Jump to content
 

JimC

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,481

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by JimC

  1. JimC

    2-4-0s, and the Armstrong era in particular

    By JimC,


    Miscellaneous Musings
    When I wrote the first book I was rather guilty of somewhat glossing over the 2-4-0s in the Armstrong and Dean eras. There were so many of them, they were rebuilt so much and I just found them confusing and, dare I say it, not that interesting. I'm paying for it now! Working up my experimental chronologically based GWR locomotive history I'm in into the late 1860s, early 1870s, and they are becoming impossible to avoid! I have to wonder, incidentally, why, with standard goods engines and standard tank engines in numbers there were so many different ones.
    The old Gooch era 149s built by Englands and the Joseph Armstrong's 111 class from Wolverhampton were adequately documented, but then...

    Next was the 439 class. Intriguing beats, because they were an early Joseph Armstrong product at Swindon, and looked almost exactly like broad gauge engines. When they were rebuilt/renewed later just about everything was changed, so there are no clues there. So what do we have? Russell has nothing. No drawings at GWS or NRM. Ahrons in British steam has nothing I can see. RCTS has one rather unclear photograph and a bare minimum of dimensions. There was a thread here some years ago, but even @MikeOxon doesn't seem to  have found much other than a slightly better version of the same photograph. So I wondered about Ahrons original article in "The Locomotive". You may be aware that Ahrons wrote a whole series of articles on early GWR locomotives for the Locomotive, typically illustrated with his simple line drawings, which have been widely reproduced, notably in Holcroft's books and his own "British Steam Locomotive", and which I have made wide use of for my drawings. I discovered, to my surprise and delight, that the RCTS archives are at Leatherhead station, just a few miles from where I live, and they have a complete run of"The Locomotive". So I joined up and yesterday spent a useful but very chilly couple of hours perusing the bound issues. And yes, Ahrons does cover the 439s in the magazine issue. But the article was written a few years after the previous one, and he is eschewing his line drawings for photographs, which for the 1870s are presumably increasingly available. And I turned to it and:



    Yes, its the same photograph, although the reproduction is better so it's a lot clearer. It's a nice profile at least, I could do a hell of a lot worse.

    Now this morning I've come to the 481s, which were the next batch at Swindon. Very much the same dimensions, but visually quite unlike. And another I happily glossed over in the book. And what do I find in RCTS? A similarly tiny profile photo. In Russell - only the renewals, again rather different, and in Holcroft little enough too. So, slightly discouraged, I'm writing this blog post to let off steam! Really I don't think there's much of a way round it, I need to produce something. Perhaps I should make them plain line outlines and much more diagramattic than my usual ones to make it plain they are, well, rather sketchy sketches!
     
  2. JimC

    Barry Locomotive Sketches

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    Well, I've covered all the main Barry classes in varying levels of detail as my fancy and my sources permit. The other absorbed lines won't be nearly as simple - the Barry Railway was founded late and had a particularly organised and disciplined locomotive policy. There are some obvious books on the Barry Railway locomotives for those who wish to learn more. My main references have been "The Barry Railway Diagrams and photographs of Locomotives Coaches and Wagons" by Eric R Mountford, Oakwood Press 1987, ISBN 0 83561 355 9, Russell's "A Pictorial Record of Great Western Absorbed Engines", Oxford Publishing Co, 1978, and RCTS Part 10 - Absorbed Engines 1922-1947, 1966. I haven't been able to justify to my self purchasing the Welsh Railway Circle's Barry Railway Drawings, but its companion volume Rhymney Railway Drawings is an excellent publication, and I imagine this one is just as good and much more readily available than the older volumes. The drawings are to a larger scale too which is always a good thing.
    There are also on line sources for photographs, almost too many to mention, search engines being your friend, but this flickr collection by Nick Baxter and the 813 fund's collections deserve a plug.
    For those who haven't tried the exercise of interpreting drawings and photographs, this page covers how I go about it. The sketches are strictly representative. Unless you have a full works general arrangement drawing its difficult to have much confidence about a inch or sometimes three here and there - weights diagrams aren't nearly as accurate as one might hope - and the minefield of locomotive condition against date, not to mention the problems of understanding what you are looking at, means nothing is truly set in stone. In general when I haven't understood something I've omitted it. Pipework and inside valve gear especially.  In answer to the always vexed question of liveries, drawing out lining is a royal pain in the neck and doesn't in my opinion add very much to the legibility of the sketches, so I don't do it! I've given rudimentary colours to the sketches because it looks prettier than grayscale, and the contrast between the pre group and GWR green helps make it obvious which is which.
     
