dscott
Elder Statesman
Posts: 2,440
|
Post by dscott on Dec 6, 2018 1:13:28 GMT
The comparisons with the 51XX is because I had the steel and it produces a scale 15XX chassis!
This is without the frame extensions of course. It is possible that Hawksworth started the drawing
at the front and by the time he had fitted the boiler, the cab became cramped. The bunker is of course
one of the standard sizes!! Of course he could have used longer steel but you come up with a better
reason for her length? AHHH Obvious in model form would fit in the back of a car perfectly!!
I got to meet two Swindon Drawing office men in my teens and they offered wonderful insight as to what went on
and what they had to work with. Anyone remember the Apollo 13 film? That's all you have now build a
locomotive from the parts! The steps on the 1500 are straight from the Small Prairie tank! If you wondered.
Lovely message from the now twice runner up at IMLEC who we met at Oxford 2 years in a row. A smaller boiler
Don Young's valve gear and a superb locomotive to almost win!!!!
In fact the Southern Southampton Shunters which were designed within 4 weeks were the inspiration for the design.
Almost Pure USA with a round topped boiler giving more room either side. One moment will go and measure frames
which were bar construction.
Tiny locomotive but very strong at 4 1/8 inches in model form shorter! 10 5/8" wheel base as opposed to 13 3/4".
Just been marking out the inclined cylinder holes! You hardly notice a couple of degrees but it adds to the
picture. Will be attaching backing plates like Don did for his Black Five and Class 2!!
Best regards
David.
|
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Dec 6, 2018 16:35:31 GMT
Hi Gary, I think things are bit more complex. Churchward never built any 0-6-0 tanks other than the few replacements for the Cornwall Railway locos, when he rolled out the original drawings for Harold Holcroft, and tasked him with designing the replacements, which were pretty much a copy of the originals with Allan valve gear. Churchward otherwise had enough Armstrong and Dean 0-6-0 tank locos to fulfill duties. Collett had to do something about the absorbed South Wales companies post 1923 - the Rhymney, Taff Vale, and Barry Railways principally. The 56XX was the result. Then Collett had to do something to replace the by then worn out Armstrong and Dean 0-6-0 tank/pannier tank locos; the 57XX using a chassis of 1880s vintage was his response. To replace the Armstrong 'Standard Goods' 0-6-0 tender locos, the 2251 class (using the same chassis as the 57XX class and dating back to the 1880s) was built. Hawksworth designed the 94XX 0-6-0 pannier tanks apparently due to a comment from a member of the Locomotive sub committee of the GWR board - it was a 57XX with a tapered belpaire firebox boiler on again a 57XX chassis of 1880s vintage! I don't think anyone knows why Hawksworth designed the 15XX as per 'Speedy'. If they were to go round Newport Docks, they were never used for this purpose! They ended up pretty much nearly all the class at Old Oak Common steaming in and out of Paddington hauling empty coaches a short distance, which a 57XX and a 94XX were quite capable of doing. Cheers, Julian Hi Julian Indeed; everything you say is correct. I wanted to confine the exposition to the pannier tanks, because that is the (oblique) line of descent for the 15xxs. I think your introduction of the 56xx into the discussion does in fact answer completely Roger's point about fitting large engines between the frames. I doubt if anything more powerful than the 56xx was needed, so the 'bits' were readily available to do it, but by 1944 Hawksworth had realised there was no future in perpetuating inside cylinders in the conditions then prevailing, and the 15xx was a quick way of demonstrating this. It is also true that Collet's standardisation of the 57xx and its close relatives between the wars was really a synthesis of the 'best bits' of the existing tank engines, some of considerable antiquity! But it would be wrong to equate 'standardisation' with 'redesign' or 'modernisation' in the Churchward sense. Nonetheless a GW standard it definitely became, and we have the testimony of several insiders on that point (by coincidence I have just been re-reading KJ Cook). They were built with extensive jigs and fixtures and a high degree of interchangeability of parts was achieved. It is a tribute to the soundness of the original work in the 19th century by Dean and the Armstrongs that they gave sterling service to the Western (and other) Regions up to the end of steam, and are still doing so on many heritage lines in the 21st