Where do people find scale drawings of various locos?
I am hoping to model the following..... prototypes in 3' gauge
Porthgain Andrew Barclay 0-6-0T 1909 Wrks 1185
like this
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billhudsontransportbooks.co.uk%2Fuploads%2Fcover-23111142639-100622.jpg&hash=9ea580dd207c7a17f2fdd11523bf62dd3f290a85)
Charger W.G. Bagnall 0-4-0T 1891 Wrks 1381 Worked at Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Co. Ltd., Jarrow until 1908. Worked on the construction of Blackwater Reservoir at Rannoch Moor.
10 ton loco - I presume
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.backwoodsminiatures.com%2FxBagnall.jpg&hash=2259b8bc0acd0aa6ce3e096d3d5312f4f0bb7f60)
Newport Hudswell Clarke 0-4-0T 1889 Wrks 311 Built for the 2 ft 10 in (860 mm) gauge railway at Cwmclydach Colliery, Swansea; worked until 1899 then sold for use on the Elan Valley Reservoirs contract. Regauged to 3 ft (914 mm) gauge in 1908. Workede on various construction contracts
10 ton loco - I presume
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oamaru-steam.org.nz%2FDSCF0176_Small.JPG&hash=fd8a71b814f28c6e1ec8f70789c2ca883e147a94)
although the rear views I have show the cab has been slightly more enclosed.
can anyone point me to books which may have measured drawings in.. so I can search for correct chassis etc..
If you have a copy of the book (mine was bedtime reading recently) then there are some views of Porthgain which are reproductions of the Barclay works drawings held (I think) at Glasgow University, who may be able to provide you with copies (usually at 1:12 or 1:24).
Works drawings for the Bagnall may be a bit more dificult as I can't recall what hapened to them - Staffordshire records office (in Stafford) or the centeral library / archive might be a good start. Equally there may be some information in the book "Bagnalls of Stafford" (which at £100 might be best to try to get on an inter-library loan), and if there is not a drawing then there may be a works photo of Charger or one of those built in the same batch.
The Hudswell Clarke drawings are now with the 'new' Hunslet company at Statfold Barn farm, but the HC contatcor's locos tended to be a fairly standard design so if you know the wheelbase, wheel diameter and/or cylinder size then it should be possible to use the drawing of a similar loco of the same 'class' - possibly those used in the Ironstone industry in the Northampton area that may have been covered in a book ( or magazine article) on the subject.
In any case, with a good side view photo and some basic dimentions (wheelbase is a good one) one can make one's own drawing. Even without the square side on shot it is possible to get a scale drawing but it takes a lot of work (or a lot of faffinf about with Photoshop or what have you) to get a result.
With Porthgain you may be able to get an 0-6-0 N drive chassis to fit. I'm not sure if they are in production yet but on an order form picked up (at Pewsey last year?) he has a "Long wheel base" 0-6-0 with 12 + 13.5 mm spacing (3' + 3' 4.5") which can be supplied with 8.5 mm (2' 1.5") wheels. According to the book Porthgain was 3' 3" + 3' with 2' 2.5" diameter. Neville can supply the chassis with the cylinders reversed if you wanted the middle wheels in the right place, and may be able to do it to the correct 12 mm gauge if you wanted to take that route.
Hope that helps...
Julien.
EDIT: I realised last night (when i should have been asleep) that if you reverse the cylinders you'll end up having them at the same end as the motor which means that it will not fit under the loco as the motor would need to be inside the smoke box! However it still might be possible for Neville to reverse the motor too, or to do the job yourself. The motor on the 0-4-0 I have is screwed to a mounting plate (I think the 0-6-0 I have seen were the same) and theoretically one could mount the motor on the other side of the plate with the addition of some sort of bracket (or long spacers) to get the worm to mesh.
To be honest though I think you'll be better off using a standard chassis and have the middle pair of wheels 1.5 mm forward from where they should be.
Thanks for the pointers
Porthgain.. I now have the book - can't make head nor tail of the plan drawing... ???
