Jump to content
 
  • entries
    172
  • comments
    1,475
  • views
    376,643

Hornby’s Class 52xx tanks - design variation or QA

Silver Sidelines

Entry posted by Silver Sidelines

4,425 views

 Share

The New Year has heralded a crop of new models. It is also the time of year when manufacturers and retailers clear out old stock. I have given in to temptation and I have purchased a second Hornby Class 52xx tank – ‘5239’ (R3224). My new model has a curved footplate to complement my existing model with its straight footplate.

 

24583522005_7bd6822c85_b.jpg

Hornby Class 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ with curved footplate over cylinders

 

It would have been back in August 2013 when I took delivery of ‘5243’, one of Hornby’s first batches of Class 52xx ex GWR tank engines, R3126. It is a good looking engine with some very fine detail but I noted that the buffers were not sprung and the smoke box dart was moulded integrally with the smokebox door.

 

9538681834_539532bee6_b.jpg

Hornby Class 52xx R3126 ‘5243’ with straight footplate

 

To their credit, Hornby have now provided the latest 52xx models with a separate detailed smoke box dart. However we still await the sprung buffers.

The Hornby range includes a number of Class 42xx, Class 52xx and Class 72xx locomotives. Sometimes the differences are obvious. For example the Class 72xx has an extended bunker supported by an extra pair of trailing wheels. My original Class 52xx ‘5243’ (R3126) looks identical to Hornby’s latest Class 42xx ‘4257’ (R3223) – that is except for the detailed separate smokebox dart on the newer model. Perhaps the difference between the Class 42xx and the 52xx is simply the number series, 4200 – 4299 for the Class 42xx and 5200 – 5264 for the Class 52xx. But then why do some engines have a curved footplate raised above the cylinders?

 

I would research the matter.

 

First a look at my 1960 ‘bible’ by authors Casserley and Asher 1. They refer to Class 42xx/Class 52xx as a single class but there is no specific mention of straight or curved footplates:

 

Number series: 4200/1/3/6-8, 4211-5/7/8, 4221-33/5-8, 4241-3/6-8, 4250-4299, 5200-5264

Churchward 2-8-0T's, 4'7
½
" wheels, for heavy short-haul mineral traffic, built 1910-40. In all, 205 engines were constructed to this design: Nos. 4200-4299 and 5200-5294 between 1910 and 1930, and a final 10 in 1940. In 1934, Nos. 5275-5294 were reconstructed as 2-8-2T's and renumbered 7200-7219, while in 1935-6 Nos. 5255-5274 were similarly treated and became Nos. 7220-7239. These were followed in 1937 by 14 more reconstructions from the earlier locomotives, which were duly renumbered 7240-7253, their original numbers having been 4239, 4220, 4202, 4204, 4216, 4205, 4234, 4244, 4249, 4209, 4219, 4240, 4210 and 4425 respectively. Rather strangely, ten further engines were built in 1940 as 2-8-0T's, numbered 5255-5264, but they are, of course, entirely different engines from those which at first bore these numbers, and which are now 2-8-2T's, Nos.7220-7229. Several of the 4200 series were scrapped during 1959.

 

I also visited the Great Western Archive (GWA) web site.

 

Again both the 42xx and the 52xx number series are grouped together as a single class referred to as the 4200 tank class. I have condensed the following points from the GWA.

 

Running numbers: 4200-4299, 5200-5264

The prototype 2 - 8 - 0T ‘4201’ appeared in 1910 with a straight backed bunker and no top feed.

The first production batch had a top feed and the rear edge of the bunker was extended to increase the coal capacity. Production continued up to number 4299 and then from 5200-5204, finishing with the completion of ‘4200’ in 1923.

For the second phase of construction the cylinder diameter of numbers 5205- 5294 was increased from 18½ inches to 19 inches. The resulting increase in tractive effort meant that engines from number 5205 were referred to as the '5205' class. The GWA states that these engines could be identified by their outside steam pipes.

Towards the end of construction whilst building numbers 5275-5294 there was a reduction in coal exports which caused many of the class to lie idle. The relatively small size of the coal bunker restricted use of the engines and they were placed into storage at Swindon. Collett decided to increase the coal capacity and altered the batch 5275-5294 to a 2 - 8 - 2T configuration. The modified engines were renumbered and designated '7200' class.

Further '7200' class engines were requested and the 20 next newest engines, numbers 5255-5274 were also rebuilt as 2 - 8 - 2T's. Even more 2-8-2Ts were requested and random engines appear to have been taken from the earlier Churchward '4200' series.

