MikeOxon

The fact that No.40 retained its scissors gear suggests that the Patent argument was spurious and that the valve events were satisfactory.

John Gibson, who always loved a good conspiracy theory, claimed in his book 'GW Locomotive Design' that the inside Walschaerts gear on the 4-cylinder engines was the result of a 'cover up'. The first 4-cyl engine, No.40 'North Star', was fitted with a crossover arrangement of Stephenson gear, known as 'scissors' gear. While there has been a suggestion that this infringed a Patent by Deeley, Gibson claims that the real reason was that it was very difficult and time-consuming to set-up the scissors gear correctly. What was acceptable on a single engine would not do for a large class. Churchward realised that the existing design could be converted to inside Walschaerts gear very discreetly, so hid his 'mistake' in this way. It did mean that this arrangement of Walschaerts had higher friction from the eccentrics, each driving two valves, than the usual arrangement of a return crank outside the wheels. Gibson claimed that this friction inhibited the performance of the 'Kings' at high speed.

If you add skirts, who will notice?

Be very interesting to know what would happen if drivers could do that in the real world!

I enjoyed the 'cab' ride along the tramway very much. Never having driven a real engine, I think I would always be nervous, when approaching complex point-work, that everything is set up correctly! One is very dependent on good team work by all the railway personnel! The passengers on the platform looked a bit 'modern' but it was great to see the carriage and horses as we approached. I have tried 'cab shots' with a miniature camera on my own model railway and find it remarkably effective, except for the sound-track of grinding gears!

I've not found 'end of life support' much of a problem - I still have machines running Win 7 and Win XP, to support peripherals that won't talk to newer systems. Curiously, the Win 7 machine still seems to receive regular updates from M'soft! When that happened after Win 7 ended, I bought a 're-furb' Thinkpad with Win 10, as my 'everyday' laptop, for a very low price.

as I understand it, the main thing about Win 11 is that it requires various security features to be present in hardware on the motherboard. There seem to be few enhancements in terms of actual number-crunching capability. One thing to consider when installing more advanced hardware is whether your software is capable of making use of the extra features. Can TRSxx actually use all those cores and all the high-end graphics card features?

Yes, it's Loctite that I use - it comes in packs of 3 small tubes that seem to keep well - better than the liquid sort. Another example of reality catching up with my imagination: as part of his mechanisation at Buscot, I read that "Mr. Campbell has has employed the most powerful steam ploughing engines which have yet been constructed," Back in 2014, I posted one of Amy's paintings that showed one of these engines at North Leigh creamery, where it had apparently been used as an emergency steam supply after a boiler failed! Now I know where it had come from!!! My model was from an old Keil Kraft kit stated to be 1/72 scale but, when placed against a 4 mm-scale drawing of the prototype, the model matches very well! The idea of bringing in a traction engine as an emergency power supply also did actually occur on the Buscot estate. According to this article : "Similarly, the Oldfield mill could be driven externally by traction engine should the turbine fail. Traction engines were also widely used for estate duties."