century! But on the origins of the 15xx, I believe it is safe to take the designer's words at face value. They were intended to be high-availability shunting locos; full stop. It was evident that the GWR/WR had no need to extend its already-huge stock of 6-wheeled shunting engines, even at the time, which is why only 10 were built, and I doubt if any particular deployment was envisaged at the outset. Probably the operating department had to scratch its collective head to think of suitable jobs to put them on, because as shunting locos per se they shared the disadvantages of the 94xx, in that the cab was too wide for the driver to conveniently reach the regulator and the brake while still looking out of the cab side for signals from the shunters. Ironic perhaps, that 'modernisation' (in this case of the boiler) rendered them less suitable for their designed purpose than the locos they were intending to replace! Hence they ended up on short-haul low-speed heavyweight transfer duties, not shunting at all. This also explains why the WR didn't buy up WD-surplus American switchers like the SR did. The WR had no need for them. (And incidentally, the alleged similarity of the USA class is, I believe a red-herring. There is almost nothing in common between the two designs other than being close-coupled outside cylinder tank engines, and the WR did not see that it had anything to learn from the USA class. But I digress). It is the lack of any real need for the 15xx that makes me feel so certain that Hawksworth had other ends in mind for the expensive new components that went into them. I've mentioned the Dukedogs already as one possible target for replacement by a modern outside-cylindered design. Perhaps even more likely was the 45xx and 55xx prairie tanks, some of which dated back to the early 1900s. These also employed the composite cylinder/saddle plus extension frames that Hawksworth disliked so much, but they were also somewhat non-standard, because their outside cylinder castings were smaller than the rest of the Churchward 'standards'. They were nonetheless useful engines, and a redesign (or rebuild) of them along the lines of the 'modified Halls' using 15xx cylinders would make perfect engineering sense, if Nationalisation had not happened. And at the time of laying out the 15xx remember, Nationalisation was not even a distant prospect. It is notable that the Nationalised railway soon set about building its own standard classes, and at the bottom end of the range were a number of classes that could just have easily been built with 15xx cylinders and major components; so a perceived need definitely existed for this kind of development. As I said, we shall never know for sure; but to understand the past it is necessary to try to understand the motivations of the principal actors without the benefit of hindsight. Best regards Gary |
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Dec 6, 2018 17:25:26 GMT
Hello everyone, My, my Gary---- that'll give young Julian something to consider.. Meanwhile let's add this little rascal into the cooking pot of discussion -----------> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_1366_Class ---------- and in particular read the notes under the heading of}--- "Operational History" |
|
pault
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,500
|
Post by pault on Dec 6, 2018 21:29:53 GMT
and you'll need to because the Flak will be coming from 2 opposing camps I think !! My dear old grandad started his railway career on the North Eastern Railway, went through the LNER years and retired from the Eastern Region of BR after 45 years service.so I had little choice in where my alegances went. He tolerated the Southern, as Bullied was ex LNER, there was reluctant respect for the competition on the West Coast, the Western well I can't say what he thought, in polite company lol. |
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Dec 6, 2018 22:39:33 GMT
delaplume "liked" it as well...
|
|
dscott
Elder Statesman
Posts: 2,440
|
Post by dscott on Dec 6, 2018 22:58:38 GMT
Well just returned from the natter night and the portability of frames continues.
We have a Speedy owner with indeed the original Valve gear which works perfectly all day notched back or otherwise!
One day I may count the holes needed for these close to scale things but the interesting point was my use of stick on white labels for marking out! Yes you get a clear view of everything and can even write what needs to be drilled what size on them.
Ever so useful when many in our group tonight swap between glasses to undertake operations. Operations came in for chat just before the tea arrived.
