|
Post by andyhigham on Oct 28, 2019 19:51:13 GMT
I wonder if the bonnet and feed pipe covers were a "standard" design, intended for tender engines. Fitted to the tank engine the assembly could have been splayed out to clear the bend in the pipes. Most people would never ever see the gaps as they were above head height
|
|
|
Post by andyhigham on Oct 28, 2019 19:58:23 GMT
Would GWR have designed a completely new assembly for just 10 shunting locos?
|
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Oct 28, 2019 20:17:36 GMT
I don't think Roger has posted on here the original works drawings for the safety cover that he has copied. I have done a search on here and via emails from the late Bob Youldon, so can only go by what I perceive to be correct via numerous drawings and pics I have for older GWR locos. I have yet to be assured that the safety valve top is the correct diameter or the shape of same. To my mind it appears to be too short in diameter at the top, and the flare too gentle. I assume Roger wants to recreate the 15XX as it was in BR days rather than as acquired by the SVR with quite a lot of spares from industrial usage. Happy to get shot down on all of this of course, and no criticism implied of Roger's remarkable machining skills and tooling. Cheers, Julian Hi Julian, I haven't posted the Works Drawings because of copyright issues that might arise. You're quite right that the final diameter of the outside edge is smaller than it's supposed to be, by quite a lot as it turns out. The drawing scales to 40.458mm whereas mine ends up at 35.11mm. All the other dimensions are as they should be. The issue with the top is that the edge ends up wafer thin if you truly follow the drawing, and I don't think it's feasible to have a rolled edge appearance without the rolled edge being way over scale. So what I elected to do was to go for a rolled edge but that's pulled the outside diameter in to achieve it. The construction was exactly to the drawing, but that radius pulls in the outer edge somewhat, if that makes sense. If you look at the pictures of 1501 I posted above, I don't think they're to the works drawing either. To my eyes the top looks much more like what I've made because the bottom looks large in proportion to the top. It's hard to be sure of anything really without measuring what's actually on there. Personally, I'm very happy with it, I don't think many people would spot what you have with your Eagle eyes! It's all a compromise, and I'm not making a super scale model in any case. It's easy to become too obsessed with these things, I'd never finish it if I kept going back to make minor changes that most people, including myself, wouldn't notice. There are many places where it's not truly to the Works Drawings, after all it started life as SPEEDY, and without starting from frames made to the Works Drawings, there's no way to make it exactly right. Yerss... Julian isn't wrong, but I think Roger can be allowed some poetic licence. Bear in mind that there never was a 'standard' GWR SV bonnet. They were a stylistic feature which evolved by stages from the days of Gooch, and different classes acquired differently profiled bonnets. They tended to grow lower as the 20th century went on (and as boilers grew bigger of course), and some classes (like the Moguls) had examples of more than one type. There are worse examples than Roger's small deviation from truth visible in full-size today, such as the sadly squished affair on 6023 at Didcot. (The GWS had little choice, if they wanted King Edward II's crown to fit under modern overhead cables, but the result is pretty glaring to those who know the Kings well.) The GW bonnet is a very prominent feature, but I'd say Roger's interpretation looks 'in character' and that is surely the main thing. -? Gary
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Oct 28, 2019 22:04:38 GMT
Hi Julian, I haven't posted the Works Drawings because of copyright issues that might arise. You're quite right that the final diameter of the outside edge is smaller than it's supposed to be, by quite a lot as it turns out. The drawing scales to 40.458mm whereas mine ends up at 35.11mm. All the other dimensions are as they should be. The issue with the top is that the edge ends up wafer thin if you truly follow the drawing, and I don't think it's feasible to have a rolled edge appearance without the rolled edge being way over scale. So what I elected to do was to go for a rolled edge but that's pulled the outside diameter in to achieve it. The construction was exactly to the drawing, but that radius pulls in the outer edge somewhat, if that makes sense. If you look at the pictures of 1501 I posted above, I don't think they're to the works drawing either. To my eyes the top looks much more like what I've made because the bottom looks large in proportion to the top. It's hard to be sure of anything really without measuring what's actually on there. Personally, I'm very happy with it, I don't think many people would spot what you have with your Eagle eyes! It's all a compromise, and I'm not making a super scale model in any case. It's easy to become too obsessed with these things, I'd never finish it if I kept going back to make minor changes that most people, including myself, wouldn't notice. There are many places where it's not truly to the Works Drawings, after all it started life as SPEEDY, and without starting from frames made to the Works Drawings, there's no way to make it exactly right. Yerss... Julian isn't wrong, but I think Roger can be allowed some poetic licence. Bear in mind that there never was a 'standard' GWR SV bonnet. They were a stylistic feature which evolved