Backdating a Hornby 2721 — “To saddle tank, or not to saddle tank, that is the question.” (Quotation from William Shakespeare’s Big Book of Great Western Trains, Part the Second, First London Folio, 1591)

[JimC]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

... unclear whether there was an increase of the 6'6" rear overhang, which had been standard from about 1890 up to that point.

 

I doubt it. Russell vol1 has a late 2721 diagram, which shows 6'6. But its just another example of the compromises Hornby had to put in to make the existing chassis work. The Hornby designer did a really good job of making it look like a 2721 when you consider all the dimensional handicaps he was saddled with. That LMS wheelbase is just so damned long. I was looking through Russell absorbed earlier these evening, and not one 6 coupled locomotive I could see in there had a wheelbase as long as 8' + 8'3. But it is what it is, and I think what the OP is up to makes a lot of sense in the circumstances. 

[Miss Prism]

Ah yes, so Hornby was forced to elongate the bunker. That's why it has always looked wrong to me.

 

[Coach bogie]

One area that was important to me was daylight under the boiler. Luckily the Bachmann chassis has the the lower part of the boiler as apart of the chassis. By carefully sanding away with a Dremmel (other brands are available including this one from Lidl) the splashers will stay intact and the unwanted moulding under the tanks will be removed.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Dana Ashdown]

On 27/10/2021 at 17:56, Coach bogie said:

One area that was important to me was daylight under the boiler.

This is a possibility but, with the motor driving the front axle, there may not be much in the way of daylight to be seen. However, I'll have a look at the Chinese version which drives the centre axle.

[Dana Ashdown]

Thank you all for your helpful comments!.

 

Well, things have moved on since my last post…

 

After looking at the alternatives, I decided to use the original pill bottle for the saddle tank top. The taper was a problem, but, it could be compensated for. So, I cut the bottom off the bottle, then cut it roughly to length. As it turns out, the plastic was somewhat flexible (but still stiff) and I was able to cut it lengthwise with cutters. I made one “half” a little bigger than the other, but I wound up using the smaller “half.”

 

To JimC’s point of laminating the saddle tank from plastic card, that would certainly have worked too. I also wondered about brass sheet. But Jim’s idea of applying panels to simulate the individual iron sheets certainly parallel’s my own thinking. I have very thin plastic card that I can use; either that, or paper.

 

With a top for the saddle tank, there was no excuse not to start. So, I went ahead and cut off the sides of the panniers along with the front of the tanks and smokebox.

 

I made the first vertical cut directly in front of the cab, using the cab as a guide. This cut goes to the point where the tanks start to turn under which, conveniently, coincides with the top of the moulded grab handles on the tank sides.

 

The second vertical cut was made immediately behind the smokebox, using the back of the smokebox as a guide. This cut is deeper, and reaches the level of the hinge for the front cylinder cover. Don’t go any deeper, otherwise you’ll cut into the front sandboxes.

 

Next, I removed the front of the smokebox and pannier tanks by making a horizontal cut along the hinge-line of the cylinder cover. Use a fine saw, being careful not to cut the cover itself. This should free the front.

 

Having done that, I used a fine saw to cut off each side of the panniers at the level of the top of the moulded grab handle on either side. It’s better to take too little off than too much. Also, be careful not to cut the pieces that hold the front weight in place. (I lost one piece, but it wasn’t critical.)

 

I used files to even up the cuts and smooth out the rough edges.

 

 

 

 

I should say that I did try to narrow the base of the panniers, but I stopped because I was afraid that I might reduce the thickness gluing surface too much. I’ll see if more can be removed once the top is glued on.

 

The saddle tank top required more fettling. Actually, it took me longer to fit the top than to cut and trim engine the body. First, I had to compensate for the taper. Second, I had to bring it to a point where the saddle top was able to clear the cab windows. I got there eventually, as you can see in the pictures.

 

 

 

 

I won’t do anything further on the saddle tank until I glue it in place.

 

For the new front (the white part in the pictures above), I made a few measurements, then sketched out a pattern on paper. Once cut out, I used the pattern to trace the outline on some thick plastic stock. This was cut out and shaped roughly to size. I finish shaping it after its been glued in place.