Charger W.G. Bagnall 0-4-0T 1891 Wrks 1381
2'9" wheelbase and 5.5" by 10" outside cylinders (is the cylinder measurement internal? (it seems really small) whats a guide to allow for metal thickness/construction? Is 10 " the distance the pistons travel or the size of the cylinder, please excuse my ignorance.)
There are a few images of Bagnalls, but as this one is described as a contrators loco (often used in constructing damns) I guessed it might be the right type.... are there any other small Bagnall types that it could be?
Edit I presume you are recommending
Bagnalls of Stafford: Builders of Locomotives for the World's Railways: the Firm and Its Folk (Hardback) by Allan C. Baker, T.D.Allen Civil, 2008 PHYLLIS RAMPTON NARROW GAUGE RAILWAY TRUST
and not Bagnalls of Stafford; Locomotive Builders and Railway Engineers of the Castle Engine Works, Stafford, England, 1875-1972. BAKER, Allan Charles and Thomas David Allen CIVIL. 1973 Oakwood Press
Newport Hudswell Clarke 0-4-0T 1889 Wrks 311
9" by 15" cylinders... 2'6" wheels..
I would have thought the image was of a saddle tank... which is why I wanted to check I had the right type.
I suppose I am guessing on the correct type of loco based on the limited descriptions and, in Newports case, a rear angle view photo.. so not confident I have identified the correct loco types.
Quote from: Stephen Hart on August 16, 2010, 17:48
Thanks for the pointers
Porthgain.. I now have the book - can't make head nor tail of the plan drawing... ???
I'll admit that it is not that easy to read in the form in which it is presented in the book. I suspect though that the writting on it giving those all important dimentions are legible on the original so it might be worth contacting Glasgow University (should be a web site somewhere). The other thought would be to take a tracing off the side-on works photo to get the outline and try to read the dimentions off the drawing in the book (with a magnifying glass?) to get a scale drawing to build the model from.
Quote from: Stephen Hart on August 16, 2010, 17:48
Charger W.G. Bagnall 0-4-0T 1891 Wrks 1381
2'9" wheelbase and 5.5" by 10" outside cylinders (is the cylinder measurement internal? (it seems really small) whats a guide to allow for metal thickness/construction? Is 10 " the distance the pistons travel or the size of the cylinder, please excuse my ignorance.)
There are a few images of Bagnalls, but as this one is described as a contrators loco (often used in constructing damns) I guessed it might be the right type.... are there any other small Bagnall types that it could be?
Edit I presume you are recommending
Bagnalls of Stafford: Builders of Locomotives for the World's Railways: the Firm and Its Folk (Hardback) by Allan C. Baker, T.D.Allen Civil, 2008 PHYLLIS RAMPTON NARROW GAUGE RAILWAY TRUST
and not Bagnalls of Stafford; Locomotive Builders and Railway Engineers of the Castle Engine Works, Stafford, England, 1875-1972. BAKER, Allan Charles and Thomas David Allen CIVIL. 1973 Oakwood Press
Either really, though the expensive one (the Phyllis Rampton) may have more information. The problem is that it might be an inverted saddle tank (IST) (like the Backwoods kit in your photograph), or a conventional saddle tank as I couldn't tell you the cut off date (or works number) when construction of the IST was superseeded by the ST. The beauty of looking at the books, or more correctly a works list, is that if Charger was built as one of a batch you may be able to find a photo of one of the others in the batch which will be very similar.
As to the cylinder size, the 5.5" is the internal diameter (bore) of the cylinder and 10" is the stroke (the travel of the piston in the cylinder). As to the ammount of metal around the bore it is difficult to say as I suspect that the cylinder would be a casting that was drilled out to the right diameter and the same casting may have been used for 5", 6" or even 7" diameter pistons. Also as the barrel of the cylinder wore with use it could be re-drilled and a slightly bigger piston fitted to take up the slack (with the side effect of increasing the power), or a liner then fitted with a slightly smaller piston to fit the liner (with a slight decrease in power).
Quote from: Stephen Hart on August 16, 2010, 17:48
Newport Hudswell Clarke 0-4-0T 1889 Wrks 311
9" by 15" cylinders... 2'6" wheels..
