Class 488 Footplate Width

Any aspect related to the prototype stock.
Post Reply
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:43 pm

Class 488 Footplate Width

Post by lindsay_g »

I'm grasping at straws again! I''m trying to establish the width of the footplate on the Class 488 loco, altho' my suspicions are that such info will not be available in the public domain. However, was there any standard width of footplate on other Connor locos perhaps? Or perchance does anyone have access to the width of footplate on any Connor loco? (Hand up from me, I haven't as yet purchased The Formative Years and such info may be in there).

The background to this is that I'm trying to build a model of No 1167 where, as with other class 488 engines, the footplate was the same width as the bunker/well as can be seen from this image :

Footplate at bunker.jpg
Footplate at bunker.jpg (53.62 KiB) Viewed 560 times
My problem is that the etch I have has a footplate that scales in at just under 8' but a bunker/well that scales in at 7' 8" but I have no idea which of the 2 is the correct width. My gut feel suggests that the footplate is overscale based on early calculations of cylinder slide bar rear support location compared to the valance and to a lesser extent the width of buffer beam beyond the valance seen in the above image - but they are not overly convincing proof.

At just under 8' it was quite wide compared to the later Jumbo with a 7' 6" footplate, but Drummond went wider on the 171, and MacIntosh appears to have standardised around 8' 6". I've nothing here to say whether earlier locos tended to have wider or narrower footplates.

Alan K
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:41 pm

Re: Class 488 Footplate Width

Post by Alan K »

Hi Lindsay
Don't have any straws I'm afraid, but in an idle moment (and who doesn't have those these days !) had a look at what J F McEwan had to say (TL 81). No width dimensions though. Apparently they were designed by Brittain not Connor, and were built by Neilson. Are Neilson details/drawings any more obtainable maybe?
The next two 488 Class engines had different splasher/sandbox arrangements, and the photos of 170 (ex 491) and 169 (ex 490) suggest the Westinghouse was on the opposite side. At least you are spared that conundrum!

Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Class 488 Footplate Width

Post by jimwatt2mm »

Hi Alan,

There doesn't appear to be anything in 'The Formative Years' to help, only a Neilson 'Outline Proposal' and a weight diagram. Both are only side elevations with leading dimensions. There are two photographs of 1167, however.

Jim W
Post Reply