JimC

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.

The page on my web site is broadly accurate about how I produce the sketches and the limitations: https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/howidraw.php . Please note that although drawn to scale I don't claim them to be scale drawings (!) In the case of these Barry absorbed locomotive drawings I use drawings in Rutherford as well as Russell - and they often disagree on minor details - and refer to photographs as well. For the Rhymney the drawings in Welsh Railway Records Volume 1 are proving invaluable, being of much higher quality than weight diagrams, but I still look at photos and weight diagrams as well, especially when considering variations. If I can find GA drawings these are obviously more valuable than weight diagrams, and I seize on them. I can't possibly afford every drawing the NRM possesses though. The biggest issue is distortions and errors, especially with the weight diagrams. They've survived decades of sometimes indifferent storage, then been scanned for the publications and the publications scanned by me. I draw a grid with the measured dimensions I have, and I can then juggle a scan so that it fits as well as possible. Chimneys and cab roofs often don't! I treat wheel centres and boiler pitch dimensions as being most reliable. Footplate height is rarely listed in weight diagrams, and for some reason seems problematic. I like to think I'm getting better at these drawings, and I hope am getting a feel for how the original draughtsmen and women drew curves and so on. With this one the cab was a bit problematic, and I think there were variations. I spent a lot of time with a particularly good works photo, and spent some time puzzling out and drawing how an unusual handrail along the tank top was laid out, only to find, by referring to later photos, that it seems to have been soon removed, so I left it off!

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.

Do you mean A44? If so agree, pig ugly.

RCTS says 19 to 38 had bodies and undercarriages built at Swindon, although 18, the prototype for the later ones, was built at Gloucester Carriage and Wagon in 1937. However they were turned out 1940-1942, so no doubt wartime requirements changed everything. One might guess the simplified flat plate ends were a wartime feature too. RCTS is silent on who did the design work for the revised body shape.

It depends on your date. The 48s were moved to 14xx in 1946 to clear 48 for the oil burning 2-8-0s. If your locomotive post dates the end of the oil burning experiment then 4800 would be suitable. There was a plan to move the 5800 042s to 34xx numbers at one stage, so 58xx would be feasible, and with any luck you could buy 58xx plates. There was a proposed renumbering that only partially happened which involved moving 47xx and RODs to 88 and 98 respectively, but if you ignore that 88 would be a good series for a big tender engine, but you'll struggle to get etched plates.

Too slow. 3d printed moulds for injection moulding on the other hand...

Well, either LNER management were fools, or they had considerations you are unaware of. Which do you think more likely?

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll leave injectors off:-). I've made some ( I hope) improvements to the Barry sketch and added a "GWR condition " sketch to the parent post. This last is based on a photo @The Stationmasteruploaded some years ago ( https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/77804-the-stationmaster-has-been-to-an-auction/&do=findComment&comment=1204296 ), which shows some rather unusual details. The whistles are mounted above the safety valve casing, so above their old Barry location rather than in one of the GWR preferred positions, and to my eyes its a non standard small safety valve cover too. I've coloured it in green, but looking at the photo I don't see any trace of GWR lettering on the tanks, and something about the gray scales makes me wonder if this locomotive is not green, but has been given a quick splash of black as some absorbed locomotives were on their last overhaul before withdrawal. Anyone with a better feel for grayscale -> colour than I prepared to comment?

Presumably they'd have used the standard curved approach to the carrier, although Brown probably didn't.

Arson according to a FB post. The wagon was freshly restored, and there was also a lot of damage to the interior of a coach.

Maye not the question to ask in the imaginary locomotives topic, but what was the operational need a passenger 2-8-2 could fulfil? Were the Class 8 passenger locomotives short of adhesion for many of their duties? What does a 2-8-2 bring to the table over a Pacific for UK duties? I suggest more adhesive weight, similar size boiler and cylinders, and more expense. The UK loading gauge prohibits a larger boiler unless it goes longer, and I submit that longer barrels had not gone well in the UK.

Here's a crop (so hopefully fair use) of the photo showing the gear in question. I fear I am unable to tell one injector type from another. If this installation was on the class for all its life I'll have to do some thinking, because while its a very prominent structure to leave off, its also going to be hard for me to get reliable detail out of the photo.

Would they have used a shed pilot to move both?

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?

According to Holcroft the rear end was working out too heavy, which was why his design for brake gear was left out. Also, presumably, the tiny cab. According to the weight diagram in Russell in one implementation at least there was 17t-8 on the trailing wheels which is hardly too light! I think the main problem with the Bear was the boiler. The tubes were simply too long, and in spite of a high heating surface area in the (also too long?) superheater tubes the steam temperature was lower than other GW classes. I've tried sketching a King boiler on the Bear chassis and I couldn't make it work. As I recall the rear driving axle ends up passing through the grate! Seems to me that chassis really has to have the wide firebox, which is unsurprising. What IMHO was needed was a combustion chamber to increase the relatively low heating surface of the box and decrease the length of the tubes. Much what Stanier and his team came up with 20 years later...

With the GW division of labour sheds and turntables were authorised by the locomotive committee, so I assume were a locomotive superintendent/CME responsibility.

A Dean goods with a 6'6+6'6 tender was 38' wheelbase. Std goods was 36'3 with the same, a 57 class 0-6-0 with the earlier 6'2+6'10 tender 36'8, most 2-4-0s were 38' plus, and the Queen 2-2-2s 41' with the larger 7'6+7'6 tenders. So you wouldn't get much smaller than a Dean goods in practice. My uneducated guess is that a bit of overhang of the locomotive over the end of the turntable might be welcomed as providing a nice solid buffer to push on at a reasonable height, but I might be wrong.

The naming is very confusing, but "An Historical Survey of Great Western Engine Sheds" was the first volume and covers those sheds that were taken over by British Railways and "An Historical Survey of Great Western Engine Sheds 1837 1947" was the second and covers sheds that were out of use by 1948.

There were a *lot* of turntables in the 19thC, including ones used just for tank engines. Princetown, where it was used for turning 0-6-0Ts with snowploughs is an extreme example. I'm away from the research I did a while ago, but I only recall one short turntable with side girders (Newcastle Emlyn), which was a sort of mini version of the classic GWR one. Others were all undergirder that I saw.

Now I think about it again, I'm wondering whether the tank position shown on Diag A13 is the centreline of the locomotive, whereas the rivets inevitably show the tank at the side. Unfortunately there are no survivors of the Churchward era bunkers.

They are all meant to be dashed lines, but I see some of them aren't obviously so. I'll tweak. And aha, so that's what the group of 3 rivets on all the bunkers is - a lifting ring.

Do you think, though, the other rivet lines represent tank boundaries or simply fabrication of the bunker assembly? I've taken the viewpoint that only the very closely spaced lines of rivers represent a tank edge, and others are boundaries of plates and/or transverse structures. With my 'no rivets' policy those are best left off. I'm already concerned that the sketches are misleading as there are lines on some original drawings that suggest that what looks superficially like a flat topped tank is actually anything but, and on the inside the tank top slopes down to the floor in the centre. Anyone here familiar with the preserved 5101s and 61xx and can comment?

I'm not clear on what the difference between 3111-3130 and 3131-3150 is.

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.