Jump to content
 

Pannier Tank 9793


 Share

Recommended Posts

Still ongoing with the High Level chassis build and using the Bachmann 8750 body to represent 9793, a Croes Newydd loco (as are most of my Western Region locos).  I'm currently trying to work out the pipe runs below the footplate on the offside.  From looking through photos in books there seems to be a variety of potential 'designs' and I'm not sure if the one portrayed by Bachmann is common.  Added to my 'problem' is the fact that I damaged to body slightly with an errant move of my soldering iron (don't ask!!) that inflicted damage to the pipe, valance and footplate edge by the cab steps.  I've made this good but it made me question the validity of the Bachmann design as I have to replace a length of pipe from just in front of the steps where there is a convenient moulded 'clamp' to disguise the join.  I'm assuming that the most common variant is for the pipe to run full length and then curve down to run below the buffer beam to the rear vacuum pipe.  The Bachmann one doesn't do this, it curves down between the steps and the buffer beam.  I can find plenty of photos taken of the nearside of 8750 panniers but ones of the offside all seem a bit 'vague'. Any assistance gratefully received!

 

I'm also interested in the (what I assume to be) battery boxes below both sides of the rear footplate on some locos.  The position (or even existence) of these seems to vary between locos so are there any 'rules' about these?  Did 9793 carry them?  Finding a photo of specific panniers is a bit of a lottery in some ways so some of this particular loco would be a bonus.  However, I've discovered that it features in a very nice Phillip Hawkins painting of the inside of CN shed so it isn't totally anonymous.

 

As a lifelong GWR believer I feel a bit embarrassed about asking what on the face of it appears to be a very simple question but I don't pretend to know everything:scratchhead:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

When you say the off side do you mean the fireman's side. 

 

By pipes I am assuming you mean the vac pipe which comes round from the front?

 

A battery box would be unusual as the battery for the GWR AWS was in the equipment in the cab. However if there was one it would probably have only been on the one side. 

 

I assume you have seen these of 9793 ?

 

Fireman's side 9793 at Carrog in 1960

Drivers side at Llangollen in 1960

 

Duncan

 

 

Edited by Blandford1969
Add an extra link
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Battery boxes are for the AWS/ATC. Not all were fitted, especially ones that spent most of their time in yards.

 

 

Another picture of 9793 which I found recently. It's one on my "to do" list as well.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/taffytank/14019484763

 

Also a couple here.

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p416923824/hA0FFAA20#hc191a129

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those links.  I'd seen the Carrog one but it doesn't give much away!  From the Llangollen one I reckon the pipe runs full length to the rear buffer beam unlike the Bachmann one.  As 9793 was obviously used on passenger services then battery boxes would probably have been fitted, most likely in (what I would call) an 'inset' position.  Some I have seen appear to be almost flush with the edge of the footplate.  A relatively simple job to reproduce these in plastic - but are there any close-ups or drawings available?

 

BTW, I was referring to the driver's side which in 'car terms' would be the offside.

Edited by 5050
Link to post
Share on other sites

A good source of close ups and clear photos is the Pannier Papers books.

 

But look at sites like the Transport Treasury, HMRS and RCTS as they have quite a few good quality photos.

 

Also the main page of the website above has 491 photos of 57XXs.

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p416923824

 

Some good close ups here as well.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nopanniers.html

 

 

Jason

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The battery boxes were fitted on the right hand side under the bunker between the rear buffer beam and the cab steps.

 

According to the Pannier Papers they were fitted to locos which had the GWR ATC system removed and replaced with the later BR AWS.

 

A quick skim through some photos reveal that the boxes seem to vary in their exact placement.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm a bit puzzled by some of the above cmments.  Firstly as Western engines were right hand drive the offside was the Driver's side, the fireman was on the nearside.