Rebuilding the last of these '4200' class ceased at the end of 1939 and was followed at the beginning of 1940 by construction of a further batch of the '5205' class, numbers 5255-5264.

The GWA states that when new cylinders were required on the '4200' engines, outside steam pipes were also fitted. Some engines at this time were given a curved front frame which included raising the height of the cylinder and therefore raising the running plate above the cylinder. However not all engines were modified in this way. Similarly, some members of the '5205' class fitted with outside steam pipes as standard had a flat running plate whereas most of the newer engines of this series had raised cylinders and therefore a raised running plate.

 

The notes above paint a rather confused picture. However I would say that it is well known that Castle Class and Hall Class engines coupled with Churchward tenders could enter Swindon Works for a major overhaul and emerge later coupled to a flat sided Hawksworth tenders (and vice versa). From personal experience in the north east of England it was also common for J26 Class engines with circular spectacle plates to the cabs to emerge from Darlington Works with a cab with straight sided spectacle plates from a J27. Might it be that when visiting Swindon Works for a major overhaul the frames and cylinders from engines in the series 5205-5264 were swapped with bits from engines in the series 4200-4299 and 5200-5204?

 

24281866689_978b3759d1_b.jpg

Hornby Class 52xx Packaging – R3126 (top), R3224 (bottom)

 

In these circumstances photographs become exceedingly valuable providing a definitive means of identifying the shape of running plate for a particular locomotive at a given point in time. The notes on the rear of Hornby’s packaging include a copy of a photograph of the enclosed model. ‘5239’ (R3224), one of the later production batch is pictured with a curved footplate and running with a late crest. In contrast sister engine ‘5243’ (R3126), with a higher running number, is pictured again with late crest but this time with a straight footplate. Whilst not shown here the packaging for ‘4257’ (R3223) an early engine, pictures the engine with late crest and I am guessing its original straight footplate.

 

What about my new Hornby model?

 

24443770401_6e4fed4942_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ – footplate as received

 

My model arrived with noticeable bend in the straight section of the footplate. Trawling through other people’s pictures including an image of the model on Hornby’s web site I can imagine that there is a production fault with the model that is preventing the footplate lying properly.

24443768811_06206a7722_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ - disassembly

 

The footplate can be unclipped from the side tanks. The only glue used to hold my model together was on a tab beneath the smoke box which I cut round and prised apart.

 

23899321983_cc0dd53b6e_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ – unfolding the ‘outriggers’

 

The front ‘stays’ or ‘outriggers’ are a push fit into holes at the front of the smoke box. These can be swung out of the way to allow the footplate to separate completely from the smokebox/boiler/side tank moulding.

 

24499937156_2e0ce1bd90_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ – shave the motion bracket

 

Having dismantled the body shell I set about trying to identify features that might be interfering with the fitting of the footplate. I should say that I could not identify a single cause and set about carefully shaving plastic from areas that I thought might be acting as ‘high spots’. Because of Hornby’s ‘clip together’ method of construction I was able to reassemble the footplate and check the effect of each operation before proceeding too far.

 

24443761941_d10933a502_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ – gently file around the base of the smokebox saddle

 

I was particularly suspicious about the base of the smokebox saddle. Rather than remove plastic from the saddle I would have preferred to cut through the matching opening in the footplate. However because of Hornby’s method of assembly I thought that removing the opening would leave the front of the footplate with too little support – I didn’t want to risk it.

 

24443760081_a7f6a42c4e_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ – shortened steam pipes

 

It did become obvious on my model that the steam pipes were too long. On my model these pipes were a push fit into the sides of the smoke box and it proved relatively easy to prise the glued end of the pipes out of their sockets in the footplate. The pipes were shortened by approximately 1mm. I took particular care to preserve the square spigot. Subsequently the pipes were reassembled without the need for any glue.

 

24417828342_d7fc1b732c_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ – packing washer placed beneath smokebox

 

Finally I threaded a couple of thin washers onto the fixing screw beneath the smokebox. The total thickness of packing would be around 1mm similar to the original distortion in the footplate and also to the amount removed from the steam pipes.

 

24499928746_81ca5a65cf_b.jpg

The proof of the pudding, Hornby 42xx R3233 ‘4257’(Left), Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’(Right)

 

Nearly very good? As the view above shows I have removed the worst of the distortion and the buffers still sit at the correct level.

