OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[Dunsignalling]

24 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Each with both unicycling lion and ferret/dartboard crests.

 

Mine is probably already addled if the evidence is anything to go on, and I'm not sure the loco is lined.  It's one of those things where the harder you look the harder it is to see...

 

Almost.  9Fs (except Evening Star), 28xx, 57xx/8750 and variants, 94xx, 16xx, 58xx, 1361/1366, 90xx, and Cardiff Rly. 1338 (the only surviving pre-grouping constituent or absorbed loco, all others were last outshopped pre-1956 in unlined black) were painted unlined black post '56.  AFAIK no loco outshopped from any WR works was painted in lined black livery post 1956.  

 

Those apart, after '56, any WR loco that might possibly even have ever been in the same vicinity as a passenger train was given lined green livery, even those which had never carried the livery under GW ownership.  An unlined 'economy' green livery was applied to some 2251, 43xx and variants, 56xx, 5101/61xx, and BR std 3MT tanks from, I think, 1959.  AFAIK only Swindon painted BR standards in lined green that had previously been in lined black; 3MT tanks, 4MT 4-6-0s, and 5MT.  

 

At least some of the WR lined green Standard Fives were so finished at Eastleigh rather than Swindon.

 

John

[TrevorP1]

Re 6301. I'm sorry if I've started something here!

 

The plot thickens... The photo kindly provided by Martin clearly shows the lined tender with outside pipes, so post March 1958. The tender has the late emblem as would be expected if the engine had received an overhaul/repaint. The Colourail photo, which also must be post March 1958, even if not 1959 as the caption states, has a tender with a large early logo. Clearly there must have been a tender swop. Comparison of the two also shows what a very tight squeeze it must have been to get a large early logo onto a lined Churchward tender.

 

'Martin's' photo also shows damage to the cab side sheet not present on the colour one. Has the engine been in some kind of 'shunt' which damaged the later painted tender?

 

After all this discussion I'm still not sure if the tender is lined on the colour image...

 

Regarding the lubrication pipe. Possibly leaking/damaged under the cladding and expediency dictated fitting the replacement on the outside.

 

It was such a quiet Sunday afternoon! I'm heading off to a darkened room...

[TrevorP1]

10 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

'Martin's' photo also shows damage to the cab side sheet not present on the colour one. Has the engine been in some kind of 'shunt' which damaged the later painted tender?

 

 

No. That can't be right because the damage is there on the photo with the 'new logo' tender! 

[TrevorP1]

I would trust Peter Gray's  dates. This is part of one of his images from 1960 and appears to show that 6301 kept the large logo tender. Lining? Colour? Your guess...

 

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, TrevorP1 said:

Clearly there must have been a tender swop. Comparison of the two also shows what a very tight squeeze it must have been to get a large early logo onto a lined Churchward tender.

 

Agreed there has been a tender swop. (This is normal rather than unexpected.)

 

I do not believe there is enough room for lining on a Churchward 3500g with a large early logo. A few tenders had small early logos with lining - see the caption for 6385.

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Miss Prism

[Pteremy]

6385 was one of the 2 43xx painted lined green for a royal visit to Barnstaple in May 1956 (the other being 6372) - this isn't mentioned in the caption but may be material

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, Pteremy said:

6385 was one of the 2 43xx painted lined green for a royal visit to Barnstaple in May 1956 (the other being 6372) - this isn't mentioned in the caption but may be material

 

Thanks! (And that would partly explain the non-standard lining of the fender on the tender.)

 

The only slight snag with that information is that the 6385 pic shows the late crest, which wasn't introduced as far as I am aware until 'sometime in 1957' (which admittedly is a bit vague). Or was it introduced before that?

 

Edit: As is often the case, RMweb is proving to be better than the textbooks on livery quirks, particularly for periods of livery transition, and I'm currently perusing this useful thread on BR Lined Green with Early Crest

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Miss Prism

[tomparryharry]

What I will say, is that Swindon, (and others) committed some serious bodgery on Western locomotives. Back on the DJM thread, we had about 4 pages on a 48xx all because the smokebox wrapper was fitted back to front, which necessitated some ingenious  re-routing of the lubricator pipework. Sometimes, taking a  single photo as an absolute gospel for an entire class of 300+ is fraught with anomalies, which will bite you on the bum.

 

Have a happy Christmas, everyone!

 

Ian.

[martinT]

17 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

..... and that was exactly what I thought until I came across this photo that I had taken of 5399 at Ruabon in 1962.  There is absolutely no doubt that it had been built with the later radius plate and ran so (with inside steampipes) until it went into Swindon for overhaul in 1956. It emerged in 1957 with outside steampipe cylinders and the earlier type of radius plate and carried these until withdrawal in 1962 - still in black BTW.

No other Moguls, in fact no other classes AFAIK, had these plates changed and I seriously doubt that they are interchangeable. I spent some time looking for an explanation for this anomaly and the best I could come up with was:

5399's cylinders and/or frames were unfit for further use when stripped down late in 1956. 5307 and 5317 had just been withdrawn for scrapping, also at Swindon, and one of these had better frames/cylinders so a swap was carried out.  To keep the accountants happy 5399's numberplates were attached to the newly overhauled loco.  At least one other Mogul, a 63xx, had a similar identity change as did the better known Albert Hall swap.