  5. JimC

    Barry Railway B1 Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    This sketch is of the second B1 class which was originally designated B2. The first B1 class was based on the B class with an upgraded boiler and was merged into the B class when the originals also received the upgraded boiler. This B1 class had larger side tanks and a greater water capacity than the earlier locomotives.
     
     
     
  6. JimC

    Barry Railway C Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    Built by Sharp Stewart, the C class originally comprised four small 2-4-0T, without the standard boiler used by most Barry Railway classes. In 1898 two were converted to 2-4-2T, and the other two, one also converted to 2-4-2T, were sold to the Port Talbot Railway. Both the Barry locomotives were gone by 1928, even though one received a major rebuild with a Metro boiler. 
     
     
  7. JimC

    Barry Railway D Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    I've rather struggled with this one. There were only four of them, and they were all built by one builder. How difficult can it be? Well, one source of confusion was that I had 4 drawings, one Barry weight diagram, two GWR weight diagrams and a distorted photo of a drawing by Trefor L. Jones, whose work is generally excellent, but I think may have been struggling with some of the same issues. They were contradictions all over the place. I also had few photos, and all of those were front 3/4 view, so particularly muddy in the tender region. 
    So lets go through some of the issues, and the choices I made. 
    These locomotives were built by Sharp Stewarts for the Swedish and Norwegian Railway, and the Barry acquired them. They were from two different batches, and the first ones were acquired unused, but the second two were older and had seen some service in Norway. The first two were Barry 35/6, GWR 1387/8, and the second two Barry 92/3, GWR 1389/90.
    The first sketch is intended to represent 35 and 36 from around 1902 when they received the tender weatherboards.  At this stage the locomotives seem to have been mostly used for heavy local coal trains in the Barry area.

    In 1909 however the Barry decided that the second two should haul main line coal traffic, and they were modified with new boilers, and new cabs, and the tenders given increased water capacity. All the references state the increased water capacity was from adding a well tank between the frames, but I think in photos I see the tank above the frames as having been extended to the end of the frames, and so I've chosen to draw that. I don't have anything that gives me any clues about the well tank. Another puzzle is the cutout in the tender frames. Both the later GWR weight diagram (B) and Jones draw a cutout coming nearer to the top of the frames, but I don't see that in photographs, so I've chosen to ignore that. Another feature drawn in GWR diag B and Jones is coal fenders on the tender, but there's no photographic evidence for these and RCTS states they weren't fitted so I've chosen to omit them. 

    On the locomotives there is variation in sanding arrangements. According to the photos at least 1390 lost the big sandbox alongside the firebox and had it replaced by one in the cab, so I've attempted to reproduce that.
    So the second drawing is intended to be representative of the second two in their GWR days, but the only external modifications that are GWR are the safety valve cover and chimney. Other differences from the first drawing were made in Barry days. The first two retained the round side window cab and tender weatherboard into GWR days, although at least one of them acquired a GWR safety valve cover.
    Other issues - tender brakes were especially contradictory, and the result is little better than a guess. I'm also getting footplate height variations between drawings, so I'm not as confident as I might be about some of the detail and proportions in that sort of area. 
    But for what its worth, this is my first pass at this interesting and unusual class, but modelers especially should note all my caveats. The NRM have an appreciable collection of detail drawings from the D as well as the weight diagrams. I can't possibly justify purchasing copies, but the prospective modeler might want to consider a trip to York to see if they provide more useful information.
  8. JimC

    Barry Railway E Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    A class of five small lightweight 0-6-0T, numbered 781-5 by the GWR. Two survived to join British Railways but were gone by 1950, whilst three went to industrial use in the 1930s and lasted to 1958/60. Only one received a really major GWR rebuild, which included a non standard Swindon designed boiler as well as GWR style cab and bunker. 