 

I salvaged the smokebox door for reuse. Basically, it was just a matter of cutting away the plastic around it, then filing the back until its just the door and hinges left. This will be glued onto the new front. Its probably not correct for the period, but I'll see if I can make any alterations.

 

One final bit was trimming the corners of the weight to give some clearance to the top. I hacksawed the top corners off and then ground some the the front the clear the new front. The weight goes in from the top, so once the top is glued down, the weight can’t be removed. Off the chassis, the weight makes the body nose dive.

 

 

I'm not sure if anyone has seen Mikkel's blog, but he did the SE Finecast 1854 Class Saddle Tank about six years ago using a Bachmann chassis: 

 

 

Clearly something to aspire too.

 

 

Dana

 

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Dana Ashdown
Duplicate image.

[Mikkel]

Ingenious use of that pill bottle, Dana, great stuff. A whole new market for the pharmaceutical industry  

 

I'd agree with others that a Bachmann chassis would be a big improvement on the running, if you can get one without a waddle. My 1854 saddle tank with that chassis has been a reliable performer, and I'm currently converting a Hornby 2721 to an 1854 pannier, also using the Bachmann chassis.

 

But I can see the merit of your approach too, maintaining the basic integrity of a model during rebuilds can be an art in itself. And the fluted Hornby conrods would be correct, as opposed to the plain Bachmann ones. Looking forward to see it develop.

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

A possible alternative might be the Bachmann Jinty/1F chassis, fluted rods supplied as standard at no extra cost.  My loco, 2761, should have fluted rods but, as it sits on a Baccy 57xx chassis, has incorrect fishbellies.  These are not necessarily incorrect for all 2721s, as they differed considerably in this respect, but 2761 had fluted rods when she was withdrawn TDU in 1950, the 1948-50 condition I want her in. 

 

My experience with her Hornby Jintymech, front axle drive sprung rear axle, was not a happy one.  I could get the bstard to run, but keeping it in a running condition was a different story, and it seemed that every time I wanted to use the loco, use would need to be preceeded by a half hour or so of cleaning and fettling to restore performance.  My view, FWIW, is that the Achilles heel of this mech is the combination of front axle driver and the crude sprung rear axle, which seemed to me to be something you had to get spot on right and only had one chance of doing so, that chance being a proper chance, determined at least as much by good or bad luck as by skill and fine adjustment/

 

This spring bears down directly on to the axle, without a bearing plate or anything; the end of the coil simply presses down on the axle.  In the service sheet for the mech, common at the time to Jinty, J52, J86, E2, Thomas, and the psuedo 08, one is advised to stretch the spring if it is not powerful enough or to trim it if it is too powerful.  The idea, I presumed, was to allow the axle to drop into dips or gaps in the track but not to push the chassis upwards.  Mine, in original form, was pushed upwards and was down by the head almost as much a Titanic half an hour after hitting the berg, which meant that the trailing and centre wheels were not picking up any current as they were largely out of contact with the railhead.  There were no pickups for the centre wheelset anyway!

 

I bought this loco very cheaply 2h from my local purveyor of fine 4mm scale locomotives, Lord and Butler, 'as seen' as it could not be made to run in the shop.  It was trying, though, and I figured that if there was some life there it was worth taking a punt on.  I'm not so sure now...  When I got it home, as I'd expected, everything was gunged up in oil and crud, the familiar tale of a loco with problems that a previous owner had tried to lubricate his way out of and had come unstuck, or more accurately, stuck.  Strip down and deep clean, relube and re-assembly, and Robert will be a sibling of one of my parents, happy days, thought The Johnster (for it was he). 

 

Fair enough, it ran.  Jerkily and impossible to control below about a scale 30mph, but it ran.  Ok, let's have another look.  Rigged up an extra set of pickups for the centre wheelset and cut about 2mm off the spring.  Ok, now we were able to control it down to about 25mph.  Took the spring out and worked on the sharp end, which had gouged a groove in the axle,  23mph.  Took the spring out altogether. 20mph.

 

Not good enough, and even this performance was not reliably achieved; the Hornby wheels seemed to pick up crud easily and the loco needed continuous and consistent cleaning.  For a while she was banished to the miner's workmans', being too 'fast' for the goods and pilot work the real loco was probably doing 1948-50.  Eventually, I admitted defeat, and substituted a Baccy 57xx mech, which has ever since performed faultlessly and with complete reliability.

