GNR Tender models

[john coffin]

It is what Malcolm Crawley called a "front ender", and he certainly was unhappy that it had been preserved with such a tender
that it rarely used in traffic.

Paul

[Horsetan]

It is what Malcolm Crawley called a "front ender",....

....which is also a "horseshoe" on what looks like a 7' x 7' wheelbase?

I was looking at the London Road Models range of GN tender kits and wondered which one of them might closely resemble 251's, if at all.

[john coffin]

Blimey you haven't looked at your Green Ones have you?

All GNR 6 wheel tenders had a total wheelbase of 13ft Stirling types and the first Ivatt flat bottom had 6ft 6 +6ft 6 spacing
whilst later there were two types of Ivatt wheelbase 7ft +6ft and that particular tender which had 6ft 1 1/5 + 6ft 10 1/2,
but the LRM self trimmer can work for both since the difference is only 0.5mm.

To replicate the tender behind 251, you could indeed use the LRM self trimmer, and fix the brake shoes in front of the wheels
plus obviously re-arrange the brake levers. Check your Yeadon, or similar to see whether or not the tender has the open handrails
at the front but memory tells me that it was included in the kit, so a decent replica can be made..

HTH
Paul
good job I caught that mistake!

[Horsetan]

Blimey you haven't looked at your Green Ones have you?....

No, I'm not particularly well up on GNR matters.

I took delivery of a newly-designed P4 chassis kit for the large Atlantic. It includes two types of chassis for the tenders and looks so inviting that I wondered how much of no.251 could be built using just etch parts without going to the expense of buying a Bachmann model (£180-plus) and binning one-third of it. I accept that the engine body would be a scratchbuilding exercise.

Hence the query about the tender currently attached to 251 and whether I could use most of the LRM kit to represent it.

Your explanations have cleared up a lot of the confusion, as the modern-day photos of 251 publicly available on Flickr and elsewhere are almost three-quarter profile, with virtually no broadside views and very little in the way of close-ups, so it was difficult to discern whether the tender wheelbase is 7'x6' or 7'x7' or something else.

[john coffin]

No Problem, just a touch of levity.

Frankly, the biggest problem for any one trying to create a sheet metal Large Atlantic is the whole firebox and
washout plug situation, particularly those at the edges. I think for that alone it might be worth seeing if you
can find a s/h one.

Mind you, like you I am somewhat scared to consider cutting up my Locomotion model to put on one of Frank's etched
frames, the tender for which I provided brake details.

The LRM tender is relatively easy to build, and obviously is much easier to convert.

Paul

[Horsetan]

No Problem, just a touch of levity.

Frankly, the biggest problem for any one trying to create a sheet metal Large Atlantic is the whole firebox and
washout plug situation, particularly those at the edges....

The late Guy Williams built one for his last book. He made it all look too easy.

[Rail4472]

On the topic of GNR tenders, I was wondering if the GNR C1s carried the same tenders as the GNR Stirling Singles?


Or if anyone had any official GNR Stirling (not Sturrock) tender diagrams, that would help too.

[Atlantic 3279]

If you don't already have it, Malcolm Crawley's notes with Paul Craig's re-drafts of official GNR tender diagrams, available from the GNRS I believe, will provide essential but inevitably incomplete guidance on the GN tenders. Nobody knows the whole story.
I'm not the leading authority on this, but my impression is that on the face of it, barring later possible tender swaps for convenience, most of the eight foot singles are unlikely to have had the same tenders as most of the Atlantics. The earliest eight footers were built when Stirling's standard tenders had springs hidden away between the frame plates, D-shaped frame cut-outs, low side sheets, no coal rails, and a full-width front-end-only coal space - apart from coal heaped up on the tank of course. The last eight footers were built when Stirling's tenders had outside springs in the "normal" place, D shaped frame cut-outs, higher sides, coal rails, and retained the same thick wooden rear buffer beam as the earlier types. By the time Ivatt's Atlantics appeared he was equipping his best main line locos with tenders similar in style to Stirling's last ones but with "straight edges oval" frame cut-outs, thinner steel rear buffer beam, and coal recess centrally between the two forward arms of the tank. This brief summary overlooks type and location of brake shoes, width of tender, visible or hidden rivet heads, position and number of tool boxes, style and position of front coal plate and no doubt other details too. Before the Atlantics were all built things had changed again with new tenders on unequally divided wheelbase and the advent of troughs and water scoops...
PS, also not that on Stirling's tenders the vertical rear edges of the tanks were sharp and square, on Ivatt's those edges were rounded.

[john coffin]

The cut outs on the Stirling tender (supposedly) behind that drawing of a Stirling single are the wrong size, which makes
it somewhat misleading.

I have certainly found no photos of Stirling singles with Ivatt tenders, why would they bother since most singles had
gone by the beginning of the first war, and had been replaced on mainline routes by 4-4-0's and also Atlantics.
They would not have needed big tenders for the secondary routes in Lincolnshire where many spent their last
few days.

There are a few drawings not still extent, and the two most important are those for the tender now behind No 1
and the last Stirling tender R21..

HTH
Paul

[Atlantic 3279]

I know I've seen one photograph of a large boilered Atlantic with a large, late-pattern Stirling tender, probably before 1923, but I imagine that such pairings were not common.

[Pebbles]

Try top Photo Page 45 Yeadon's Vol 13.

[Woodcock29]

That photo in Yeadon doesn't even seem to be referenced in the captions. I must say the connection between supposed captions and photos does leave a bit to be desired at times in Yeadon volumes.
Andrew

[john coffin]

I must not be able to see, since none of the photos on page 45, show or refer to a Stirling tender, and even the one
behind on the top picture does not look like a Stirling tender.

Paul

[Pebbles]

Firstly as has been pointed out Yeaden's does not always caption photos. In the photo I refer to the tender appears to have Stirling squared corners built around angle iron frames rather than the rounded ones found on large Ivatt tenders.

[Atlantic 3279]

Now that I've had the chance to look, that does appear to be the photo I had in mind. The tank rear does appear to have square edges, and the guard irons are bolted to the outside face of the buffer beam, in Stirling's style. Presumably the rear buffer beam is wooden but I cannot tell from the picture, in which the frames are also hidden in darkness. Only two coal rails though, which seems to be regarded as an Ivatt feature. Is it a Stirling tender that has been given Ivatt style coal rails either as a matter of convenience during repair, or possibly as a deliberate move to make it agree more closely with the Ivatt style, for use behind a prestigious loco?