    There are complexities around the E class bunkers! 781, 783 and 785 had an upward extension of the bunker with coal plates in Barry days, but 782 and 784 did not - or at least had lost it in their GWR time. I've drawn it in the Barry sketch. There are various problems with the GWR weight diagrams. Diagram A82, which was purportedly the locomotives as received shows the wrong shape cab entrance and the bunker too low. Diagram B5 ,which only applied to 782, shows a GWR shaped bunker that was never fitted. The locomotive appears to have had a new bunker at that rebuild, but it was a plain rectangle, taller than the Barry bunkers and about the same height as the extensions.  783 had a more major rebuild for Diagram B21 and did have a GWR style bunker. Another feature is balance weights on the wheels. I often leave these off as being tricky to manage accurately, but in the case of the E class only 782 appears to have had them. The generous supply of handrails seen on the Barry sketch may not have been present on every locomotive. They had quite an array of pipework behind the safety valve cover which I haven't managed to understand well enough to reproduce.
  9. JimC

    Barry Railway F Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    The F class was very similar to the A class except for the saddle tank. The F class is one of the trickier ones to sketch out, because there were several different batches from builders, and variations between the batches, front overhang for example, definitely existed. There are two styles of foot plate valance too.  The first five at least had a straight valance, the remainder curved as drawn. 
     

     
    This second sketch shows a lightly swindonised version of the F class, still with the Barry boiler and bunker, but GWR safety valves and cover and several other standard Swindon fittings.
     

     
  10. JimC

    Barry Railway G Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    This was an interesting one to draw too. The nicely drawn Barry weight diagram is dimensioned with a front overhang of 6ft 7in, but the drawing scales some 5 inches less! I've gone with the written dimension, which is the safer option with workshop drawings.
     
     

  11. JimC

    Barry Railway H Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    This is a early version sketch of a Barry H class. There are some puzzles. Photos appear to show a much narrower dome than the various weight diagrams, Barry and GW, which I've tried to reproduce. More problems come from the underframe being in shadows on most photographs. No brakes shoes on the leading driving wheel, and although I've drawn them the same, I have a suspicion the brake gear on the second pair of drivers was different to the other two. Finally the best profile shot of the L/H side of a locomotive I found shows a very prominent injector (I think) with a large diameter pipe leading a few inches below the footplate to a box like structure between the 1st and 2nd driving wheels, but I can't make any sign of it out in the shadows in any other photos I've found. No sign of it in drawings in Mountford and Russell. I try to avoid drawing injectors unless I have a very good reference as they are such a pain to get looking vaguely right, but if the universal fitment was as per this locomotive then I shall have to make the attempt. However I note that RCTS states that the locomotives started life with an exhaust steam injector which was fairly soon removed, so I wonder if its that early fitment that I am looking at. Anyone know?

     
  12. JimC

    Barry Railway J Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    The J Class. Another fairly early version of this sketch. Interesting to compare the J class 2-4-2T with the G Class 0-4-4T. They both use the standard Barry boiler and cylinders, but the J is a longer and heavier locomotive with considerably more coal and water capacity. Sadly I don't know enough about locomotive design to understand the pros and cons of the 0-4-4 and 2-4-2 wheel arrangements. I need to focus a bit more on the differences between the Sharp, Stewart and Hudswell Clarke versions of the J class, and make sure this isn't some kind of uneasy blend. There's also the problem of dates, since they did have some changes over their lives with the Barry Railway. Its sometimes said that its as easy to get models right as wrong, and presumably the same is said of sketches like mine, but I find it an endless struggle to get a reasonable stab at the details. To say the least its rare to find a set of photographs taken from all angles of a single locomotive on a single date, and even then you'd need dimensioned drawings as well. Also one really needs to become expert on the locomotives of a given railway, and I'm more of a generalist. I'll recommend again the work of the Welsh Railway Research Circle when it comes to studying these locomotives. I was surprised to see more brightwork on the photographs of these than I've sketched for other Barry classes, and I had better go back and check the other passenger types at some stage.
     
