Jump to content
 

GWR tender options still to be modelled (3500 and 4000 gallon)

6959
 Share

Recommended Posts

Castle

Castle

Posted
Posted

Hi All,

 

Standardisation!!!!! One theory is drivers were highly skilled in pulling up in exactly the right spot in relation to water crane position. If all were in the centre with a standard..ish length tender on the larger classes, then the swing of the water crane would remain constant. By having the filler on the outer extremes of the tender, filling up may have not been so easy.Just a thoughtMike Wiltshire

Mike - That was my initial though but as I didn’t have confirmation, I didn’t voice the opinion. Is a good theory though!

 

When overhead arms were used for fuel tanker loading in temporary fuel sites, the flexibility of the "sock" on the arm allowed more scope for the tanker driver to get "near enough".

 

So the sock on a water crane would also provide enough "lee-way" to cover single or twin fillers.

Tinker - possibly, but the thick leather bag possibly isn’t nearly as flexible as you think. It’s like trying to wrestle a stiff drunken elephant basically. While standing on a barrel or box. About 9 - 10’ in the air... The Didcot ones don’t get anywhere near the use they used to so that may be a factor but it’s not an easy manoeuvre and you don’t have to be that far out for it not to work. Rule of thumb at DRC is to line up the tank filler with the chimney on the fire devil and that gets you where you need to be in most cases.

 

All the best,

 

Castle

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
M.I.B

M.I.B

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

Drew, I don't disagree - the Wheaton arms were much the same, especially when it had rained and then the sock was frozen solid, and needed to be wrestled from on top of a tanker.  But the flexibility of the hose was such that the positioning did not need to be exact - within 2 feet would do.

 

And flow would have to be gradual at first or else the sock could stiffen up quickly and flick out of the hatch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wenrash

Wenrash

Posted
Posted

The point of the photo of the double filler tender is that it was taken in 1934. Approx 7 years after construction. Still not modified. The "Sixsmith" engine record say that the tender no is 2399.

This has survived at Didicot. Anybody got a photograph as to how it ended up?

 

Richard A

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miss Prism

Miss Prism

Posted
Posted

The "Sixsmith" engine record say that the tender no is 2399. This has survived at Didicot. Anybody got a photograph as to how it ended up?

 

The Vintage Carriages Trust site says 2399 was heavily rebuilt and was earning a crust behind SVR's 4930 Hagley Hall at one time, but that loco seems to now have acquired a Hawksworth 4000g.

 

The following May 2015 images at Didcot, seemingly of an ex-twin-filler 4000g, are mistakenly included in Brian Daniel's Mogul directory, but I'm not sure what loco they might be currently associated with:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
K14

K14

Posted
Posted

 

The following May 2015 images at Didcot, seemingly of an ex-twin-filler 4000g, are mistakenly included in Brian Daniel's Mogul directory, but I'm not sure what loco they might be currently associated with:

 

 

 

Going by the position of it within the shed (2-road with WTC 5 behind & BPC at the back of 3), I'd hazard a guess at 5900 Hinderton Hall. Trawling through some of the other images it looks like 5322 was parked next to 5900 when the photos were taken.

 

Pete S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Wenrash

Wenrash

Posted
Posted

I have a problem with what "Castle" has written with regard to the round plates bolted the the top deck of the 4000 gal Collett tenders. For this to be correct, that is there would be just 20 of these A113 tenders rebuilds.

 

This just does not concur with the published GA drawings.

 

In Russell Vol 2 there are two G/A drawings of the 4000 gal tenders.

The first Drawing 76936 is labeled A113 and is for the twenty tenders with double fillers.

There is also a photograph of the top of one of these tender sans the front sand boxes.

 

The second drawing 89790 is labeled Lots A113, A116, A117, A120, A121 and has the single central filler.

This implies indeed that A113 tenders were to be amended to conform with this drawing.

 

Martin Finney says Lot A113 - 20 tenders

                               Lot A117 - 47 tenders

                               Lot A120 - 10 tenders

                               Lot A121 - 20 tenders

                              Total           97

 

This drawing shows the round plates each side of the central filler at least on 77 tenders.

 

If you have a copy of R Guy Williams "The 4mm Engine A Scratchbuilder's Guide" you will have a copy of  G/A drawing 92460. This is for Lot A123.

This has the "broad framing around the axleboxes".

 

It also shows the round plates bolted each side of the central filler on the tender deck.

None of these tenders had double fillers.

 

Now JimC in post # 137, of this thread, says that the drawing register show that there are no more G/A drawings until Hawksworth tenders were built.

 

This would surly mean that all subsequent tenders also had the round plates bolted to the back deck.

 

Also in Russell there is a drawing of the A118 3500 gal tenders. Miss Prisim has posted a copy in post #60

 

The Russell does not scan well, but you can see the round plates bolted to the back deck.

Again none of these tenders had double fillers.

 

So to say that the round plates were covers from the removal of the double fillers is not possible.

It is just not tenable.

 

All the best,

 

Richard A

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Happy Hippo

Happy Hippo

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

Just to throw a bit more petrol on the fire:

 

If the A113 fillers were removed and replaced by blanking plates, why are the replacement patches round whilst the original fillers were of a squared box construction?

 

The photos by Brian Daniels do not show the remains of any fixing holes for the original fillers and I very much doubt it they we constructed in such a way so they plugged into  circular holes in the tank top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wenrash

Wenrash

Posted
Posted

I do hope everyone has in mind that the double fillers looked like this.

 

post-25290-0-66355700-1542404959_thumb.jpg

 

 

Not how the Hornby Dublo model was done.

Hornby appeared to have followed the Sir Layland-Barratt or the Roche drawing. Neither are correct to the A113 GA drawing.

 

Richard A 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miss Prism

Miss Prism

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think they are only stops for the filler flap to rest on when it is open.

 

Ah yes, that sounds reasonable, to protect the handle on the filler flap.
 
It can be seen in Mike Wiltshire's post of Rood Ashton Hall's tender in:
 
and in Andy M's post of 7820's tender: 
 
The fixture is not a late preservation mod, and seems to have been fashionable for a while for many Churchward 3500g and Collett 3000g and 4000g tenders. The fixture can to dated back to at least 1930:
Edited by Miss Prism
Link to post
Share on other sites
Castle

Castle

Posted
Posted

Hi Miss P,

 

The small pipe is a through air line - I assume this is City of Truro so she would have to be so fitted to operate on the main line in case of failiure and recovery by an air braked locomotive.

 

For those that have issues with the information I posted previously - the patches in the back corners of the 4,000 gallon tenders - my last comment on the matter. They are NOT needed as inspection hatches. The main filler is more than large enough to allow access and the baffles do not prevent you seeing the back corners. I can organise an internal viewing for anyone who I game enough to don a pair of overalls and climb into the tank of No. 5900 if we need to hammer this point home. Swindon didn’t add stuff to tenders like that that had no purpose what so ever. I don’t know what your books say - I don’t have them. What I can do however is that I can lay my hands on a real period tender... I hope this clarifies the point I was making.

 

All the best,

 

Castle

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium
M.I.B

M.I.B

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

Does anyone have a link to the allocation list for the 8 wheel Collett tender?  I thought it was on here somewhere but I can't find it..............

 

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
M.I.B

M.I.B

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

 

Twice the list price for something which (fingers crossed) go back into production...............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...