Jump to content

GSWR 90 Overhaul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted
20 minutes ago, jhb171achill said:

Are you fitting it with sound and DCC?

With such a small loco, I think the steam effects generator will take up too much space for those features.

  • Funny 4
Posted
2 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

Are you fitting it with sound and DCC?

DCC no, but it will have sound, directional lighting, and flickering firebox 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Posted

Munster perspective of 90 this weekend (some 12 inches to a foot scale modelling) IMG_4778.thumb.jpeg.55435bd30cd5f85c4477dd7695767da3.jpeg

Not long after arriving on the 0500 Ex-Cork car, we examined our options to get the bolts off, didn’t take long to realise that these nuts were too far beyond whacking them off, so modern methods as seen below were used IMG_4709.thumb.jpeg.1fea1c8591f5951197d6b0cb7db7bf0e.jpeg

IMG_4728.thumb.jpeg.3e34a2ea855f4eed4830cfc0639480a0.jpeg

To acheive the above photo, it quite literally took a day to do, trying to cut off the bolts without damaging anything else, most bolts needing to be cut on 3/4 times before being loose enough to knock off 

IMG_4730.thumb.jpeg.c96414fa17866950ae844805eb91e912.jpeg

after another hour of hacking, the ashpan had been finally lowered into the pit

IMG_4731.thumb.jpeg.a2facd3b504c0ee83ab78742a594a080.jpeg

here we get a unique look into 90s firebox 

IMG_4806.jpeg

  • Like 9
  • 2 months later...
Posted (edited)

Not many are aware that no.91 - a sister of 90 - was rebuilt into a slightly awkward looking saddle tank. Originally authorised in 1878 as C2, along with a second engine, C3, the GS&WR’s acquisition of the Castleisland Railway in 1879 lead the “C” numbering sequence (likely an abbreviation for “Castleisland”) to be dropped. The pair would be out-shopped in April / June 1881, carrying the numbers 91 and 92 respectively. 91 carried a coach-portion similar to 90’s, whereas 92’s had seats lining the sides. Unlike 92, which retained the coach-portion until withdrawal in 1945, 91 was rebuilt in 1924 with a saddle tank - a strange choice given that 90 had been rebuilt as a side tank, not to mention nos.99 and 100, which had been built as side tanks in the 1890/91. I’m not aware of any official reason as to why a saddle arrangement was chosen. Whatever the case, the engine lasted until 1930 before withdrawal, leaving the saddle tank saga as an odd footnote in the history of the 90 class. 

IMG_1466.jpeg

 

Edited by TheAccountOfMine
  • Like 3
Posted

Here’s a photo of the diagram of 91 in the IRRS archives. This is just a phone snap, it’s not flat or square so not suitable for scaling dimensions. 
IMG_2014.thumb.jpeg.c0ae563be2162fc0b54845c28b70eb04.jpeg
Looking at the photo you can see how the saddle tank gave better maintenance access to the clacks and reverser linkage than a side tank would have done. Also better access to the inside motion from above.
The awkward saddle dimensions may have been chosen to minimise alteration to the pipework and boiler fittings? 
However, I think the side tanks would give better weight distribution. 

  • Like 1
Posted

It does seem to have an "I bodge it and run" quality to it.

Was the saddle tank just lying around the works , off a long scrapped loco?

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Rob R said:

It does seem to have an "I bodge it and run" quality to it.

Was the saddle tank just lying around the works , off a long scrapped loco?

Saddle tanks have to fit over the boiler, dome, safety valves, and in this case chimney. It's rare to find a secondhand one that would fit a different loco.

Edited by Mol_PMB
  • Like 1

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use