     
  13. JimC

    Barry Railway K Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    This first sketch is aimed at being post war, but pre grouping.
     
    In 1899, the Barry railway desperately needed some new locomotives, but all British builders were at full capacity. To resolve this, the five locomotives of the K class was ordered from Cooke Loco and Machine Co in the USA. It seems the Barry railway really wanted something as close as possible to the B1 class and the Americans wanted to build something as close as possible to their standard product. The result was a decidedly odd hybrid, with the top and rear halves largely complying with Barry standards, and the front and bottom halves  - the cylinders and the frames - pure US with bar frames, outside cylinders and all. The combination does not appear to have been a happy one, and yet when the GWR got their hands on them they elected to rebuild two in the best GWR style with Standard 3 taper boiler and full GWR side tanks, cab and bunkers. They were numbered 193-197. The rebuilds do not seem to have been significantly more satisfactory and all were scrapped between 1927 and 1932, no industrial user having elected to purchase one.
     
     
    This sketch represents the two rebuilt with Std 3 boilers. The sketch owes as much to an excellent photo in Russell as to the weight diagram.

    I had some trouble with this one. Its the muddy shadows under the footplate, and the fact that aspects of the design are so alien. The original Barry weight diagram contains a dimensional error, which complicates my method of tracing weight diagrams as the starting point for my sketches.  The odd mix of US and British practice also complicates things, because I sometimes had trouble establishing in my mind what a line represented. I hope there aren't too many errors. I was having so much trouble getting a feel for what was happening under the footplate that I even reluctantly looked at photographs of a model, which is of course a desperate and highly dangerous step indeed. In the event all I really achieved with that is spot a number of things which obviously the modeller had failed to work out either and omitted. Sensible man!
    Under the footplate is really troublesome, and particularly against the firebox between the second and third drivers. I also can't work out where the front sand pipe and sand box is, and the brake rigging looks odd too. I think the brake cylinder might be horizontal between the cylinders, which is quite unlike anything else I've sketched!
    The weights diagrams from the Barry (in Mountford) and GWR (in Russell) have been major sources, although as above there's a dimensional error in the Barry diagram which the GWR apparently caught in the first drawing in Russell. Interesting, BTW, that like Churchward's US inspired locomotives, the cylinders are horizontal with their centre line above that of the wheels.
     
  14. JimC

    Barry Railway L Class

    By JimC,


    Barry Railway Locomotive Sketches
    These ten locos, built in 1914, discarded the old Barry standards and were a bigger loco overall with a much bigger boiler and a very large bunker. They were generally considered successful with the exception of a serious and strange flaw. When running forwards the rear coupled wheels had a tendency to switch points as they passed through them, sending the trailing bogie down the other branch. In reverse, they were fine. Naturally this resulted in an immediate derailment, and this was usually coupled with a fracture of a main water distribution pipe. This lost all the water, meaning the fire had to be immediately thrown out.
    On absorption, they were numbered 1347-1355 and 1357 and given diagram B. Four were rebuilt in 1922 with Standard 4 boilers, the first Welsh class to receive such a major change. This was allocated diagram C. In 1926, with the loss in traffic resulting from the General Strike, it appears the GWR lost patience with their reluctance to stay on the track and all were scrapped in short order.
    1356, by the way, was allocated to an 0-6-0T locomotive that had been built for the Severn and Wye Railway, had been taken over by the GWR in 1895, rebuilt by the GWR in 1896, sold to the Alexandra Docks and Railway Co in 1912, and then resumed its 1895 number when it came back to the GWR at the grouping.
  15. JimC
    From 1925 the GWR fitted a pair of 5 1/8 diameter flue tubes in the upper corners of untapered boilers that had belpaire fireboxes, pressure 165psi and above and no superheater. This is reckoned to have reduced cracking in the corners of the firebox. Tapered boilers like the 94xx never had this feature, but it was seen on all post 1934 designs and also on replacement boilers on smaller pre group pannier tanks and side tanks like 850s, 2021s and I think 517s. Did any other lines use this design feature?
     
