Dettingen GCR might have been layout

[richard i]

Tender finished. The parts made from plasticard and putty fitted.

it will be properly cleaned up when it goes in to the paint shop with the loco eventually.

I have decided I will need another tender which I will take from a d11 kit I have which is unlikely to be built as there are many classes without rtr offerings. So I will be using it as a source of parts. 
richard 

[gr.king]

In the case of a tender built early enough to have coal rails, should the rails be further back (leaving roughly equal lengths without rails fore and aft) and should the front coal plate dip towards the sides?

[richard i]

I hummed and Ahhhed over a lot of the details as I know just looking at photos might not be enough as there is not a generic gcr tender. It is my best assumption based on studying drawings from various sources including gcr originals and photographs. I know that what was planned in the drawing office did not always appear that way in practice, hence the photo checking. 
at this point it is staying as it is because when I looked in detail before soldering them on I convinced myself that was their most likely position. It has been a while now so I can’t remember what persuaded me. Now they are on I am very unlikely to change them unless massively definitive evidence comes to light.
lazy modeling maybe, but I still need to build 10 locos in the queue and 20 carriages plus 10 wagons. At the rate I build this is enough to occupy many years. 
I suppose that’s why we are advised not to model based off a model. 
richard  

[Caley Jim]

I would not expect the coal rails to extend back much beyond the rear coal plate, however, I would expect the tank top (on which the coal sits) to slope down to the bottom of the shovelling hole.  On a rivetted tender you can clearly see this as a sloping line of rivets on the tender side.

 

Jim

[richard i]

Tank top sloping. True, but this expedience is because it saves coal which would only be used to fill it up anyway. 
richard 

[Caley Jim]

16 hours ago, richard i said:

Tank top sloping. True, but this expedience is because it saves coal which would only be used to fill it up anyway. 
richard 

But if you sloped it down you could model a lesser coal load after the loco had done a few turns of its roster since leaving the shed. 

 

Jim 

[gr.king]

Only the central part of the tank top slopes down toward the shovelling hole in the Parker, Pollitt and Robinson tender designs, the sides of the tank top reach the front coal plate at full height, level with the rear of the tank top, so the tank is something of a square-edged horseshoe shape with a wide central slot for the coal. Hence, on the visibly rivetted Parker 3000 gallon tenders, and on the visibly rivetted Pollitt 4000 gallon tenders there was NO tell-tale line of sloping rivets in the tank sides, and as Robinson required his rivets to be flush there were two reasons why his tenders showed no such rivets. Ivatt and Gresley tenders on the GNR were provided with tanks of a similar shape. Older tender designs and those for other railways may well have had a full-width coal space, putting all or most of the coal towards the front, and the water to the rear (not necessarily good for balancing weight across the three axles) but Stirling's older wood-framed tenders of that type for the GNR, visible rivets and all, still did not necessarily have a sloping line of rivets in the sides.

Whether one would "not expect" coal rails to extend much behind the rear coal plate is neither here nor there, since drawings and photographs show that MS&LR / GCR tenders built before about 1915 definitely did have the coal rails or side coal plates extending some way aft of the rear coal plate, and conversely NOT reaching all the way to the ends of the front coal plate. Where they curved down at the front there was thus something of an "open top corner" which would limit the scope for heaping coal up without spillage at the very front of the tender. After that time, practicality seems to have over-ruled the apparent desire to make the sides of the tender look reasonably symmetrical, and the side coal plates on new tenders then extended further forwards.

Edited May 28, 2022 by gr.king

[richard i]

4 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

But if you sloped it down you could model a lesser coal load after the loco had done a few turns of its roster since leaving the shed. 

 

Jim 

True but with much more complicated metal work as has been alluded to. Also I have some built that way and do have less in some tenders. Just on this one I decided it would be more heavily laden. 
 

 

3 hours ago, gr.king said:

Only the central part of the tank top slopes down toward the shovelling hole in the Parker, Pollitt and Robinson tender designs, the sides of the tank top reach the front coal plate at full height, level with the rear of the tank top, so the tank is something of a square-edged horseshoe shape with a wide central slot for the coal. Hence, on the visibly rivetted Parker 3000 gallon tenders, and on the visibly rivetted Pollitt 4000 gallon tenders there was NO tell-tale line of sloping rivets in the tank sides, and as Robinson required his rivets to be flush there were two reasons why his tenders showed no such rivets. Ivatt and Gresley tenders on the GNR were provided with tanks of a similar shape. Older tender designs and those for other railways may well have had a full-width coal space, putting all or most of the coal towards the front, and the water to the rear (not necessarily good for balancing weight across the three axles) but Stirling's older wood-framed tenders of that type for the GNR, visible rivets and all, still did not necessarily have a sloping line of rivets in the sides.

