GSWR 90 Overhaul

[Mol_PMB]

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.

[GSWR 90]

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 

[jhb171achill]

2 hours ago, GSWR 90 said:

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

You can maybe 3D print its furry dice….

[Niles]

Of note, yesterday DCDR had no fewer than 27 volunteers working on various projects, including 90, across the site. Heartening to see. 

https://www.downrail.co.uk/2026/02/a-record-number-of-volunteers/

[GSWR 90]

23 hours ago, Niles said:

Of note, yesterday DCDR had no fewer than 27 volunteers working on various projects, including 90, across the site. Heartening to see. 

https://www.downrail.co.uk/2026/02/a-record-number-of-volunteers/

If you want to help us to get to 30 or even 40 volunteers in at one time, send me an email at info@downrail.co.uk

Edited February 9 by GSWR 90

[Westcorkrailway]

Next week is valentines so some on this website may need a place to hide 

[Westcorkrailway]

Munster perspective of 90 this weekend (some 12 inches to a foot scale modelling) 

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 

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 

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

here we get a unique look into 90s firebox 

[Niles]

https://www.downrail.co.uk/2026/02/90-restoration-ashpan-removal/

 

 

[TheAccountOfMine]

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. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 22:12 by TheAccountOfMine

[Mol_PMB]

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. 

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. 

[Rob R]

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?

[Mol_PMB]

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 yesterday at 07:23 by Mol_PMB

[Rob R]

I appreciate that they usually have to be made to fit but that one doesn't seem to fit very well...

[Westcorkrailway]

Looking at how it fits over 92s boiler perfectly, and that it’s designed so that all the necessary linkages are exposed lends me to beleive it was actually custom made for the J30 

[Horsetan]

5 hours ago, Rob R said:

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

Like Sambo, it does seem to have been an improvised one-off.

[Westcorkrailway]

Find it strange that more saddle tanks never came here. They weren’t unknown, (J24s, Sambo, DNGR tanks). Considering the amount of slow goods traffic and shunting that went on here. They do tend to be easier to maintain and bodge 

Edited yesterday at 13:35 by Westcorkrailway

[Mol_PMB]

2 minutes ago, Westcorkrailway said:

Find it strange that more saddle tanks never came here. They weren’t unknown, (J24s, Sambo, DNGR tanks). Considering the amount of slow goods traffic and shunting that went on here. They do tend to be easier to maintain and bodge 

It would be interesting to make a list of those that worked in Ireland. There were several in Cork and Kerry over the years, including the Bandon Yanks, the Allman's locos, and the former Shamrock and Erin. Guinness, LP&HC and Courtaulds were other users of the type.

[Galteemore]

North Antrim narrow gauge. NCC had a 5’3 one 

Edited yesterday at 14:16 by Galteemore

[Maitland]

There was one attractive if rather obscure contractor's saddle tank that worked in Ireland, details in PDF. It worked on the Great Central London extension, these pics from Contractors Locomotives G.C.R. by N Cossons BA (Leicester Museums 1963).

Cumbria.pdf

[Westcorkrailway]

The MGWR had 3 2-2-2 ST’s didn’t they? The 4th member of this class of 3 being preserved in Rio de Janeiro! 
 

the Timoleague and Courtmacsherry had “Slaney” which was the first withdrawn of there 3 locomotives 

 

did the GNR every try a saddle tank design? 

Edited yesterday at 16:36 by Westcorkrailway

[Maitland]

Looks like Cumbria was built specially for use on the Derry Central, and that "Kilsea" should be Kilrea.

[GSWR 90]

Thar she blows with the carriage portion.  It has tumblehomes and a much nicer roof, vents, and doors than 90’s 

[Westcorkrailway]

19 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

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. 

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. 

Interestingly, the drawing seems to show the wrong type of splashers (like those on 100) 

[Mayner]

3 hours ago, Westcorkrailway said:

Interestingly, the drawing seems to show the wrong type of splashers (like those on 100) 

Interestingly the GSWR diagram shows No91 with the correct style of splashers. 

Cambridge Dictionary definition of diagram: a simple plan that represents a machine, system, or idea, etc., often drawn to explain how it works:

Never scale from a drawing golden rule during a working life in construction and engineering

Extract from GSR Locomotive Drawing Register issued IRN Sep-2014 Drawing 91 Inchacore Class J29

 

Ironically the Drawing more correctly GSWR & GSR diagrams Drawing 90 Inchacore Class J30 notes that there were several detail differences between 90/99/100 and notes that the only drawings available depict No90 while the actual diagrams appear to depict 99-100 with their curved topped tanks and extended splashers.

90-92 appear to have been built as 0-6-4T combined loco and carriages, 99-100 0-6-0 as tank locos for the Fermoy-Mitchellstown. 90 & 91 rebuilt as 0-6-0 following removal of carriage protion. 

It looks like the water may have been originally carried in a well? tank under the rear of the loco/carriage portion.

Interestingly not a lot of difference in water capacity between 0-6-4T 370gal, 0-6-0T 430 gal and 0-6-0ST 410 gal versions, possibly 91 & 99 beccame a source of spares yo keep 92 (1945) 90, 100 (1959) going.

[Mike 84C]

I find it astonishing that none of those engines carried 500 gall's of water. But I suppose they never worked very hard or passed a water column when going somewhere!