    I would imagine, BTW, it was a pragmatic innovation, based on experience, rather than theory. Plenty of P class boilers on pannier tanks had been superheated before 1925, with a single row of flue tubes, and by this date the superheater elements were being removed. If those boilers were seeing a significant reduction in problems then it was an obvious thing to try. It wasn't done on the taper boilers.
     
    It seems to have been first used on replacement boilers for small pre group pannier tanks, 850s and 2021s, in 1925. The Std 11 boiler of 1924, which was basically a variation on the Metro boiler didn't have them, although the Std 21 on the 54s 64s and 74s, which was a Std 11 with a drum head smokebox, did. 
     
    Worth noting that although P class (and other) boilers were standard and interchangeable on the outside there were any number of different tube arrangements tried on the inside during the Churchward era. Tube layout was clearly a preoccupation in the drawing office. 
     
  16. JimC

    Book Format for Locomotive Development

    By JimC,


    Miscellaneous Musings
    I'm mulling over something different in the way of formats. Traditionally locomotive books have been written class by class, which in many ways is the most logical way to do it. But the trouble is that its difficult to get a sense of how design developed. Say for instance, you're looking at GWR 0-6-0 freight engines. You list the 57 class and its history from a cabless domeless sandwich frame locomotive in 1855 with Gooch motion, then maybe the renewals around the mid 1870s which were almost new locomotives, domes boilers,  Stephenson link etc, and then typical 1890s boilers, even Belpaire fireboxes before being withdrawn mostly in the 1910s. Then you jump back to the 79s in 1857, and a similar story, and so it proceeds, jumping between eras and what by the end of their lives are very different locomotives. Which is fine, and its conventional because it works for most people, but it makes it very difficult to gain a picture of how the design school was progressing. A Dean Goods at the end of the class service life in the 40s and 50s was a very different beast to the first built Dean Goods in the early 1880s, and maybe it makes as much or even more sense to look at it alongside a 2251 as opposed to an Armstrong Goods?

    So then I got to thinking, OK, lets look at it over a time line. The most extreme version would be to use a format of annals - literally year by year, So sort of 

    "1903.
    Of the 60 locomotives built this year, most were transitional Dean/Churchward types with Churchward boilers. There were 10 Aberdares with Std 4 tapered boilers without top feed and slide valves. 27 Bulldogs, which mostly had second hand parallel barrel Std 2 boilers, although the last ten had short cone taper boilered Std 2s. The reason for the second hand boilers was that the original plan was for a sort of super Bulldog with a Std 4 boiler, but in the event these were used to upgrade Aberdares instead. The ten new Cities, fitted with Std 4 boilers were also built this year as were a further 10 of the 36xx 2-4-2Ts. Most notable, however, was the start of the Churchward revolution. The 2nd and 3rd prototype Saints 98 and 171, the 28xx, No 97 and the large Prairie No 99 all appeared this year, the first with the Churchward front end with integrated cylinders/saddle. The DeGlehn  no 102 also made its first appearance this year. Arguably this was year the final form of the British steam locomotive appeared.
    Then illustrations of a City and the Churchward prototypes perhaps."

    An alternate approach would be to do periods of design, for instance Churchward/Dean Transition and Churchward Standards. That would separate the 36xx, Aberdare, Std boilers on 4-4-0s and the Std 2/4 boiler era from the true outside cylinder era, and in many ways would be a lot more readable, but on the other hand there would be big overlaps, with transition types like the Bird and Flower as late as 1908, but the outside cylinders starting in 1903. On the other hand it would be a lot more readable.

    What do you think folks? Would you be more likely to purchase a book based on timelines? Rigidly as annals, or more flexible with eras?

