buffalo

Invicta, or a replica, used to stand outside the walls at Canterbury.

 

Is it still there?

No, hasn't been for many years. See my link above which shows her current location in the local museum. I've always been a little confused about this but there is/was also what I think is a replica in the Canterbury West goods shed, now a farmers' market. Whether it's still there, I don't know. You can just see one of the cylinders and part of the boiler cladding in the top right of the photo on this page.

Nick

Not sure what you mean by sisters, but the next engine built by Stephenson after the Rocket was Invicta. She was built for operating over the northern mile of the Canterbury and Whitstable, a steam operated passenger and goods railway that opened several months earlier than the Liverpool and Manchester. Most of the steeply-graded line was hauled by stationary steam engines but the owners wanted a lococomotive to operate on the lesser gradients near Whitstable. Unfortunately, the gradient of up to 1:50 proved too much for her and she was soon replaced by another winding engine.

Nevertheless, she makes an interesting comparison with Rocket.

Nick

They would only 4uck it up, number on the buffer beam the wrong side and GWR @rse about face etc.

Yes, possibly harsh. There's a good chance they might improve on the five or more features in the photo that are quite wrong for the post-war livery

On the other hand, the photo does give a rather fine impression of late-twenties appearance (other than the modern lettering on the tanks, of course).

Nick

...Here is the 517 having been cleaned before departure.

Looking good. Will you add the steps later?

Nick

When you say 'real', is it a real BR transfer or something recreated in preservation?

Nick

So what do folk consider to be the pinnacle of GWR steam locomotive design, the ultimate in achievement and modernity so to speak, and why?

As Mike said, it all depends on period, there were pinnacles throughout the GWR era and beyond and different ways of judging them. The final ultimate in power and engineering achievment must be the King of early BR days after they finally got almost everything right. However, for elegance it has to the Gooch 8ft singles in their early form or even in renewed form with the added luxury of a cab. The Dean single has had several mentions but, for me, they were surpassed by his Armstrong class. These combined all the most elegant parts of the singles with a new and more balanced 4-4-0 wheel arrangement that set the pattern for subsequent development.

In terms of achievement, I might add the development of a large fleet of 0-6-0 tender engines for goods use, both the Armstrong and Dean goods being able to go almost anywhere provided a mainstay of such work. I could add the long line of Gooch's BG goods lots that preceded them. Similarly the large numbers of large and small 0-6-0 saddle tanks that handled so much of the goods and lesser passenger traffic, all far more attractive before they were slowly converted to pannier tanks..

The Churchward era represents a pinnacle of innovation in that the Stars, Saints and the standard two-cylinder classes laid the foundations for most subsequent development, not just of main line passenger engines. The 28XX class hauling hundred wagon trains in 1906 deserves a mention here, as does the development of auto trains.

Finally, not steam, but the pinnacle of impressive noise must go to Kerosene Castle

Nick

I agree, it was the good fortune of having good quality coal that determined the degree of superheated applied, as you say there's no point wasting energy. You must accept though that this put the Western at a disadvantage when coal quality declined...

Certainly, but this was really only during the late thirties and the war years. It could be argued that Collett should have seen the problem coming and taken the necessary steps.

...Others to varying degrees of necessity had already developed a 'it must be able to burn any old rubbish' approach. Did the need to be fed to quality coal restrictions Western locos usefulness and potential sphere of operation post nationalisation and how does it affect those examples preserved when working tours? The case of an original positive becoming a later negative??...

By the end of the war, Hawksworth's modified Halls, Counties and then the post-war Castles came along alll with increased superheat. This was followed by much work at Swindon on the internal details of the smokebox with the result that many engines were now performing better on poor coal than they ever did on Welsh coal. After nationalisation there would have been a mix of main line engines with and without these improvements. Whether there any today that are ceritied for main line use but lack the post war improvements, I really don't know.

