Jump to content
  • entries
    68
  • comments
    486
  • views
    75,964

Frankenpannier

richbrummitt

293 views

Way back when Chris Higgs offered me a test build of the conversion chassis for the Farish pannier tank I always knew that it should have a new footplate. Alas I've had an almost complete chassis under an entirely unmodified body for around a decade. Moreover for my intended time period I also knew the body would require some changes beyond detailing to represent one of the predecessors of the 57xx class. 

 

The photograph below shows how far I got in two days. Day one was spent machining off the cast running plate, followed by marking up and cutting out a new one. I used 0.4mm double sided copper clad with a view to providing the chassis insulation for the split frame in the underside of it. I also removed the top feed and various other details from the tanks. More than half of day two was spent making the splashers. First turning a couple if fat tubes with appropriate inside diameter and soldering a disc to create the front face. I got three splashers out of each of two discs.  The coupling rod was used to mark off the splasher positions along the running plate. After soldering in place some awkward material removal remains under the splashers to create space for the wheels. What remained of the day allowed me to get a start on the buffer beams, valances and steps. All these are fretted and filed from n/s sheet. At the moment the rear is over long since I haven't finalised the exact engine and/or bunker size to determine the rear overhang. 

 

20190906_174508.jpg.533627b36ce006392cc18d8a056e0687.jpg

 

Putting everything together I have some obvious dimensional differences. The can side is from a 28xx and dimensionally a little lacking in height.  The tanks are I think still too high - as is the running plate, I think - but I can't get them much if any lower. Oddly the buffers appear to be the correct height against other rolling stock, which is weird. I've also cut the rear steps too short by around 1mm. The firebox still protrudes too much. There's quite a lot left to do but I need to ponder these dimensional issues before progressing further.

 

I deliberately haven't disclosed the class of engine. Maybe we should have answers in the comments. For those that don't remember or are new here (it has been 5 years) I'm aiming for early 1920s condition, which perhaps makes working this out a little harder. 

  • Like 4
  • Funny 1


13 Comments


Recommended Comments

Could be a 655 (shortie bunker) or 1854 (longer bunker). The Farish tanks are too high, and possibly the best bet for a big tanks open-cabber would be a 2721, which are quite imposing. A parallel chimney is de rigeur for early 20s. Whatever it's going to be, that cab doesn't look like its going to be high enough. (Had it been outside-framed, you could have got away with it.)
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Rich, I found when I converted a pannier to an 1854 class saddle tank that the donor was considerably too beefy. Although as a first attempt at getting something running in 2fs I decided to accept the oversize compromises - the cab on mine is too tall and wide necessated by the width of the tank and hence its reshaped height. When compared against my scratchbuilt to scale buffalo the 1854 does look like it's been working out :-)

Ian

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 11/09/2019 at 23:51, Miss Prism said:

Could be a 655 (shortie bunker) ...
 

 

Good detective work. Alternatively my effort so far could be so misleading that it's an exceptional guess. That said I was looking for a suitable number between locomotive allocations and RCTS for such an engine that could have conceivably found it's way onto the B&HER. Being northern engines it seems most stayed up there and 2701 at Severn Tunnel Jcn. would be the closest. She got pannier tanks in 1920.

 

By the early 20s the 645 and 655 classes seem to start merging. Again looking at locomotive allocations there are a couple of 645s at Bristol (769 and 1804). According to RCTS 769 got panniers in 1922 but 1804 had to wait until the end of 1926. One way out would be to ditch this 'conversion' altogether and create a saddle tank. I could reuse the tanks on the other Farish conversion chassis that I have, or something outside framed.

 

Were the tanks on 2721 larger than those on other engines that received P type boilers? I shall not be changing this one since the chassis is built and the springs would be wrong - leaf below the hor blocks rather than volute above - but I could on a subsequent build.

 

Thank you too for your knowledge regarding chimneys. Easy to remove, hopefully easy to replace.

Edited by richbrummitt

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Ian Smith said:

Rich, I found when I converted a pannier to an 1854 class saddle tank that the donor was considerably too beefy. Although as a first attempt at getting something running in 2fs I decided to accept the oversize compromises - the cab on mine is too tall and wide necessated by the width of the tank and hence its reshaped height. When compared against my scratchbuilt to scale buffalo the 1854 does look like it's been working out :-)

Ian

 

Thank you for your notes.