 

She is now a regular on the pickup, a job which requires precision shunting and good slow control, as well as an occasional appearance with the workmans', and being hired to the NCB as the reserve for the colliery Peckett.  Her normal duty is one of the Ogmore Jc yard pilots, but she is at control's disposal should any traffic need to be moved out of course during a session.  In short a Thomas, a Really Useful Engine, with a good bit of character to boot.  The real 2761 probably never got out of the immediate vicinity of Tondu shed and Ogmore Yard this late in her career, but she is a useful general spare and stand in.  What her crews would have thought, banging around in the Welsh rain on Victorian axleboxes and shot springs, might have been another story, but I like her despite her faults; I'm not absolutely perfect myself, and do not feel in a position to criticise.  I'd like to sort the coupling rods though, all the same, and find some suitable transfers for her Caerphilly 'grotesque' sans serif G W R lettering.

[Steamport Southport]

Psst. J83.

 

A J86 was a Neilson saddle tank that was like a bigger 0-6-0ST version of a Pug that only just made it into 1924.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j86.php

 

 

 

Jason

[Dana Ashdown]

On 31/10/2021 at 15:18, The Johnster said:

My experience with her Hornby Jintymech, front axle drive sprung rear axle, was not a happy one.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

Frankly, I haven't actually run mine for years (or should I say decades), although I never had any problems with it before, so far as I can remember. I'll try mine on the test track sometime and see what happens, though I expect it will need a drop of oil.

 

Generally, I've found the old Tri-ang-Hornby mechanisms to be fairly reliable and easy to maintain, although slow motion can be problematic at times. However, I have a pulse controller (also decades old) that does make controlling them at slow speeds much better.

 

Dana

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Dana Ashdown

[Dana Ashdown]

The saddle tank top has been fitted and glued to the engine body, along with the smokebox/tank front. (Please note, the chimney, steam dome, safety valve cover, cab roof and coal bunker are not properly fitted in these pictures.)

 

 

 

 

Prior to gluing the tank top on, I drilled four reference holes marking the locations of the safety valve, steam dome, filler cap, and chimney. I don’t plan on using them to fix anything in place — except perhaps for the chimney — but they are there just in case and I can see exactly where everything should be.

 

There were a couple of small gaps which needed a spot of filler, but otherwise it works!

 

I was thinking about enlarging the spectacles, but there’s not enough clearance to do so. However, I’ll make some brass rims to go around them.

 

After the glue was set, I did some final adjustments to the forward end and then glued the smokebox front on. This was left slightly oversized so it could be filed to conform exactly to the tank top once the glue was dry. I don’t no why, but it looked like it needed a face at this point!

 

JimC will be happy to see that I’ve added some “plates” to the saddle tank. Since these tanks were fabricated in three sections, I made a cross-shaped base with thin plastic card, with the long axis running along the length of the tank top. Over this I glued a rectangular “plate” athwartships across the middle. Its not perfect, but does roughly mimic the tank plating. The only problem I encountered (apart from it not being quite centred at the cab end — how that happened I’ll never know!) is some puckering caused by the glue softening the plastic. I expected this, but once painted it shouldn’t be obvious.

 

 

For the steam dome, I cut the dome off the pannier top. After trimming round the base, I shaped the bottom with a medium half-round file to match the top of the saddle tank. As found, the dome is too high, so I cut about an eighth of an inch out of the middle. This is easier said than done and, although the cuts were definitely not square, by turning the top relative to the bottom the errors cancelled each other out…. panic thus avoided!

 

I cut the chimney out as well, but only for the base. I’ve glued some plastic tubing on for the chimney proper, leaving it longer than needed until I can see how high the stack needs to be. The copper cap from 2744 will go on top. Ideally, there should have some kind of inner core to keep everything in place.

 

 

 

The same tubing will be used for the base of the filler cap.

 

The D-shaped mounting pin was cut off the safety valve cover, and the bottom filed to fit it the curve of the tank top. I won’t glue it on until the painting is finished.