Whether one would "not expect" coal rails to extend much behind the rear coal plate is neither here nor there, since drawings and photographs show that MS&LR / GCR tenders built before about 1915 definitely did have the coal rails or side coal plates extending some way aft of the rear coal plate, and conversely NOT reaching all the way to the ends of the front coal plate. Where they curved down at the front there was thus something of an "open top corner" which would limit the scope for heaping coal up without spillage at the very front of the tender. After that time, practicality seems to have over-ruled the apparent desire to make the sides of the tender look reasonably symmetrical, and the side coal plates on new tenders then extended further forwards.

sound points being made here. Robinson was one for the importance of how things looked. He was also a practical man, I can just envision the debate in his head between balanced looks and practical concerns. It looks like first one and then the other won. The shape of the coal space makes a great point about axle loading. Important to consider as coal and water were used at different rates. 
I should ask you questions much more often before I start a build.

thank you both for your input

richard 

[Caley Jim]

5 hours ago, gr.king said:

Only the central part of the tank top slopes down toward the shovelling hole in the Parker, Pollitt and Robinson tender designs, the sides of the tank top reach the front coal plate at full height, level with the rear of the tank top, so the tank is something of a square-edged horseshoe shape with a wide central slot for the coal.

My apologies.  I was speaking from my own knowledge of CR tenders and therefore ignorance of GNR practice.  Early CR tenders did have a 'U' shaped tank with the coal space in the middle.

 

Jim

[gr.king]

18 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

My apologies.  I was speaking from my own knowledge of CR tenders and therefore ignorance of GNR practice.  Early CR tenders did have a 'U' shaped tank with the coal space in the middle.

 

Jim

I didn't mean to sound abrupt by the way Jim. Equally, I didn't want a generalisation to mislead modellers of the GCR, where that generalisation did not apply.

As neither coal rails initially, nor the later solid side coal guards appear to have been added to the flared top copings on GC tenders until Robinson's time, and Robinson's training had been in Swindon, is it too much to assume that his first preference for placing them fairly symmetrically on the sides of the tender, possibly for aesthetic rather than wholly practical effect, was inspired by Swindon methods?

Did the development of ever larger, coal hungry loco types, and/or a decline in typical coal quality around the start of the Great War (if that happened) force the change to more practical coal guards? Did other factors influence it too? There may not be a definitive official record of the reasons.

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

I didn't mean to sound abrupt by the way Jim. Equally, I didn't want a generalisation to mislead modellers of the GCR, where that generalisation did not apply.

No offence taken @gr.king.  I should have taken a moment to think before making a generalisation and showing my ignorance of things of English east coast companies!☹️

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

21 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

My apologies.  I was speaking from my own knowledge of CR tenders and therefore ignorance of GNR practice.  Early CR tenders did have a 'U' shaped tank with the coal space in the middle.

 

Jim

 

West Coast too, Jim - all LNWR tenders, from the earliest days right down to Bowen Cooke's time, had U-shaped water tanks. The Midland led the way, among leading companies, with sloping coal spaces.

[t-b-g]

A bit late to the party on this one but well done on the progress on the Atlantic.

 

I could spot a few things on the tender that don't quite match what I know of GCR tenders but I also know that there were many variations that I don't know about, so I can't say for certain what is right or wrong.

 

So I will make a few suggestions for possible investigation rather than say that they are faults. It may not be worth altering this one as they are fairly minor even if they turn out to be wrong.

 

I would agree that the front coalplate probably shouldn't have a flat top. As far as I have been able to establish, the Robinson tenders had a continuous curve (17ft radius) across the top, apart from the self trimmers. I think the rear plate is possibly a little to low too. The low rear plates I have photos of come up to the second rail of the side rails.

