JimC

35 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

Yes, or maybe Farthing had its own shed.... I considered adding it to the map, but didn't want to lead anyone astray!

 

I wonder just how big the GWR route map including everyone's fictitious lines would be [grin]

Salisbury shed closed in November 1950 according to Lyons.

20 minutes ago, Northroader said:

but would turning a Bachman 57xx bodyshell into a half cab have been simpler? 

But maybe not as much fun? There's probably more than might be thought to "back reving" a 57xx. The shorter front overhang of the pre group classes is quite distinctive, and the valancing under the footplate needs quite a lot of extra material added.  

I'm reasonably confident the forward chimney position is associated with superheating. Whether it was moved back again after superheaters were removed is another question, but that's not your problem. I believe the pipes along the boiler top and into the smokebox are all or at least mostly lubrication runs. 

Its worth noting that naming an entire class with the same theme was a Collett introduction on the GWR. Under Churchward each lot used the same theme, but subsequent lots could have a different theme. Saints, Ladies, Courts and Waverley novels for instance with the 29s.

Another thought is that there could be more than one numbering scheme. The GWR had at least three, and older locomotives might be numbered to a different scheme than newer ones. 
 

Your fictional line might benefit from a look at locomotive policies on Welsh lines, which were of a similar size and presumably faced similar issues with locomotive supply and large neighbours.

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 56xx class may be considered as a Rhymney M or R Stephenson built out of Swindon standard components. 

Yes, although the 56s did have piston valves rather than silde valves. They also had an all new motion design which AIUI those that understand such things regard as being theoretically superior to the older style layout that continued to be used on six wheeled classes with inside cylinders. 

Yes that's the P class (only one by that date) and a very useful looking photo when I come to it. I believe the Rhymney locos rarely went to Swindon, and that they were the best maintained fleet at the grouping. Very much in RR condition there still with pop safety valves. 

That red/white check sign looks to be BR though judging by the text font and general style. The OP needs something GWR era.  There were surely a good number of such restricted structures, albeit more height than width: someone must be able to dig up an example. And if no-one can find an example - then no-one is in a position to show the current setup is incorrect!

I just had a browse through a railwayana site, and while they had a number of those BR limited clearance squares, I didn't succeed in finding anything that was any earlier. And its not as if having to add an additional sign will be a great disaster should evidence ever turn up. There were a few "railway company locomotives must not  pass this point" which presumably are also private sidings. But for my money that sign looks neat.

Drawing accuracy... Here's an example of how things can go wrong... This drawing of a 94 is from CJ Freezer's "Locomotives in Outline", and presumably the 'Railway Modeler' before that. In fact I recall it from RM as being the first thing I ever attempted to scratchbuild. (got stuck on the boiler). anyway, nice enough drawing. 

But lets look at my 94 drawing I did for my book:

Spot the difference?
What seems to have happened is that CJF somehow got muddled between the 94xx and the 57xx, and his 94xx drawing has the same rear overhang as the 57xx, not the extra length of the 94. The bunker is the right size, but he shortened the cab to make it all fit. I imagine he worked from the front back to the front of the cab, and from the rear to the back of the cab and the doorway. Its all a lot easier when you can just electronically lay one over the other...
Incidentally, don't go thinking I believe my drawing to be perfect: Its based mainly on the GWR weight diagram, which is far from a reliable source, so I'm not claiming full accuracy. I'm not quite sure about the height of the firebox, and I think I had better revisit the brake pull rods. Like models, electronic drawings are never finished...

2 hours ago, Rhobat Bryn said:

Very nice sketches.  May I ask which livery you have used for the Barry Railway sketch?

Jus a vague approximation really. I don't have the patience to do lining (which is quite a PITA on vector drawings) and I think I grabbed a base shade from a colour photo of a model and hoped his research was adequate. The main thing is it doesn't look at all like GWR!

While we're on the subject of signs, presumably this is a private siding. Should there be a sign or other demarcation of where the GWR responsibility ends and the private siding begins?