 

I thought about swapping 2744’s plated safety valve cover with 2764’s, but the Chinese must have glued theres in place because I couldn’t pull it out. By swapping them, I could have painted the steam dome and safety valve cover on 2744 with matching brass paint, leaving the shiny one to 2764 (which will have a painted dome as befits 1910-14). As it stands, since 2744 will keep its black frames, the steam dome will stay painted — but the safety valve will still be sparkling! Isn’t Swindon wonderful!!

 

The roof that comes with Hornby’s 2721 pannier tank engines seems a bit thick, so I filed the top down so its flush in the middle.

 

Lastly, the smokebox door was glued in place. I don’t have any brass replacement door handles on hand, so I carefully sawed and trimmed underneath the moulded ones to open them up a bit. It sort of works. I may replace them later, or not. I thought about putting a ring around the smokebox using some micro-strip or brass wire, but I’m still not sure.

 

Technically, the door is not correct for this period, but when the front is painted it shouldn’t be too obvious… unless of course you know about these things. Consequently, I shall try to remain blissfully ignorant!

 

 

I’m tempted to make the cylinder cover under the smokebox door larger, as per 2742’s in the picture above, although there is not a lot of room there.

 

I still have to fit steps and lifting rings to the saddle tank, and drill holes for the handrail knobs. I might leave the latter until the tank has been primed (it will be easier to see where to drill that way.) Lamp irons will also be needed.

 

As the pictures show, the coal bunker has also been modified.

 

The first cut was made horizontally (relative to the engine) to remove the fender, following the top of the moulded handle rails. I didn’t know if it would be needed again, so best to save it. The cut was just above the front of the bunker, so I filed the top down to make everything level.

 

The next cut was made horizontally on the backside of the bunker just beneath the two bumps pretending to be hooks. I used the bumps to guide the saw and made a very shallow cut (not quite as deep as the plastic is thick).

 

Lastly, a vertical cut from the top to remove the bunker extension. This left the internal supports/clips inside the rear wall of the bunker intact.

 

With a little clean up with a file, I was able to glue a thin piece of scrap plastic card on the back. (If the cut had been deeper, I would’ve used thicker plastic.) I trimmed the card after the glue had set. A narrow piece of thicker plastic scrap was glued along the inside top to reinforce the edge.

 

The flares at the top of the bunker were made from slices of same tubing used for the chimney. These were mitred at the corners and glued to the sides of the bunker. The one on the rear was fitted first, then the side pieces, which were left overly long so they could be trimmed after. When the glue was dry, I filed the top of the flare even, then faired the bottom edges with a round file to smooth the transition. Its not perfect, but it will do.

 

While I as was at it, I removed the moulded handrails. Coal rails are still to do, plus handrail knobs and hooks on the rear.

 

I’ll make the same changes to 2764’s coal bunker when the time comes.

 

By the way, as noted above, 2744 will be finished with black frames and no lining. Much as I would like to see this engine with red frames and lined cab, my planned 1907 setting really puts it into the black frame era (which would also allow me to run it as late as the Great War). Two other factors really convinced me: one, that I didn’t have an appropriate shade of red/brown for the frames. (What I have actually matches the colour chip in Great Western Way, 2nd ed., but looks too light in reality.) And two, that black would better hide the chassis’ shortcomings.

 

No.2764 will be modified for the 1910-15 period (keeping its panniers), complete with lining, so 2744 and 2764 should make for an interesting contrast.

[Dana Ashdown]

On 31/10/2021 at 04:53, Mikkel said:

I'm currently converting a Hornby 2721 to an 1854 pannier, also using the Bachmann chassis.

I expect yours will be much neater than mine, so I certainly look forward to seeing how you do.

 

How about posting a picture or two?

[33C]

I am liking this very much! Great work! 

[Dana Ashdown]

The question arose about the reliability of the Hornby chassis, so I gave 2744 (Margate-made) a test run. I can’t remember when I had it going last — Maybe 30 years? Maybe more? Happily, no problems at all, and that’s without any lubrication! Naturally, its noisy by modern standards, but no complaints from me. So far as I can tell, the rear axle is unsprung. It’s the original version from October 1980, so the mechanism was probably changed sometime after.

 

On the other hand, 2764 (Chinese-made) proved reasonably quiet and fairly smooth moving forward. Going backwards, it remains relatively quiet, but there’s a jerkiness to the motion. I bought this engine second-hand a couple of years ago for conversion, so never tested it until now. It should be fixable, or perhaps smooth out after some lubrication and running-in.

