Jump to content
 

JimC

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,478

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by JimC

  1. 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locomotives, domes boilers,  Stephenson link etc, and then typical 1890s boilers, even Belpaire fireboxes before being withdrawn mostly in the 1910s.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?

     
  2. 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!
     
  3. JimC

    GWR 1741 (655) Class

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    Enthusiasts often refer to this Wolverhampton built class as the 655 class, but the GWR usually described them as 1741s. Thirty-two were built from 1892. They were essentially similar to the earlier 645 and 1501 classes, but were just a little larger with longer overhangs front and rear. The bunker was actually the same size as the 1501 bunker, so the extra three inches of overhang presumably provided more room in the cab. Again they were built with T class boilers. They were numbered rather eccentrically: the first two, 655 and 767, were given numbers previously used by 645s that had been sold. The rest were numbered 1741-1750 and 1771-1790.
    Almost a subclass were the last 'large' Wolverhampton engines, 2701 to 2720, built 1896/7. The boilers were T class, but had small dimensional variations. Otherwise they were very similar to the 1741s.
    The 655/1741/2701s tended to merge with the earlier 645 and 1501 classes as time went on. They were fitted with the larger P class Belpaire boilers and pannier tanks. The majority were given enlarged bunkers. Around half were superheated at one stage in their lives and a number gained enclosed cabs.
    By the 1930s all four classes/sub classes were being treated as a single class.
    Some were scrapped in the 1930s, but most survived the war. Some twenty-one made it onto the BR books and the last were scrapped in 1950.
     
    There were five diagrams for the 1741s and 2701s, covering the variations in boilers and tanks. The last diagram, B65, covered 645, 1501, 1741 and 2701 classes, demonstrating how the classes had merged as they were updated.
     
     

     
    This first sketch is rather loosely based on diagram M, but the cab in particular has been amended from photos. A cab entrance with a single large radius as shown seemed to be something of a Wolverhampton thing. Swindon cabs usually had a larger radius on the bottom of the cutout than the top. This is the T class boiler, which was pitched appreciably lower than the later P class. Oddly the precise combination of dome position , firebox and T class boiler on the GWR diagram is not known to have actually been fitted to the class. Fortunately for my sketch the firebox top is hidden anyway.
     

    This is more closely based on diagram A18, the first diagram with the P class boiler The odd stumpy chimney was by no means universal on this variation.
     
     

     
    This sketch is based on diagram A42, which is an earlier pannier tank fitment with the P class boiler.
     

     
    And finally this is based on diagram B65, with a full length cab roof and a much extended bunker.  The resemblance to the 57s is getting quite marked, but pre group Wolverhampton locomotives could always be recognised by the footplate valance and the shape of the front step.

    Its important to note that the sketches show just a few of a considerable number of variations. The Wolverhampton pre group classes are something of a modeller's nightmare, since Wolverhampton had their own style, but Swindon tended to put Swindon design features on locomotives that came into their hands. So photos, photos.
     
     
     
  4. JimC

    GWR No 34 0-4-4T (1890)

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    One of a pair of small 0-4-4T constructed under Dean, its believed for branch lines with heavy curvature. They were superficially similar in concept to the ill-starred 3521 class, but considerably smaller, and like the 3521s went through a good number of changes in their early years. They started life in 1890 as 0-4-2 saddle tanks, with the same layout of much shorter spacing between the driving wheels than between the trailing drivers and the trailing wheels. In 1895 they were altered to the form shown, with a water tank in the bunker as well as the short side tanks. In this form they served for a few more years. The second, no 35, was condemned in 1906, whilst No 34, which had acquired a fully enclosed cab along the way, was sold to the army in 1908 and spent the next few years at the Longmoor Military Railway until condemned in 1921.
     
