JimC

There's plenty of evidence of frame/tank combinations that match no known as built specification. Later style frames under earlier tanks especially. The drawing numbers suggest that with the possible exception of the well tank/flush tank transition the tank and frame drawings didn't change at the same time, so were nominally interchangeable, and there are also well tanks sitting on later style frames, although one would need to inspect carefully to see whether the whole chassis was a later style, or whether the chassis in these cases was a composite. 2999 has such a tender. I have found photos of A112 style frames under earlier tanks, but those could even be earlier frames with welded additions to resemble A112. I think its a reasonable supposition that tanks and frames would be separated for overhaul, and it would be in keeping with typical GWR practice that if one needed much more time spent on it than another they woould not be reunited, but that's supposition.

I'm interested in the whole high side thing, and am keen on seeing dated photos of both tenders with high sides and tenders with scalloped frames where numbers are recorded/can be identified. 2210 was built in 1923. Lot A112 was 1925-Jan 26. By 1930 there were plenty of 4,000 gallon tenders about. So if we take the view that high sided tenders were built to cosmetically match Castle cabs, there's a fairly narrow window in time when one might have been converted. Tanks were swapped between chassis, there's little doubt about that, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence about how often it happened, but I suspect much rarer than boiler changes. So were 2210 and 2222 (and any others built with high sides or did they receive them later? Interesting to note that the surviving lot A112 tender now has low sides. Or did 2210 and 2222 receive tanks from lot A112 tenders? Its a possibility I hadn't considered before.

My current opinion, FWIW, and subject to change if more evidence appears, is that high sided 3,500 gallon tanks - or rather tank sides were fitted to more tenders than had the lot A112 double curved frames. Some of the photos of high sided tanks on the earlier pattern frames seem far too early for tank swaps to be very likely. Its interesting that I've never found a drawing that shows the high sides: the official GA for A112 listed in the tender drawings register shows the normal sides, not the longer and higher ones we associate with lot A112.

This one might be the last for a while, because I get a little weary of doing too many of these sketches at a time. This one owes a huge debt to the Welsh Railway Research Circle's excellent publication on the Rhymney, Welsh Railway Records Volume 1, which was the source not only for the drawing I used as a foundation, but also provided some excellent photos. The sharp eyed who have the book might be able to see a number of (minor) areas where my interpretation of the photographs differed from my understanding of the drawing. This was a tricky one to shade. Dark Brunswick Green, apparently, was the chosen colour of the Rhymney, so I found a "Dark Brunswick Green" reference on line and constructed a shading palette from that, but together with the thickish outline I use for these sketches the result is perhaps not as clear as it might be. I may have to think about that, but if I go paler it would be getting closer to GWR middle chrome green than I would really like. I've always found these idiosyncratic outside frame locomotives rather appealing, and wish I had the skills to model one. It will be fun when I get on to the GWR rebuilt 0-6-2Ts with similar frames and pannier tanks.

Don't forget the 8750s were built over a long period with different builders, and everything was removed and replaced at overhauls anyway. My impression is the later type was introduced pre war, but I wouldn't put any money on it. I think, as often with this sort of thing, you are best advised to do a photo hunt.

Could you clarify that a bit for me. Unfortunately I'm locked down away from my library. Here I have the Rutherford book and some photos of weight diagrams in Russell, but nothing else. RCTS is miles away! The Barry weight diagram for the B class shows front overhang of 5'5 and for the B1 6'1. The drawings are undated, but must be after the original B1s were merged into the B class. The GWR weight diagrams for the B, both Barry and Std 9 boiler, show 5'5 front overhang, and the GWR weight diagrams for the B1, again for both boilers, show alternates of 6'1, 6'4 and 6'9. So did any Bs have a longer front overhang, or was it just the B1s?

The Barry B Class with the standard 9 boiler. Unlike the B1s, GWR weight diagrams only show the B class with the same shortish front overhang as the original Barry weight diagram. Barry locomotives mostly kept the distinctive Barry style of cab opening, even after quite major reconstructions.

Perhaps the electricity pickup would be more appropriately placed on the support coach. It could also have a small traction motor setup for a little bit of extra oomph starting off, and supply ETH etc to the train without complicating the locomotive.

A sketch of the Barry B1 in GWR days with a Standard 9 boiler. The Standard 9 was based on the P Class as used on the Dean Goods and many pannier tanks, but it had a considerably lengthened firebox. The GWR weight diagram shows three different figures for the front overhang on the B1 class, and this sketch, based on the GWR weight diagram, shows the longest alternative, whereas the sketch of the locomotive in Barry livery shows the shortest. B1s were built by four different builders for the Barry over a ten year period, and doubtless there were other minor variations.

