenders. My planned Tender for ‘Eagle’ over illustration of ‘Vortimer’ As usual, I imported this sketch into Fusion 360 as a ‘canvas’ and then drew over the outlines and extruded the body and chassis panels. I then added splashers outside the frames, as on the engine itself, to produce the 3D model shown below: My conjectural model of a Tender for ‘Eagle’ Following my usual method, I printed the various components separately to produce the ‘kit of parts’ shown below: 3D-printed Tender Components I have found that my basic printer does remarkably well with small items such as handrails. The axles even print with a clear 1 mm diam. hole thought the centre! 3D printed Small Parts PLA plastic is remarkably tough and those fine railings were easily removed from the printer bed without damage. Into the Paint Shop One of the advantages from constructing both the engine and tender from several components is that this simplifies the painting. There is no need to mask off parts, since there is no risk of paint spreading onto adjacent parts. Current opinion appears to take the view that the wooden cladding on early boilers was painted from the start and not left polished, as it is on the replicas at Didcot. I have taken the ‘painted’ approach and used a mix of black and ‘Rustoleum Painter’s Touch’ dark green paints, to create my interpretation of the ‘dark blue-green’ appearance, as described for early broad-gauge engines. I used chocolate brown on the frames and black for the tops of the splashers. Final touches were brass effect for the bright-work and china-red for the buffer beams. My 3D printed model of ‘Eagle’ with its Tender There are various rods and pipes to add to this model and this view also highlights the absence of any motion. This view demonstrates the unusual layout of the running gear, with the leading axle placed in front of the smokebox. ‘Eagle’ is my third model of the first group of engines that were built for the GWR. Both ‘Eagle’ and ‘Aeolus’ became useful branch line engines, after modifications made by Gooch. These engines taught Gooch a lot about the problems of maintaining a fleet of engines, each one of which had its own individual problems. His solution was to introduce a high degree of standardisation to his own designs, the first of which appeared in March 1840 as ‘Fire Fly’. For my final illustration, created with help from Photoshop, I show my three models together, against a backdrop of the engine house at Paddington in 1846. My models of Eagle, FireFly, and Aeolus at Paddington shed, 1845 Mike footnote: The engine shed at Paddington in 1845 was of the ‘round house’ style, with a central turntable. Before the present terminus was built on the site of the old Goods Shed, the station offices were located in the arches of Bishop’s Road Bridge, with the platforms and Engine Shed to the west of this bridge:

My recollection from childhood is that the coal man used to call regularly at our house. My parents would pay his bill and discuss their future requirements. As I recall, he would often stay for quite a while, chatting to my parents. Later there was a scandal, when several people began to notice that deliveries were sometimes 'short' My parents were usually out of the house when the coal was delivered but a neighbour used to count the bags as they were tipped into our coal shed. When the coal man came, his bill was frequently for more bags but, when challenged, he would say that the lad must have made a mistake and he accepted my parent's figure. Then, one evening, the coal man came round in a bad state. He had discovered that his son was defrauding the business and, after many years of honest trading, the firm's reputation had been destroyed. Sadly, the old man died soon afterwards. Everyone said it was from the shame that his son had brought upon him.

I fell foul of it too - the fault is not yours but is in the software. I think the 'publish now' box being ticked only appeared with a recent 'upgrade' and I hope the old method of retaining the original date will be restored. I now check the original date before I start replacing lost images.

Thank you for the reference, Mikkel, which I've downloaded from the Internet Archive. Curious to note that it was published by "The Religious Tracts Society"

Early lenses often suffered from spherical aberration, which causes fuzziness towards the edges. Portrait photographers liked this effect, so lenses like the Petzval lens were developed for this reason Your Schneider Xenar is a modern highly-corrected lens.

It's correct that depth of field is greater with a smaller sensor. There's an online calculator that can be use to explore the effect. I have written more about photographing my layout at https://www.rmweb.co.uk/blogs/entry/15678-photographing-the-layout/ Mike

If we compare the size of full plate with the sensor in a phone (about 6 mm across), the size ratio is 1:36 is very close to O-gauge scale! This means that, if you take photos of an O-gauge layout with your phone, the results have similar scale depth of field and angle of view to the old plate camera! It can produce very 'realistic' photos as I have pointed out on my blog.

They were added because no-one noticed the cap was on the main chimney 🤣

Rather a lot riding on this one! Another from the Tay Bridge opening

I can't resist this photo including a well-decorated 'coffee pot' at the opening of the 2nd Tay Bridge

Good to see a subject like this given airing in RM

perhaps they took their cue from tramway wagons like this one seen at the Forest of Dean Heritage Centre:

Don't do that - you'd be depriving lots of people the opportunity to display their knowledge 🙂