Despite what I wrote in my previous post , I decide to add a ‘rolling’ chassis to my model of ‘Edith’, to help me assess the overall appearance of this little engine. Printing and assembling some of the very small parts created some new challenges. Our heating system failed last week, just as the weather turned colder. I had not noticed before how sensitive my 3d printer is to the temperature in my work room. For the first time, I experienced a fractured filament as it wound off the reel. I then had continuing trouble with several prints, until I found that the bed levelling needed to be re-set. Something had upset it more than usual. On the plus side, I did get some of the cleanest rivets I have ever printed, with virtually no whiskers of filament between the individual items – possibly because the extruded filament was solidifying more rapidly than usual. As usual, I broke the overall design down into sections that were optimised for printing by having a flat surface to lie on the printer bed. I made the exploded diagram below, to show all the individual parts that I printed. In some cases, I printed several small items together, such as the cylinders and wheels ‘Edith’ broken down into Printable Parts It really brought it home to me, just how small the engine ‘Edith’ was, when I started to print some of these parts: 3D-printed Smokebox for Edith As I started to assemble these parts together, I realised once again the challenges that 2mm FS modellers have to meet and overcome – apart from good eyesight, they also need to pay far more attention to tolerances, which can seem very tight indeed. For the first time, I became aware of the limitations imposed by the 0.4 mm extruder nozzle diameter, when I was creating the smallest parts, such as the inclined cylinder blocks. I also had difficulty when mounting the rather tiny chimney onto the smokebos. Although I thought I had left sufficient tolerance for the spigot on the base of the chimney to fit into the socket on the top of the smokebox, the ‘quantisation’, imposed by the extruded filament got in the way! In this case, it was easy enough to ream out the hole in the smokebox a little but it was a reminder that I was working close to the limits of my printer. Once again, I found the gel-type superglue to be very good for attaching tiny parts such as the cylinders. I used a cocktail stick to spread a thin film of glue on the mating surfaces and then held the parts together, using fine tweezers, for a few seconds until the joint hardened sufficiently to keep the parts in place. I read somewhere that superglue doesn’t work with PLA but that’s not my experience. Eventually, everything came together and the newly assembled model looked as below: Two views of my 3D-printed ‘Edith’ Over on my Broad Gauge blog, I have been writing about the early GWR broad-gauge engines that were often regarded as ‘freaks’ , although some of them were simply far too under-powered to handle the tasks expected of them. All things are relative and what might be regarded as too small in one context can seem very different, when compared with engines designed for a different purpose. Many narrow gauge engines, like ‘Edith’, were very small indeed, in comparison with main-line engines, but well suited to the task of moving agricultural produce around a large farming estate. The profound difference is apparent when I bring the models of ‘Edith’ and ‘Aeolus’ together for a joint portrait: My models of ‘Edith’ and ‘Aeolus’ together In term of boiler size, there is less difference between these engines than might appear to be the case at first glance. The boiler of ‘Edith’ is stated as having 2’ 8” inside diameter and length 7’ 6” (including internal firebox), whereas that of ‘Aeolus’ was 3’ 6” diameter and 8’ 2” length. The very considerable difference in appearance is largely down to the higher pitch of the ‘Aeolus’ boiler, needed to clear the driving axle of the large diameter wheels. One of my objectives in building ‘Edith’ was to provide alternative motive power on my my narrow-gauge system around North Leigh . Since Buscot was not many miles South from the area covered by my layout, it seems reasonable that similar engines could have been used on both systems! To turn my model ‘Edith’ into a working locomotive, I plan to adapt it to take a similar type of chassis to that currently under ‘Jeanette’. Peco ‘Jeanette’, with ‘Edith’ The two engines have quite different appearances but the use of a common chassis seems feasible, with some modifications to the body of ‘Edith’. These modifications will be the subject of a future post.

Now that does look like a 3D printing challenge!

I'm pleased you've found it. It's a wonderful resource for 'out of copyright' works and there are lots of 19th century railway books, including many classics. I use it extensively! There are also books that can be borrowed for a short period.

Thank you finding that, Phil. I had done a search myself but only found 'Appleby's Illustrated Handbook of Machinery, 1877', which simply copied the text and illustrations from the Engineering article. This handbook also lists an 0-6-0ST, with a detailed specification and prices for various sizes. There are lots of splendid illustrations of steam boilers, cranes, etc. I'm not sure where that leaves us. The statement "the springs are between the inner and outer frames" could be read to mean that the springs are within both sets of frames, possibly as a loose transcription of the original information. If I put my model body onto a commercial chassis, it's irrelevant anyway but I shall also build a static display version, as closely as I can to the engravings that I have.