Ray.

 

A long time ago - may be 20 years - there was something in GW Echo about these 2 unorthodox Moguls, I'll try to dig it out but it might take some time!

Martin

[Pteremy]

There is a very similar picture to the one of 6385, but this time of 6372, in Spirit of the Great Western, photo 35. This was taken at Andover in July 1956, after a 'Wessex Wyvern' rail tour. The lining on the tender is the same as in the 6385 picture, as is the crest. So this must be the style adopted for both before use on the Royal visit.

[martinT]

48 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

There is a very similar picture to the one of 6385, but this time of 6372, in Spirit of the Great Western, photo 35. This was taken at Andover in July 1956, after a 'Wessex Wyvern' rail tour. The lining on the tender is the same as in the 6385 picture, as is the crest. So this must be the style adopted for both before use on the Royal visit.

 

Yes, they were both turned out in this style specifically for the royal train in May 1956 - several months before lined green became the new WR policy for mixed-traffic locos.  There's a photo by S C Nash (B&W unfortunately) of the train approaching Barnstaple East Junc (with 6372 leading) in the Middleton Press book on the line. A cropped version of it appears in Madge's 'Railways Round Exmoor' (at least in the 1975 edition). Double headed trains weren't allowed over the 2 viaducts - I'd be interested in seeing the operating instructions for the train.

[martinT]

7 hours ago, martinT said:

 

A long time ago - may be 20 years - there was something in GW Echo about these 2 unorthodox Moguls, I'll try to dig it out but it might take some time!

Martin

 

Well, it didn't take that long after all. The article 'Two 43xx Class Mysteries' by Peter Rich appeared in Echo 159 (Autumn 2002) & there was a follow-up letter from Laurence Payne in Echo 160. Peter Rich surmises that 5399 was rebuilt from 5327 or 5317 which were both withdrawn shortly before 5399 was overhauled at Swindon (with outside steam pipes being fitted) in February 1957. He suggests 6373 might have been rebuilt from 5384, withdrawn October 1960.  The follow-up letter from Laurance Payne is very interesting. He believes the identity swaps occurred in GW days. He is confident that he saw 5399 in hybrid form at Oxford & fresh from overhaul in late 1946 or 1947.  He also reports that when he visited Swindon Works in the summer of 1939 he saw, near the wood yard, the stored framesets of approx 20 withdrawn Moguls. He suggests that 2 of these framesets may have been used to repair Moguls damaged in bombing raids. Both writers stress they have no hard evidence for their theories!

 

I have scanned the relevant pages from Echos 159 & 160, I just hope this link works:gwecho159.pdf

 

Martin

Edited December 23, 2019 by martinT
Typo

[Marshall5]

Thanks for posting the scans Martin. My suggestion for 5399's identity swap was based on the information contained in David Andrews' book.  I have every confidence that he took his information from primary sources and that 5399 only received outside steampipes during its Swindon overhaul in early 1957. With the greatest respect to Mr Payne I think he be mistaken in his recollection.  I hope that David won't mind (I'll delete it if there's a problem) but I've attached a scan of a page from his book showing 5399 before and after rebuilding.

Cheers,

Ray

Edited December 23, 2019 by Marshall5

[Marshall5]

I have just found a further photo showing 5399 in 1951 and it clearly shows that the loco still has inside steampipe cylinders and the later type motion bracket.     Ray.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Marshall5
correction

[melmerby]

It does make you wonder how much of the later 5399 was really 5399!

 

There is no doubt much unrecorded swapping of parts went on in later BR years, when what were perfectly good locos went to scrap as they were surplus at their home shed due to loss of work/dieselisation etc., whilst others were still needed for work elsewhere but were in need of overhaul.

 

[Marshall5]

39 minutes ago, melmerby said:

It does make you wonder how much of the later 5399 was really 5399!

 

 

Probably not much more than the numberplates!  Even after it's rebuild the loco buffers were changed from Dean taper type to Collett type somewhere between 1958 and 1961.

Ray.

[martinT]

15 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

I have just found a further photo showing 5399 in 1951 and it clearly shows that the loco still has inside steampipe cylinders and the later type motion bracket.     Ray.

 

Good find Ray. It completely undermines Mr Payne's recollection of seeing a hybrid 5399 at Oxford in 1946 or '47 & so proves David Andrews' & Peter Rich's theory of BR-era modifications probably at the time of fitting of outside steam pipes in 1957. I can't go along with David Andrews' idea that it was just a change of motion bracket. I think Peter Rich's theory of a frame swap more credible; the 2 potential donor locos he suggests, 5317 & 5327, had both been fitted with OSP.