     

    This second sketch is based on the only photo I've found showing the full cab, taken on the St Ives branch. Sadly the junction of the bunker and the cab is entirely speculative as the photograph has someone leaning on the relevant area. Its based on the treatment of that area on the 36xx, 2-4-2Ts, but they don't have the deep Dean style cab cut out, so I'm not altogether convinced.
    Strictly speaking I ought to have drawn lining, but its a great deal of trouble, and gives very problematic reproduction if drawn to scale. At the scale I produce these sketches a 1/8in line is about a quarter of a pixel wide...
  5. JimC

    GWR 1392/1393 Class 0-6-0T (ex Cornwall Mineral Railway)

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    An interesting class, not least because they were significant as being the basis of the design of the 1361 and 1366 classes.
     
    In their original form the locomotives did not look much like this, being side tanks with no back to the cab and intended to be used in pairs operated by a single crew. They were built by Sharp Stewart for the Cornwall Minerals Railway. The designer is a little obscure. Its apparently credited to an F. Trevithick.  Francis Trevithick, son of the great pioneer, had formerly been Locomotive superintendent of the Northern division of the LNWR and was resident in Cornwall at the time working as Factor for the Tehidy Estate, which had considerable mineral connections. One of his subordinates had been Alexander Allan, inventor of the eponymous valve gear, with which these locomotives were fitted. There were other F. Trevithicks, but he seems to be considered most likely. 
     
    The GWR took over running the line in 1877, but only acquired nine of the line’s eighteen identical locomotives as the other nine were pledged as security against various debts and were sold separately. 
    The GWR numbered their locos 1392-1400. In 1883/4 they were all converted to saddle tanks and given a rear frame extension to provide a conventional cab and bunker. They received a variety of cabs, tanks and bunkers over the years and were twice reboilered, the second time with 1361 class boilers, but were otherwise little altered. One was sold in 1883 and 1392 scrapped after a collision in 1906, but otherwise they survived into the 1930s.  After 1392 was scrapped the class became known as the 1393 class! At the 1912 renumbering 1400 was renumbered 1398, being the number of the loco sold in 1883.
     
    In GWR history they were significant as being the basis of the design of the 1361 and 1366 classes. Harry Holcroft tells the story of "a roll of musty old drawings" being deposited at his drawing board, which were those of the 1392s, which he was instructed to use to design a complete new class. 
     


     
    This sketch is partly based on a 19thC weight diagram which is minimal in the extreme, and partly on 20thC photographs. I think its hopefully reasonably representative of an 20thC configuration for the class, although I've had to rely a little more on the known similarity to the 1361 class as is perhaps advisable. Later weight diagrams exist and it would be interesting to see those to try and tie things down a little more.  
  6. JimC

    GWR No 92

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    No 92 was one of five small 0-4-0STs, superficially rather similar in appearance, but which were not treated as a class.  With one exception they were late 19thC Wolverhampton reconstructions of older locomotives, and by the end of their long lives probably retained few original parts. 
    The first of the group was no 45, built in 1880, which was a new engine, albeit given the number of a Sharp Stewart built locomotive withdrawn a very few years earlier. It had the odd feature of a cab that was only accessible from the right hand side. 
     
    The next to appear were 95 and 96,which were originally Sharp Stewart built for the Birkenhead Railway, and their cabs only had entrances on the left hand side. In their final form they had rather vestigial spectacle plates at each end of the cab and a rather minimal roof. They were substantially reconstructed at Wolverhampton in 1890 and 1888 respectively when they received new boilers.
     
    No 92 started life as two 0-4-2 saddle tanks, 91 & 92, built for the GWR by Beyer Peacock in 1857. In  1877/8, one good 0-4-0ST, 92 was made from the two. In 1893 it received a very major rebuild at Wolverhampton to gain basically the appearance shown here. Amazingly, it then survived until 1942, albeit only as a stationary engine in its latter years. A similar loco, 342, was built by Beyer Peacock in 1856, and bought by the GWR in 1864. This had a similar life to 92, converted to 0-4-0ST in 1881 and rebuilt in 1897.   The original 0-4-2ST form can be seen in this blog entry. 
     
     
    A peculiarity of all these five was that the design had the firebox behind the trailing wheels with a distinctive long overhang. The result was much greater weight on the trailing wheels than the driving wheels and this high load on the second axle meant they were prohibited on uncoloured routes. They had long lives, mainly in the obscure northern reaches of the GWR around Wrexham.  At least two were cut down at one time or another for use on a route with a very low bridge, and this sketch of 92 is based on a photograph of the locomotive in cut down condition.