 

Now to battery boxes - again look at photos as some 57XX would have been unlikely to have tn me as they only had 3-link couplings and were intended solely for shunting although they no doubt did some trip work.  And I would be surprised if any pannier tank was ever fitted with BR AWS in BR days as the Western only started to convert to BR AWS after steam had finished.  yes, there is a photo of a pannier shopped at Eastleigh fitted with a BR AWS battery box but that doesn't mean the engine had BR AWS - just that it had that pattern of battery box.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just done a bit of 'tinternet trawling for suitable photos showing the boxes and drawn a bit of a blank.  However, I did come across this -

 

https://www.minervamodelrailways.co.uk/uncategorized/pannier-images/

 

They appear to include a box as an optional item to be fitted by the owner so - does anyone know if it is an accurate representation?  I would assume that Minerva have modelled it on an actual prototype but is it a BR (WR) one or a preservation era one?

 

EDIT - and this one -

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p416923824/hA0FFAA20#hcddf0568

 

The box appears to be the same as the Minerva one so I've probably answered the question myself!  However, the vacuum pipe seems to be taking a very circuitous route to reach the rear buffer beam.

Edited by 5050
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'pannier' to which Mike refers above, would (probably ?) be 4698, of which three photos appear in "Pannier Papers No.2"

.

4698 ended its' days at Gloucester 85B, from where it was a regular in the Forest of Dean.

.

4698 was also fitted with BR 'lamp irons' with two extra irons on each tank front.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5050 said:

Just done a bit of 'tinternet trawling for suitable photos showing the boxes and drawn a bit of a blank.  However, I did come across this -

 

https://www.minervamodelrailways.co.uk/uncategorized/pannier-images/

 

They appear to include a box as an optional item to be fitted by the owner so - does anyone know if it is an accurate representation?  I would assume that Minerva have modelled it on an actual prototype but is it a BR (WR) one or a preservation era one?

 

EDIT - and this one -

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p416923824/hA0FFAA20#hcddf0568

 

The box appears to be the same as the Minerva one so I've probably answered the question myself!  However, the vacuum pipe seems to be taking a very circuitous route to reach the rear buffer beam.

Vacuum pipe or are you looking at the steam heat pipe in the above photo?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 5050 said:

The one on the RH driver's side - which, on reflection, I now presume to be the steam heat one?

Sorry Paul, I think I may be wrong in what I said.

Looking at other pictures of other 57xx / 8750 Panniers which show the steam heat pipe runs down the LHS, the fireman's side. The steam heat pipe is often a smaller diameter pipe than the vacuum pipe.

Gordon A

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gordon A said:

Sorry Paul, I think I may be wrong in what I said.

Looking at other pictures of other 57xx / 8750 Panniers which show the steam heat pipe runs down the LHS, the fireman's side. The steam heat pipe is often a smaller diameter pipe than the vacuum pipe.

Gordon A

No apology necessary Gordon, I'm confused too!  From photos, to me the LHS pipe appears thicker than the RHS one (unless, of course, it is lagging?) which would indicate the RHS one is the steam heat one.  (Unless of course my eyes are deceiving me!) Isn't there anything definitive to confirm this?  Possibly in the Pannier Papers book (which I don't have)?

 

From looking at the many pannier photos on Rail-online site I reckon there are at least 4 variations on the pipe runs.  First there is the injector pipe, either through or outside the footplate and then the RHS pipe which either goes straight to the back along the valance or bends under the valance just before the steps and then runs to the rear buffer beam just below and behind the valance.  It then angles down, possibly to meet a union with the steam heat pipe on the buffer beam?  There doesn't seem to be any consistency in this, locos with close numbering vary so what decided Swindon which variation to fit?

 

From the photos of 9793 it appears that it had the 'through footplate' injector pipe (as Bachmann) and the 'straight through' SH pipe - which would be easier to represent.

 

All this goes to show that what, on the surface appears to be a class of standardised locos, could have lots of individual variations.  What other little nuances could raise their heads on detailed examinations of individual locos?