I am not 100 sure if the side rails are too far forward but I think they may be a bit too short or too far forward. They don't look like genuine GCR ones to me as they have 5 rails and I haven't seen that on a GCR tender. The most I have seen is 4 but again, I haven't seen them all. I have just been fitting coal rails to a tender today (a 7mm 11B (D9)) and comparing drawings and photos, there were certainly different lengths of coal rails.

 

If you look at photos, some locos have side plates/rails which end level with the fire iron bracket. Others have the fire iron bracket quite well forward of the side plates/rails. I have been trying to make sense of it and it seems to me that the earlier tenders, especially the ones with rails rather than side plates, had them starting further back. If that is the case, then my own model is wrong but I won't be altering it now as the Gladiator kit side rails would be too long! It is also about 2 or 3mm too high and I won't be altering that either.

 

I do think your model would look better of the side rails were moved back a bit. The tenders did have a very balanced look and having them that far forward does lose that a little bit.

 

The so called "Standard" (what a joke that is!) 4,000 gallon drawing in "Johnson" has the longer side plates. I don't have a drawing showing the shorter version but I think the rear of the sideplates/rails is probably in the same place on the various types and it is the front that moves forward on the longer ones.

 

Lastly, I see that you have used the Alan Gibson casting for the "ship's wheel" water scoop. This cropped up for discussion elsewhere as I have a drawing showing the wheel with 8 handles (like the casting) and I have used them before. After some discussion it was generally agreed that the drawing is wrong! Nobody has found a photo of an 8 spoked wheel and all the known examples have six spokes.

 

So that is an error that I have on some of my models too and I don't lose any sleep over it but future ones will have correct ones fitted. I think Mike Edge might be able to supply some correct pattern etched wheels if asked nicely. 

 

I know lots of modellers who put a solid tender top in. It seems like a waste of time modelling a coal space properly then covering it up with coal. Unless you intend modelling it with just a small amount of coal left.

 

Anyway, I hope that doesn't come across as a demolition job as that is not how it was intended. I have done many of the same things that you have in the past and hindsight is a wonderful thing but I hope it gives you a few pointers to look at for future models. Your tender is much better than some of my efforts and I am still learning!

[richard i]

Thanks for your thoughts Tony. Do you know what, in all the studying I did to try and “get it right” I never counted the coal rails. Such a simple thing but it was one of the few pieces on the etch so I was happy I did not have to make them up, I never checked them. I should have. A “simple” fix might be to lose the top one, but not if that makes the coal rails too short in height. I will measure.

As for moving the rails. They are soldered in under other parts so I am unlikely to move them and will just try and get it right on the next one..,,and ones after that. 
thanks again

richard 

[t-b-g]

24 minutes ago, richard i said:

Thanks for your thoughts Tony. Do you know what, in all the studying I did to try and “get it right” I never counted the coal rails. Such a simple thing but it was one of the few pieces on the etch so I was happy I did not have to make them up, I never checked them. I should have. A “simple” fix might be to lose the top one, but not if that makes the coal rails too short in height. I will measure.

As for moving the rails. They are soldered in under other parts so I am unlikely to move them and will just try and get it right on the next one..,,and ones after that. 
thanks again

richard 

 

Cheers Richard. I have been modelling GCR tenders for over 40 years now and I am still learning. Every time I see the word "Standard" on the drawing I chuckle. I only learned about the shorter side plates on Robinson tenders today, totally by chance as the ones in the Gladiator kit were not the same length as the ones on the drawing. Mine very nearly got put to far forward too. I like the trick of just removing the top rail. If the height works out about right, it should sort that out nicely.

 

I look forward to seeing the loco, one of my top GCR favourites!

 

I attach a snap of two GCR Atlantic tenders. The 4mm version was built by Malcolm Crawley and the 7mm version by me. I am not sure my 7mm one should have a full height rear coal plate. I haven't found a photo of an Atlantic with one like that yet but I live in hope. I only learned about the lower rear coal plates after I put it in. I won't be changing it! So I quite understand why you won't be moving the coal rails back! Sometimes you can do more damage than good and it is wiser to leave it alone and get it right next time.

 

  

[65179]

The coal rails are fine, I think. They look like they are designed to have the bottom rail hidden to leave 4 visible as required for a C4 with a space at the bottom (bend the bottom rail to solder flush against the flare?). The visible bit above the flare should start where the curve starts. The rails should also start further back as suggested by others. It's a pig to tell where GC coalrails/guards start, but as far as I can tell the B8s of 1913 were the first to have them starting further forward (the D10s built just a bit later retained the tenders with the coalguards starting further back). 