by stages from the days of Gooch, and different classes acquired differently profiled bonnets. They tended to grow lower as the 20th century went on (and as boilers grew bigger of course), and some classes (like the Moguls) had examples of more than one type. There are worse examples than Roger's small deviation from truth visible in full-size today, such as the sadly squished affair on 6023 at Didcot. (The GWS had little choice, if they wanted King Edward II's crown to fit under modern overhead cables, but the result is pretty glaring to those who know the Kings well.) The GW bonnet is a very prominent feature, but I'd say Roger's interpretation looks 'in character' and that is surely the main thing. -? Gary Hi Gary, Getting the proportions approximately right is probably about the best you can hope for. I could make it again, but I personally don't find it offensive. I'm struggling to get the proportions of the shoulders right. Following the Works Drawings is fraught with difficulty because there's no clear dimension from the centre line of the bonnet. They also say it's dressed to fit, so it's clearly not that precise. The drawing does say it's a pressing though, presumably a symmetrical one, but they're actually handed because of the tapered boiler. I'm just experimenting with how far the shoulders stick out from the bonnet to get something that looks plausibly like the photos.
|
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Oct 28, 2019 23:42:01 GMT
Yerss... Julian isn't wrong, but I think Roger can be allowed some poetic licence. Bear in mind that there never was a 'standard' GWR SV bonnet. They were a stylistic feature which evolved by stages from the days of Gooch, and different classes acquired differently profiled bonnets. They tended to grow lower as the 20th century went on (and as boilers grew bigger of course), and some classes (like the Moguls) had examples of more than one type. There are worse examples than Roger's small deviation from truth visible in full-size today, such as the sadly squished affair on 6023 at Didcot. (The GWS had little choice, if they wanted King Edward II's crown to fit under modern overhead cables, but the result is pretty glaring to those who know the Kings well.) The GW bonnet is a very prominent feature, but I'd say Roger's interpretation looks 'in character' and that is surely the main thing. -? Gary Hi Gary, Getting the proportions approximately right is probably about the best you can hope for. I could make it again, but I personally don't find it offensive. I'm struggling to get the proportions of the shoulders right. Following the Works Drawings is fraught with difficulty because there's no clear dimension from the centre line of the bonnet. They also say it's dressed to fit, so it's clearly not that precise. The drawing does say it's a pressing though, presumably a symmetrical one, but they're actually handed because of the tapered boiler. I'm just experimenting with how far the shoulders stick out from the bonnet to get something that looks plausibly like the photos. PM sent Roger. Hope it helps! Gary
|
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,913
|
Post by jma1009 on Oct 29, 2019 0:05:02 GMT
Hi Roger,
A discrepancy of some 5mm on the diameter of the top of the safety valve is quite a lot in miniature!
As you stated the safety valve cover was to works drawings, but you now admit, if I have understood you correctly, the safety valve cover top is 5mm less than shown on the works drawings you have worked to, then I hope you won't mind me saying that it cannot be 'ergo' to the works drawing!
I don't follow your reasoning for not making the safety valve top the correct diameter as per your works drawing. I've made a few, and if I can spot your error without having the works drawing that you have, and it offends my eye, then it must clearly be wrong as you latterly admit that you departed from the works drawing!
It ought to be the correct shape and proportions, both top and bottom.
(You could email me the works drawing so avoiding any copyright issues publishing on here)
Cheers, Julian
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Oct 29, 2019 8:14:24 GMT
Hi Roger, A discrepancy of some 5mm on the diameter of the top of the safety valve is quite a lot in miniature! As you stated the safety valve cover was to works drawings, but you now admit, if I have understood you correctly, the safety valve cover top is 5mm less than shown on the works drawings you have worked to, then I hope you won't mind me saying that it cannot be 'ergo' to the works drawing! I don't follow your reasoning for not making the safety valve top the correct diameter as per your works drawing. I've made a few, and if I can spot your error without having the works drawing that you have, and it offends my eye, then it must clearly be wrong as you latterly admit that you departed from the works drawing! It ought to be the correct shape and proportions, both top and bottom. (You could email me the works drawing so avoiding any copyright issues publishing on here) Cheers, Julian Hi Julian, One day I might make another one, but for now I just want to get it all finished. It's been five long gruelling years, and I'm not about to remake something that takes so long to machine at this point. All of the rest is to the drawing, that's the only deviation, and to me it looks good enough for the time being. You have to bear in mind that what you might consider to be of vital importance, doesn't necessarily carry the same weight for someone else. This is the kind of reason why I'll never enter it into a competition. Being blissfully unaware of others disapproval has its advantages.