 

 

The steam dome and chimney have been glued in place. I made the chimney longer than necessary, so once the glue was set I filed it down to a more realistic height. It might still be a touch too high, but it looks fine. I’ll glue the copper cap and safety valve cover on after the engine has been painted.

 

Steps have been added to the sides of the saddle tank. These were made from Evergreen angle sections, cut down to size, and then filed to the final depth after they were glued on. I can see from the picture that some glue smears need to be removed.

 

The filler cap for the tank is also done. The hinge and screw clamp assembly are made from recycled staples. I didn’t know how high the cap should be. Some were quite low, and others high, and some were just right. Mine is high.

 

I made the lifting rings following Mikkel’s example, except I cut the bolts/pins from a piece of steel cable strand, because the strand was thicker than the brass wire on hand. The rings themselves were made from brass rod, formed into loops using a pair of fine needle-nose pliers. I couldn’t get the rings perfectly round, so the more pointed part is glued against the bolt/pin.

 

A little more filing was done to the cab roof to remove vestiges of the moulding and file marks. Also, I cut a slot in the front of the cab for the safety valve lever. The slot is off-set to the left side, as per photos, so the lever is actually coming out diagonally to meet the safety valve. This seems to have been done to avoid the whistles. I’m not sure if I should fit the lever before painting, or wait until the safety valve is glued into place. The spectacle rims are still to do.

 

At this point, the saddle tank needs to have the handrails fitted, and lamp irons added to the front. The grab-handles on each side of the footplate, above the steps, might have to wait till later because I’m short a knob (I lost one before). I’ll drill the holes anyway, and maybe put one in.

 

The moulded hooks on the buffer beams were removed before, but the stubs still need filing and holes drilled for faux-couplings. Also, the buffers may get modified if I can find some small tubing and buffer heads I’ve got somewhere.

 

The coal rails will be made out of brass rod, but I need to get some epoxy first. I could use Evergreen strip instead of brass; its flat, but probably a bit too flimsy.

 

The handrails, tool hooks and upper lamp iron will probably be added to the bunker after the coal rails are fitted.

 

 

Dana

[The Johnster]

Coming along very nicely indeed, Dana, looks very much like a 2761 saddle.  The old Jintybased Triang Hornby chassis could be a very good runner (back in the day, my childhood, when dinosaurs rule the earth and everything was in black and white because colour hadn't been invented yet, I had a Triang S class '748' saddle tank with a Jinty chassis, which was one of the best runners I've ever owned, way better than my Jinty with the same underpinnings and good enough to give a current Bachman 57xx a run for it's smoothness money, though as you say noisy.Gear meshing was just in the sweet spot!), and it's good to hear that this one ticks that box for you, but the running in reverse on the Chinese 2764 sounds very much like some of the problems I had, except in my case it was both directions.  My best suggestion is to replace the chassis with a Bachmann 57xx.

Edited November 6, 2021 by The Johnster

[Mikkel]

This is amazing Dana, your ingenious solutions have completely morphed it into a saddle tank. Thought provoking that your 1980 chassis, though noisy, seems to work well enough after 30 years out of action!

 

On 03/11/2021 at 18:53, Dana Ashdown said:

How about posting a picture or two?

 

I've been putting together a blog post on it, will speed it up. Not a saddle tank this time though.

[Dana Ashdown]

On 06/11/2021 at 18:06, The Johnster said:

"... back in the day, my childhood, when dinosaurs rule the earth and everything was in black and white because colour hadn't been invented yet"

We must have had the same childhood!

 

I'll probably put up with the Chinese chassis for now, especially since there's no layout to run it on. Either that, or never run it backwards.

 

On 07/11/2021 at 06:35, Mikkel said:

This is amazing Dana, your ingenious solutions have completely morphed it into a saddle tank.

Thank you Mikkel.

 

I think its a matter of seeing where you want to go, and figuring out how to get there. In this case, how close were the saddle tanks and panniers in general layout, and can the two be reconciled. In my case, that came by way of a pill bottle, but a plastic pipe or tube of similar dimensions would have done (though not if I have to buy 8 feet of it!!!!).

