Jump to content
 

JimC

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,482

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by JimC

  1. 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)
  2. JimC

    GWR Nos. 28 & 50-53

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    More very early locomotives. These ones were designed and built by Robert Stephenson's.  Like No 25 et al these were built for the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and the one with an out of sequence number had been sold to the Shrewsbury and Chester. A raised firebox and a dome rather than the gothic firebox of the Longridge engines, but similarities seemed very marked as I came to draw them. The very early days of steam traction seems to have been a very small world based round Northumbria. I was struck by how very like the Longridge and Stephenson's 0-6-0s were, and doing a little research found that Longridge's son did an apprenticeship with Stephensons, so there would seem to have been friendly relations. Armstrong and Gooch were both Northumbrians very closely associated with these people and others like Timothy Hackworth.
     

     
     
    Apparently a conversion to saddle tanks was considered but never implemented. They too were withdrawn about the same sort of time, 1869-1877. Livery on these early locomotives is very much a matter of guesswork, so don't place any reliance whatsoever of the difference in livery between the two sketches, which is simply down to whimsy!
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. JimC

    GWR Nos. 24, 26, 30, 31, 202-205

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    This design was specified by the Locomotive Superintendent of the Shrewsbury & Chester, Edward Jeffreys, and built by the Vulcan Foundry.  Four were ordered in 1852, and delivered in 1853. They were double framed, and quite powerful locomotives for the time.  In the meantime Jeffreys had left the Shrewsbury & Chester and was now Locomotive Superintendant of the Shrewsbury and Hereford.  Four more of the design were built for the S&H in 1853/4.  The S&C locomotives came to the GWR in 1854. The S&H locomotives had a more complex ownership (pay attention, this is like the three card trick), In 1862 the GWR (1/4 share), the LNWR (1/2 share) and the West Midland Railway (1/4 share) jointly leased the S&H. The locomotives went half to the LNWR and half jointly between the GWR and WMR, and these 0-4-2s went to the GWR/WMR. Then in 1863 the GWR took over (formally amalgamated with) the West Midland, and so all eight were now GWR locomotives.

    No 30 was destroyed in a boiler explosion in 1859 and a new No 30, most likely incorporating usable parts from the old, was built the next year. They were never renewed or received major rebuilds and scrapped from 1870-5.

    There's a sort of grim fascination about the enormous variety of these very early locomotives and their changes and rebuilds. I can imagine a keen scratchbuilder getting quite excited about all the possibilities. One would certainly never run out of subjects.  From my point of view there's a large number of drawings required to do reasonable justice to the 19thC GWR scene. At a guess it's going to be well into three figures, and some will be very tricky to manage because of limited data, especially the Wolverhampton rebuilds, for which there are some photographs but few drawings. One can only admire the dedication of Ahrons, who drew so many of the early engines by hand for an article in 'The Locomotive'. I can only hope they paid better than modern book publishers!
  5. JimC

    Rhymney Railway S1 Class

    By JimC,


    Rhymney Railway Locomotive Sketches
    These were essentially updates of the S class (qv), slightly longer and with larger bunkers, and based on A1 class 0-6-2T design features. They also had a slightly larger boiler with a Belpaire firebox. They were delivered in 1920 by Hudswell Clarke. They were numbered 604-606. Plans to reboiler them with Standard 10 boilers were never acted on, although one did receive an enlarged GWR style bunker. They did acquire GWR safety valves and covers and some additional tank fittings. They were renumbered 90-92 in the 1946 renumbering and were all withdrawn in 1954.
    The S and even more the S1s were large and heavy for 0-6-0Ts. At 56 tons 8cwt and with 19tons 10cwt - the GWR red route limit - on two pairs of driving wheels they were heavier than their eventual successors, the GWR 94xx class. One may compare 46 tons 10cwt for the USATC tanks and 48tons 5cwt for the Riddles Austerities. 

  6. JimC

    GWR No 7 (1859) and 110 (1862)

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    Two very early ones. This is GWR No 7 from 1859, Wolverhampton works no 1, and the first Joseph Armstrong design for the GWR. Holcroft tells us that Armstrong, very much a member of the Northumberland school, was much associated with George Gray. Gray's designs for the Hull & Selby and LBSCR had the same feature of inside frames on the driving wheels and outside on leading and trailing wheels. They were also the inspiration for the well known Jenny Lind type. My sources are quiet on what motion was fitted. There were eventually five of these early singles. No 8 was very much a sister of No 7 and came out the same year, whilst 30 and 32 (the last classed as a renewal) followed in 1860 and finally No 110 in 1862. They didn't really constitute a class, but had a number of common features.  There are plate frames rather than the sandwich frames Gooch would have used, and the very complex shaped Armstrong safety valve cover.  Early Armstrong boilers like this were domeless, although domes were adopted fairly soon.
     

    The last of these similar singles was GWR No 110 from 1862. Surprisingly it was the second No 110, the first having been an 1851 locomotive for the Birkenhead Railway which lasted hardly a year under Armstrong. It's worth noting that by this time Armstrong had about 70 locomotives in his charge of many designs from most of the significant manufacturers of the period, so he should have been in a strong position to evaluate the best features for his own design. Unlike its predecessors No 110 had outside bearings on the driving wheels.  This 110 bears a distinct family resemblance to the 111 class 2-4-0s which came along in 1863. 

    In later years the 1862 110 received larger cylinders, a weatherboard and maybe even a cab. It ran until 1887, when it was renewed as a 2-4-0 of the 111 class in the form that class had been rebuilt into at that time. It seems unlikely that many if any major components were reused. By contrast No 7 had been withdrawn in 1876, some years before any of its cousins, and seems to have been largely unaltered.
  7. JimC

    GWR Nos 25 & 46-49

    By JimC,


    GWR Locomotive Sketches
    Very early stuff this time. I've got an idea for a new publication, but the concept means I will have to have much better coverage of the early locomotives than I did in "Introduction to". So I think I'm going to have to do a lot of drawing, and this one is starting very near the beginning! Its tempting to simply reuse the E.L. Ahrons drawings in RCTS, which are out of copyright, but I don't feel comfortable doing it.

    As far as I can see no-one really talks about classes this early, but this is one of five long boiler goods engines which were probably built in 1849 by R.B. Longridge & Co. for the Shrewsbury & Birmingham Railway. Longridge seem to have been associated with Stephensons to some extent, and were based in Bedlington, Northumberland. They featured the gothic style firebox. One was sold to the Shrewsbury and Chester, but all five came to the GWR in 1854. In 1868 one was rebuilt into a saddle tank with a new boiler and cylinders and altered wheelbase. According to RCTS a similar conversion was considered for the others, but in the end they were withdrawn between 1868 and 1877. They don't seen to have been reconstructed as much as many other early locomotives. The saddle tank, with a further reconstruction in 1875, worked on until 1889. 
  8. 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. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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. 
  11. 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?
     
  12. 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. 
     
×
×
  • Create New...