BTW, on Mike's earlier comments about lubricators and oil development, it's interesting to note that Holcroft did some experiments during his time with the Southern to compare sight feed and mechanical lubrication on the same class of engine with high superheat. He concluded that the sight feed system was better in most respects, but the mechanical type suited the current condition of working with pooled engines and saved on preparation time because they could be filled by shed staff. In other words, the benefits were entirely managerial.

Nick

Comparatively low degree though. Stanier took the same low degree over to the LMS and, without decent coal, got poor results....

Yes, but the simple 'more superheat is better' argument doesn't wash. The GWR didn't need more in the early days, provided the steam remained dry from inlet to exhaust, no more was needed, indeed it was a waste. The aim of superheating is to provide dry steam, not higher temperature. This was easily achieved with relatively low levels of superheat and good Welsh coal, but others with poorer coal needed higher levels of superheat to achieve the same effect. In fact, the Schmitt type fitted to the first superheated engine in the country, 2901 in 1906, and the Cole type fitted to 4010 in 1907 both produced more superheat than was needed and this was recognised in the design of subsequent Swindon superheaters.

Later, Hawksworth went for higher levels of superheat, not because big numbers are better or that it was intrinsically better, but simply because the quality of GWR coal supplies declined through the thirties and the war years. He simply needed higher superheat for the same reason that others had faced years earlier.

Nick

...The N Class were IMO a good example of bringing best practices together from all over. GWR tapered boiler but with added superheating...

Not sure what you're getting at here, the GWR started to apply superheating in 1906

Nick

Now just remind me again , how many years in service did they get compared to the

'old fashioned' Great Western locos .

 

 Oh yes , 1940's to 1960's as compared to 1920's to 1960's ,  the case for the defence rests .

Hmm, the defence is only warming up. As far as the design goes Castles were, after all, just improved Stars, so it's comparing a 1900s design to a 1940s one. You'll find that Castles look quite modern when compared to the singles and 2-4-0s of the 1860s

Nick

Wouldn't 1361 have a round topped firebox not a belpaire one.

1392s and 1361s had a round top, 1366s had a Belpaire.

Nick

Effective clamps need not be so complex or costly. See here for one that works equally well with plastic, brass or white metal corners.

Nick

...Does anyone know where l can get Salter dome valves and MR type fittings from?

...Try Craftsman Models, as they do kits for the original and rebuilt versions; they also supply boiler fittings as spares....

The last time I built a Craftsman kit, a Johnson 1P, I replaced their white metal castings with Alan Gibson brass parts.

Nick

...The instructions call for the sub frame to be attached to the side of the main frames but that would make it very difficult to get the rear wheels in and out...

I've just started on the 4mm version of this kit. Interestingly, the instructions mention attaching the outside frames either to the main frames or to the bottom of the running plate, though it's clear that Malcolm preferred the latter for the very reason you mention. Perhaps the instructions have been updated since your's were printed.

Nick

GW Duke and LSWR L11 now sold out.

4mm or 7mm Duke or both?

Nick

I personally don't think you need the headshunt as I don't think it was one in real life...

Look at Clive's map and take a few measurements. You'll find the length of the spur is far longer than might be needed if the point was there solely to act as a trap on the goods loop. Next look at the point leading to the sidings behind the shed, the two points are almost toe to toe, much closer than the way Andy has drawn them on his plans. I doubt there is enough room for, say, a 4F to pull a couple of wagons out of the back sidings without fouling the main lines unless the spur was used as a headshunt. Fine, if shunting between traffic on the main lines, but shunting would be very restricted once an engine was locked into the yard.

I suspect the 'headshunt' (if such it was) was there to allow an Up freight trip to do its work in the yard clear of any passing trains as it would, obviously, have blocked both through lines if it had done all its shunting off the Up.

Exactly!

Nick

...It also shows that as someone suggested earlier its not so much a Head Shunt as a Sand Drag, finishing not far beyond the length of the Up Point, again I've never modeled a Sand Drag so that will be something new...

I don't understand this 'sand drag' business at all. The length of interest for shunting would be that from buffers to the toe of the first point leading to the lines behind (east of) the goods shed. That distance is around 90% of a grid square on Clive's map, surely enough for an engine and a few wagons. What would be the use of a sand drag here? Wagons don't usually run away up hill

Nick

A Duke would be way too early for the layouts timeframe.Nice as they are...