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Dana Ashdown said:

 

I think its a matter of seeing where you want to go, and figuring out how to get there

A philosophy I highly condone, Dana.  I think of it as being focussed on a perception of the desired outcome, so that opportunities to progress the general state of the universe into a position where this outcome is facilitated are more obvious to you when they occur, and this increased awareness of them enables you to further move the universe into an even more favourable position from which to achieve your desired result.  It is different to having a fixed and definite plan to follow, more a case of taking action that brings the finished model closer to reality as and when you can.

 

This way, locomotives, entire layouts, even whole lifestyles, build themselves with minimal effort from oneself. and with minimum stress.  This does not, however, necessarily mean minimum cost or time taken...

[Dana Ashdown]

On 10/11/2021 at 15:10, The Johnster said:

This does not, however, necessarily mean minimum cost or time taken...

Indeed, often its the journey that matters, rather than the destination. Or in this case, learning how to do something new.

 

By way of a brief update. After spending most of last Sunday up a ladder, I've only managed to make and fit the coal rails. However, if it rains (or snows) this weekend, I'll have no excuse!

[Mikkel]

 

On 13/11/2021 at 18:13, Dana Ashdown said:

After spending most of last Sunday up a ladder, I've only managed to make and fit the coal rails

 

Making them on your workbench might have been faster 

 

I hope it rains or snows!

 

[Compound2632]

On 31/10/2021 at 19:18, The Johnster said:

A possible alternative might be the Bachmann Jinty/1F chassis, fluted rods supplied as standard at no extra cost. 

 

The 1F wheelbase is 7'4" + 7'8" with 4'7" dia drivers. In terms of overall wheelbase, that's 6" too short for a 2721. And even more hacking of the Hornby body would be needed to bring it down to scale length!

[The Johnster]

Just as well I only described it as a possible alternative then.  That's scuppered that idea!  I'm assuming the Jinty is the same, one is a development of the other in much the same way as the 57xx is a development of the 2721.

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Just as well I only described it as a possible alternative then.  That's scuppered that idea!  I'm assuming the Jinty is the same, one is a development of the other in much the same way as the 57xx is a development of the 2721.

 

The Jinty (3F) is an altogether bigger beast with the standard Derby 8'0" + 8'6" wheelbase, correctly represented by the Bachmann model. The old Triang Jinty mechanism that also underpinned the J83 and 87xx was a couple of millimetres too short for a 3F and a couple of millimetres too long for a 57xx. I'm not sure whether more modern Hornby mechanisms are different.

 

I would say that the progression from the 1F to 3F was not the same as from the 2721 to the 57xx (as should be evident from the step-up in power class); the 3F goes back to Johnson's 2441 Class of 1899 which was a new design intended to do heavy work that was beyond the capability of his earlier 0-6-0Ts built 1875-1900 that became the 1Fs - cross-London goods and mineral trains, banking on the Lickey, etc. There was no such step change between the 2721 and 57xx, with some describing the latter as a continuation of the pannier tank rebuilds of the former, though there were detail changes and an increase in boiler pressure. The 57xx was put in power class 3F by BR, applying the LMS formula; I haven't been able to find what class the surviving 2721s were in but I should suppose at least 2F - they had always been bigger and more powerful engines than the 1F, being more-or-less contemporary with Johnson's 2441 Class.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Compound2632

[JimC]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I haven't been able to find what class the surviving 2721s were in 

Complicated, because the pre group GW tanks were upgraded over the course of their lives, with higher boiler pressure and sometimes larger cylinders, but according to RCTS the figures when they reached BR were:
655, 1813  - A  2F.

1854, 2721 - A 3F. (some came in the range for GW power class B, but none seem to have been classified as such)

5700, 9400 - C  4F

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, JimC said:

according to RCTS the figures when they reached BR were:

 

Thanks. I have to confess I took 3F for the 57xx class from Wikipedia. The 200 psi boiler pressure will have been the key factor in putting them into 4F; the LMS Standard 3F 0-6-0T was 160 psi. I don't have a figure for the Belpaire-boilered 2721 class.

[Miss Prism]

2721s started off at 150 psi (when saddles), 180 psi when Belpaired, but I think some would have ended with later P class boilers pressed to 200 psi.