    No. 342 was withdrawn in 1931 and No. 45 in 1938. No. 92 survived until 1942, with the boiler lasting a few more years in stationary use. One wonders whether the curious reluctance of Swindon to build 0-4-0Ts  was the reason for the long lives of these antiques, or contrariwise, their long lives were why Swindon didn't build any replacements.
     
  7. 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? 
     
  8. 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)
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
     
  11. JimC

    GWR 9 and 10 Dean Experimental Single Wheelers

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    These were Dean prototypes. Superficially rather ordinary looking 2-2-2s by the time they went out of service, they are perhaps more interesting and influential than sometimes given credit to. I don't think I really said enough about them in the printed version of the book. I shall try and produce a series of sketches, although material can be rather sparse.

    No. 9 started life in 1881 as a rather absurd express 4-2-4 tank engine with 7ft 8in driving wheels and was so prone to derailment it probably never went into service at all: at times the GWR denied it had ever existed. There is a long piece about No 9 in the original form in Les Summers' book "Swindon Steam", where he draws rather different conclusions about its design than those found in RCTS. I find his arguments rather persuasive. 

    In 1884 substantial parts of this locomotive were included in a renewed no. 9, which was a more conventional 2-2-2, still with the 7ft 8in driving wheels. Both iterations of no 9 had Stephenson's valve gear outside the frames with valves and cylinders inside the frames.

    No. 10 followed in 1886 and was externally similar to No. 9, but had rather different internals, with the slide valves located under the cylinders. This is generally called the Stroudley layout, having been devised by Stroudley of the LBSCR.   This layout was clearly successful since it was repeated on the 3001 (Dean Single) class and all the larger inside cylinder 4-4-0s.

    Both 9 and 10 were reconstructed in 1890 with 7ft driving wheels and a conventional layout, generally similar to the Queen Class. The external valve gear on No 9 disappeared, and I think that new cylinders with the valves underneath were fitted.   In 1890, or perhaps 1893 they were named Victoria and Royal Albert respectively. No 9 received a belpaire firebox boiler in 1901, together with a larger cab. They were scrapped in 1905 and 1906.

    There are a few photos about of the pair in their later days - see, for example, the June 3 entry in the GWS Blog here: https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/515/going-loco-june-2022. They're all a bit muddy in the shadows below the footplate though.
     
     
  12. JimC

    Rhymney Railway L1 Class

    By JimC,


    Rhymney Railway Locomotive Sketches
    The L1 class were built as L class 2-4-2 saddle tanks with double frames. By GWR days two of them had been converted to 0-6-2T, given new design boilers based on those of the K class, and called class L1. A third conversion had been scrapped in 1921. The rebuilds presented an odd appearance, since the 2-4-2s had a small rise in the footplate over each crank on the drivers, but this was not repeated over the new leading driving wheel. The 0-6-2s, allocated diagram J, were scrapped in 1922 and 1923, and never carried their allocated GWR numbers, 1324 and 1325.

     
    This is an updated version of the sketch, and hopefully further updates will follow. The sketch attempts to represent RR No 64 between 1911, when it was converted to 0-6-2ST, and 1917. At this stage it was still carrying a modified L class boiler. Some time after 1917 it received a new boiler, documented as being a K class boiler, and photographs show it to have been considerably higher pitched. At the moment I am uncertain as to whether 62 and 63 had the higher pitched boiler as I have yet to find any photographs. Published information states all three had low pitched boilers as per the sketch, but the K class boilers were a few inches longer.
     
    This is one of the least well founded drawings. The material I have found for the L1s so far consists of drawings and photographs of the L class 2-4-2ST, a single rather indistinct photograph in WRR Vol 1No 64 in this form, two photos of 64 in post 1917 configuration and a particularly sketchy - in more than one sense - GWR weight diagram which includes a rise in the footplate over the leading wheel which didn't actually exist. So this was created by taking my drawing of the L and truncating the frames in what seemed to be a reasonable manner and hoping for the best. If anyone can urn up some good photos of the L1s I'd be grateful. More than most drawings this one suffers from not having found any kind of source for the inside rods and motion, which I think should be particularly prominent between the leading and driving wheels. I would like to thank contributors to this blog for comments that predate this drawing, which have been extremely useful in making improvements.
     
