Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
David Holman

101 class tender details

Rate this question

Question

Instructions on my TMD kit seem a little vague, while those for the front end, particularly the coal shovelling platform refer to the preserved example.

 Meanwhile, photos in Steaming Through Three Centuries show a fair bit of variety!

 Am hoping to built the tender as first made in 1902 (Coey loco). So...

1. Would it have had the raves, or would it have been low sided?

2. Presumably, there would have been a front coal sheet, at right angles to the sides, but was there a rear sheet as well? Photos seem to show coal piled full length of the tender top, including round the tank filler. So, a simple flat top to the tender, but with the usual  chute down to the front of the tender?

3. Just how is the front coal chute arranged? Instructions suggest a 'coal chute cover ( that you have to make yourself), which will extend down to footplate level and the bottom of this cover is a lifting door.' Any idea what this looks like?

As ever, any help much appreciated. Photo shows what is supplied on the etches, but nothing fixed in place yet.

IMG_20190129_165120158.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Hi David,

I have 3 pictures of the tender at Whitehead. It's not the one you are building but they may be of some use.

 

049.JPG

060.JPG

064.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Class J15 - 134 - GS&WR Class 101 0-6-0 - built 1885 by Inchicore Works - 1922 rebuilt, 1925 to GSR, 1945 to CIE - withdrawn 1962 - seen here before 1922 rebuild.

 

Class J15 - 143 - GS&WR Class 101 0-6-0, built 1877 by Inchicore Works - 1906 rebuilt, 1925 to GSR, 1936 rebuilt with Belpaire boiler, 1945 to CIE - withdrawn 1959 - seen here at Bray in 1932.

Tenders on 101 Class and small GSWR tender locos were not fitted with coal raves or extension plates in GSWR days.

134 looks very tempting with 4' boiler, cast iron funnel and wheels!

186s tender is of much more modern design than the loco and may have been built for use with the 400 Class 4-6-0s during the early 1920s.

The chute arrangement on SSM kit appears to be an RPSI modification, the 1864 Gallon GSWR tenders had a low shovelling plate and appear to have had a snaphead riveted flat tank top/coal plate to make life difficult for the fireman/coal trimmers.

 

746514237_SSMGSWRTenderPhotos30012019.thumb.jpg.4b4237626f359ab1fa1d5bacd7a8652d.jpg

2041581269_SSMGSWRTenderAssemblyinstructions30012019.thumb.jpg.471e2bcbd4228c78474c8765bc1d7dad.jpg

 

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Someone has built a nice shed on top of the tender of 134. =))

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Mayner said:

 

186s tender is of much more modern design than the loco and may have been built for use with the 400 Class 4-6-0s during the early 1920s.

The chute arrangement on SSM kit appears to be an RPSI modification, the 1864 Gallon GSWR tenders had a low shovelling plate and appear to have had a snaphead riveted flat tank top/coal plate to make life difficult for the fireman/coal trimmers.

 

The story of the 400 class tender with 186 is one of the old "Whitehead Myths" like the idea that the GNR in Dundalk "just went down to the local shop and bought what blue paint they had"......

The tender was used with other J15s occasionally and would have come from some old 0.6.0.

And yes, there have indeed been RPSI modifications over the years.

1 hour ago, popeye said:

Someone has built a nice shed on top of the tender of 134. =))

That's a genuine Farranfore, Coleraine & Western Railway conservatory. They were fitted with jacuzzis after 1904.

Edited by jhb171achill
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

JHB 

I would not dismiss the idea of 186s tender having run behind a 400 Class 4-6-0 as a myth. 

This type of tender appears to have been the standard for larger locos built from 1900 to the early 1920s including the four Inchacore built members of the 400 Class 400-402 & 406.

Larger tenders were introduced for use with the six Armstrong Whitworth built members of the 400 Class & the 500 Class from 1922 onwards.

Class B2 - 407 - GS&WR 4-cylinder compound Class 400 4-6-0, built 1922 by Armstrong Whitworth & Co. - 1925 to GSR, 1937 rebuilt as 2-cylinder simple, 1945 to CIE, 1949 rebuilt - withdrawn 1955 - seen here at Inchicore before 1937 rebuild.

407 running with a 3345 gal tender similar to 186 before rebuilding in 2 cylinder form in 1937.

This loco was the last survivor of the Class in its original 4 cylinder form before re-building in 1938

Class B 2 - 402 - GS&WR 4-cylinder compound Class 400 4-6-0, built 1921 by Inchicore Works - 1925 to GSR, 1927 rebuilt as 2-cylinder simple, 1945 to CIE, 1946 rebuilt, 1953 rebuilt - withdrawn 1961 - seen here at Cork, 10/33.

402 rebuilt in 2 cylinder form with 4500 Gal tender.

The GSR scrapped a significant number of larger more modern GSWR locos during the Depression era including 3 members of the 400 Class, 6 inside cylinder 4-6-0s, and 5 large 4-4-0s and inside cylinder 2-6-0 locomotives.

This scrapping would have freed up a number of 3345 gallon tenders for use with J15s & D14 4-4-0s and would have been useful on long distance work.

Class D14 - 60 - GS&WR Class 60 4-4-0, built 1891 by Inchicore Works - 1925 to GSR, 1934 rebuilt with Belpaire bolier, 1945 to CIE - withdrawn 1957 - seen here at Inchicore in 1938.

D14 No 60 with 3345 gal tender

 

Edited by Mayner
  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Mayner said:

JHB 

I would not dismiss the idea of 186s tender having run behind a 400 Class 4-6-0 as a myth.

 

 

True, John, but what I meant was that the "urban myth" suggests that the tender 186 is with now was "off" a 400 class loco, i.e. built for a 400 specifically. As you suggest, a lot of interchangeability was the norm, but this thing would have been paired with J15s and other odds and ends of 0.6.0 or 4.4.0 classes. Quite possibly, a 400 met it at some stage.

 

Edited by jhb171achill
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Many thanks, folks. Key info from Mayner that raves/extensions were not fitted in GSWR days, so a 'flat top' it will be - with a good layer of coal all over. Two cracking photos as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hello David,

 

There is some very good information in the "Good Book" Clements & McMahon - chapter 11 on the various types of tenders used across the network. 

I think you mentioned elsewhere you picked it up recently - it may help?

Ken

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, KMCE said:

Hello David,

 

There is some very good information in the "Good Book" Clements & McMahon - chapter 11 on the various types of tenders used across the network. 

I think you mentioned elsewhere you picked it up recently - it may help?

Ken

If anyone is still looking for a copy of this excellent tome, I believe the RPSI still has one or two copies for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I did! Thanks Jonathan. Looked in the 101 loco section and forgot all about the tenders bit.

 Making progress and will post some pictures next week, but what I will say is that the 101s had a ridiculous number of handrails. 8 just around the cab with four more at the front of the tender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

First, may I, like Jonathan, heartily recommend the GSR locos book - a reference book for every Irish Enthusiast.

Now, back to those tenders.....    I suggest that if you take a look through the 101 book, which really has 101 different "101"s pictured in it; you'll be amazed by the variety of tenders behind these little engines. Yep, a hundred and one - it took me six years to find that number and recently, I think I found another one ......

Roderick could have spent the rest of his life doing variations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Terms of Use