Edited by 5050
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The only logical variations with an injector would be for the overflow pipe (and they did vary) and the boiler feed pipe (which also varied). The steam feed comes from the boiler via the backhead valve so has no need to go below the footplate and the water feed obviously comes from the tank above the injector.  What happens to the boiler feed from the injector depends on whether or not the engine has a top feed and normally the pipes to the top feed were routed up the outside of the tank immediately in front of the cab and then along the top of the tank to the top feed.

 

I suspect - but can't be sure - that the route of the overflow pipe was changed for a couple of possible reasons.  Firstly it needed to come out where the Fireman could see  it to make sure that the injector had picked up properly and that he had the steam valve set correctly.  Going straight down below the injector would make that difficult so might have partially prompted a change.  Secondly there was a potential hazard from the overflow especially if someone was on the footstep when the injector was picking up or if the feed was troublesome because there could be a lot of very hot water coming out of the overflow pipe.  Putting the overflow where it came out behind  the trailing end of the bottom of the footstep would be a lot better.  What then happened in works probably to some extent depended on the coppersmiths looking for the easiest way to do the job quickly and what made up pipework they had to hand and quite likely too that, despite there being a drawing, ideas varied a little between gangs and the different works the sheds which undertook heavy jobs.

 

As ever for any particular engine the answer will lie with accurately dated photos, ideally of both sides of the engine, and the presence, or otherwise, of a top feed will make an immediate visual difference (and don't rely on the build date to say whether or not there was a top feed because boiler swaps in works meant than an engine could go from one state to the other (and back again) over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Wot e sed.

 

It was, paradoxically, the GW's policy of standardisation, a strong feature even before the Churchward era, that led to the diversity among the 57xx and 8750 classes.  The obvious difference is of course the cab, but there were also variants of both classes with laterally jointed coupling rods and no vacuum brakes for dock shunting, the 67xx and 6750, and the 97xx with condensing gear and combined side/pannier tanks.  Boilers migrated between locos, and while as a very sweeping generalisation a greater proportion of the locos had top feed boilers during the later years, even in the 60s locos could appear with plain boilers having previously carried top feed ones.  The reason is that the boilers and their mountings were standard, so that when a locomotive entered the works for overhaul, done on a mileage basis, the boiler was removed for overhaul in the boiler shop while the loco was attended to in the erecting shop.  It would take about 3 weeks to overhaul the loco, but about 5 weeks to complete the more specialist boiler overhaul and carry out the hydraulic testing.  So, in order to free the erecting shop bay for the next loco and return the first one to revenue service where it could be an assett as opposed to a liability, once it was ready for boiler installation the next avaialble boiler of suitable size was used, notwithstanding that it had come from a different locomotive and might or might not have had a top feed fitted! 

 

The loco's boiler that it had when it had arrived for the overhaul is put in the queue to be dealt with when boilersmiths are available, and eventually finds it's way on to another loco, not necessarily even of the same class if that type of boiler is suitable for a variety of classes.  Visually, the top feed is prominent if it is provided, but there are also the associated feed pipes which emerge from beneath the pannier tank just ahead of the cab front bulkhead and run up the rear of the side of the tank, protected by a cover, and then along the top with jiggles to miss the ventilators before turning inwards to the ends of the top feed casing..

 

There are other minor differences among the 57xx/97xx panniers, relating to whistle shields, and postion of the smokebox top lamp iron, which on at least 5797 was fitted to the top of the smokebox door in the 1950s.  TTBOMK (and I'm not claiming that MK is exhaustive on this point) the similar 1854/2721 class from which the 57xx were developed and which used the same boilers never carried top feed boilers despite some of them surviving long enough to have done so; there may have been a reason for this but if there was I am unaware of it.

 

Incidentally, despite the evidence of the Triang Hornby 57xx, the 57xx/8750 classes and variants all had cast iron black painted chimney caps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...