Interesting! The Engineering article includes the statement that: "1he arrangement of the springs, and the details generally, are so clearly shown in the views we publish, that it will be unnecessary for us to describe them." I've looked pretty closely at their published views and all the indications are that the springs were inside the inner frames. I don't have the catalogue that you mention so, if the illustration is different from those in Engineering, I'd be interested to see it. According to Lowe's 'British Steam Locomotive Builders' in the page about Appleby Brothers, regarding this engine "It was named EDITH and whether the firm [Appleby] did actually build it is debatable, and it is probable that orders received were passed on to firms such as Fox Walker & Company. Avonslde Engine Company and others. " If this was the case, the catalogue entry may have been somewhat 'generic' Mike

In interesting trackwork with that convoluted cross-over of the narrow-gauge rail.

There's a specification for this 'pram hood' mechanism, known as 'Brotherhood's Patent Tilt Covers' in BGS Data File No.11, 2016, as follows: "The ends to be semicircular, and the roof to be covered with Brotherhood’s Patent Tilt Covers, fitted in the most approved manner, and covered with No. 5 best long flax canvas. dressed with four coats of Brigg’s oil dressing." They don't seem to have survived long in service.

Best 'cheer up' yet 😀 Some interesting details, such as the way the smoke box door curves with the 'piano lid' front. I wonder what occasion merited this photo of a working engine, not specially 'cleaned up'?

What has struck me as very odd is that the springs seem to be inside the inside frames! I don't know much about tramway engines so perhaps this is not unusual. Could it be connected with the use of outside valve gear? Mike

Thank you for commenting. I'm gradually learning not to trust published drawings too far. In some cases, It's simply that the engine wasn't built to the drawing, which was very common in earlier times. Having got this far, I intend the print the parts and may build a static model showing all that outside valve gear.

It's the same here - case rates are still high but there are no Government restrictions. I know lots of people who have had COVID in the last few weeks but, in most cases, the effects were unpleasant but not serious. The view here seems to be that we shall just have to put up with it, like flu, etc. I'd love to re-visit NZ but current finances don't permit it.

According to Gibbs, an early GWR Director, Thunderer gave a very smooth ride at 60 mph. In 1839, Gooch wrote that Thunderer had been at work for some time but then needed extensive repairs and was laid up. Hurricane made a good first impression but, on an early run, a water tank fell off and got entangled in the driving-wheel spokes. That seems to have been the end, although the boiler was apparently re-used in the 0-6-0 Bacchus. Mike

In fact, Webb was copying a much older idea. According to Ahrons in 'The British Steam Locomotive 1825-1925 " : 'Arrow', which was put to work in May, 1837, had this arrangement when new, for the patent was that of John Melling, locomotive superintendent of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, to whom it was granted in July, 1837. It is of interest to note that F. W. Webb applied a similar friction wheel coupling to a London and North-Western passenger engine about sixty years later." Brunel, who seems to have been a bit of a 'sucker' for such things, also took an interest in this device and wrote to Gooch on 7th September 1837 : "If the addition of Melling's wheels is to cause much delay, I must do without them, although for command of stopping and starting, I would have liked them" - it seems that Brunel didn't get them! Mike

Hi David, you will find a description in my post at https://www.rmweb.co.uk/blogs/entry/19004-broad-gauge-mail-coach-part-4/ (I have restored the illustrations for you) Mike

