JimC

12504 for most lots from A6-A91

47737 for lots A92 - A142

111273 for lots A145- A192

So your axleboxes would most likely be 47737 or 111273 after 1937.

I'm currently doing a Churchward tender in 3D and trying to work out whats what is a bloody minefield.

I would say that those are post 1931 design frames - at least the design as used from 1931 on new tenders - which were often fitted to earlier tenders.

I think the identification of the 'intermediate' tender with Lot A112 in Pannier is over simplistic. I've spent a reasonable amount of time studying this, but its really hard to draw any firm conclusions.

There are two features normally called intermediate, high sides and scalloped frames, but neither seems exclusive to lot A112. One of the odd things about the high sides is that they don't seem to be shown in any GA drawings I have traced, nor recorded in the Tender Lot record book. The GA drawing for lot 112 shows the standard lower sides. Its confusing, as some do, to call them Churchward Intermediate tenders, since they were built several years after GJC retired.

I have found 1920s and 1930s vintage photos of the high sided variant on tenders with the earlier style frames, so before lot A112, so it seems most likely they were fitted on some new tenders before lot A112. They seem to have been originally run with rebuilt Stars and Castles, but later on these received 4,000 gallon tenders so the high sides were seen on other classes. Presumably they were not replaced, since the surviving lot A112 tender has low sides and a replacement tank.

The scalloped frames, as noted above, are also not limited to lot A112 as I've seen a photo of 3,000 gallon tender with these frames.

There is a note written in the Tender record book saying that lot 112 was built with high sides, and this isn't mentioned against other lots, but when you examine the writing and other entries it seems pretty clear this was written in several years later and is not contemporary with the tender construction.

The whole thing is a minefield for modellers, because if you go through the drawings numbers in the record book its clear that there was never a clean sheet redesign of tenders after 1884. There were always some drawings - and thus parts designs - reused from previous designs. This means it was always possible to repair tenders with later parts, especially if new or heavily altered frames were fitted. Even the late slab sided tenders have a fair number of suspension components in common with the design that preceded them. So on the one hand, if you want to model a specific prototype you do need a dated photograph. On the other hand if there are no dated photographs almost any combination of features seems to be possible!

If it looks like a "normal" steam engine then there will be work for it on preserved lines, negating the whole purpose of the design of course. It is intended to work hard on modern freight trains where its advanced features will be of benefit.

This is from their website. http://5at.co.uk/ind...innovation.html

The 5AT is expected to earn its keep in the operation of tour trains, taking over from “classic†steam as and when it become too slow, too unreliable and too expensive to maintain for continued operation on the UK (and/or European) high speed densely trafficked modern rail systems. If the 5AT were to look like Bullied’s Leader, it would have no more appeal than a diesel to the average “man in the street†who tour train organizers rely on to fill their seats.

I hold no particular opinions about the project, for or against, but you don't seem to me to be representing what they say about their project. On the other hand the fascination so many have with the hopeless/hapless Leader thing bemuses me.

Ye gods, some of this stuff is a bit condescending isn't it? I'm sure it will come as a big suprise to the accountants of the preserved lines that they don't run revenue earning trains: to my uneducated eyes it appears to me that they do a damn sight better job of earning revenue than their predecessors did with those facilities. And its interesting to hear that all the advertising and other hard work that the Big 4 (especially the GW) put in on building tourist traffic wasn't running a proper railway either: one suspects there are a few past managers sniggering in their graves at that... I used to live close to Tattenham corner station where the SECR and Southern put an awful lot of investment into Leisure traffic: was that not running a "proper" railway either?

Its something I've observed in sports where I've had a far more active role than I have with railways, 4mm or 305mm to the foot: scorn and vitriol is most common between people who are involved in related but not identical activiies. Its rarely productive or useful and neither branch seems to gain from it... The preserved lines are often economically important in their local areas, and even when they are primarily volunteer run still make a significant contribution to the economy and to employment at service companies. Sneering at them seems counter productive for all of us.

Was it Churchward who bought a De Glehn atlantic?

Three in fact.

But Churchward hd his eyes open far wider than that... You could argue that the Saints had American boilers and cylinders on Prussian inspired frames and superheat, (plus native valve gear) and the Stars added French bogies, divided drive and inside big end design.

The great man wasn't so much an innovator as an integrator, being able to see the best available practice from all sorts of sources and bring them together to create a harmonious whole that was even more than the sum of its parts. I suspect most really competent engineers will tell you that such is a rather greater achievement than coming up with a whole bunch of new ideas, some of which work and some of which don't.

Here's a slightly different scale of what-if, and a very cruel camera. First time I've tried doing anything like that but far too much room for improvement. Maybe paint will help.