     
  17. JimC

    Cambrian Small Side Tank (2-4-0T) Class

    By JimC,


    Cambrian Railway Sketches
    Three small side tank locomotives from Sharp Stewart, delivered in 1866. They received a significant reworking in Cambrian days which altered their appearance considerably. All survived to the GWR, who proposed to scrap two of them immediately, but they were reprieved and numbered 1192, 1196 and 1197. They soon received the full GWR treatment above the footplate. The boilers were thoroughly overhauled with top feed added and they were given new GWR smokeboxes, tanks, cab and bunkers. Thus utterly transformed they resumed work, normally on the very weight-restricted Tanat Valley line. One was scrapped in 1929 but the other two soldiered on until 1948, becoming British Railways locomotives and running over a million miles each.
    A difficult one to draw, because they all had minor variations and the GWR changed the bunkers twice. Lets not be too precious as to whether every feature in the sketch was on any one locomotive at the same time, but this is intended to show the second bunker enlargement. 
    This drawing is very much influenced by the 7mm drawings in Welsh Railway Records Vol 4 - Cambrian Railways Drawings Part 1 : 1853-1892, which has just been published and is much recommended. I've also grabbed photos and so on. I find the safety valve cover rather unconvincing in some drawings and models. Maybe this one is better! This little class has a somewhat higher profile than one might expect due to being the subject of an old school white metal kit in 4mm, and an etched brass one in 7mm. Also, I suspect because they were notably cute in GWR form and more photographed than one might expect. 

  18. JimC

    Cardiff Railway 33 Class

    By JimC,


    Cardiff Railway Locomotive Sketches
    These large 0-6-2Ts were built by Kitsons in 1908, and, according to RCTS, with the obvious exception of tanks and bunker, were virtually identical to Taff Vale O4s. Its not immediately obvious to me why this should be, as the O4s were never built by Kitsons. I shall be interested when I get to the Taff Vale classes. The obvious feature of the class of 3, in common with some other Cardiff classes, was the long tanks, heavily sloped at the front. I can't make my mind up whether I like this or not aesthetically! Anyway this is the sole GWR reboilering of the 33 class, which lasted until 1953. One of its sisters was withdrawn in 1930 and cut up in 1934 after failing to find a buyer, and the other, withdrawn in 1934, was soon sold into industry, and survived into 1960, just a few years too early to have a chance of preservation.
     
  19. JimC

    Cross-fertilisation in design... Locomotive/Marine

    By JimC,


    Miscellaneous Musings
    Browsing through Steamindex having awoken in the early hours I happened on a mention (by LA Summers) of a GWR Dean era proposal for a water tube boiler on a 4-4-0. You'd think that came out of nowhere, but a couple of months ago I was given sight of part of the Swindon drawing office register of drawings for the time when the 3521  0-4-2Ts were being worked on. One thing that struck me was the number of drawings being produced at Swindon for the GWR's ships. They clearly didn't maintain a separate drawing office or outsource at least some marine work, even though I don't think Swindon designed their own ships.
    It also seemed evident that at least some draughtsmen worked on both marine and rail drawings. I'm not going to double check now, but if memory serves me right a young G. J. Churchward worked on drawings for a marine boiler. One assumes, too, that at least the keener young draughtsmen would be readers of trade publications like 'The Engineer' which covered a very wide range of engineering topics.
    Now I think of it I'm also reminded of Cook's tale of how big end lubrication for Kings, Castles and eventually LNER A4s was sorted out with inspiration from the design of a machine tool in Swindon Works. Collett did his apprenticeship with Maudsley's, a very high status marine engineering firm too. 
    We're accustomed to think of a silo mentality in railway design in the 20thC, and there certainly was some of that, but equally the above suggests that design staff had a rather wider range of experience than we might expect. 
  20. JimC

