buffalo

Thanks for that photo, Dave. It certainly shows the raised floor, rear of tanks and boxing-in of the drivers. I'm fairly certain that Roxey got that about right. What it doesn't show is the sandbox fillers. Are the sandboxes set into the raised floor? It does look like there would be room for them above and behind the driving wheel. Some photos look like they might show separate sandboxes, e.g.Russell vol 1 figs 374 and 376. The very visible three rivets is a characteristic of the separate floor-mounted sandbox. My only other concern about raised floors, especially the further raised central section as seen here, is that it might require the firebox coal hole to be rather high compared with other GWR designs. Don - sorry, but Collett designs are just a red herring here. You can't remember climbing over anything because, in most cases, the rear sandboxes and their fillers are outside below the running plate. We know the arrangement on most GWR 19th century tanks, certainly once they became fairly standardised from about 1880 onwards. This was to have sandboxes mounted on the floor in front of the bunker, though the floor was not raised. The Metro is unusual in this respect because of the extent to which the drivers impinge on the cab area, in most cases, small splashers were sufficient to cover them. btw, I don't think there is any evidence for red painted regulator and reverser levers before WW1. On the whole, they were polished steel. Nick

I've never seen a good enough cab view of a real Metro either! Dave (Wenlock) has a 7mm one built from a Roxey kit in the galleries. If anything, that appears to support the raised floor idea, so he may be able to clarify. The only other example I can find is 5" gauge one with Belpaire boiler. That shows the wheels boxed in and I've a recollection of seeing the roxey kit partially built that was similar. Other photos show a variety of sandbox/floor heights so there were probably several variations. Whataever the answer, there seems to have been preceious little foot room in those cabs, and I suspect that when you've got a crew in there it will be all but impossible to tell the difference. Nick

That's looking very good, Ian. Having made many of those small parts in 4mm scale, I'm really impressed with what you've done in half the size. I was a little surprised by the sandbox lids set into the floor. Many of the photos and drawings I've looked at show sandboxes between 12" and 16" high sat on the floor immediately inside the cab entrance. You often see crew members standing on them in photos and they must have required climbing over to get in and out. Nick

That's coming on very well, Dave. I still haven't started on mine and I do have some ballast to dig through Interesting to see the MSE 7mm roller boxes as they do have some of the characteristic GWR A shape to them. I have a supply of their 4mm version but they are no more than amorphous lumps of white metal with slots cut in the top. If I can get enough of them, I'll probably use the old Colin Waite etch which gives a reasonable impression of the correct shape. Where do you intend putting the signal box? It looks like the main cluster of rodding is heading for the space beyond the left hand end of the platform. The Peco box looks like it's intended to sit on a platform, the locking gear being in an area excavated below platform height so it would need a taller base if free standing. Otherwise, perhaps with added porch and stair it might be made to look like a small McKenzie & Holland box or one of the similar GWR build of the later 1880s. However, as its only about 12' long (is that including the steps?) it would be worth checking with Mike whether it would be big enough to accommodate a suitable frame for your station. Nick

I haven't a clue, but if you were to ask your question in a suitable place, e.g. the DCC Sound Forum, you're sure to find someone who knows. I'm surprised you haven't yet gathered that blogs are not the right place for questions. Nick

Why not post this is in Modelling Musings? It really has no place in the blogs. Nick

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

Looking good. Will you add the steps later? Nick

Hi Pete, See my comment on your 'poor etching' topic. I reckon the front of the bunker should line up with the rear edge of the lower step. It looks like your revised version is quite close to this. Nick

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

Good to see some more progress. Is 1905 a typo? The first pannier tanks on 850s were fitted in 1910. Nick

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

I'm with Rich on this. Atkins et al. only mention black livery in connection with Z1 and it's just a bald statement with no supporting evidence given. If you look at the various photos on pp 457 and 459, the only examples that could possibly be black all show signs of serious under-exposure. Maybe some were black, but what is the evidence? 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

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

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

4mm or 7mm Duke or both? Nick

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. Exactly! Nick

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

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