  13. JimC

    GWR Large Prairie Bunkers and Rear Tanks

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    I've sketched out the obvious principal variations in Large Prairie bunkers visible in Russell, both drawings and photos. I'm making the assumption that the lines of close spaced rivets on the bunker side did indeed follow the top seam of the water tank. It sees to me there must have been variations in coal and water capacity. I shall have to take a closer look at the RCTS volume.
     

     
  14. JimC

    GWR No 15.

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    GWR No 15 was a bar framed 0-4-0 by Bury. Note the domed firebox which it retained for its whole life in spite of other changes. Built in 1847 for the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway, it was withdrawn in 1903. This first sketch shows her around 1866.

     
    And this second one about 1887, when it had been cut down in height.


  15. JimC

    GWR/WR 15xx Class (1948)

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    I was mulling over the design of the (to me at least) strangely appealing 1948 15xx. It was a pure GWR design, and it appears from the NRM drawings list that it was actually on the drawing boards as early as 1944. As Cook tells us it was designed as a "24 hour shunter", not needing to be serviced over a pit: a worthy aim, but rendered largely obsolete by the early 350HP diesel shunters that were being introduced at the same time. I've seen an interesting comparison made between the GWR 0-6-0PTs and their theoretical equivalents on other lines, the Riddles Austerity/J94, the LMS Jinty and the USA tanks used on the Southern. The numbers indicate that the GWR locomotives have considerably greater boiler capacity than the others, but a similar tractive effort. A pure shunter doesn't really need much boiler capacity, since there is plenty of time for boiler pressure to recover, whereas a locomotive used for traffic work does need continuous steam, and 57s and 94s were regularly used on branch and even short trip main line services.

    A flaw/feature in the 15xx design is commonly held to be the relatively short wheelbase, which is reported as rendering them somewhat unstable at speed, and it seems they rarely if ever undertook the traffic roles of other pannier tanks, although the survivor with the Severn Valley seems to do well enough at preserved line speeds. The actual wheelbase is 6ft 4in + 6ft 6in, 12ft 10in.  Its interesting to compare this with dedicated short wheelbase dock shunters, such as the  GWR 1361 and 1366 classes , 6ft + 5ft - 11ft,  , the USATC S100 at 5ft + 5ft for 10ft and the Riddles Austerity 5ft 9in + 5ft 3in for 11ft. The shortest wheelbase regular 0-6-0T on the GWR was the 850 class,  7ft 4in + 6ft 4in - 13ft 8in. The short wheelbase on the 15s is commonly held to be intended to improve their ability to traverse curves, and their work in Newport and on the Paddington ECS workings stated to support this. Its interesting that the wheelbase on the 15s is intermediate between the pure shunting types listed above and traffic locomotives such as the 850, and even more the other large pannier tanks, 94xx, 57xx and their 7ft 3in + 8ft 3in 15ft 6in wheelbase. As such it has occurred to me that the 15xx wheelbase might be for other reasons than curves. My theory is this: the 57 and 94 cylinders are set partially between the wheels, as is possible with inside cylinders. The big outside cylinders on the 15 can't be, so the leading wheels have to be set back relative to the smokebox in order to clear the cylinders. In addition, whereas on the inside cylinder locomotives the cylinders themselves brace the frame, on the 15xx there's a large structure between the cylinders to perform the same function. All this makes the locomotive heavy, and in particular front heavy.  This in turn means that the trailing wheels have to be set forward for the locomotive to balance. The 15 is heaviest on the leading wheels and lightest on the 3rd pair, whereas the 94 is opposite. It would be interesting to know what someone better versed than I on the subtleties of steam locomotive designs makes of that idea. 
     