    Dean's Larger Tank Engines

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    This is something of a followup from discussion in another Blog entry,  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/24891-gwr-no-34-1890/ and is also relevant to this one. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/24922-gwr-3521-0-4-2t-and-0-4-4t/. As I said, I'm beginning to further appreciate what a weird and largely unsuccessful bunch Dean's larger tank engines were, and what a contrast in style they were from the smaller 6 wheeled engines, conventional, successful and very long lived, and heavily based on Armstrong originals. So this is a sort of brain dump/request for comments.
    What struck me in the previous thread is that there does seem to be something of a common style to the larger Dean tanks, quite separate to the Armstrong derived Metros and Metro derivatives, very conventional and with six or eight reasonably evenly spaced wheels. 
    It seems to me that I can categorise the larger ones as:
    1880, No 1, 4-4-0T. Rebuilt 1882 as a more conventional 2-4-0 and in that form survived until 1924.
    1881, No 9, 4-2-4T. Never went into service, and has attracted a good amount of writing and speculation.
    1885, 3501 Class 2-4-0T. Broad gauge convertible versions of the Stella Tank.
    1885, 3511 Class 2-4-0T. 'Stella tank'. A tank engine version of the Stella 2-4-0 and part of a group of closely related locomotives that also included the 1661 Class 0-6-0ST and 2361 class 0-6-0.
    1886, No 13, 2-4-2WT. Rebuilt 1897 as a 4-4-0ST and in that form survived until1926.
    1887, 3521 Class, 0-4-2T. Converted to 0-4-4T 1891/2 and rebuilt as 4-4-0 tender engines from 1899.
    1888, 3541 Class, 0-4-2ST. Broad Gauge half sisters of the 3521s, converted to 0-4-4 1890/1, narrow gauge 1891/2 and rebuilt as 4-4-0 tender engines from 1899.
    1890, 34 Class, 0-4-2ST, converted to 0-4-4ST in 1895 and as such ran until 1906/8.
    1891, 1345 Class. 0-4-4S/WT. Rebuilt from ex Monmouthshire Railway 0-6-0ST absorbed in 1880. Withdrawn between 1908 and 1913.
    1898, No 1490. 4-4-0PT sold 1907.

    I don't think I'll consider the Stella family much in this exercise, it seems to me that they are a separate line of development. What I'm particularly interested in for this is the Swindon built 0-4-2/0-4-4T locomotives which seem to me to embody a common style.
     
  21. JimC

    Errors/Inaccuracies etc

    By JimC,


    Miscellaneous Musings
    Mistakes. We all make them, and if I was immune I wouldn't have to publish this errata sheet for my [hopefully first] book. 
    https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/errata/GWRlocoDevelopmentErrataFirstEdition.pdf
     
    At the moment I've been going through some of my sketches for the book, improving some of the older ones where I think I can do better now, and adding some new ones where I can.
    I reuse everything I can, so coming to do a 79 class (1858 0-6-0) based on the Ahrons drawing in Holcroft's Armstrongs of the Great Western, I resolved to use as much as possible of my drawing of the slightly earlier and very similar 57 class. All well and good,and inside frames and motion went easily, whilst different size wheels are scarcely a problem, just count the spokes. So I got to the boiler. A quick cross check in RCTS confirmed that the principal dimensions  are recorded as being the same, so I anticipated a straight copy and paste. Pasted it in and... Well, just didn't match. 
    An overlay of three of the Ahrons drawings in Holcroft (see below) seems to suggest that his 57 boiler is just a little short. I've lined up 57, 79 and 121 drawings in the image below and you can see the variation. 
     
     

     
    So what to do. The trouble is although we have boiler dimensions in RCTS, they are inside the cladding, so of limited use. So do I go with my source, or do I conjecturally amend? Rightly or wrongly I'm taking the view that as these are my sketches, not Ahrons, and as I claim to be doing more than simply copying his work, I'm going to change the boiler on the 57 to be what I think it probably was, rather than reflect the source. It was a nasty surprise though.
     
    As a little something to amuse further, here's two other things I picked up. This is a page extract from C J Freezer's "Locomotives in Outline, GWR". You can see that my copy has angry pencil annotations.  I was very detuned when I put these in, because I'd put the statement about lever reverse in the book, and had to make a desperate last second change as it went to the printers, for the proof had already been approved. Fainter are the words "Too short" above the bunker. Freezer had unaccountably drawn the same rear overhang on his 94 drawing as on a 57, which is of course too short, and there are all sorts of distortions of bunker door cutout and roof to cram it all in. 
     


