cctransuk Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (4)8045 was requistioned during WW2, and operated in the Middle East; but seems to have retained its headlight bracket for a while when it returned. John Isherwood. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Some of them did retain them for quite a while. Three were bought from the WD at Longmoor in 1957, they being 500, 501 and 512 BR numbered them, after first adding WD Austerity numbers, as 8773/4/5 and sent them off to Polmadie, not only with the headlight attachment but also the very oversized top feed clacks covers. 8774/5 retained these latter to withdrawal, but 8773, now preserved, had a boiler change in 1966 and got the standard issue. As an aside, these clacks covers fouled the height restriction for running under the wires, but only 8773 got the yellow stripe. Moreover, she kept the stripe after gaining the standard covers, although it was no longer needed. The photo is at Eastleigh works, where the three engines were prepared for BR service. 1 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 48773's boiler was found to be beyond economic repair during the overhaul at Eastleigh immediately after purchase by BR. A spare was sent from Crewe but this seems to have taken a while which was why the loco was the last in traffic of the trio making the total in BR service 666. Not that this lasted long! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 13 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said: 48773's boiler was found to be beyond economic repair during the overhaul at Eastleigh immediately after purchase by BR. A spare was sent from Crewe but this seems to have taken a while which was why the loco was the last in traffic of the trio making the total in BR service 666. Not that this lasted long! Now that is something I hadn't heard before and am very interested. I happen to be the Archivist of the Stanier 8F Locomotive Society, the engine's owners, so that is, in a way, vital information, and if you can provide anything further, I'd be most grateful. According to the EHC, the first boiler in BR service from 09/09/57 was 14426, which was changed 23/02/60 to 12006. That lasted to 18/06/66 when 10431 was fitted, which is the boiler still fitted today. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 hour ago, LMS2968 said: Now that is something I hadn't heard before and am very interested. I happen to be the Archivist of the Stanier 8F Locomotive Society, the engine's owners, so that is, in a way, vital information, and if you can provide anything further, I'd be most grateful. According to the EHC, the first boiler in BR service from 09/09/57 was 14426, which was changed 23/02/60 to 12006. That lasted to 18/06/66 when 10431 was fitted, which is the boiler still fitted today. At least one of the three engines was marked, officially, by a number in the WD Austerity series at Eastleigh but then the error was noticed and the engine didn't go into service like that. I'll see what I can find in RM. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) Ta! It was 501. It was first numbered 90743, 'corrected' to 90734 before being correctly identified as 48774. Edited January 17, 2021 by LMS2968 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad McCann Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Is there any source material where dimensions for the enlarged top feed can be found? I would like to portray these three locos, being the only 8Fs allocated to ScR in this era. Davy. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I've no drawings, but I do have a lot of photos. PM me if they're any use to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said: 48773's boiler was found to be beyond economic repair during the overhaul at Eastleigh immediately after purchase by BR. A spare was sent from Crewe .... Which would suggest that the Crewe replacement boiler was fitted with the WD oversized top feed and WD lamp-base smokebox before that photo was taken and the loco sent into traffic ................... seems a little unlikely to me. I wonder if it was only a replacement firebox that was needed & sent from Crewe ??!? Edited January 17, 2021 by Wickham Green too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Generally, the fittings, and that includes the smokebox, stayed with the engine and didn't go with the boiler, so in 1960 the engine got its own top feeds and covers back. The oddity is that it got replacement, standard fittings in 1966, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I'll have to check in RM, but IIRC the engine as delivered to BR from the WD had the WD top feeds as did the other two. When the boiler was replaced at Eastleigh the engine then had a standard Stanier boiler for the class and, I imagine, the removed boiler was scrapped. Whether it got a replacement smoke box as well, I don't know. This happened over late 1956-early 1957 IIRC, but I might be wrong, memory isn't what it used to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Got my dates a little wrong, sorry. This appeared in RM September 57 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I've looked through RM (there's nothing at all in the index) for further info, but it seems me memory is faulty, there doesn't seem to be another reference to this matter. Very odd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Never mind, mate, thanks for trying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) On the matter of 48773's boiler again. Is there any record of the WD boiler number that was fitted before the engine got its standard Stanier boiler? I ask because it's very clear the 48774-5 kept their WD boilers to the end , while 48773 swapped Stanier boilers. Clearly the WD boilers were considered non-standard probably because the top feed and weren't interchangeable within the boiler pool. Edited January 18, 2021 by PenrithBeacon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Perhaps it's time for an explanation of what this top feed arrangement was. Firstly, all 8F boilers were the same and interchangeable, with the exception of the first twelve engines which had vertical throatplate fireboxes, which wouldn't fit the others and vice versa. ASs built, there was a manhole in the top of the boiler on to which was mounted the top feed housing with the the passages from the clack valves to discharge into the distribution trays inside the boiler. A clack valve assembly was bolted to each side of the housing, and the delivery pipes were bolted to the clacks. This was the standard arrangement on the LMS and the condition in which the engines were sent to the Middle East. Once there, problems of clack valves sticking open manifested themselves, either through the ambient temperature or, more likely, the abysmal quality of the local water. The answer was to fit a second valve between the clacks and the shortened delivery pipe, which could be closed manually and stopped the boiler from draining itself through the injector overflow. But it was simply a second valve added to the existing system. At Crewe and Horwich Works, and possibly others, the practice was to to stencil all parts with the engine number prior to dismantling for overhaul so that the original parts went back on the original engine. So when the three, 8773/4/5, were overhauled after entering BR service, they kept the WD modified top feed arrangement with the enlarged covers even after receiving replacement boilers. The exception was 8773 in June 1966, when she received standard top feed, possibly because the WD version was deemed worn out. The photos show 70376 in the Middle East with the covers off the modified arrangement. 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 I don't think the boilers with the WD top feed were interchangeable with the others and a look at the photos you have provided above shows why. It's interesting that the lower photo shows a vac pipe, I wonder if 48773-5 were so equipped before they got to Eastleigh. Are there any photos of 48773 in traffic with the WD boiler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 I know what the top feed arrangement was and I also know, with a working lifetime of experience, about standardisation. With that in mind, it's all too clear looking at the photo that when the top feed of the 8F was changed by the WD (and with good reason) it rendered the modified boilers non-standard with the original. This is why 48774-5 always kept their WD boilers rather than receiving a standard boiler change on their heavy general overhauls. It must have made their heavy generals a longer drawn out business but BR must have thought that the balance of advantage lay with leaving like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 No, there is definitely no difference in the boilers. These photos are of 2968's top feed arrangements, but they are identical to an 8F's. First shows the manhole in the top of the boiler. This was covered by the top feed hosing in the second photo, to which a pair of clack valves were added, one per side, as shown in photo 3. All 8Fs had this arrangement, but the WD added the extra valves as explained. A look at the first photo shows that nothing needed to be done to allow the extra shut-off valves. 8773 at a General overhaul at Horwich 3/8/59 to 18/9/59 when she got boiler 12006. 8774 was in Horwich 3/8/59 to 18/9/59 when she got 11475. 8775 was there 30/9/59 to 15/11/59 and received 14428. That means BR would have had six non-standard boilers many years after all others had the standard fitments, which is a bit unlikely, to say the least. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now