I would have thought the image was of a saddle tank... which is why I wanted to check I had the right type.
I suppose I am guessing on the correct type of loco based on the limited descriptions and, in Newports case, a rear angle view photo.. so not confident I have identified the correct loco types.
As far as I know Hudswell did not make an 0-4-0 side tank for narrow gauge, and certainly the one photo of Newport does show a saddle tank. Your illustrative photo is probably not too wide of the mark, but I think that it is of a 3' 6" gauge (or wider) loco and is a bigger (more powerful) design than Newport would have been. I think that the photos in the Porthgain book of the other Hudswell locos (the ones that the Porthgain complany did not buy) should give you a fairly good idea of that you are aiming for, though they were newer from memory and it may be worth looking for photos of other Hudswell tank locos of the same vintage (1880s and 1890s) to get the right 'look'.
Thanks for your help.
I'll see about reducing the Porthgain plans
"Bagnalls of Stafford; Locomotive Builders...." looks like I'll have to order at the library.. if they have a photocopier. ;)
Hudswell Clarke... " AFAIK never made a side tank" thanks, thats just the sort of info I need... and its what was thoroughly confusing me.
Just to add a bit of (hopefully) helpful info I've had a look at my Bagnall book - not the big one, but "A pictorial album of Bagnall Narrow Gauge locomotives" by the same authors.
Starting with the info in the Porthgain book, Charger was Bagnall No. 1381 built 1891 with 5.5" by 10" cylinders and dellivered 2 months after ordering. The 2 month lead time suggests that Charger was a 'stock' loco (makers would build batches of 'standard' types to keep the works busy and could give rapid delivery to customers by 'finishing' the loco off) I first had a look in the book at what type of bagnall (IST or ST). The cut off date looks to have been the mid 1890s, so I think we can assume that Carger was an IST type, particularly as Works No. 1278 of 1890, No. 1400(I think) of 1892 and 1420 of 1893 were all inverted saddle tank types.
Interestingly No 1400 (if I have read the works plate correctly, it could be 1406 or 1408) and named "Jack" was built for Hall and Borardman for their Swadlincote & Cadley Hill Collieries, and had a 2' 9" wheelbase (same as Charger) and 6" by 9" cylinders (not far off Charger), but as it was for 1' 11" gauge had outside frames so I suspect that Charger was much the same but with inside frames (i.e. visible wheels)
Now comes a problem. :(
Given that Charger was for 3 foot gauge and had small diameter cylinders there is a possibility that it was an inside cylindered loco. The back to back for TT gauge is 10.5 mm, which will scale up to 2' 6" and that is plenty of room to fit a pair of 5.5" cylinders and the valves to go with them. To illustrate the point there is a photo in my book of Orion, No. 1536, built in 1898 for the 3' gauge system at the South Metropolitan Gas Company of London that has cylinders that were 5.5" by 7.5" and placed out of sight between the frames. However this might be due to it being a repeat order of an earlier design (and therefore not of the 'standard' of 1898).
Looking at other 3' gauge locos the smallest diameter cylinders that are outside the frames is works No. 699 (1887) with 6.5" diameter cylinders, but if Charger was a loco built for stock then it is just as likely that the cylinders, a standard casting for 10" stroke bored to 5.5 inches, were fitted outside.
I'm sorry if that is not conclusive. I'd be tempted to suggest going for the Backwoods kit as it is unlikely there will be anyone who has seen the real thing to tell you it is wrong. However, Sod's law dictates that once you have built the model someone will find the photograph / works drawing to prove otherwise!
Now for some good news ;D
I also have a copy of "Hudswell Clarke - A pictorial Album of Narrow Gauge Locomotives" (By Ronald Nelson Redman, ISBN 0 948131 32 2)) that on page 14 has a works photo of No. 311 in as built condition as the 2' 10" gauge "Clydach". There is only the side view but is was indeed a 'standard' narrow gauge 0-4-0 saddle tank.
You are a star.
Just the sort of info I was hoping for.
Outside cylinders it is then.