Holden Tank Engine (GWR 101)

Holden Tank Engine (GWR 101)

Postby frobisher » Mon May 28, 2007 12:38 am

I've always had a soft spot for the Hornby Holden Tank engine, it being my first ever loco and all that but it strikes me that, really, I know absolutely nothing about the real McCoy.

There was a bit on the Hornby forums recently in which someone stated that the LSWR livery version that Hornby did was in fact somewhat authentic as the LSWR had one or more of them. Which is odd I thought, everything I had seen said that it was an unique prototype that never made it out of the Swindon yards.

So can someone point me towards some real information on the beastie - and pictures too? All I've ever seen has been the delightful box art Hornby originally released with it back in around 1978(ish) and the pictures of the models in various "dubious" liveries (still looks best in GWR green with copper chimney and all that...).
Paddy Sinclair
Image
User avatar
frobisher
.
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: Glenfarg, Scotland

Postby dilbert » Mon May 28, 2007 12:42 pm

There is a photo (and brief history) of 101 on page 145 in GW Engines Vol 1: Gooch, Armstrong & Dean Locomotives by J.H. Russell.

Definately a GW one-off to evaluate oil-fuelled locomotion - converted to coal-burning in 1905.

The couplling rod motion on the Hornby model bears not a lot resemblance to the prototype...dilbert
dilbert
 

Postby michael delamar » Mon May 28, 2007 3:51 pm

yeah id like to see some pics too, i had one as a kid :D
User avatar
michael delamar
.
 
Posts: 4374
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: 27A Bank hall, Liverpool

Postby Nick Holliday » Tue May 29, 2007 8:17 am

Probably information over-load, but the following is taken from the RCTS bible:-
Engine No. 101 ??“ Swindon Works No. 1969 ??“ Lot Number 136 ??“ Date Built 1902

Swindon??™s solitary 0-4-0T was an engine of considerable interest. Built in June, 1902, but not taken into stock until a year later, No. 101 was an experimental side tank locomotive burning oil fuel on Holden??™s system. It had outside cylinders l3in. diameter x 22in, stroke, with 4⅛ in. piston valves operated by outside valve gear of Joy??™s type. The wheels were of 3ft. 8in, diameter on a wheelbase of 9ft. 0in.
Its original boiler, no particulars of which have hitherto been published, was most unusual. It had an inner firebox consisting of a firebrick-built chamber 4ft. 10in. long x 4ft. 9in. wide; this chamber, which was 3ft. 0in. high at the sides but arched to 3ft. 6in. at the centre, was opened out at the front to fit the tube area. The backplate carried two oil-burning nozzles 2ft. 6in. apart. The boiler barrel, measuring 8ft. 0in. x 5ft. 0in. and pitched at 7ft. 0in., contained 289 1??in. tubes in its lower half. The very large steam space thus created compensated for the absence of an outer firebox ??” for what looked like a Belpaire firebox casing was in fact a short square saddle tank for the oil fuel. A standard brass safety-valve cover was mounted on the centre of the barrel. The tubes had a heating surface of 907.83 sq. ft. to which 10.9 sq. ft. was added, presumably, by the backplate. The boiler pressure was 180 lb.
The furnace evidently soon proved to be too large, for in July, 1902, drawings were issued for alterations, in which the length of the firebox was reduced to 3ft. l??in. and the back narrowed to 3ft., with a single oil burner in the centre. At the same time the tanks were shortened at the front, probably for better weight distribution.
In 1903 No. 101 received a Lentz boiler. This type of boiler was originated by Gustav Lentz in Prussia in 1888. Designed to eliminate stays as far as possible, it consisted of a corrugated cylindrical firebox within a cylindrical casing and a tapered barrel. (The type was revived in the U.S.A. by Cornelius Vanderbilt in 1899, though the tapered barrel was not an essential feature of the Vanderbilt design. Some such boilers were used on the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway).
The date of fitting of No. 101??™s boiler is shown in the records as April, 1903, but the engine did not emerge from works with it until October. It was made in three rings with a dome on the middle ring. The front ring was coned from 4ft. 0⅞ in. to 4ft. 10⅞ in. The total length of the barrel was l3ft. 6⅝in., but the length between tube-plates was only 8ft., since what would in a normal boiler constitute the firebox casing was in this instance an integral part of the boiler barrel. Pop safety-valves of the rail motor type were placed over the rear end of the barrel. This boiler had a corrugated circular inner firebox with internal diameters of 2ft. 11in. and 3ft. 3in., which extended into the boiler, its total length being 5ft. 9in.
The fuel saddle tank was removed, 200 gallons of oil fuel being stored in the rear end of the side tanks. Nests of coiled springs replaced the former laminated type, while large circular spectacle glasses were added to the cab front.
After being out of service from June 1904 to May 1905, the engine emerged converted to coal burning and with a firegrate 3ft. 3in, long by 2ft. 8in. wide in the corrugated firebox. The cab back-plate was removed and a small bunker fitted. In this, its fourth and final condition, the dimensions (as recorded on 0-4-0 tank Diagram A) were :??”