 

Martin

[Marshall5]

Hi Martin, At the risk of going even further from discussing the Dapol model I'm going to disagree with Peter Rich in his suggestion that 5317 might have been a donor. He states that the rebuilt 5399's buffer beam still had the bolts from its time as an 83xx but I don't think 5317 ever was an 83xx.  5327/8327 was fitted with outside steam pipes in 12/36 and withdrawn month ending 31/7/56 several months before the 'old' 5399 entered Swindon so it is more likely than 5317.  However Peter missed 5307/8307 which was fitted with OSP 10/44 and withdrawn m/e 11/56 i.e. at the same time that 5399 was in Works so, unless I've missed something, my money is on 5307 as being the 'real' 5399.

I've found digging into 5399's history most interesting (probably very boring to most everyone else) but it does show, that if one is to model a loco accurately, you really have to have accurately dated photos and not just rely on how the loco should have looked.

Cheers,

Ray.

[martinT]

14 minutes ago, Marshall5 said:

Hi Martin, At the risk of going even further from discussing the Dapol model I'm going to disagree with Peter Rich in his suggestion that 5317 might have been a donor. He states that the rebuilt 5399's buffer beam still had the bolts from its time as an 83xx but I don't think 5317 ever was an 83xx.  5327/8327 was fitted with outside steam pipes in 12/36 and withdrawn month ending 31/7/56 several months before the 'old' 5399 entered Swindon so it is more likely than 5317.  However Peter missed 5307/8307 which was fitted with OSP 10/44 and withdrawn m/e 11/56 i.e. at the same time that 5399 was in Works so, unless I've missed something, my money is on 5307 as being the 'real' 5399.

I've found digging into 5399's history most interesting (probably very boring to most everyone else) but it does show, that if one is to model a loco accurately, you really have to have accurately dated photos and not just rely on how the loco should have looked.

Cheers,

Ray.

 

Yes, I noticed you mentioned 5307 in an earlier message & I realised that it's withdrawal date of November 1956 made it a more likely donor than 5327 but I failed to notice that 5317 had never been a 83xx which Peter Rich had made a pre-requisite so it looks as if your choice of 5307 is the most likely. Yes, locating & studying photos of individual locos looking for changes can be addictive - particularly (for me) Moguls!

Martin

[Marshall5]

I'd missed the bolts on 5399's buffer beam so hadn't originally discounted 5317!  I have happy memories of seeing 43xx at work in the early 60's but this really came about when I bought my 7 1/4"g. Mogul some 10 yrs ago, found that it was incorrectly numbered as 4320, and set about finding a 'correct' number for it.

Ray.

[melmerby]

I suspect this "swapsie" wasn't confined just to the ex GWR locos as during the 50s when lots of old MR locos (many were small 0-6-0s) were being culled, Derby works didn't just demolish a loco on the spot like the private breakers but dismantled it first. I saw this at first hand when "bunking" the back of the works.

I guess that they could have been stockpiling serviceable parts for use on other longer lasting members of the class(es) so they could be kept in service at minimal cost.

Edited December 24, 2019 by melmerby

[tomparryharry]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

I suspect this "swapsie" wasn't confined just to the ex GWR locos as during the 50s when lots of old MR locos (many were small 0-6-0s) were being culled, Derby works didn't just demolish a loco on the spot like the private breakers but dismantled it first. I saw this at first hand when "bunking" the back of the works.

I guess that they could have been stockpiling serviceable parts for use on other longer lasting members of the class(es) so they could be kept in service at minimal cost.

 

The Highland Railway 'scrap tanks' spring to mind.

[Steamport Southport]

And who was it that said all GWR locos were the same.... 

 

Looking for something else earlier I've just found another one which I can't remember buying. Bachmann 5355 31-827. I think I'm up to about nine of the things at the moment, not including an unbuilt K's 63XX and two Bachmann 93XX. 

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

21 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

And who was it that said all GWR locos were the same.... 

 

Looking for something else earlier I've just found another one which I can't remember buying. Bachmann 5355 31-827. I think I'm up to about nine of the things at the moment, not including an unbuilt K's 63XX and two Bachmann 93XX. 

 

 

Jason

I think the usual quote is that all GWR locos look the same, which is a slightly different matter.

 

On the evidence of this thread, it would probably be fair to say that "if any two GWR moguls were the same, they didn't stay that way for long."

 

John.

[Les1952]

Just as a thought-

 

To what extent did  the GW works indulge in the practice on the LNER side of stripping locos down to the frames at major overhaul and sending most components off to different specialist parts of the works for refurbishing?  What came back was more often than not from a different loco.  Rather than wait for (say) the motion parts from 9399 to come back from cleaning and refurbishing it would be reassembled with the next set of appropriate parts that were ready.

 

Doncaster had this off to a fine art, to the extent that when the A3 "Grand Parade" was badly bent at Castlecary the works had a "renewed engine" built from spares and waiting to go into the paintshop before the unfortunate engine had arrived at works for repair, the result being that only the nameplates were left of the original loco- which was then carefully dismantled and all appropriate parts used again.

 

Les

PS I am aware there wasn't a 9399.

Edited December 25, 2019 by Les1952