JimC

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. I'm going to look at writing something up.

I thought I'd have a go at charting out a good selection of 0-4-4s. Driving wheels to the left. The Dean engines do seem to be outliers, but not nearly as much as I thought. Its perhaps interesting that the GWR 1308 class of 3 (there were other 1308s later on), Avonside built and absorbed from the Monmouthshire railway, appears to have a lot of the look of the later Dean 0-4-2Ts and 0-4-4s, and were rather different to the Armstrong style. I wonder if they were good locomotives and influenced Dean/ his drawing office's thinking. I can't find a reproduceable photo of the 1308 0-4-4s, but there's one in RCTS part 3, C129.

Obviously I didn't explain that well. What I means was that these locomotives seemed to have an exceptionally long run between the coupled wheels and the trailing bogie compared to the spacing of the driving wheels and bogie. As 0-4-4Ts 3521s were 7'0 +10'4 + 4'6, 34 & 35 were 6'8 + 8'6 + 5'0 and the 1345s were 6'6 + 9'6 + 4'6 For an LSWR O2 I make it (scaled off a drawing) 7'5 + 8'9 + 4'2 However having converted it all to percentages, although the Dean types do run shorter on the coupled wheelbase and longer on the gap between drivers and bogie than the O2, it doesn't seem spectacularly different. I think possibly the small driving wheels of the Dean types exaggerate the effect. I just sketched 34 with 48xx driving wheels & a long side tank and it looks a lot more conventional. Perhaps optical illusion was a lot of what I was seeing. [added] Thanks Nick, yes, that's very much the style. When I look at an 0-4-2 3521 against a 517 say it looks radically different, but looking at the 0-4-4 configuration against others, while its a bit of an outlier (as you'd expect given the poor record of staying on the track) its maybe not that far off.

It struck me anew how these two locos, the 3521 class and the 1345 class of ex Monmouthshire Railway 0-6-0ST that were converted to 0-4-4T are all of a very similar style with the firebox apparently in clear air and not behind a wheel and thus a big gap between driving and trailing wheel(s) . Was a similar configuration used on any other lines? I'm not very good on late Victorian types. I wonder what the intention of the type was? And how odd to convert that entire class of 0-6-0STs to that style.

Its an interesting observation that the F7 elevation above isn't far off the GWR broad gauge. Same height, but 8 inches narrower. It would be rather close on the roof corners though.

No, sorry, I haven't made a drawing of these. I'm thinking I should, but there's not a lot of material about. There are some drawings at the NRM, but the catalogue descriptions don't give me immense confidence I want to go ordering half a dozen up at getting on 30 quid a time. Soon adds up! The GWS doesn't seem to have anything useful. Does anyone know of any other sources?

These Hudswell-Clarke built locomotives were delivered to the Port Talbot in 1900/01. They weren't given any major rebuilds under the GWR but were lightly westernised. They were withdrawn in the late 1920s/early 1930s, with some sold into industry, . One has survived and is a popular and successful locomotive in preservation. In spite of being basically an industrial shunter type she works heritage line trains very capably.

Looking at the NRM list they also have 99885, which is catalogued as erecting plan frame only, and might be bit better for you. Be careful if you order it though, because there's another one catalogued as 99885 which appears to be an attachment to the original just showing a step!

The NRM has GWR Drawing 98681, which is the GA for the 1366. Its scanned already, albeit in the rather messy ex microfilm black/white format a lot of them are in. Looking at it I don't reckon its as thoroughly dimensioned as would be ideal for your purposes. I don't know what else they have. The catalogue is here. https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-03/Swindon Locomotive Drawings List.pdf?works=swindon

Trouble is you start looking at 3 sets of infrastructure, steam, diesel and electric, 3 sets of staff etc etc and the operational complications as well.

Look at Castles (or the Bear) for GW brake arrangements with driving wheels that almost touch.

I've sketched up a possible arrangement for the full cab and added it to the main post.

The St Ives one is particularly good, I found it very late in the drawing process - this is one that's been on the electronic drawing board for months. I'm quite tempted to have a shot at drawing the full cab.

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...

The three varieties of Bulldog, Earls, Dukes, Atbaras and Cities all shared the same basic wheelbase - 8'6. As, for that matter, did the Churchward Counties.

I wonder if something might be done with the tank from a Dapol Pug - and a chopped up Triang Nellie Chassis?

I've amended the drawing slightly based on new information in the photos Miss Prism uploaded. They might make a rather cute model. Sadly I lack the skills to make a chassis: I suppose I should try and research whether there's an RTR option with 16mm wheels and 29mm wheelbase.

I did some sketches for a chap who has a vision based on a shortened Standard 2 boiler, akin to the BR class 3 - and probably, now I think of it, probably not too different from a GWR Std 3. I agree, a Std 2 or 4 (essentially much the same length) wouldn't fit on a small prairie chassis - the last pair of driving wheels would interfere with the firebox. If you moved the last pair of wheels back though something might be done. A Std 2 boiler might be a better match than a Std 4.

Talking at cross purposes - I meant the later 2-6-0 Krugers, not the Aberdares.

Its the boiler top sandbox that really hits the ugly tag. The later 2-6-0s without are merely ill-proportioned by comparison. There's a really rough photo here: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Unknown-2602-Class-Credit-Postcards-From-The-Past.jpg

I thought the wheel spacing on the 26s was 7'6+7'6, different to the Churchward Standards. With the exception of the Std 4 boiler I thought the only common parts were with Dukes and Bulldogs.

Nice job, and yes, a very feasible type. You've missed the GWR Aberdares, which were indeed very much a freight version of the mixed traffic Bulldogs, albeit soon upboilered, and were in service up until the 40s (and we won't mention the Krugers).

I note in Russell that all the variations of 3,500 gallon well tank tender show the same weights, which in view of the variations in frames etc seems rather unlikely! Of course these were notional weights anyway, nominally identical tenders would vary slightly.

Curiously County Diagram A28 (fig 170 in Russell volume 2) appears to show a high sided tender with a lot A112 chassis, although it has a straight handrail as per flush tank tenders.

I think possibly you're reading too much into it, and its just the latest iteration of the standard 3,500 gallon tender. You get all sorts of oddities turning up in weight diagrams - if you have a copy look through Russell with your eyes attuned to these things and you'll see all sorts of peculiarities. Fig 311, for instance, Diagram J of the 47xx, shows a high sided 3,500 gallon tender with a chassis and hand rails like an early flush tank (Collett) tender, while Fig 412, Diagram X for Saint Martin as a Hall, shows what is almost a lot A112 tender, but with shorter sides. There are also some surprising concoctions amongst the 4-4-0s!