This sketch is intended to show the class in post WW1 configuration.

Barry Railway A Class. This sketch is intended to represent the locomotives in post WW1 configuration. Lining omitted.

Thanks all, I don't actually know where its based, but most likely Surrey. The situation with shows doesn't help either, but the local model railway club is an interesting suggestion. I shall pass that on. I think a lot is going to depend on urgency/effort. I'm assuming the departed has no modelling friends who will take on the task and that's why my acquaintance has got the task.

I've been asked to provide some advice to an acquaintance who's got the task of clearing the house of a rail enthusiast, but has no great interest or knowledge. What seems to be there (judging by 30 secs of video I've been sent) is a very large collection of magazines (I'm seeing titles like RAIL, Britains Railways, Modern Railway Pictorial, Railway Magazine and the like rather than specialist interest ones,) and a far number of models, by the looks of things standard Triang, Hornby and the like, but all unboxed, and no kind of cataloguing. My first guess would be that in this state, and without a lot of effort there is essentially no value there. The best that could be done would be to contact a local railway society and see if they were interested in a donation. If all the models were sorted and catalogued, which would need expertise, then I'm guessing unboxed locomotives might fetch £10-30 depending on rarity. Magazines, maybe £10 for a run, and all the problems of delivery. Does that seem like reasonable advice?

OK, coming along well. Now consider the need to separate locomotive portion and coach for servicing. Can we think of a way of articulating a locomotive with a carriage so they can be readily separated? Maybe a little hinge down pair of wheels under the carriage that could be used to raise the carriage off the locomotive unit and act as an accomodation unit? Perhaps a steam lance connection could be used to power the lift. And perhaps corridor connections on the main unit and footboards alongside the locomotive portion so the driver can change ends without having to climb down onto the ballast?

How about a three car unit with a driving cab at one end and a locomotive portion at the other, and a corridor connection on the locomotive portion? Then two units could be coupled locomotive portions together, and a single fireman tend both boilers through the corridor connection.

Yep, new drawing. I keep my eyes open for anything that might be fun to draw up. This is the second version of this one, I somehow contrived to lose the first vector version. Still can't imagine where I could have put it.

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

I'm interested, its a standard 47 "fixed" wheelbase (the last pair of drivers had some lateral movement), but with a front bogie instead of the pony truck. I suppose if there is more lateral control in the bogie than the pony truck it must put more lateral forces in the track, but would it be as big a deal as you folks are suggesting?

The GC had a reasonable loading gauge on its main lines, 9'3" wide and 13'5 high. The Great Northern was a bit higher. I have yet to find what gauge(s) the LNER itself used. There's a (little) bit more in the link in my sig.

While on the subject of animals and rail transport, we must also not forget the issues caused by categorisation of pigs... Sadly Farthing is not a little country station.

4-8-0, now there's a thought. Here's a Hawksworth style 4700 development with a front bogie to deal with (hopefully) the nosing about above 60mph, and a King boiler to feed it some steam.

What are the gradients going to be like on your Cwmdimbath branch? If they are reasonable severe then that could be a reasonable justification for a 44 on some heavier trains.

Its worked up from a weight diagram in Russell that shows a short one, but as you know that means very little. I suppose I should do a photograph hunt. I've heard folk say of modelmakers that its as easy to make things correct as wrong. I wish! One of the reasons I call my sketches sketches even though they are to scale and incorporate as many dimensions as are readily available to me is that it implies no guarantees that I have everything correct.

Its something I muse about occasionally though. The GWR's locomotive fleet was as small as they thought they could get away with for the services they had to run, so if as modellers we expand the number of services to be run with fictional extra lines, then it follows that we should expand the locomotive fleet in order to be able to run those services. And everything changes in our fictional world. I have a model of an imaginary running shed. Should I invent a shed code and paint it on all my locomotives? Nothing authentic about a shed with a rag tag of locomotives all based somewhere else. But if I do that should every locomotive be one that did not exist at my time period? Or is my fictional line one that was built instead of a real line, in which case I can appropriate the allocations from that line. In some ways modelling a real site is the easy option! Or have I just had too much coffee and not enough sleep?

Conventionally, BTW, small Metros were the earliest lot with shorter wheelbase, the fifty large Metros (thirty of which had started life as medium Metros) carried 1080 gallon tanks and volute springs for the leading wheel suspension, and the seventy medium Metros were those of the 100 built between 1871 and 1894 which retained tanks of 800-820 gallons. There were a surprising number of changes of wheelbase on the Metros, most of the earlier ones were lengthened.