In my previous post in this blog, I described my chance discovery of the former narrow-gauge system that linked the farms on the Buscot Park estate to a distillery and other works, located at a wharf on the upper River Thames. This was especially interesting to me because I had introduced an imaginary narrow-gauge (NG) line on my ‘North Leigh’ layout, to serve the local quarries for Cotswold stone and the sawmills around Wychwood Forest, by connecting them to a railhead at North Leigh – itself never actually served by railway, although a branch to Witney had been proposed in 1849. My model NG railway is worked by two aged ‘Peco’ NG locomotive body kits, mounted on ‘Arnold’ 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 chassis. Although I still like the saddle tank version (known as ‘James’ in the Peco catalogue), I’ve never liked his side-tank sibling, known as ‘Jeanette’, very much – something about the proportions never felt ‘right’ to me. NG engines at North Leigh NG engine shed So, having discovered ‘Edith’ on the Buscot railway, I thought I might design a body based on her, to fit onto my existing Arnold 0-4-0 chassis. There are going to have to be a few compromises, to make the ‘Edith’ body fit over this chassis, so it may not be an accurate model but it will provide a ‘memorial’ to a long-lost prototype, which did in fact operate for a short period in this area of the Country. In order to create my model, I needed more prototype information than the illustration that I found in Lowe’s book called: ‘‘British Steam Locomotive Builders’. Fortunately, I found a reference to an article in ‘Engineering’, 20th January 1871. This can be downloaded from 'Grace’s Guide', now behind a paywall but still an excellent source of information about locomotives and engineering in general, during the 19th century. The ‘Engineering’ article includes drawings and several views of the engine ‘Edith’, together with a detailed description, providing all the main dimensions. There are some inconsistencies between the various illustrations but I now had sufficient dimensional information to start to create a model. I gather that some of my readers like to read my ‘blow by blow’ accounts of how I build my models, so I shall record my progress in ‘diary’ form. My first step was to copy a couple of drawings from the ‘Engineering’ article and insert them as ‘canvasses’ into my ‘Fusion 360’ 3D-modelling software. This article also provided some key dimensions, including wheelbase of 5 feet and overall length of 12’ 11”. I used the overall length, plus the width of 5’ 3”, to ‘calibrate’ the images in ‘Fusion 360’. My next step was to use the ‘sketch’ mode in ‘Fusion 360’ to create a rectangle over the entire outside valance. I followed this by using the line and arc drawing tools to mark out the shape of the valance, where it curves over the wheels, and selected the enclosed area of the valance, after which I used the ‘push-pull’ tool (press ‘Q’), to extrude this by 1 mm above the canvas plane. The result of these operations is shown below: Creating valances in Fusion 360 from a ‘canvas’ I created a buffer beam in exactly he same way, by drawing a rectangle over the head-on image of the engine. I rounded off the corners of the buffer beam by using the ‘Fillet’ tool to reproduce the appearance of the prototype. After extruding the drawing by 1 mm, I now had all the parts necessary to create the outside members of the chassis. To do this, I used the 'Move' tool to rotate the parts into the appropriate orientations, followed by the 'Copy' tool (which is an option within the 'Move' tool) to provide duplicate frames for both sides and buffer beams for both ends, as shown below: Creating the Frame in Fusion 360 I like to keep all the parts as separate bodies at this stage, so that I can easily re-position them later if necessary. I think this approach is analogous to using ‘layers’ in Photoshop, to keep options open for making alterations later. The article in ‘Engineering’ gives the boiler diameter (inside) as 2’ 8” and the length from smoke-box tube-plate to back plate of the firebox casing as 7’ 6”. I checked these dimension on the drawing (they were correct) and drew circles over the drawing to represent the inside and outside diameters of the boiler and then extruded this to a length of 30 mm, to create my model boiler. On the prototype, the firebox can be seen to be located within the back end of the boiler. I added lines to my boiler sketch to represent the outer faces of the firebox and extruded these to a length of 14 mm (equivalent to 3’ 6” on the prototype). Since the grate slopes down towards the front of the firebox, I drew a triangle on one side of the box and then used the push-pull tool to Cut the lower part to the correct profile, as shown below. Creating the Boiler and Firebox in Fusion 360 None of the illustrations that I have of ‘Edith’ shows the front of the smokebox, so I had had to make informed guesses. I simply extruded another body from the front end of the boiler, to create a cylindrical smoke box of length 4.67 mm, in accordance with the drawing and equivalent to a prototype length of 1’ 2”. The ‘Engineering’ article describes the cylinders as: “outside cylinders 8 in. in diameter with 15 in. stroke, these cylinders being placed at an inclination of 1 in 5, and being situated at a distance apart transversely of 4ft. 2 in. from centre to centre.” I decided to create these cylinders as separate components, so that they can be positioned on my model as required. I started by creating a simple ‘box’, then drew a circle on one end face, which I extruded to represent the cylinder end-plate.. In exactly the same way as I did for the firebox, I cut away part of the side of the box so that it would fit against the outside frame at the desired 20° (1 in 5) angle. (as a note to self: it’s good to write up like this, because I suddenly realised, while writing, that I had wrongly set the angle to 5° through a hasty mis-reading of the above description) After placing these various bodies in their appropriate locations on the overall model, the assembly now looked as below. Note that I have still kept all the parts as separate bodies, so that I can re-adjust them if necessary and also so that I can print them individually. Creating the Smokebox and Cylinders in Fusion 360 The remaining, most obvious parts are the two coal bins at the sides and the back-tank, so I drew these next, following my standard method of extruding from the drawings. These are simply extruded rectangles, with a few radiussed corners. The outline of the side bunkers was marked by a very faint dotted line on the ‘canvas’ but the main body of the back-tank was obvious. I initially extruded these parts as simple cuboids and then rounded the vertical corners of the back-tank by using the ‘Fillet’ tool to create the rounded appearance shown in the illustrations of the engine. I placed the three items in their locations on the frame and then tackled adding the flare around the top of the back-tank. I’ve tried various methods for creating such flares, of varying degrees of complexity, but since I found the ‘Sweep’ tool in the ‘Create’ menu of Fusion 360, it’s become very simple! I simply sketch the end profile of the flange and then click on the ‘path’, which is the line around the top of the tank body. The profile is then automatically turned into a solid body, as shown below: Creating the flange around the Back Tank in Fusion 360 With a few minor additions, such as the tank filler, the assembly was now beginning to look very much more like a locomotive! My 3D-model assembly in Fusion 360 I have now reached the point of adding the boiler fittings, where I can adopt my tried and tested method of using the ‘Rotate’ command on a profile sketch. I made the chimney and dome in two parts, the lower of which I ‘Joined’ to the top of the boiler, leaving a flat surface on which to attach the upper part, after printing. Normally, I would now start on the design of the chassis but, since I want this to be a working replacement for ‘Jeanette’ on my layout, I shall have to make some modifications, to enable the body to fit onto my Arnold chassis. I shall keep the parts designed so far, so as to leave open the option to create a true scale model but shall now take a break , to consider what ‘distortions’ I shall have to make. Meanwhile, a colourised view of model ‘Edith’ so far: Mike