Not at all, Robin. Eleven of them lasted until 1949 or later having been renumbered in the 9000 series after the war. Of course, they would have been rather drab specimens by then...

Here's an example.

Nick

Yes, I'm fairly sure it's a Duke. The first two digits on the bufferbeam are almost certainly '32' but I'm not certain about the other two. The presence of these numbers makes the photo later than about 1905.

Nick

...However now I know why I could not draw the slips on Dent with Templot. As Jason points out - you can't. Probably lost a week trying!...

Jason's comment was a bit misleading. Perhaps he meant that Templot doesn't do all the work for you. It is quite possible to make any type of slip with the current Templot. Essentially, you create a diamond crossing and add switches and the linking slip rails, though you have to do quite a bit of work to achieve this. First time can be something of a nightmare, but after you've done it once it's fairly straightforward. Video of creating a single slip here with Templot2 and an old page about doing it with earlier versions here. There's also plenty of discussion on the Templot Club pages.

Nick

The image in post 729 shows flat bottom rail, that in post 731 is bullhead. Bullhead uses chairs screwed to the sleepers and keys to hold the rail in position in the chair. Flat bottom is spiked to the sleeper through a base plate.

 

You can probably get an idea of the rail lengths in use at the time from the pictures.

 

I'll guess that bullhead came first but only because for some reason I have the impression of chairs being involved in the days of Rocket and the like.

One point for identifying the rail in the photos, Ray, but none for the rest

Modern flat bottomed rail in the UK is normally clipped to baseplates. Spikes were widely used in the USA, but are not a common feature of British standard gauge lines.

As to Rocket on chaired rails, you must be thinking of a replica, not the original. I believe the L&M originally had wrought iron fish-belly rails on stone pads, though wooden sleepers were used over Chat Moss.

Both flat bottom rails, known as Vignoles rail, and Bullhead were used from the late 1830s though bullhead became more popular once wrought iron could be replaced by steel made by the Bessemer process in the 1870s.

All generalisation, of course, because the history of 19th century rail profiles is rather complex

Nick

You'll find a bit more on types of rail in the Maggs book. On p155 it mentions 90lb/yd rail being laid from 1934, flat bottom at Newton Meadows in 1959 and welded rail on the up line at Kelston in 1963.

Nick

It looks like the Ultrascale wheels may still be available.

Nick

That quote from Andy in #726 sounds like the HM Inspector's report before the opening of the line to traffic.

Yes, it's from Col. Yolland's report delivered on 2/8/1869. I don't know the details of Midland rail at this time, but 20' lengths of 80lb rail sounds right, the GWR were using lengths of this weight and up to 32' at this time. Their 44'6" panels were not introduced until 1898. A photo of Bitton station c1910 on p49 in the Maggs' book that Andy received a few days ago shows a track panel with 11 or 12 sleepers, so probably in the 30-36' range.

On the ballast, I agree with Brian that a carboniferous limestone was most likely, at least in the 20th century, but other materials including some Pennant could have been used in the early days. Given that the cuttings to the north of Bitton station were through Pennant layers, there would have been small rubble as well as building stone available from here. That said, I don't recall seeing Pennant crushed to a suitable size for ballast and I suspect from memory of how it splits it would be a little too angular in shape.

Nick.

edit to correct a date....

...More like a 41XX / 51XX.

...The 41XX tanks included:- 4110, 4115, 4121, 4141, 4144, 4150, 4156, 4157, 4160, 4164 and the 51XX included:- 5164, 5182, 5193, 5199.

Ah, the wonders of GWR class naming. There is really no such thing as a 41XX or 51XX class. All those you list at Barry were members of the 5101 class (5101-10, 5150-99 and 4100-79), not to be confused with the 5100 (originally 3100) class (5100 and 5111-49).

Defo a 61xx

Do tell us how you identify the different steel used in the boiler plates of the 6100s from a photo

Nick