On metal sizes, An interesting encounter during the last Guildford visit with a metal plates expert through the years? Yes the rolling of plates is very close to our development industrially. And important on models of older vintages where shorter plates would have been used. So for ship models Brunel's used quite small ones very expensively made. The Titanic slightly larger and cheaper to roll, and then later high quality with specifications enabled the Big locomotives to come into being. His right over left, or left over right for the boiler cladding tussle between Derby and Crewe information, saw a tug towards the Lunch tables from Lily. Now what did Swindon do again on theirs?
David and Lily.
|
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Dec 6, 2018 23:20:13 GMT
Hello everyone, My, my Gary---- that'll give young Julian something to consider.. Meanwhile let's add this little rascal into the cooking pot of discussion -----------> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_1366_Class ---------- and in particular read the notes under the heading of}--- "Operational History" No, let's not! We are already scraping the outer limits of relevance to Roger's thread. ;-) And I have enormous regard for Julian, there is no disagreement here at all. I don't know if Julian would necessarily agree where I enter the realm of speculation, but he doesn't have to; courteous discussion and analysis is what drives History forward. -Gary |
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Dec 6, 2018 23:47:45 GMT
Hello everyone, My, my Gary---- that'll give young Julian something to consider.. Meanwhile let's add this little rascal into the cooking pot of discussion -----------> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_1366_Class ---------- and in particular read the notes under the heading of}--- "Operational History" No, let's not! We are already scraping the outer limits of relevance to Roger's thread. ;-) And I have enormous regard for Julian, there is no disagreement here at all. I don't know if Julian would necessarily agree where I enter the realm of speculation, but he doesn't have to; courteous discussion and analysis is what drives History forward. -Gary OK, ok---------- I hear what you say-------The 1366 were outside cylinder locos with inside valve gear used for Dock work, shunting etc so would fit the bill all round.....I was just wondering why they hadn't been used instead of developing a new loco, that was all... |
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Dec 7, 2018 9:23:50 GMT
No, let's not! We are already scraping the outer limits of relevance to Roger's thread. ;-) And I have enormous regard for Julian, there is no disagreement here at all. I don't know if Julian would necessarily agree where I enter the realm of speculation, but he doesn't have to; courteous discussion and analysis is what drives History forward. -Gary OK, ok---------- I hear what you say-------The 1366 were outside cylinder locos with inside valve gear used for Dock work, shunting etc so would fit the bill all round.....I was just wondering why they hadn't been used instead of developing a new loco, that was all... Mainly because they were tiny- really small, intentionally so- and none of the major parts were standard, even the wheels were 3ft 8" specials. I have a photo somewhere of a 13xx dwarfed by an ordinary MINK goods van. As Julian mentioned, they were originally built to satisfy a special requirement in Cornwall. HTH Gary |
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Dec 7, 2018 10:19:54 GMT
Your mention of 13xx reminded me}--- What's happened to the SVR lad who was restoring a 5" gauge 1300 saddle Tank ??...... I seem to have lost the thread
As a young boy on holiday in Weymouth I remember seeing one of those 1366 Pannier types bringing the train through the Town and down to the Docks------Fast forwards to last month and I've just sold a 7.25" gauge model....Small world !!