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Oct 29, 2019 9:28:23 GMT
Hi Julian.
I find Roger's explanation of why he made the top smaller, quite logical. I don't know how thick the brass is on fullsize, but it can't be much more than 1/8" thick, at the top rim, maybe even thinner. 1/8" thick is 0.01" in 5" gauge scale. There is no way he could machine a bonnet to scale thickness and expect it to last any time, in service. Even twice scale thickness would not last long, and would be a pig to machine. Even with top class CNC, machining brass to 0.01" thick, over that distance, and shape, is asking rather a lot! The only way is to either make the model bonnet much thicker, and that would be just as obvious, or make the whole, a bit smaller so that thinning isn't such a problem. If being true to scale is so important, will my cab last long if made from scale material thickness....0.017" (27swg)?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Oct 29, 2019 9:41:30 GMT
Hi Julian. I find Roger's explanation of why he made the top smaller, quite logical. I don't know how thick the brass is on fullsize, but it can't be much more than 1/8" thick, at the top rim, maybe even thinner. 1/8" thick is 0.01" in 5" gauge scale. There is no way he could machine a bonnet to scale thickness and expect it to last any time, in service. Even twice scale thickness would not last long, and would be a pig to machine. Even with top class CNC, machining brass to 0.01" thick, over that distance, and shape, is asking rather a lot! The only way is to either make the model bonnet much thicker, and that would be just as obvious, or make the whole, a bit smaller so that thinning isn't such a problem. If being true to scale is so important, will my cab last long if made from scale material thickness....0.017" (27swg)? Bob Hi Bob, As always, it's a compromise. You can certainly have the full diameter at the top and perhaps have a wafer thin edge, or beef it up a bit. The fact that such a small radius has pulled the diameter in so much goes to show how thin that edge would be in our scale. It's certainly possible, and one day I might do just that, but for now I need to press on. I'm weary of how long this has taken and I need to get it finished, not keep going back and making things again needlessly.
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Oct 29, 2019 11:05:08 GMT
Hi Roger.
Yes we all have to compromise to some extent when building our 'scale' models. It would be interesting to see how well a scale boiler would work!! Keep up the good work Roger. Your thread is always entertaining and VERY informative.
Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Oct 29, 2019 12:02:03 GMT
Hi Roger. Yes we all have to compromise to some extent when building our 'scale' models. It would be interesting to see how well a scale boiler would work!! Keep up the good work Roger. Your thread is always entertaining and VERY informative. Bob. In fairness, Julian is absolutely right. Unfortunately, it's not a trivial matter to do anything about it at this late stage. I'll probably end up making a new one, because I won't be able to look at it now without thinking it's wrong!
|
|
|
Post by simplyloco on Oct 29, 2019 12:03:37 GMT
May I be permitted to make two observations: 1. My view is that there are no 'discrepancies' in a well executed miniature steam locomotive: they are just well considered 'differences'. 2. From Roger: "This is the kind of reason why I'll never enter it into a competition. Being blissfully unaware of others disapproval has its advantages."
Well said Roger. My much lauded Britannia will stay on the sideboard, out of the irrelevant clutches of the rivet counters. The Stirling will also keep its bronze regulator handles and its 3D printed tender wheel splashers! John
|
|
|
Post by chris vine on Oct 29, 2019 12:36:15 GMT
Hi Roger,
For beautiful scale models, I think that the most important thing is to model the features of the original. If the feature is present, but not necessarily exactly to scale, then honour has been satisfied. A tiny example I had with this sort of problem with Bongo was the shape of the running plate where it meets the front of the cab. There is a small taper inwards to meet the cab sides: Scaled to my size it should be a 5/32" taper. However due to previous decisions (errors) and fitting in larger than scale width wheels etc, there wasn't room for the full 5/32". I made the taper just 3/32" and no one has ever noticed! Mind you, I have looked at lots of models of B1s, and the only one I have seen which has the feature at all is the wonderful 5" gauge B1 by Geoff Moore!