 

The overall height is going to be slightly compromised I think because I built this with 9.5mm wheels so it would appear difficult to get the running plate anything other than slightly too high. Weirdly the buffer height seems almost spot on though. I need to recheck these things. 

 

I've adjusted the nc file for the cab to increase the distance from running plate to 'window'. I think making the cab next is a good idea, then work out what to do with the tanks. The options are outlined in the previous reply, unless I revisit the valance and steps. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Were the tanks on 2721 larger than those on other engines that received P type boilers?

 

No, and sorry for giving any misleading impression earlier. I've been delving into various cross-section diagrams. 655, 1501, 1854/1701, 2721 classes are all 8' body, 8'6" footplate. These dimensions are standard for all large pre-Hawksworth pannier tanks. (Buffalos are not included in this 'large' moniker.) There are differences in bufferbeam widths: most are 7'6" but 1501 class has a 8' bufferbeam. Over bottom step dimensions also vary, most being 8'2", but the 1701 is 8'8", with the later Collett standard becoming a slightly safer 8'7". A confusion over these matters is that some of the cross-section diagrams are generic maximum cross-sections, with the individual class diagrams carrying the differences - I haven't tracked down a specific diagram for the 2721, but I'm fairly certain its bufferbeam was 8'.  The 8' bufferbeam became the later Collett standard.

 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

I like those splashers! Can't have been easy.

 

PS: Great blog title :) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

No, and sorry for giving any misleading impression earlier. I've been delving into various cross-section diagrams. 655, 1501, 1854/1701, 2721 classes are all 8' body, 8'6" footplate. These dimensions are standard for all large pre-Hawksworth pannier tanks. (Buffalos are not included in this 'large' moniker.) There are differences in bufferbeam widths: most are 7'6" but 1501 class has a 8' bufferbeam. Over bottom step dimensions also vary, most being 8'2", but the 1701 is 8'8", with the later Collett standard becoming a slightly safer 8'7". A confusion over these matters is that some of the cross-section diagrams are generic maximum cross-sections, with the individual class diagrams carrying the differences - I haven't tracked down a specific diagram for the 2721, but I'm fairly certain its bufferbeam was 8'.  The 8' bufferbeam became the later Collett standard.

 

 

Apology not necessary. The Farish panniers are about right for large tanks, however I've also realised since replying that it is highly likely that the 645 engines did not receive large panniers until later and that a P class boiler does not mean that the engine also acquired large tanks. Width dimensions incredibly useful; thank you for that. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

You're right: generally, boiler type and tank capacity was not necessarily linked, although I don't think I've seen a pic of a 645 pannier with a boiler other than a P class. Offhand, I don't know how many had been panniered by your 'early 20s', and most did seem to be northern based. I get the impression the short-bunker locos tended to be used for shunting purposes.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

I have various scanned images of the drawings for 645, 655 & 1501 classes that David Burton sent to me.  He saw my 1854 and embryonic buffalo at a show a couple of years ago and I think pity got the better of him so provided me with the fruits of his research labours :-)

Ian

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, bcnPete said:

Good to see you back modelling and posting Rich :good: 

 

Thanks Pete,

 

I've been modelling when I can but not posting due - mostly - to being time poor. More to come soon. 

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Further research with access to the diagrams listed in RCTS suggests that 645/1501 class only received 1200 gal. tanks, I.e. large panniers. This means 769 is the likely number and I'm going to continue with the panniers for now to see if I can make it look right.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 16/09/2019 at 17:32, richbrummitt said:

Further research with access to the diagrams listed in RCTS suggests that 645/1501 class only received 1200 gal. tanks, I.e. large panniers.

 

Agreed. Even when born in saddle mode, the 645, 655, 1501, 1701, 2701 classes were 'wide' locos, i.e. with 8'6" footplates, 8' bufferbeams, and the pannier tanks they were subsequently fitted with were 8' wide. These dimensions were carried on by Collett in the 57xx/8750.

 

Share this comment


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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.