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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)