    Compare the proportions on the real 94.
     

     
    (photo 9466 group on Facebook)
  22. JimC

    ex P&M Brush built 0-4-0s 795 and 921

    By JimC,


    Smaller Absorbed Line Sketches
    Powlesland and Mason were not really a railway as such. They provided cartage and locomotive haulage on the trackwork of the Swansea Harbour Trust, which also owned its own locomotives. At the grouping they had nine 0-4-0ST from five different manufacturers. These two, built in 1903 and 1906, were among the last steam locomotives built by the Brush Electrical Engineering Co. This is the same Brush company, give or take a few mergers and acquisitions, that was and is a significant builder of diesel electric locomotives. They had taken over the the Falcon Engine & Car Works Ltd in 1889, which had built steam locomotives for P&M amongst others.
    Powlesland & Mason locomotives came to the GWR in January 1924, late in the grouping, and were given a rather random collection of numbers – and number plates – reused from locomotives absorbed earlier that had already been withdrawn. 795 was given a considerable rebuild in 1926. This included a new boiler to a different design, and, uniquely for an 0-4-0T, pannier tanks. These were short tanks and didn't cover the firebox. 921 didn't receive such dramatic changes but did receive a GWR combined dome/safety valve cover. Both were sold on to industry in 1928/9. 795 was scrapped in the early 1960s, but 921 survives and is preserved, although has not run in preservation.
     
     
     

     

     
    An earlier version of this page included the following request for assistance, which explains the earlier part of the discussion.
     
    These - well, perhaps just 795 in its extra cute pannier tank form - are going to be my next sketch. What I could do with, though, is a really square side on photograph to get the rods and cylinders right. I have a GW weight diagram, but it has no detail. All the photos I've found on line of 921 are at something of an angle. This one isn't bad, but squarer would be better. Any offers? 
     
  24. JimC

    First use of injectors?

    By JimC,


    Information required
    RCTS states "Up to 1865 the general practice was to use crosshead driven pumps... At that date the Giffard injector (invented in 1859) was
    introduced on the GWR.".

    Which begs the question, what classes, were they rapidly retrofitted etc etc.  Does anyone know any more?
     
    There's a photo in RCTS (Part 4 D113) of a 322 (Beyer) no 334 "as built by Beyer Peacock in 1864" which would appear to have an injector fitted. Similarly D119 shows a 360 class with injector, but the caption makes it clear the photo is not quite in as built condition. An Ahrons drawing in Holcroft's "Armstrongs" (p66) shows 361 in very early condition with the injector, but drawings of the slightly earlier 110 and 111 do not.
     
    So from this very sketchy information one might surmise that injectors came to the GWR with the Beyer, and started to be fitted to Swindon products with the 360 class. Anyone know if that's accurate? The trouble is the RCTS photo could just as easily be an experimental fitting, or, if they were rapidly introduced, simply very early installations to existing locomotives.  Thoughts?
     
  25. JimC
    The 'Victory' class was a class of ten built in 1917 for the Inland Waterways and Docks dept. Post war they were sold off by the Railways Operating Department, mostly to collieries. There's a detailed history here at Planet industrials. 
     
    The ADR bought two of these from the ROD. They had outside cylinders and were quite powerful locomotives. They were numbered 666/7 on absorption. They received a moderate Swindon rebuild. Another had been purchased by the Brecon & Merthyr. This loco was numbered 2161. It was given a significant overhaul in 1922.
    The B&M loco was sold in 1929, and lasted to 1951 in colliery service. Both the ADR locos reached British Railways.

    This sketch of the beast is intended to portray the later GWR configuration on at least some of the class with GWR dome and safety valve cover. They seem to have had new tanks in GWR days with prominent riveting, but I don't do rivets in my sketches. The drawing owes a lot to Planet Industrials and in particular the Don Townsley drawing on the web page for their upcoming model. However the beast is completely redrawn, and, for instance, I've steered something of an intermediate course between the GWR weight diagram B13 and the Townsley drawing on some aspects, notably cab window position.
×
×
  • Create New...