4079 Pendennis Castle Overhaul

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. I presume that the tank plate ought to match the frame number, but I could well believe that if the tank had to be removed at the works it may not have ended up on the chassis it came from - especially if it was in works during WW2. Equally it may have been that the tank was good but the chassis was clapped out so it got a new chassis but kept its original number.

2885 could be a case in point. The tank was definitely a war-built example as the bottommost paint layers are red 'oxide' overpainted with black, but the frames have had it, which suggests it had a hard life in service.
1839 could be suspect too. Its tank is held down by a multitude of countersunk bolts - a feature that none of the others have. Most, if not all of the others have had their tanks off in the preservation era & are secured with round-head bolts. 2885 is still riveted as per spec.

& both 6960's and 6024's have differences in the chassis. On 6024's the framing runs straight from the hornguide to the rear of the buffer plank; RavingMad's follows the conventional slope/curve/slope arrangement.

One error in your list... 1994 is a ringer. The chassis is whatever 5322 had when it came out of Barry, the tank is a brand new fully-riveted job done at Didcot, but the plate is from the tender it had when it went to France.

Here's a query for you guys... When did the lower lamp brackets change from being bolted to the buffer plank to being welded to the tank flange? All our Collett 4000s have tapped holes in the planks but the brackets are attached to the tank.

Inna nutshell, yes. The reason that 6998 & 5051 swapped tenders was that 6998's was watertight which was viewed as being a bit handy for hurtling about on the main line. For a good while 5051 was running on site in plain green with 7808's tender as even that bag of spanners was more watertight than Bathtub's!

These days it would make sense to have a 'hot swap' tender that had all the OTMR gubbins on it that could just be plugged into the relevant loco.

P.

 

Thanks Pete: more info. So, does anyone have recorded what Tender number 5322 went to Barry with, or does someone(me?) need to crawl round the frames looking for stamped numbers?

My tender list is very confusing, there are a considerable number of tenders which are sporting numbers from tenders that the owner's loco towed at some stage in its history rather than the numbers that the tender in question (or its grandfather's axe predecessor) carried in service.
Perhaps the best one is that the Foremarke Hall group own an unidentified Hawksworth Tender with a new tank and a chassis that used to be at Swindon works. This is carrying 4084 because that was the tender 7903 went to Barry with.
Meanwhile at Tyseley they own a Hawksworth Tender, also with a new in preservation tank, with a chassis that came from Barry with 7903, and so should be genuinely numbered 4084, but that one is carrying 4081. But many chassis have also been extensively rebuilt in preservation.

A "hot swap" (or rather cold swap!) tender would seem reasonably in line with GWR practice...

 

Foremark definitely arrived at the S&C with a Hawksworth tender as I was there the day she arrived - no idea whether it was the one from Barry or Swindon but it arrived on the same day.

Hasn't Thornbury got at Crewe what is I believe a Collett Chassis (if there even is one there) but a new build Hawksworth tank?

 

My list doesn't have a GWR tender at Crewe, and I don't think the VCT list does either. Doesn't mean there isn't one in a dark corner I suppose. If my reading of the drawing index is any guide many components like axleboxes and springs are the same on wartime "Collett" chassis and Hawksworth ones, which would be why the County project can use a late Collett chassis for the basis of their tender.

Actually I think a Hawksworth tank on a post 1931 "Collett" chassis would be a good looking combination [is this the same person who was complaining about swapped numbers in a previous post?].

 

Noted on this thread, and I think I have seen a photo somewhere..

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/castle-7027-tender.354004/

 

I feel a GWR Tenders spin-off thread coming on, since we've got rather beyond 4079's overhaul...

 

There is a thread somewhere as I have fed my obsessive interest in such matters previously... Sorry cannot search to find it on tablet!

 

Here in fact! http://www.national-preservation.com/threads/gwr-tenders.16870/

 

Recent update - Feb 2016: http://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/guide/projectitems/4079project.html

 

I always thought Shakeshaft was a surname invented by the editor of Fiesta for the made up correspondence printed on the letters page

 

Cannot believe it hasn't popped up on the forum (I have probably missed it in a thread elsewhere) that Pendennis was making her first moves over the weekend.

Videos off Facebook, not mine.

https://www.facebook.com/1201185416/videos/pcb.10157899393800904/316667613846079

https://www.facebook.com/1201185416/videos/pcb.10157899393800904/512981266834566

 

yet again - presumption that everyone has a facebook account

 

It's not a presumption, but that's where the video is, for those who have Facebook and who might be interested. As it happens, I do have Facebook and those links don't work for me either, if it's of any comfort to you. Presumably it's in a private group that I'm not in, or posted on someone's profile who's set it to be private.

This link might be better, I don't know: https://www.facebook.com/100002021433074/videos/pcb.4787536567990344/477752570550794 and https://www.facebook.com/karl.buckingham.9/posts/4787536567990344 it may well be the same video that @GWR4707 posted but closer to source.

 

A little harsh perhaps? They're not his videos, he can't post them here or anywhere else. Should he refrain from posting the links for the benefit of those who do have FB accounts?

 

When linking to an individual's personal Facebook account, it's best to make sure that the content is public. In this case it isn't.

 

I don't think it's a harsh comment at all, though possibly would be better under 'Things that wind me up', but it happens frequently and if as is pointed out if it's a link to a private account it wouldn't take much effort to say so. It isn't a dig at anyone but users of Facebook do exhibit the tendency to assume / presume everyone does.

 

There was no presumption about anything in @GWR4707's post.

He clearly pointed out in his message that the videos were on Facebook.
If you don't have Facebook you move along.
If you do have Facebook you can click to view.

I'm really not sure what more you want from a posting???

 

Harry H Corbett, I won't bother next time.

For those of you who use Facebook they can be accessed via the great western society (Didcot) group page, pretty sure you won't trun into a pumpkin if you join that group

Railway preservation, such a friendly old place....

FWIW I did look to see if any such material was on YT before I posted the Facebook links as I know thus can lead to the proverbial being lost in parts, but there was nothing there, perhaps one would like to direct their ire to those who dare to upload videos to a platform not of their liking. .

 

Oddly, transmutation isn't my overriding concern. As one who shares distaste for Facebook's more intrusive tendencies (I closed my own account over their excessive data-mining, when it was still possible to!), I fully sympathise with the concerns of many.

That said, I do still access 'public' pages and even post the odd link, but only where a sign-in isn't required, which I'll always state in any such post.

Every so often, the public pages 'sulk' and insist on a sign-in, before returning to their actual status. This happens too regularly to be a 'glitch' and I can only interpret it as a crude exercise in compulsion by Facebook, which does the exact opposite of allaying fears concerning their operating practices. That's all I have to say on the matter.

..... back to Pendennis Castle! Glad to learn there's been progress, even though, for utterly illogical and purely sentimental reasons, Defiant is my personal favourite!

 

Are there any plans for a reunion with a certain A3?