|
|
|
|
Post by terrier060 on Dec 7, 2018 12:42:13 GMT
I found these Roger which you might find helpful. Bill had a very good system for oiling the axleboxes and inside eccentrics for the water pumps. Each oil box had 4 compartments as far as I can remember, each with proper worsted wicks, one for each axlebox and one for each pump eccentric. To ensure the water was always cold for the injector he had a tank in front of him on the trolley which also held the coal. The water valve was also on the tank and coupled to the loco with a rubber tube. The tank was removable and was held down with lugs which went under the front of the trolley and the passenger seat. The pricker and shovel were in the loco bunker so readily to-hand. Here is the list to go with the enclosed photo. The water bypass was a small lever mounted low down on the front of the bunker (probably the sanding gear on the full size?) Fully left was bypass open and when turned 180 degrees to the right it was shut and passing water to the boiler. You could feel the pumps working as you adjusted it and I seem to remember that it was just over half way for the correct setting for the Soton track. The oil was set for about two blobs for a circuit of the Soton track which was 2/5ths of a mile long. The atomising valve also acted as a shut-off when the loco was stationary, but when coasting you could shut off the steam supply to the cylinders, but keep the oil flowing by not quite shutting the regulator to the fully closed position. Hope this is useful.  Bill Perrett Speedy cab by ed cloutman, on Flickr 1 Live steam shut off to oil reservoir 2 Live steam shut off to steam brake 3 Injector steam 4 Blower 5 Atomising valve 6 Four compartments with wick feed to LH axleboxes and LH pump eccentric 7 Four compartments with wick feed to RH axleboxes and RH pump eccentric 8 Oil adjustment 9 Drain cocks 10 180 degree lever for pump bypass - off to full on (hidden behind bunker see other photo) 11 Hydrostatic lubricator oil tank drain valve 12 Water valve to injector on passenger trolley tank - top of tank is coal bunker  Bill Perrett Speedy cab detail by ed cloutman, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Dec 7, 2018 12:56:42 GMT
I found these Roger which you might find helpful. Bill had a very good system for oiling the axleboxes and inside eccentrics for the water pumps. Each oil box had 4 compartments as far as I can remember, each with proper worsted wicks, one for each axlebox and one for each pump eccentric. To ensure the water was always cold for the injector he had a tank in front of him on the trolley which also held the coal. The water valve was also on the tank and coupled to the loco with a rubber tube. The tank was removable and was held down with lugs which went under the front of the trolley and the passenger seat. The pricker and shovel were in the loco bunker so readily to-hand. Here is the list to go with the enclosed photo. The water bypass was a small lever mounted low down on the front of the bunker (probably the sanding gear on the full size?) Fully left was bypass open and when turned 180 degrees to the right it was shut and passing water to the boiler. You could feel the pumps working as you adjusted it and I seem to remember that it was just over half way for the correct setting for the Soton track. The oil was set for about two blobs for a circuit of the Soton track which was 2/5ths of a mile long. The atomising valve also acted as a shut-off when the loco was stationary, but when coasting you could shut off the steam supply to the cylinders, but keep the oil flowing by not quite shutting the regulator to the fully closed position. Hope this is useful. Bill Perrett Speedy cab by ed cloutman, on Flickr 1 Live steam shut off to oil reservoir 2 Live steam shut off to steam brake 3 Injector steam 4 Blower 5 Atomising valve 6 Four compartments with wick feed to LH axleboxes and LH pump eccentric 7 Four compartments with wick feed to RH axleboxes and RH pump eccentric 8 Oil adjustment 9 Drain cocks 10 180 degree lever for pump bypass - off to full on (hidden behind bunker see other photo) 11 Hydrostatic lubricator oil tank drain valve 12 Water valve to injector on passenger trolley tank - top of tank is coal bunker Bill Perrett Speedy cab detail by ed cloutman, on Flickr Hi Ed, Thanks for that. I was forunate enough to be at Southampton when Bill's SPEEDY was being run. I have a lot of photos but of course not this one with the explanation. I really like the idea of feeding the axleboxes like that, although I'm not keen on putting the oil boxes in the cab. Yes, the bypass valve is what was the sanding lever. The drain cocks are operated by the correct lever at 9, but 8 and 11 are not on 1501. The valves 1 and 2 should be the left and right injectors, but that's fine. 3 is more or less in the place where the steam heating valve should be. It's a pretty good effort at getting things in the right place, a huge improvement over LBSCs layout. The tiny amount of oil used is something that we all should be aware of when setting up mechanical lubricators. I know I've said this all before, but I'm of the opinion that mechanical lubricators are massively oversized compared to what's necessary. The axle pump on SPEEDY is way too big in my opinion, and that's very wasteful. To my way of thinking you should only have a pump that can just about keep up with the absolute maximum usage. Anything else is just wasting power if you run with the bypass partly open. |
|
|
|
Post by terrier060 on Dec 7, 2018 13:13:04 GMT
I think that is why Bill used two small pumps. He had rectangular oil troughs on the top for the oil to drop in to. The wicks are important as they control the rate of oil. I am pretty sure he used thick cylinder oil but I may be wrong. I believe he was a plumber by trade and I think he worked at power stations. I remember he was meticulous about the pipework and plumbing on his loco. The photo shows the loco in a very poor state. It was always kept immaculate by Bill and worked hard every week at Cobden Meadows being the main passenger hauling loco. Two laps of the track for sixpence!