 

If you've a copy of Locomotive Modelling from Scratch and Etched Kits Pt2 by Geoff Holt then you have a GA showing a GC tender with the coalplates starting further back. If not PM me. That GA also shows the lower rear coalplate. If present, on these earlier tenders then it is a little lower than the top of the tank filler and as Tony suggests this is in line with the 2nd of 4 coal rails on these sorts of tender.  It also perhaps suggests a slightly different shape for the scoop gear cover in the coalspace, but that's what a heap of coal is for!

 

Like Tony I only recently spotted the shorter coalrail/coalguard issue whilst building a B9 (mine still aren't quite right):

 

Regards,

Simon

Edited May 30, 2022 by 65179
To reflect lack of certainty about scoop gear box shape

[richard i]

Thank you. I do have that book and it was one of the drawings I referenced. Though which to judge as more correct than the other without others opinions has been more guess work than I would have wanted. 
I will consider all the advice. I do not need to plan straight away as I have the loco to build. Another mine field awaits.

richard 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, 65179 said:

The coal rails are fine, I think. They look like they are designed to have the bottom rail hidden to leave 4 visible as required for a C4 with a space at the bottom (bend the bottom rail to solder flush against the flare?). The visible bit above the flare should start where the curve starts. The rails should also start further back as suggested by others. It's a pig to tell where GC coalrails/guards start, but as far as I can tell the B8s of 1913 were the first to have them starting further forward (the D10s built just a bit later retained the tenders with the coalguards starting further back). 

 

If you've a copy of Locomotive Modelling from Scratch and Etched Kits Pt2 by Geoff Holt then you have a GA showing a GC tender with the coalplates starting further back. If not PM me. That GA also shows the lower rear coalplate. If present, on these earlier tenders then it is a little lower than the top of the tank filler and as Tony suggests this is in line with the 2nd of 4 coal rails on these sorts of tender.  It also shows a slightly different shape for the scoop gear cover in the coalspace, but that's what a heap of coal is for!

 

Like Tony I only recently spotted the shorter coalrail/coalguard issue whilst building a B9 (mine still aren't quite right):

 

Regards,

Simon

 

I have the Geoff Holt book and had completely forgotten about the GA in there, so thanks for pointing us at it.

 

I have had a look and spotted an error made by the draftsman. He has the handles on the scoop gear boxes the wrong way round on the front view. The one nearest the "viewer" should be the left hand one not the other way round, if that makes sense.

 

I have failed to spot the difference in the shape of the scoop gear boxes, so perhaps you could give a bit of a hint so I can find it.

 

That must be one of the earliest tenders with solid side plates, rather than rails.

 

It was well worth digging out to look at. Most interesting.

 

The 4-6-0 looks great. I have some Mike Edge etches to do one myself one day.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

[Woodcock29]

Tony G (and Richard)

 

Like Tony I was of the view in recent times that all water pickup 'ships' wheels had only 6 spokes. However, the other day whilst browsing  photos of D7s again (research for my D7 resin kit from Graeme King!) in Yeadon Vol 29 I came across a photo of D9 6021 Queen Mary which clearly shows a wheel with 8 spokes (p61). I've yet to find any other evidence on any other locos. In the past I've generally fitted the Alan Gibson 8 spoke castings. But a couple of years ago I purchased a batch of 15 of Mike Edge's nice etched n/s 6 spoked 'ships' wheels to replace the 8 spoked wheels and for future builds.

 

I also have one of Mike's B9s to build one day but must first finish my B8 which has stalled since the end of 2021 as well as a range of other projects.

Andrew

Edited May 30, 2022 by Woodcock29
Typo

[65179]

5 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony G (and Richard)

 

Like Tony I was of the view in recent times that all water pickup 'ship's wheels had only 6 spokes. However, the other day whilst browsing  photos of D7s again (research for my D7 resin kit from Graeme King!) in Yeadon Vol 29 I came across a photo of D9 6021 Queen Mary which clearly shows a wheel with 8 spokes (p61). I've yet to find any other evidence on any other locos. In the past I've generally fitted the Alan Gibson 8 spoke castings. But a couple of years ago I purchased a batch of 15 of Mike Edge's nice etched n/s 6 spoked 'ships' wheels to replace the 8 spoked wheels and for future builds.