    Its often claimed that the 15xx was inspired by the S100/USATC 0-6-0T. The locomotives are indeed superficially similar, with prominent outside cylinders, outside walschaerts valve gear, external steam pipes, water tanks that do not flank the smokebox and no footplate. However this claim doesn't appear in any of the memoirs of contemporary GWR staff that I am familiar with.  Given the design aim declared by Cook, a 24 hour shunting locomotive that did not need to go over a pit for servicing, then when examined in detail the comparison is less certain. The design aim forces outside valve gear and outside cylinders. GWR practice was to use walschaerts gear on (their few) outside valve gear locomotives - notably the railmotors and the VOR 2-6-2Ts.  By this time external steam pipes were standard on GWR outside cylinder classes.  The S100, with its very short (10ft) wheelbase drives to and has the eccentric on the rearmost driving wheel. Apart from anything else there would be no room for the valve gear driving on the middle wheel. The 15xx, on the other hand, has 12ft 10in wheelbase, and a connecting rod driving the trailing wheels would be some 13ft 6in long.  The longest connecting rod on any of the Churchward standards was 10ft 8½ inches. I wonder if 13ft 6in would be practical.  Here's a list of similarities and differences.
    Similarities
    No footplate
    Outside cylinders with prominent steam pipes
    Outside Walschaerts gear
    Wheel size 4'6 v 4'7.5
    Differences
    coal capacity (1 ton , 3.25 ton)
    parallel/taper boiler
    driven wheel
    wheelbase (s100 as short as possible, 15xx longer)
    boiler proportions (much bigger boiler on the 15xx)
     
    All in all, I submit that there's a strong case to describe it as convergent evolution, rather than consider the 15xx to be a direct descendant of the S100. Arguably the only feature of the 15xx which may not be extrapolated from previous GWR practice is the absence of footplate. This could well be a weight saving feature, and in that respect we might also look at Bulleid's 1942 Q1 as an inspiration.
    On the other hand the GWR drawing office must have had drawings for the S100 available, since the first weight diagram for the type at Swindon is dated July 1943. They may have been in service at WD sites adjacent to the GWR as early as 1942,  but RCTS states they were not used on GWR metals until June 1944. The first drawings at the NRM for what became the 15xx are dated February 1944. 
  16. JimC

    GWR 248 and 253 Class 0-6-0s

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    Bit of a veteran this time. These are  technically absorbed locomotives. 248 (upper sketch) is one of a class of five delivered to the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway in 1854/5. They were an E.B. Wilson standard design. 253 (lower sketch) is one of seven more, with differences to the frames, were bought by the the Newport, Abergavenny and Hereford Railway. These lines merged into the West Midland Railway, which in turn was taken over by the GWR to form a significant part of the narrow (=standard) gauge Northern Division. They were much rebuilt over their lives, acquiring larger cylinders and other changes – even in some cases new frames – but don’t seem to have been officially renewed. In RCTS the 253 frames are described as G.N.R. pattern, and the 248s as being N.E.R. pattern. In the E.L. Ahrons sketches I've used as the chief basis for these drawings I also seem to see some differences in the inside motion arrangements and some other more obvious variations.


    Although the first was withdrawn as early as 1877, and all the 253s by 1881, the last survivor of the 248s was withdrawn in 1907, but not bearing too much resemblance to this sketch by then. Livery is a complete minefield for something as early as this. I've just chosen an approximation of Wolverhampton colours with the lining left off. 
  17. JimC

    Rhymney Railway M Class

    By JimC,


    Rhymney Railway Locomotive Sketches
    The last of the outside framed classes had been delivered to the Rhymney in 1900, and from then on the locomotives took on a much more modern appearance. The first were what was later to be called the M class, and the  detailed design is usually credited to Robert Stephenson & Co. All subsequent locomotives for the Rhymney, other than a pair of locomotives which started life as railmotor units, bore a distinct family resemblance. These locomotives form a complicated and rather incestuous group, since around 17 variations on the 0-6-2 theme can be identified, all sharing a common 7ft 3in + 8ft 0in + 6ft 0in wheelbase which was also seen on similar locomotives for other lines and even the GWR's 56xx class. Within that there are three basic themes: 4'6 wheels with larger boilers (M, R), 5ft wheel with a smaller firebox (P), and 4'4.5 in wheel also with the smaller boiler (A). There were subclasses with round top and belpaire firebox boilers, and some experiments were made with boilers swapped between classes. When the GWR introduced their own boilers the Ms and Rs received Std 2s, and the Ps and As Std 10. It's also helpful to consider the S and S1 class 0-6-0T when looking at the RR locomotive development. The actual construction order was M, R, S, P, A, A1, P1, S1, AR/AP, and its helpful to keep this in mind tracing the development between classes.
     