 

24158348449_a4211633f2_b.jpg

Hornby 52xx R3224 ‘5239’ – a nice looking model

 

As I said at the start of this post –I still think a nice looking model. It would be interesting to know whether the distortion to the footplate that I experienced was a Quality Assurance issue during assembly or whether as I suspect a design / production error perhaps associated with the use of common parts for both the straight footplate model (R3126/R3223) and the curved footplate variety (R3224)?

 

Reference

 

1. Casserley HC and Asher LL (1961) ‘Locomotives of British Railways’ (Spring Books)

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
 Share

36 Comments

Recommended Comments



Richard Mawer

Ray, another cracking report. I ought to send all my locos to you for "fettling"!

 

I don't know anything about other companies, but history is littered with GWR altering details of locos as they went into the shops. The Stars and Saints were classic examples of what seems erratic alteration. Some ended up with inside steam pipes, some had straight outside pipes and some had elbow outside pipes.

 

The 4-4-0s were messed around with big time.

 

To change frames and cylinder positions from one loco to the next in a class would have been an everyday occurrence in many ways when a loco entered the shops.  

 

It does make it difficult for the modeller who wants to change numbers. To be sure, you have to find a photo of a specific loco in the era/livery you want to model.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Rich

Link to comment
Silver Sidelines

Thanks Richard

 

The weather this week has been somewhat inclement- so time to spare!

.... I ought to send all my locos to you for "fettling"!.

You win some - and sometimes it is just plain frustrating.

 

The weather seems to have abated - so perhaps a visit outside to check for damage.

 

Regards

 

Ray

Link to comment
DCB

K J Cook's book Swindon Steam gives an explanation of some of the variations in locos.  To understand the GWR didn't treat locos as a complete unit.  Locos were serviced at set intervals dependent on Mileage and records were kept.  It was somewhere around 80 000 miles for a works visit. If a Boiler needed to be taken off the frames it took twice as long to overhaul as the chassis, so the chassis was overhauled, new or reconditioned parts fitted and an overhauled boiler fitted, very likely not the one it arrived with.  The GW had 10% more boilers than Locos as a policy.  30 Kings  34 King boilers.  Painting was done while the repair was in progress, there was no paint shop. The loco was then paired with a freshly overhauled Tender and off it went. When new cylinders were required, when they had been rebored past their limit perhaps, On an outside cylinder Churchward loco it was quicker to change the entire front end than just change the cylinders.  To explain, the two cylinders were identical and together formed the smokebox saddle. They bolted together at the centre line of the loco. The main frames ended at the motion bracket which could support the front of the boiler while the cylinders were removed if suitable packing was inserted,  Extension bar frames went from main frames to the buffer beam.  42XX etc engines had the slidebars closed in by sheet steel at the inside so the lack of plate frame between motion bracket and cylinders was not obvious.

The Standard boilers really were standard, there may have been variations in firebox end mounting plates but we are basically talking well over 600 Std 4 boilers which could be rotated among 600 or so locos,  So a loco could get a brand new boiler at overhaul, which might do 6 or 7 years without coming off the frames, or an overhauled 30 year old one which might be in trouble by the next year.  That's where the randomisation comes in.  One variation of the 42XX is the sectioned one in Swindon works, later cylinders with straight frames, the footplate valance flame cut away to clear.   If you work from a photo you can't go far wrong for that date, however that condition may be only valid for one year  

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
Silver Sidelines

Thanks David

... If a Boiler needed to be taken off the frames it took twice as long to overhaul as the chassis, so the chassis was overhauled, new or reconditioned parts fitted and an overhauled boiler fitted, very likely not the one it arrived with.  The GW had 10% more boilers than Locos as a policy.  ........ The loco was then paired with a freshly overhauled Tender....... . the two cylinders were identical and together formed the smokebox saddle. They bolted together at the centre line of the loco. The main frames ended at the motion bracket which could support the front of the boiler .

....   If you work from a photo you can't go far wrong for that date, however that condition may be only valid for one year  

Thank you for filling in some of the detail.  As described above the story begins to make much more sense.  If you grow up with a book which labels all the different classes of engine you do rather miss the point that they are all coming out of the same design office and works and will share common components - even big items like boilers, cylinders, wheels and motion.

 

Regards

 

Ray

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
Mikkel
  • RMweb Gold

Hi Ray, an interesting and informative discussion on loco detail variations, thanks for bringing that up.