Oh and on driving (see Julian's thread!) we were terrible! We used to bang on the Welsh steam coal in the station with the blower just on - producing yellow sulphurous fumes from the chimney which choked you if you breathed them in! This allowed one to do two laps of the track. Sorry about this Roger, but on the run it is hard to get out of the exhaust fumes. They seem to follow you wherever you put your head to avoid them. Best advice is to wear a gas mask. You may be tall enough to miss them, hopefully. I suspect I shall have the same problem with the Terriers as they are about the same size as Speedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Dec 7, 2018 14:23:11 GMT
I think that is why Bill used two small pumps. He had rectangular oil troughs on the top for the oil to drop in to. The wicks are important as they control the rate of oil. I am pretty sure he used thick cylinder oil but I may be wrong. I believe he was a plumber by trade and I think he worked at power stations. I remember he was meticulous about the pipework and plumbing on his loco. The photo shows the loco in a very poor state. It was always kept immaculate by Bill and worked hard every week at Cobden Meadows being the main passenger hauling loco. Two laps of the track for sixpence! Oh and on driving (see Julian's thread!) we were terrible! We used to bang on the Welsh steam coal in the station with the blower just on - producing yellow sulphurous fumes from the chimney which choked you if you breathed them in! This allowed one to do two laps of the track. Sorry about this Roger, but on the run it is hard to get out of the exhaust fumes. They seem to follow you wherever you put your head to avoid them. Best advice is to wear a gas mask. You may be tall enough to miss them, hopefully. I suspect I shall have the same problem with the Terriers as they are about the same size as Speedy. It's certainly an excellent locomotive and a tribute to Bill's imagination and skill in making a much better locomotive from the original design. I think I prefer that Sulphurous smoke to the invisible but thoroughly nasty smoke from Anthracite which gives me a headache. It doesn't even smell like a proper locomotive with that stuff. It certainly works, but I don't like it. |
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Dec 7, 2018 19:01:13 GMT
Isn't that a lovely backhead arrangement ?? More the better as it's an LBSC model that's had a bit of thought put into it....
As per my Mogul I'm sure the cab interior is NOT cream but Black in this case and should be Green on the Mogul --- ie the cab's inside matches the outside for colour...
Has anyone some photos of Fred Cottam's Large Prairie and in particular the backhead on that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 7, 2018 22:29:20 GMT
I don't think anyone knows why Hawksworth designed the 15XX as per 'Speedy'. If they were to go round Newport Docks, they were never used for this purpose! They ended up pretty much nearly all the class at Old Oak Common steaming in and out of Paddington hauling empty coaches a short distance, which a 57XX and a 94XX were quite capable of doing. Cheers, Julian Julian, do you have any sources I could read that suggest they were never used for that purpose? 1506 and 1507 spent 9 years in Newport, most of their working lives, and 1509 was here for a few years too. I wonder what else they would have been doing here if not used in and around the docks. I believe 1508 spent 6 or 7 years in Cardiff, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Dec 7, 2018 22:54:49 GMT
Isn't that a lovely backhead arrangement ?? More the better as it's an LBSC model that's had a bit of thought put into it.... As per my Mogul I'm sure the cab interior is NOT cream but Black in this case and should be Green on the Mogul --- ie the cab's inside matches the outside for colour... Has anyone some photos of Fred Cottam's Large Prairie and in particular the backhead on that ? You're quite right about the cab interior, it's black, like everything else on 1501. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Dec 7, 2018 23:09:52 GMT
