Churchward County Project

No, they're done a different way.

I use a vector drawing package, a oldish version of Corel Draw to be precise. I made a shedload of GWR loco drawings for the book I did which is just coming out (see sig), and they are heavily based on the standard components. As a result I have a large library of 2d profile drawings of standard bits and pieces, so for the 2-8-0, for instance, I took the 4200 chassis drawing, added a Std1 boiler with the same pitch as a 2800, and juggled it fore and aft so the firebox was in what seemed to me to be a reasonable relationship to the axles. That then necessitated lengthening the smokebox, which was easy enough. Add a Castle cab, mod it for the lack of curves and a lower roof, and then tidy up various bits of framing and so on to make the bits work together. The concept is very much inspired by Holcroft's tale of how he put the 4300 together for Churchward - get all the standard bits, and then assemble them. So its nearly all standard components, but it does need a fair bit more work in the final stages than the GWS package.

The GWS package is very ingenious and in many ways more sophisticated, since rather than use standard components there's an analysis of the typical relationships of the GWR components, and then it automatically stitches them together, but doesn't necessarily use an exact Std 4 boiler or whatever. I wouldn't like to try doing that sort of level of graphics coding, but I do rather like messing around with vector graphics programs, especially with the GW locos, but I've done all the standard ones for the book, so its either back to the 19thC, which is interesting but much more work, or else invent my own. So if someone says "How about" I rather rub my hands together!

I'm now thinking about doing 3D drawings, but they are several levels of difficulty more work. However if I do end up with a reasonable library of standard components in Freecad I'll be in a good position to build some what if models with 3d printing....

 

That 2-8-0 looks to have a huge coupled wheelbase - comparable to the P2 even??

Dave

 

The 2-8-0 tanks did have a much longer wheelbase than the 28s, but they had thin flanges on the centre pair of tyres and spherical bearings on the trailing coupling rod joints. The wheelbase is 8ft 9in -7ft - 6ft - 7ft.

 

Basically Jimc's 2-8-0 is just a small wheeled 4700 except that the driving axle is moved back 6" allowing a slightly longer connecting rod

 

So it is bigger than the P2, by 6 inches. Thanks for reply (and @LesterBrown ). I like the drawings by the way.

Dave

 

A conversion of the 42/52 to a 2-6-0 retaining the Standard 4 boiler would be almost exactly a 4300 with smaller wheels.

Yes, that looks very good.
Thanks.

 

Apologies if you're already aware of this drawing - but just in case...

 

No, I hadn't seen that one. I shall mod my drawing to match. Thank you very much. It will be interesting to see how much I guessed wrong!

Can you read that chimney height dimension in the original? Interesting that its a notably high pitched boiler, inches higher than either the 28 or the 42.


[Later - after some drawing]
Ah, I understand. The high pitched boiler means that the boiler can be positioned further forward, more over the third pair of driving wheels. Mine had the boiler further back and lower, with a longer smokebox. Theirs is shorter and lighter, probably with better weight distribution.

 

I gather that for the same weight distribution reason that the Stanier 8Fs had a shortened version of the Black 5 boiler.

 

I`m reading at the home page to the Churchward County Trust this morning. What a surprising progress they have made! https://www.churchwardcounty.org.uk...unty-in-the-frame-with-the-cct-founders-club/

Knut

 

Fair play to them,
I really thought they would struggle to gain momentum for this project, I hope they manage to keep it up.

Chris

 

I very much agree with you. This has had a somewhat "stop-start" history as a new-build project (or re-arrangement of extant GWR bits from the spares box) but approaching the production of new frames (OK they won't be the longest set of frames made in recent years) shows good progress. Early days yet of course but it would seem that things are moving forward. I still take the view that this 4-4-0 was perhaps not one of GJ Churchward's finest designs but it would be very interesting to see one recreated.

 

Hopefully there's some extra support to be had from GWSR members; after all, if GWR 2-8-0s aren't your thing (shocking I know) then you haven't got a lot of choice in terms of restoration projects at the railway at the moment!

 

I notice there is no "donate" button. I don't get it.

 

I do hope this and the 47xx project are successful,
If only to stop the old moan about all GWR locos being a 4-6-0 !

 

It seems to be a form for one off donations rather than an electronic set up.

https://www.churchwardcounty.org.uk/support-us/

I don’t know if it is difficult or how complicated it is to set up a ‘donate’ link + extra security for bank details etc etc

 

To set up an online form that takes payment directly to the organisation is actually pretty onerous to comply with the payment card industry security.

So essentially, no small organisation would do that. Instead, you use a middle man to do all the payment processing securely, in exchange for a commission. There are numerous to choose from - JustGiving, PayPal, BTMydonate etc. Doing that is not especially hard; most of them will even arrange to process Gift Aid declarations for you if you are an eligible charity, saving a bit of administration and record keeping for your organisation.

You do have to look closely at the scale of charges and match that to your expected profile of donations. For example, JustGiving and others have a monthly standing charge regardless of whether you get any donations - whereas others might have a bigger percentage cut of each donation, but no standing charge, which is better if your monthly income online is low.

Then you have to look at to what extent you are part of a larger organisation - i.e., for online donations purposes, are you just one of several appeals under the umbrella of a larger organisation; or is each appeal apparently separate? That makes a difference if the provider charges any per-organisation setup or monthly fees. For example, your host railway might have an account and pay £X per month collectively, absorbing it as a cost of fundraising, allowing each group to then take the full amount of donations - that is obviously better than each group setting up an appeal in isolation and each individually paying £X per month. But it does depend on how a particular project sits corporately within the wider environment of the railway on which it is based (and even whether the host railway actually has a collected fundraising plan).

Another point to consider is whether the fee is fixed per transaction, or a percentage per transaction. Generally you will get a fixed card handling fee (generally pence, regardless of the amount) and a percentage commission, ranging from 0% upwards. If there is a percentage commission, high value transactions become expensive - you are better, as far as possible, encouraging a "large" donor (large in that context maybe being > £50 or so) to send a cheque rather than donate online.

Then there is the issue of mobile phone donations - does the provider allow them?

There are tables online that allow comparison between leading providers. What never ceases to amaze me is that railways launching very small appeals continue to choose JustGiving, given that it seems to have the highest fees. I suspect that is because it has a lot of brand recognition, being in the market early, and in particular was one of the first to enable charities to process Gift Aid donations. But it is expensive!

Disclaimer: This advice is worth what you paid for it (minus all appropriate handling fees...)

Tom

 

Thank you very much for this very informative post Tom! I have to admit this is not the first that stuck my mind when thinking "Why not a donate buttom?" (Of course someone should have fees for organisation/drifting that possibility)

Knut

 

Was the plan to build this loco at the GWSR as I see the frames are being fabricated at Tyseley. Is this a short term arrangement till they build the loco shed extension?

 

AFAIK no ground work has started at Toddington yet so presumably, yes.