BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

I’m intrigued by the virtual modelling process in this context, so apologies for repeating the same sort of questions as on the 567 thread.
1. What software are you using?
2. Is the 3D model used to generate 2D drawings?
3. Is the 3D model utilised for structural analysis?
4. Are any of the modelled parts realised directly through a CAD/CAM process or is it a case of outputting traditional 2D drawings for interpretation by machinists, etc?
5. What units are used for the model, metric or imperial?
6. Has the complete locomotive been modelled first for coordination purposes or is it being developed piece by piece as required by the assembly process?
7. Is the model being used as the basis for any photorealistic renders?
8. Have you been able to source all the information needed to create the design from original drawings or are there gaps which are interpolated from other similar locomotives?
9. Does the source information all fit together dimensionally or have you had to make any judgement calls to fully integrate components?
10. Are there any amendments/improvements to the original design which have had to be made owing to current regulations, availability of materials or contemporary manufacturing processes?

l have been working in the architectural profession for the past twenty five years and 3D modelling complete buildings, including some very detailed and complex geometry components, for about twenty of those. In that time I have seen how the design technology in that sector has evolved from little more than an electronic version of a piece of paper to very sophisticated intelligent models with multiple uses and I am curious as to whether the engineering profession has followed a similar trajectory. I’ve also had experience of trying to translate and integrate historic GWR bridge and station drawings into contemporary civil/architectural schemes and so have come across some of the issues outlined above.

The reason for all these questions is that I harbour an ambition to resurrect S&D locomotives missing from the preserved canon, virtually at first for educational and illustrative purposes, but in sufficient detail such that one could be realised if the will and funding ever coincided. I know that there are some quite realistic examples already within the TrainSim environment but they are only superficial imagery and not the detailed engineering models that I am envisaging. As you are already a long way down the path that I would like to tread I would be grateful for any advice you can offer.

Cheers

 

Lots of comments there

Nothernsteam says "Apart that, to the best of my knowledge, all our drawings have been converted from imperial to metric". Initially, we gave suppliers the original BR drawings although there were a few exceptions where we provided a modern conversion. However, we quickly realised that it was much better if we gave our suppliers modern CAD models. Firstly we could do the metric conversion and check for errors in the 3D model. Second, it could mean that the supplier could load the electronic file direct into their systems. This helps lower the cost. We've also found that a number of our reproductions are poor and the dimensions are difficult to read. So Geoff and I have been making visits to the Search Engine at the NRM to photo original drawings. There are still a number of drawings that we are missing. For example, the trailing driving wheel spring hanger is unique to 71000 and the lot 242 Clans and is not available. Fortunately we were able to measure the original on 71000 and they have been cast and are ready for fitting.

Drawing conversion is an ongoing process. We do need more 2D CAD draughtsmen to assist with the project. The work involves taking the original drawing and converting it to a 2D model. If you can help us with this work, please get in touch

Squiffy

Good questions! We're working on a detailed reply for you

 

As a matter of interest, once you have recreated them, do you offer the missing drawings to the NRM to complete their drawing sets? And if so have they accepted them?

Thanks

 

Hello Keith

Thats an interesting thought. I will mention it to the NRM the next time we get a chance for a visit

Ian

 

Latest update for you. James, on our modelling team, has been working on the BR1F tender model and here's a first view
P.S. If anyone has the drawings for the intermediate buffers and springs that are fitted to the front of the tender, we would be very grateful for a copy

 

That is an interesting thought, although the Museum is a receptacle of artifacts rather than specifications. Certainly 2d/3d files are the modern equivalent of patterns and i would have thought copies these would be 'given' to BRSLOG...

 

Polite enquiry: Could you please expand upon considerations involved in arriving at a precise cut-off date, with respect to when any given item(s) become 'artifacts'?

 

31 December 1947 if I had my way ...

Tom

 

In all honesty, I'd have expected 30th November 1913 from you, Tom.

 

Aye, yes, D42-16466. BRSLOG have been after that one for 30+ years.

 

I'm getting liberal in my old age ...

Tom

 

This project is really starting to take shape and congratulations to all concerned.

May i ask why the name 'Hengist' was chosen rather than a scottish clan?

 

It was a name originally on the list for the never-built second batch, some of which were intended for allocation to the Southern Region, where it'd have been more 'geographically relevant' than a far-off Scots clan. What that might've meant for the familiar moniker of the 6MTs is anyone's guess!

 

If you don't mind educating someone, how come it doesn't say 'Clan Hengist'?

Never mind, I think the post moments before mine answered that!

Noel

 

The batch intended for the Southern Region were due to have the following names:

72010 Hengist
72011 Horsa
72012 Canute
72013 Wildfire
72014 Firebrand

"Hengist" and "Horsa" were by tradition the first Kings of Kent. "Canute" first landed in this country in Sandwich, Kent, before moving to Wessex.

All five names were used by early locomotives in Southern England: "Hengist", "Horsa" and "Canute" were Nos. 1, 2 and 9 respectively in the SER / London & Brighton / London & Croydon Joint Locomotive Committee list. When that committee disbanded and the locomotives were distributed between the respective companies, they became SER Nos. 9, 10 and 17 respectively. "Firebrand" and "Wildfire" were originally LSWR Nos. 74 and 77.

Tom

 

Like the WC/BB'S they were destined to become Clans/Warlords (?)
Originally quite a large class envisaged to replace all the Jubes, Patriots, B17's, Arthurs and maybe even Counties...

 

So how many Pacifics did the Southern need?

 

Sure the Bulleids did quite respectable mileages in the 20 years they were around ( even more so given they spent ' years' in sheds being fixed) so the answer is probably as many as they could get. The point i alluded to earlier (which no-one seemed to grasp) was that once rebuilt into more conventional locos they did not migrate off region or sit around for years for want of work ( correct me here)- most went straight from working to scrap in a short space of time

 

Fair comment, though in the context of the parallel electrification and dieselisation, I wonder whether their excellence helped delay changes seen elsewhere.

I still, though, question how many locomotives of 6P capability the Southern required that might have necessitated topping up with Clans.

 

To ensure as appropriate a name on the locomotive as possible, lest Clan Cameron failed, the Gresley three cylinder K4 Cameron of Lochiel was on standby.