It's a story of getting into and out of trouble today... If you look at the location of that spotted hole, you will see that it's right on the edge of one of the holes I had to fill in when I changed the reverser from the LBSC arrangement. The new hole is for the rear stretcher under the cab floor so I don't want this plug to move.  20181207_192950 by Roger Froud, on Flickr So out with the TIG welder, only to find that the second the arc was struck, it's outgassed the Loctite and blown a hole in it...  20181207_193446 by Roger Froud, on Flickr ... which looked like this. Not quite what I had in mind!  20181207_193706 by Roger Froud, on Flickr So I had another go, this time adding some rod and getting it to fuse all around, but that left quite a lot of material above the surface...  20181207_194650 by Roger Froud, on Flickr ... which I machined off with an End mill, leaving 0.1mm to finish by hand...  20181207_195448 by Roger Froud, on Flickr ... which ended up like this with the hole in it. That's much more satisfactory than leaving it, I don't like these things to be questionably strong.  20181207_200727 by Roger Froud, on Flickr Anyway, I've spent about 8 hours in total adding all of the new holes in both plates. There are still some holes to plug, but it's nearly done. I have added two M4 tapped holes above each of the hornblocks so that I can attach hydraulic dampers to them if I want in future. I'm not entirely sure how I would do that yet, but at least I've kept the door open to that eventuality. You can't see the holes because they're hidden behind the wheels, so there's no impact on how it looks. |
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,918
|
Post by jma1009 on Dec 7, 2018 23:19:39 GMT
Hi Gary and Alan,
The 5 examples of the 1361 class built in 1910 and designed by Holcroft for Churchward were updated 'copies' of much older Cornwall Mineral Railway locos that required replacement.
They had inclined outside cylinders, with steam chests inside the frames and reproduced the Allan valve gear of the originals, and 1363 is preserved at Didcot.
There is a thread on here started by Peter Rich not long before he died drawing up plans for a 5"g version.
The much better known 1366 class was derived from the 1361 class and 6 were built in 1934. They differed from the 1361 class in having Stephensons gear instead of Allan gear, and pannier tanks, and belpaire fireboxes. They are better known in miniature loco circles due to the Keith Wilson design in 7.25"g.
They also had inclined outside cylinders, with steam chests inside the frames.
1369 is preserved on the South Devon Railway.
The problem I have with Gary's theory about the 15XX class is twofold; firstly Hawksworth did not retire till the end of 1949, and secondly some 190 94XX class locos were built after Nationalisation after the first ten had been built the year before Nationalisation (1948). 170 of these locos were ordered before Nationalisation but were were not built till after Nationalisation by outside contractors.
If the piston valve 15XX parts were part of some greater plan by Hawksworth, then why build 200 94XX locos of 0-6-0 PT using a chassis dating back to the 1880s with inside cylinders and slide valves, and a rather old fashioned non Churchward/Pearce design of top suspended loco link?!
There is actually a lot of evidence that the GWR used the money paid by the Labour Government to buy out the shareholders on Nationalisation to order new locos that were then supplied after Nationalisation. Whilst one might question the spending spree on 190 94XX class locos, the fact that the GWR Board did not pass on the money to shareholders as a dividend I consider quite commendable (note there may have been something in the 1947 Act that prevented this anyway, and of course the GWR was post WW2 the only company of 'the big four' that paid a dividend to shareholders in any event!)
Cheers,
Julian
|
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Dec 8, 2018 0:31:19 GMT
Isn't that a lovely backhead arrangement ?? More the better as it's an LBSC model that's had a bit of thought put into it.... As per my Mogul I'm sure the cab interior is NOT cream but Black in this case and should be Green on the Mogul --- ie the cab's inside matches the outside for colour... Has anyone some photos of Fred Cottam's Large Prairie and in particular the backhead on that ? You're quite right about the cab interior, it's black, like everything else on 1501. ---- apart from the cabside No. plate background which I think is Red ?? ( Buffer beams don't count as far as livery is concerned ) |
|