    The original boilers on the Ms, which had Belpaire fireboxes, were considered unsatisfactory, and by the grouping all were running boilers of the design first used by the R class. The GWR tended to treat the Ms as one class with the later Rs, albeit with subclasses represented with different diagrams. They were numbered 33 and 47-51.
     
     

    This first sketch represents what was temporarily known as the Mr Class, being the M class fitted with the R class boiler. Once all had been converted the r disappeared again.
     

     
     
    The Ms received R class cylinders in the 1930s. One was rebuilt with a Standard 2 boiler and GWR style cab, but otherwise they had few changes beyond safety valves and larger bunkers. The second sketch is intended to show the one M, no 47, that received a GWR boiler - a standard 2. The resemblance to the GWR 56s is surely no coincidence, but in point of fact the conversion wasn't carried out until after the 56s had been in service a few years.

     
     
    Two Ms were withdrawn in the 1930s, but the rest survived the war, three getting to British Railways and the last going in 1951.

    The dark Brunswick green I've chosen to approximate (with lining missing) RR paint tends to hide detail doesn't it. I shall have to think about that.
  18. 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.
  19. JimC

    Rhymney Railway K Class 0-6-2ST/0-6-2PT

    By JimC,


    Rhymney Railway Locomotive Sketches
    These were a version of the J class with a larger bunker, but I found more subtle differences than I expected. Again its very heavily indebted to the excellent WRRC volume on the Rhymney. This sketch represents a locomotive rather earlier in its career than the J class sketch, with the rather unusual long brass number plate.

     
    Note that this one has Ramsbottom safety valves rather than the pop valves on the J. There was a horrific accident with one of these locomotives where a fitter reassembled the Ramsbottom valves incorrectly and locked them tight so they could not release. The boiler exploded whilst shed workers were attempting to drop the fire and three men were killed and the locomotive destroyed. Subsequently the Rhymney had pop valves fitted to all new boilers.
     
    Working from photographs in the WRRC book and in RCTS, here's an attempt at sketching out the pannier tank version of the K class. Curiously these shared a diagram with a version of the saddle tank with a GWR modified boiler, which would explain why I have no volume containing a weights drawing of this variation. There seems little point in sketching out the GWR saddle tank version, which externally had only a different dome and the safety valve cover to distinguish it from the Rhymney days. I think I'm right in saying this was the only 0-6-2 Pannier tank, certainly the only one with outside frames. 
     

     
  20. JimC

    GWR 157 Classes (1862 and 1878)

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    There were actually two 157 classes. The first, above, was specified by Gooch and built by Sharp Stewart in 1862. They could be regarded as a development of the earlier 69 class with larger driving wheels. They were numbered 157-166. They were little altered in their lives, with only one receiving a new boiler, from an Armstrong Goods. They did receive weatherboards and it is possible that some may have been given open cabs.
    Most were scrapped in 1878/9 when the new 157 class took over their numbers. The last three stayed in service until 1881; these survivors were renumbered 172-4 for their declining years.
     
    I don't usually put drawings up here that are featured in my book unless very heavily updated, but I thought both 157 classes should be in this piece. Normally 19thC heavy rebuilds, even those reusing "only the space between the wheels" were classified as renewals, but RCTS tells us the second 157s were classified as new. Its interesting that even when renewals were effectively all new locomotives they tended to keep the same frame type as their predecessors as these did. As with most of the later 19thC classes they had a healthy variety of different boilers fitted over their lives, domes and domeless, belpaire or round topped box. This sketch is intended to be representative for around 1900. A little prototypical note though: I typically draw my locomotives bearing the class number, so 157 here. But to be strictly correct then as I read RCTS 157 herself  never actually ran with a domeless Belpaire firebox boiler. 