When Bongo was in the ME exhibition many years ago, a know-all told me that I had got the brake valve all wrong: It should have a bit of wood on the end of the lever to make it cool. His had this feature. I asked him if he had made his loco, and did it have a combined steam and vacuum brake valve (like Bongo). The answer to both was No. And he didn't know what a combined steam/vacuum brake was anyway!!
enjoy it all for your own sake Chris.
|
|
|
Post by simplyloco on Oct 29, 2019 17:15:36 GMT
Hi Roger, For beautiful scale models, I think that the most important thing is to model the features of the original. If the feature is present, but not necessarily exactly to scale, then honour has been satisfied. SNIP enjoy it all for your own sake Chris. Sound words Chris. Lest we forget, most of us are not under contract to produce a perfect replica for the ME crowd at large: the only contract we have is with ourselves... John
|
|
|
Post by ettingtonliam on Oct 29, 2019 17:24:59 GMT
Roger Leave it just as it is. To most of us what you have done is wonderful. As I said before, I'd have a suspicion that the Swindon sheet metal shop would regard the latest production of the drawing office to be a guide and not pay too much heed to the actual dimensions. After all, they'd made hundreds if not thousands of these things before, and the chances of Mr Hawkesworth climbing up on top of the boiler with a drawing and his callipers was pretty remote. It was brass, it tapered, had a flare at the top, what more could anyone ask?
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Oct 29, 2019 20:42:18 GMT
Quote}----"It was brass, it tapered, had a flare at the top, what more could anyone ask?".........that it be fitted on top of an LMS 2-6-0 ?? Don't bite chaps----it's just my off-beat humour........As we all know Stanier was told to get rid off it in no uncertain terms !!!
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Oct 29, 2019 20:53:13 GMT
Hi Roger. Yes we all have to compromise to some extent when building our 'scale' models. It would be interesting to see how well a scale boiler would work!! Keep up the good work Roger. Your thread is always entertaining and VERY informative. Bob. Hi Bob-------but what fluid would you use as scale water ??........Keeping to the Scale theme so as not to go off piste, if you look at such films as Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" --- "Thunderbids" etc, etc, you'll notice that where they have a scene depicting a boat going through "Water" the bow waves appear nicely proportional.....I believe that they used Paraffin to get that effect...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 21:10:09 GMT
Hi Roger. Yes we all have to compromise to some extent when building our 'scale' models. It would be interesting to see how well a scale boiler would work!! Keep up the good work Roger. Your thread is always entertaining and VERY informative. Bob. Hi Bob-------but what fluid would you use as scale water ??........Keeping to the Scale theme so as not to go off piste, if you look at such films as Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" --- "Thunderbids" etc, etc, you'll notice that where they have a scene depicting a boat going through "Water" the bow waves appear nicely proportional.....I believe that they used Paraffin to get that effect... Hi Alan Generally when filming water a scale of 1:8 or larger works very well with water, you just need to slow the film down to make it look real. Gerry's puppets were 1:3 scale although most models that weren't directly interacting with the puppets would be smaller. I don't recall ever hearing of parafin being used as a substitute. I could always ask Jamie Anderson the question though, not that I've heard from him for a few months. He's a bit of a dreamer our Jamie, last contact he wanted us to build and shoot his new series with BBC backing at a new studio in Didcot. That was about 3 months ago, heard nothing since, like I said, a bit of a dreamer... Pete
|
|
|
Post by chris vine on Oct 29, 2019 22:28:19 GMT
Hi Roger,
On the subject of how accurately the loco works followed the drawings: There is a good anecdote of the making of the first of Gresley's streamlined A4s. When the first one rolled out of the works, it was noticed (not sure by who(m?)) that the curve up the front of the smoke box followed the wrong radius. Gresley put things right in an instant: "quick, go and amend the drawings to specify what they have built!" So all A4s were not built to the (original) works drawings...
Chris.
|
|
|
Post by ettingtonliam on Oct 29, 2019 23:30:24 GMT
Quote}----"It was brass, it tapered, had a flare at the top, what more could anyone ask?".........that it be fitted on top of an LMS 2-6-0 ?? Don't bite chaps----it's just my off-beat humour........As we all know Stanier was told to get rid off it in no uncertain terms !!! Was he? According to E S Cox, it was Stanier himself who, on first viewing the offending item, instructed its removal. Especially when he had, apparently, seeing it on the drawings before production, forbidden the use of the Swindon 'trumpet' on any LMS locomotives.
|
|