10 hours ago, Dave John said:

Most of the rule books and safety books show the horse to the side of the track, 

Which, for those who are into such things, gives the idea of a little cameo with every rule in the book being broken, horse in the middle of the track, horseman riding on the buffer, etc etc...  Or, for those of a macabre bent, the consequence of breaking all the rules... 

The only illustrations I've found show the horse in the middle of the track, and hitched to the coupling hook, which surprised me, because I thought the holes in GWR solebars were to hook on horse harness. I would think in your situation the horse probably would walk between the rails, which in turn suggests that the track would need to be ballasted at least level with the sleepers, if not right over them. I would have thought the investment in a capstan system would be a much bigger and more sophisticated yard than you seem to have in mind.

Excellent. I've seen the third, but not in such good quality. Still got the problem of the tenders disappearing into mud, but hopefully I can do a bit of enhancement. I reckon they confirm the presence of a small three sided frame cut out behind the tender steps which is absent on all the drawings and which I wasn't quite confident enough to add in. The locomotive balance weights are clear enough to add now too, so its good stuff.
A detail I hadn't picked up on before is that the first and third both seem to be 93/1390, but in the post rebuild Barry days of the first photo 93 has very large front sandboxes which are flush with the front of the smokebox saddle, but in later years she seems to have smaller sand boxes set slightly back like the rest of her sisters. There's always something to catch you out isn't there! Look at the variations in the boiler clothing and the handrail knobs too...

On 01/09/2021 at 19:43, Miss Prism said:

I'm not convinced the running plate needed to rise to clear the cranks.

 

That could be my sketch of course, as the cranks and rods aren't the easiest thing to get right, but I've just checked the dimensions, and it seems to scale for a 12" throw (24 inch diameter circle) for the crank and I've redrawn with the rods at the top. Don't forget suspension movement too.

7 hours ago, 88C said:

There are photos of my model on my Llanforen thread and also 88C’s workbench.

The weatherboard on the tender really got to me. I'm fairly sure it ought to be a bit more than a flat plate in profile, but I couldn't see anything I trusted in photos. Did those spectacles have frames? You'd surely think so...

17 minutes ago, MoonMonkey said:

Just out of interest, do you have the dimensions of the sign?  

No such luck, however: 
https://www.scalemodelscenery.co.uk/lx237-oo-engines-must-not-pass-this-arch-sign-gwr-pack-of-2-oo4mm176-8029-p.asp

How about an "engines must not pass this arch" sign?
 

Beyond it you can imagine an industrial line with its own shunter, a horse, or even just men with pinch bars...

On 18/05/2020 at 20:57, Compound2632 said:

I believe N were rather more specifically loco coal wagons, the Great Western not going in for building its own general mineral wagons, relying on the coal &c trade to provide their own or else hiring them in from the wagon companies.

Don't forget the "Felix Pole" mineral wagons.

On 15/06/2021 at 06:34, Mikkel said:

I had to clap at the Rhymney version, such an attractive loco and livery.

I haven't attempted to draw the lining out, which involved black borders and white lines. The passenger locomotives especially must have looked very striking. Don't place too much emphasis on the shades I've picked... The WRRC book says dark Brunswick Green and Chocolate, but those are names that cover a lot of territory. For colour choice I found colours described as dark brunswick green and chocolate on line, and constructed a palette based on them to give some shading. An O gauge or larger model of this class in the full turn of the century livery would be quite splendid, and very different to most models out there.  I think its probably valid to look at the contrast between the GWR middle chrome green and the Rhymney dark brunswick, but I don't pretend to any kind of fidelity. 

I merged this post with the main entry after the RMWeb outage in March 2022.

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!

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?

23 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

I'd never heard of it either, visibility for landing must've been poor with the cockpit that far back; presumably due to the girt big engine in front.

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

4 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I've not seen any photo evidence of an exhaust steam injector.

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.

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.