gnr raised footplates

[john coffin]

whilst i am always keen to increase interest and sales of kits i have been involved with, i am also want to check some
information which is going the rounds. the latest london road models kit is of an ivatt GNR D2, LNER D4 the loco of which i designed from works drawings as well as other data.

i originally wrote a press release, but it was edited by a non GNR person, and they added a few words that i am not sure are true, and i would like to know the source. "the first 40 locos had flat footplates, but later ones were raised to match the C2 atlantics. Personally i have not been able to find a mention of this in any of the standard books like Bird, Weight, nor even Groves.

My understanding has always been that initially Ivatt copied the Stirling ideas of footplates with his 2-4-0, 1071 class
and the D2 was a bogied version of this, but with the flat footplate. but after the introduction of the shorter working week for engine men, it was important to make it easier to access the oiling points so the footplate was raised. this was nothing to do with the atlantics, which of course were outside cylindered locos.

so anyone got any idea where this line came from???

paul

[john coffin]

honest i wasn't trying for a free plug i really am keen to find where else it is published that the footplates were
raised to match the C2's. it was allegedly published on some other web site, and i want to find out where and why.

paul

[manna]

G'Day Gents

I've had a look through my books, about the GN 'D's' but there is nothing mentioned, I would say that would be a logical answer, I've also noticed that nearly all of the D2's with the raised footplate were also superheated, as I would like to model a D2 with a flat footplate and an extended smokebox, but can't find one !

The other thing is family likeness

manna

[john coffin]

manna, thanks wonder where it came from

we could do a flat footplate D2, it is already drawn and basically easy to do, but it requires a number of people to be prepared to buy either a new kit, or a conversion kit, at least 15 i would guess.

when i designed the london road models D2 i took note of the fact that the majority had the raised footplate, but i also thought that most people would buy the saturated version, so put fewer superheated boilers on the etches. actually more people have bought the latter, very strange.

the reverse of course applies to the D3/4 in that few had the curved footplate, hence the reason for the flat kit.

paul

[john coffin]

i guess i must read grove more frequently, although i still think someone took it out of context.
in on page 130 of vol 3a, they talk about the atlantic being contemporary and no 1320
"tentatively adopting the latters raised footplate!

think it is a stretch though to put that kind of spin on it. i am much happier with the idea that it was a pita
to open the splasher at the front and inside the cab.

still at least i now know why someone should have put forward the idea.
paul

[notascoobie]

Surely Stirling had adopted the raised footplate much earlier - ie LNER class E1. It's just that the earlier raised footplates had outside valences, presumably for strength. As steel increased in strength, so the need for the external valences disappeared and they were dispensed with to ease servicing and to reduce the number of hand injuries.

I think that Stirling's raised footplate set the footplate line for the following 40 years, possibly even starting with the bogie singles. He had an eye for designing grace into powerful locos.

As an aside, I guess SNG's valences on the A4s were purely for aesthetic reasons.

......non-technical bod now awaiting the inevitable torrent of dismissive posts telling me how wrong I am........

Toodle pip

Vernon

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up, Vernon!

You're right - the valences were there to hide the wheels beside platforms and give an aerofoil look to the side. Even if the curve was based on the R101 airship!

[notascoobie]

Hi BB

I guess it's heresy but i think the A4s looked better with the valances off. The valances gave them a really rounded appearance. Without, they looked sleeker.

Incidentally i apologise for the spelling in my previous post. I was referring to the skirting around the wheels, not the presence of free atoms or something that i can barely remember from O level chemistry 40 years ago.

Toodle pip.

Vernon

[john coffin]

scoobie, you are right in that stirling had raised footplates for in fact the 2-4-0's and indeed the number 1 class singles,
but the slight difference is that stirling was worried about showing anything to outside view, witness his early tender with inside springs.

of course the early ivatt 2-4-0 class 1061-70 had raised footplates, but with the deep valance too.
what is unusual about the raised footplates on the D1/2 is that there were no outside cylinders to give the excuse
hence my original question.

it is strange about the valances on the A4's in that they were derived from the Bugatti experiments in streamlining
on railway engines, along with the chapelon trials. i think when they first came out they were an amazing site, but
in fact the streaks have been with out them for longer than they wore them, so our feelings might well be conditioned
by that. they were certainly removed due to mainenance needs.

paul

[Eightpot]

Using the word 'footplate', is it really meant to refer to what I call 'running boards'?

[john coffin]

i guess it depends on where you come from and what your influences are.

malcolm crawley, who worked at doncaster and has helped me with a number of my kits, plus my drawings for the
gnr tenders calls the floor of a tender the soleplate, and that part of the locomotive between the cab and the front buffer beam which covers the rails a footplate. i seem to remember that the americans call it what you do, although i am also aware of people calling the lower steps on brake vans running boards, since this was often where the shunters stood between their travelling around a goods yard.

as with so many things in railway "lore" it depends on who you listen too. for instance what is a carriage???? and how are the various parts of it named??

paul

[Pebbles]

RCTS Locomotives of the LNER Vol 3B Published 1980 page 29. This specifically quotes that the footplate was raised to clear the coupling rods in the style adopted for the first Atlantic, No 990. This reference predates Grove by some ten years and presumably is the basis for his comment. Whilst the real reason may be lost in time it is evident that an access cover for the front coupling rod bearing can be seen on some engines (figs 31, 33, 34, 38 and 39 in 3B), although this may have been a retrospective modification. The raise running plate, as eventually was the case with the D10 and D11, would eliminated this inconvenience.

[john coffin]

don't forget that grove was part of the team that did lner locos too.

certainly some of the flat footplate locos, either D2 or D4/3 had a removeable cover at the front of the con rod splasher.

so far i have not found a proper reference, and since some of the stuff in both types of volumes has been found to be
less than completely true, what with the archives moving around etc, i hope to find more out at kew sometime.

as said before, plainly, the atlantics had to have raised footplates to allow for the cylinders, but whether there was
a conscious decision to mirror this who knows.

paul

[Pebbles]

I am in error, the inspection hatch appears in my 1903 copy of Bird's page 156 I therefore assume that this feature was either as built or added early on. Is it present on the London Road model?
Whilst the Stirling and indeed Ivatt 2-4-0's had the flowing lines to the footplate as the leading wheels had outside bearings does this mean that the whole valance was load bearing? When a leading bogie was introduced this would have ceased to be the case.

Best of Luck with Kew, one of my staff spent days there and he knew where to look!

[john coffin]

yes the d4 and eventually, if there is demand, the d3 do have the hatch as a half etched piece.

as for the idea about the early 2-4-0's it is important to realise that in reality, they were only an evolution from the
stirling version, they had wider footplates, and an ivatt cab, but otherwise i can find no proper differences except the flow of the footplates, because the "valance" does not hold the driving wheel bearings i am not of the opinion it is
load bearing, rather i think at ivatt's time it was just a case of getting a lightweight passenger loco off the line as quickly as possible after he took over.

i had thought i had seen a raised footplate ivatt loco on the irish railways, and it is true, according to "master builders of steam", by hav bullied, (his grandson, i think), in 1895 at inchicore, there was built a 4-4-0 with the footplate raised over each of the individual driving wheels, with a very slim valance. page 16 for those who have the 1965 reprint. the design is of course reminiscent of lnwr cauliflowers.

as for kew, oh yes it is fun, although kind of improved, but even with the computer they can mislead you!!!!!

paul