    And finally a Wolverhampton variant of the class, discussed in comments below.
     

  21. JimC

    GWR 1813 Class

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    The 1813 Class is intriguing. They started off as side tanks, and ended up as pannier tanks with saddle tanks fitted in between. The side tanks didn't last very long, and this was a period where there were any number of experiments with boilers. Consequently there is extraordinary variety, and it seems as if not only were there no two the same, but none of them stayed the same for very long either. These sketches are the fruits of a small joint research exercise with @Mikkel.
    Beware of thinking either of these sketches is representative of any locomotive at any date! They are all features that existed (along with quite a few others) but I haven't attempted to align these versions of the sketches to any particular one of the photographs and drawings we found.
     
     


     
    There is a sketch of this class in the published volume, but it was rather basic. I wasn't satisfied with it (are we ever completely satisfied with any model, whether in electrons or in brass?), but I felt it was a vital one to include, since these side tanks were the direct ancestors of the 57xx and 94xx classes.
     
  23. JimC
    Numbers 34 and 35 seem to have been reserved for oddities! Later there were a couple of Dean 0-4-4Ts.
    The original GWR 34 & 35 were a pair of locomotives built by the Vulcan Foundry which the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway bought off the shelf in 1853, and one may suspect at a bargain price. They could be described as long boiler 0-4-0 tender engines, but the drive was not to either wheel axle, but to an intermediate crank axle, somewhat in the position that the middle driving axle of a long boiler 0-6-0 would be. An original works drawing of these oddities is available here on this excellent site of  Vulcan Foundry locomotives . Presumably they must have been reasonably competent since they ran for twelve years before they were taken out of service. This drawing is from Ahrons "The British Steam Railway Locomotive" but was clearly originally published in "The Engineer". Anyway long out of copyright, so I'll break my normal habit and include it.



    In 1866 George Armstrong took these weird contraptions in hand and reconstructed them. They reappeared as long boiler 0-6-0s, the only ones of this configuration to be built by the GWR, although a fair number of others were taken over in the early days. They were definitely not in the general Armstrong style. and one may speculate how much of their predecessors was reused and why. RCTS claims that the boilers were of the same design as those of the Vulcan Foundry originals, but the surviving Vulcan foundry drawing shows a dome as does the above illustration. 

    There's very little other information about them, and they were withdrawn in 1888 and 1889.
     

  24. JimC

    GWR 111 Class (1863-1866)

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    Anyone following this will gather that I'm currently working on very early Wolverhampton classes.
    The 111 Class was the first real class to be designed and built by Joseph Armstrong at Wolverhampton, but to my mind its very much a development of the earlier singles I've previously sketched here. 
     
    The first six were built in 1863/4 under Joseph Armstrong. They had outside plate frames with the footplate rising in curves to clear the coupling rods, 6ft0in driving wheels and 16x24in cylinders. This first batch had raised round top fireboxes and no domes.

    Twelve more followed in 1866/7 after Joseph had been promoted to Swindon. These could be considered to be George Armstrong designs and were built with domed boilers. Initially they all had open splashers and weatherboards.
     
    In the eccentric numbering of the GWR early days, the first batch of six in 1863/4 was numbered 111-114, 115A and 116A.
    Eleven more followed in 1866. The first four were numbered 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A and renumbered 1006-1009 soon afterwards. That same year 115A and 116A were renumbered 1004/5. 372-7 and 1010/11 followed, the last being completed in January 1867.

    Cabs and enclosed splashers appeared by the late 1880s, along with larger cylinders and thicker tyres, bringing the wheels up to 6ft 2in.  In 1866 Nos 30 and 110, two of the early Wolverhampton singles, were renewed into locomotives of this class with all these features.
    A considerable variety of boilers were fitted in their later years, encompassing not only varying dome positions, but also boilers as small as the Metro and as large as the Standard Goods.
    Most were withdrawn between 1903 and 1906, but a few lingered on longer, the last being scrapped in 1914. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...