Cylinders Diameter 13???, Stroke 22???
Boiler Barrel 13??™ 6⅝???
Pitch 6??™ 7???
Firebox Length 5??™ 4?????
Tubes Number ??“ 242, Diameter 1?????
Heating surface Total 825.18 square feet
Grate area 7.78 sq. ft
Boiler pressure 160 lb
Wheels 3??™ 8???
Wheelbase 9??™ 0???
Weights Leading coupled 13T 2 cwt
Driving coupled 15T 10 cwt
Tractive effort (85%) 11,492 lb
Tank capacity 500 gallons

Although Lot 136 shows it as intended for the Wrington Vale Light Railway, No. 101??™s activities were confined to shunting at Swindon works. It was condemned in September, 1911, with a mileage of 36,458; its boiler survived it by a couple of years.
The picture also comes from the same souorce
Image
From the same publishers RCTS, but the LSWR locos come these pictures of the B4 tanks, which presumably are what Hornby are referring to:
Image
Image
As you should be able to see, albeit rather grainily, is that apart from being outside cylinder 0-4-0 tanks, there is not too much similarity. A bit like passing a Class 37 diesel off as a Deltic, just by painting it in the "correct" colours!
BTW Hornby do actually produce a half decent Industrial Steam loco, King George V, currently available as Eddie Stobart or in MSLR colours in starter sets. Although it looks dreadful and ugly, it is a close replica of the pair (the other was Queen Mary) that ran at Dowlais Works.
Have a look at this page, http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/25/ ... ade_25.htm and scroll down to see one of the ugliest steam locos (IMHO) ever built.
Nick Holliday
.
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:54 am
Location: Sutton, Surrey

Postby Giz » Tue May 29, 2007 12:48 pm

Isn't the LSWR reference based on the older Triang Nellie/Polly?

ISTR that Nellie was based on an ex- railmotor power unit that was later converted into an independant loco (LSWR C14).
Gary T

Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.

Dr AR Dykes
Institution of Structural Engineers
User avatar
Giz
.
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Wolverhampton

Postby 298 » Tue May 29, 2007 1:35 pm

So the one I have with GWR 150 on the side tanks isn't authentic then....?
User avatar
298
.
 
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Northwest of the mighty Columbia River (that's my new name for the Coventry Canal).