During ,my modelling, I've realised that 'pre-grouping' actually covers a very wide spectrum The 1st WW was one obvious break in the 'continuum', while the end of the Victorian age produced another change of outlook, with many new initiatives over the ways in which railways operated in the early 20th century. There was also quite a lot of 'pre-pre-grouping' going on in the latter half of the 19th century, as many of the original small railway companies were swallowed up into larger concerns, such as the LNWR and the expanded GWR. Before that, there was another change, when railways moved out of the 'novelty' phase and became an integral part of the National infrastructure. Once upon a time, I thought the 1930's lay deep in the past but now, that period seems to me more akin to 'modern image'! For the GWR, there is a marked divide between the Dean era and the Churchward era, with similar developments in other companies at around the same time. Now, I find myself exploring the so-called 'primitive' phase, which seems to be an unfortunate term to use, since it was actually a period of great innovation and rapid development, during which many of the concepts that have survived in all railways ever since first appeared. Mike

I agree that the loss of this site for a while and the continuing loss of pictures has been a real 'downer'. It's when you lose something that you realise what it meant! I started, a long time ago, in this Forum but after a while felt that a blog/diary style was more suited to my approach. I could list several people on here who have provided the inspiration to push on, into areas of modelling that I never dreamed would be possible at the outset. Mike