 

I also have one of Mike's B9s to build one day but must first finish my B8 which has stalled since the end of 2021 as well as a range of other projects.

Andrew

 

Hi Andrew,

 

I saw this photo and thought it was an 8 spoke wheel until I looked at the spacing. It's actually a 6 spoke wheel with the extra visible 'spoke' in the middle being the single  handle that sticks out from the wheel rim on these wheels as built. This is clearly visible in the side elevation of the drawing I mentioned in my last post (although as noted it shows the wheel wrongly with 8 spokes).

 

Regards,

Simon 

[gr.king]

11 hours ago, 65179 said:

 as I can tell the B8s of 1913 were the first to have them starting further forward (the D10s built just a bit later retained the tenders with the coalguards starting further back). 

Thanks for clarification / conformation of the class and the date Simon. I had in mind that the first examples were tenders for one of the larger 4-6-0s, but I didn't take the time to look up the exact details again. My approximation of 1915 wasn't too far out...

 

The RODs, built later still to modified GC drawings (but mostly not in GC works) still had tenders with the old coalguard positions too of course.

[65179]

50 minutes ago, gr.king said:

 

The RODs, built later still to modified GC drawings (but mostly not in GC works) still had tenders with the old coalguard positions too of course.

 

Good point. I wondered why the odd O4 of various sorts had the 'new' coalguard position and then remembered that, aside from any that may have obtained tenders from later built locos of other types, the 8Ms (O5s) were supplied with tenders with the new coalguard position.

 

Simon

[65179]

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have the Geoff Holt book and had completely forgotten about the GA in there, so thanks for pointing us at it.

 

I have had a look and spotted an error made by the draftsman. He has the handles on the scoop gear boxes the wrong way round on the front view. The one nearest the "viewer" should be the left hand one not the other way round, if that makes sense.

 

I have failed to spot the difference in the shape of the scoop gear boxes, so perhaps you could give a bit of a hint so I can find it.

 

That must be one of the earliest tenders with solid side plates, rather than rails.

 

It was well worth digging out to look at. Most interesting.

 

The 4-6-0 looks great. I have some Mike Edge etches to do one myself one day.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

 

Thanks Tony

I thought the GA suggested a curved inner edge to the box immediately behind the front coalplate. However on reflection I may just have been lead by the way that Geoff Holt chose to produce it on his Imminghams (neither of which accord with the GA or pictures  in GC days in various other minor respects).  I've failed miserably to find any photos inside the coalspace of any GC tender apart from the self-trimming type to confirm what this box actually looked like on any variant. The GA does show the handles on the toolboxes at rear towards the rear coalplate (rather than away from it as was the case on the self-trimming type and the later tenders such as those for the B-P built 9Qs).  Bachmann appeared to have copied this feature on their LNER J11 tender. Is this correct or is the GA wrong in that respect too? 

 

Simon

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by 65179

[t-b-g]

48 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

Thanks Tony

I thought the GA suggested a curved inner edge to the box immediately behind the front coalplate. However on reflection I may just have been lead by the way that Geoff Holt chose to produce it on his Imminghams (neither of which accord with the GA or pictures  in GC days in various other minor respects).  I've failed miserably to find any photos inside the coalspace of any GC tender apart from the self-trimming type to confirm what this box actually looked like on any variant. The GA does show the handles on the toolboxes at rear towards the rear coalplate (rather than away from it as was the case on the self-trimming type and the later tenders such as those for the B-P built 9Qs).  Bachmann appeared to have copied this feature on their LNER J11 tender. Is this correct or is the GA wrong in that respect too? 

 

Simon

 

 

I have done pretty much the same, searching for photos and never really finding anything conclusive. I really don't know if there were different versions or if the drawing is incorrect. In the absence of real tenders to go looking at, I would think that Bachmann got hold of the drawing and based their model on it.

 

[richard i]

Butler henderson’s tender help? 
has anyone climbed up on top of the tender to take a photo of all the gear? 
any one passing by barrow ( where it is?) to see what it is like. I know there is not a standard gcr tender but….

 

as an interesting aside it is noticeable how much more we have to say about locos than the carriages they pull. Me included. It shows how loco centric railway enthusiasts are in the main. ( myself included) I have to be disciplined with myself to build the carriages I need rather than another loco. 
richard