Postby Colin » Tue May 29, 2007 3:15 pm

Wouldn't it be nice if Hornby did a B4.....
About time we had another small shunter available rtr, steam or diesel.
Colin

"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"
Colin
.
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: Colchester, Essex

Postby Nick Holliday » Tue May 29, 2007 3:36 pm

In answer to GTZ's proposal, in the past several people have converted Nellie into a passable likeness of a LSWR loco, but currently Hornby are offering the GWR Holden tank in rather garish LSWR livery, hence the original question.
I am not sure if Hornby actually based Nellie on the LSWR loco, particularly given the inside cylinders of Nellie. Image
This picture, from the RCTS book, is of the second Drummond class, S14, which were built as 0-4-0T's. They were not rebuilt from steam railmotors, they were always a stand-alone loco, as were the previous C14 class, which were built as 2-2-0 tanks, and later rebuilt to 0-4-0.
And yes, a B4 from Hornby to the same level of detail of the M7 would be very nice.
Nick Holliday
.
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:54 am
Location: Sutton, Surrey

Postby Giz » Tue May 29, 2007 3:43 pm

Nick Holliday wrote:In answer to GTZ's proposal, in the past several people have converted Nellie into a passable likeness of a LSWR loco, but currently Hornby are offering the GWR Holden tank in rather garish LSWR livery, hence the original question.
I am not sure if Hornby actually based Nellie on the LSWR loco, particularly given the inside cylinders of Nellie.
This picture, from the RCTS book, is of the second Drummond class, S14, which were built as 0-4-0T's. They were not rebuilt from steam railmotors, they were always a stand-alone loco, as were the previous C14 class, which were built as 2-2-0 tanks, and later rebuilt to 0-4-0.
And yes, a B4 from Hornby to the same level of detail of the M7 would be very nice.


Apart from the outside cylinders it looks awfully like Nellie to me.

Just remembered where I got the railmotor thing from, in an ancient RM I saw an article where someone built a freelance one using a Nellie as a basis.
Gary T

Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.

Dr AR Dykes
Institution of Structural Engineers
User avatar
Giz
.
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Wolverhampton

Postby frobisher » Tue May 29, 2007 4:26 pm

Nick Holliday wrote:Probably information over-load, but the following is taken from the RCTS bible:- [snip]


Superb :) Now the next question has to be how dimensionally accurate is the Hornby one, and how tricky is it to make the valve gear more authentic? Toys R Us provided me with a modern Hornby one in a set just before Christmas, and I fancy giving detailing that a go :)
Paddy Sinclair
Image
User avatar
frobisher
.
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: Glenfarg, Scotland

Postby papagolfjuliet » Tue May 29, 2007 5:49 pm

Giz wrote:
Nick Holliday wrote:In answer to GTZ's proposal, in the past several people have converted Nellie into a passable likeness of a LSWR loco, but currently Hornby are offering the GWR Holden tank in rather garish LSWR livery, hence the original question.
I am not sure if Hornby actually based Nellie on the LSWR loco, particularly given the inside cylinders of Nellie.
This picture, from the RCTS book, is of the second Drummond class, S14, which were built as 0-4-0T's. They were not rebuilt from steam railmotors, they were always a stand-alone loco, as were the previous C14 class, which were built as 2-2-0 tanks, and later rebuilt to 0-4-0.
And yes, a B4 from Hornby to the same level of detail of the M7 would be very nice.


Apart from the outside cylinders it looks awfully like Nellie to me.


The Nellie body is indeed based upon the C14, although it is significantly over scale length.

http://www.southern-images.co.uk/lightb ... ode=search

http://www.tri-ang.co.uk/oo/nellie.htm

Chopping about a quarter of an inch out of the space between the cab and the first boiler band makes it about right, whereafter the only major difference is the lack of handrails either side of the smokebox.
papagolfjuliet
.
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:03 pm

Nellie

Postby RUSS » Tue May 29, 2007 6:31 pm

Hmm,
A couple of interesting projects there then.
A B4 would be grand indeed.
Very powerful little loco. and of course there is one on the Bluebell that could provide the necessary info.
Come to think of it, a USA "Yankee"Tank would rather nice too.
Especially for anyone modelling Southampton Docks
RMWeb,s resident drama queen...............apparently. Tee Hee
RUSS
.
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 10:05 pm
Location: 73C....well very nearly


Return to Prototype Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests