The LNER Encyclopedia

Thank you very much indeed. A superb drawing of a very handsome engine. I delayed saying thanks because I was travelling on business and could not download onto my laptop, so I could not see it until today.

I think there is something "just right" about the Clauds as built, espescially the Belpaire firebox version.

(I would love to persuade you to do a drawing of a Holden P43 4-2-2 - the only GER engine which looked even better (though they had short lives, due to train weights increasing, and were somewhat Dean Single - like, due no doubt to Holden having worked under Dean.

Ay up!

Does anyone know where I can get my paws on a drawing of a Thompson O1?

Cheers!

Whatzabout these then?

Ay up!

(gibber, slobber, urp!!)

Anyone thinking of using these for a model would be advised to check them carefully against photographs. The B1, at least, perpetuated an error that can be traced back to Roche.

Ay up, Bill!

What error is this?

I would agree with Bill but also add that I would rather see a drawing branded with a number and (if apporpriate) name and possibly a date since 'general' drawings can be very misleading.

Ay up!

Well, as a modeller who likes to get it "right" I'd have thought that you'd have to have pictures, anyway. For example, the 4-6-0 version ended up with a boiler piched significantly higher than St J's drawings but that's always the danger of using an "as built" drawing. Also they lost their superheater header discharge valves as time went by and gained sniting valves under Gresley.

But ain't that the way of things?

Blink Bonny wrote:What error is this?

The motion bracket is too far back. On a B1 the spindle for the expansion link is almost directly above the crank pin at back dead centre.

This shows the arrangement from the frames plan:-

Ay up!

That's great, Bill. It explains why my Comet B1 looks a little strange in the motion bracket department. Clearly they used the Roche drawing as well.

Now, the Question. Do I "chop" the valve gear or leave well alone. I feel a play session with my Bongo coming on...

I've corrected my drawings (dead easy when they are CGIs). In the meantime here is something else to chew the fat over.

Blink Bonny wrote:For example, the 4-6-0 version ended up with a boiler piched significantly higher than St J's drawings

BB: Do you mean the B18 (former B1)? If so, have you checked carefully? Might you be confusing things with the B5 and B9 "Fish" classes, which, I believe, as a result of the boiler standardisation program received deep-firebox Q4 type boilers which therefore (notwithstanding a slimmer barrel than the C4/B4/O4 boiler) had to be pitched higher?
The original B1s (with 6' 9" approx driving wheels, the six coupled sisters of the atlantics) and the very similar 6' 6" B4 "Imminghams" retained boilers of original size, in the original position, until the end. The only changes were to boiler mountings (chimney, dome etc), and superheat, with or without new valves and larger cylinders.

So that nobody need feel compelled to point it out, I am aware that the original B5 barrel was of the smaller Q4 diameter anyway, but had the shallow firebox allowing a low pitch. The original B9 boiler was an oddity, with the larger B4/C4/O4 barrel married to what was something like the smaller B5 firebox, and was thus non-standard with other boilers sharing that barrel. The valid point in both cases is that the Q4 boiler when fitted had to go higher, giving an illusion of increased boiler size.

I concur with Atlantic in that my drawings of B18/C5 show locomotives that were not substantially altered during their lives with regard to boilers. You will have to wait for further installments when you will see GC 4-6-0s which had different boilers during their lives.

I would add that the way my drawings are done on the Computer makes correction and alteration very easy. You could go on ad infinitum with variations.

A

Atlantic 3279 wrote:

Blink Bonny wrote:For example, the 4-6-0 version ended up with a boiler piched significantly higher than St J's drawings

BB: Do you mean the B18 (former B1)? If so, have you checked carefully? Might you be confusing things with the B5 and B9 "Fish" classes, which, I believe, as a result of the boiler standardisation program received deep-firebox Q4 type boilers which therefore (notwithstanding a slimmer barrel than the C4/B4/O4 boiler) had to be pitched higher?
The original B1s (with 6' 9" approx driving wheels, the six coupled sisters of the atlantics) and the very similar 6' 6" B4 "Imminghams" retained boilers of original size, in the original position, until the end. The only changes were to boiler mountings (chimney, dome etc), and superheat, with or without new valves and larger cylinders.

I may well be confusing my GC 4-6-0s. A little knowledge can be dangerous...

am fascinated that some of you should suggest that a GA is misleading?

surely without the basics, you cannot hope to create an accurate model? in modelling for too long we have been mislead by early drawings from people such as roche and skinley. whilst i understand why they did it, we have been paying the price for too long.

sure engines changed in their lives, and often those details are not documented properly, ie no modified works drawings, but only if you have the basics, can you then use photographic and other evidence to get things right.

i am saddened that so many people think badly of the isinglass drawings. remember john drew all the originals by hand in the respective scales, he did not initially have a photocopier that could accurately scale up and down. more importantly john was a fount of knowledge of LNER and in particular GNR stuff, much of which when it was still around and working, he had measured. certainly when checking some of his stuff against some of the drawings i have, i am impressed by his accuracy.

if you are scratch building or designing a kit, you need a starting point that is an accurate base. take for instance the preserved midland 2-4-0 at butterley, without a few days getting mucky with a tape measure, how do you discover its basics, and as important how could back date it to as built status?? or indeed the tender still on the back of No 1, that is certainly not a fit and proper tender for it, but how many people really understand this??

paul