 

I like curved frames but not the kind of bends you've been dealing with here! Nice remedial work. I wasn't even aware that Hornby had done two different types of footplate for the 52xx. I lost interest for a while when they did the design clever versions of the big tanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Silver Sidelines

Hello Mikkel

 

Thank you for your interest as ever.  I value your comments.

... I lost interest for a while when they did the design clever versions of the big tanks.

I think you are on the right track with regards to 'Design Clever'.  I suspect that the design might just have been too clever.

 

Speak again

 

Ray

  • Like 1
Link to comment
wappinghigh

This is a fantastic thread and I am revisiting it as I take a look at the history of the currently preserved Large Prairie "Goliath" 5239. The current locomotive exists in it's later "raised" footplate state. But painted in it;'s earlier GWR livery (when it may well have still had it's unmodified "flat" footplate?) 

As for the model R3224 (which is now 10 years old) it is clearly as the OP'er stated been "modified" from some other  Hornby tooled model (which one??) with a raised plate - and the 42XX "body" placed and "squashed to fit" in an attempt to make the resultant model of 5239 look "correct" - and the thing it it's obviously a bend being done as it's being put together (rather than a proper retool).. It frankly looks crap.. and "fake"..yet the picture on the box doesn't! Talk about deception!

 

So have Hornby retooled this? or fixed the problem?

 

What about the Hornby 72XX model tooling?.. is that a proper depiction of the raised footplate?

 

Sam at Sams trains says this tooling is "plasticy".. and the model not worth the money.. so what to do to model a proper "raised footplate" Large Prairie"?

 

Is ony other model manufacturer modelling these Large Prairies properly?! 

 

Thanks! 

 

 

Edited by wappinghigh
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
wappinghigh

Ok Sorry @Miss Prism - I didn't know that the extra trailing wheels defined a "Large Prairie".. 

Comments still stand..

Why was the Hornby 52XX model R3224 such a debacle? 

And the 72XX Hornby (for that matter).. which *is* a large prairie then.. and which doesn't even bother with the raised footplate? 

Edited by wappinghigh
Link to comment
Miss Prism
10 minutes ago, wappinghigh said:

And the 72XX Hornby (for that matter).. which *is* a large prairie then.. and which doesn't even bother with the raised footplate? 

 

The Hornby 72xx is not a large prairie. A large prairie is 2-6-2T. A 72xx is 2-8-2T. Here is a Hornby raised footplate 72xx:

 

hornby-7202.jpg.857049b11919b9cf97f9bb9364ae45a6.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
wappinghigh

^ Because @Miss Prism all the actual 72XX Hornby models I can find (even though some are depicted on the box with the raised foot plate)  ..the actual (physical) model doesn't have a raised footplate! 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
Miss Prism
32 minutes ago, wappinghigh said:

^ Because @Miss Prism all the actual 72XX Hornby models I can find (even though some are depicted on the box with the raised foot plate)  ..the actual (physical) model doesn't have a raised footplate! 

 

gwrrob's one has a raised footplate. R3127 is the Hornby number I believe.

 

 

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
gwrrob
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

 

gwrrob's one has a raised footplate. R3127 is the Hornby number I believe.

 

 

 

They do scrub up well with a bit of work. 7220 has had the Brassmaster's etch applied to the rear of the cab above the coal space.

 

7220.jpg.88313ddf9b2c991179017ab49bf6c28e.jpg

 

7220a.jpg.aed74fc1e03c581e87f3d3c6a52a71ed.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
wappinghigh

As far as I understand the later 72XX's were developed from the 5205 class (5255-5274)

25 were converted to the 7200 Class from the 5205's... in 1934/6.

But these later 5205's would have been rebuilt with raised footplates (earlier)..like 5239 posted about here...  (before conversion to 7200's...)

Of course 5239 wasn;t converted to a 72XX... but my point is later 5205's would have been ... and they would have had raised footplates... 

And all the 3 remaining 72XX class locomotives  (that are preserved) have raised footplates... correct?  

Edited by wappinghigh
Link to comment
wappinghigh
9 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/no-heavy-tanks.html

 

Right... so I quote direct from this.. only 7219–39 has straight footplates! So where are all the Hornby versions of all.. or any?..  of the others?! DId they not do them because of the issues the original poster illustrated on the modelling of the later modified 5205's???

Edited by wappinghigh
Link to comment
wappinghigh

The footplates are all raised on the Hornby box picture.. but are they raised on any of the actual  models?/!!!!

Edited by wappinghigh
Link to comment

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...