'Schools' Class

[Jack P]

Hi guys,

 

I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone had any different information. I'm a little bit confused about which engines differed between this:

 

 

and this:

 

 

 

Are the previous iterations wrong 100% or were they modified at some point? I can't seem to find any photos of the second version, but it shouldn't be too hard to modify I suppose.

 

any input would be appreciated

 

cheers

[RFS]

In "Locomotives in Detail - Schools Class" (Peter Swift) there is this statement on page 30:

 

"The tenders attached to E900 to E909 had a pair of toolboxes set lengthwise, one on each side at the front of the tender. The tenders attached to 910 to 939 had larger toolboxes set transversely across the front of the tender."

 

So the two tender types are correct. The reason that 30932 has the earlier form of tender is also correct, because in 1958 during overhaul its tender was inadvertently painted green and the loco black.  To correct this anomaly, it exchanged tenders with 30905.

[Jack P]

Thanks for that RFS! I don't suppose there is any further information about which engines had which tenders? I think perhaps I should invest in that book..

 

cheers

[RFS]

The different type of toolbox is the only really noticeable difference between the first 10 and the last 30 tenders. Some tenders had spoked wheels and others disc but the book doesn't go into detail as to which tenders had what. Also on the later series 910-939 the driver's window on the locomotive cab is higher up and this has also been correctly modelled by Hornby.

 

The tender of 30932 was rebuilt to be self-trimming and hence had high sides fitted.  However, due to the painting error mentioned earlier, this tender ended up behind 30905 from August 1958. In 1961/2 a couple of Schools also gave up their 6-wheel tenders to S15s, and acquired bogie tenders from withdrawn Lord Nelsons for their remaining months of service.

[N15class]

The fist 10 had a lower cab Windows and cut outs. They also had second hand tenders. Which had spoked wheels and different tool boxes. The rest i do believe had disc wheels. The locos were retro fitted with smoke deflectors.

[bécasse]

As has been stated above, until August 1958 30932 Blundells was matched with a one-off high-sided self-trimming (and very distinctive) tender, initially with BRITISH RAILWAYS and later the early crest on the tender side, and this certainly didn't match the model above.

 

When the tender swop was carried out at Ashford Works in August 1958, 30905 was also in works for an overhaul, duly being repainted lined green to match the high-sided tender which had been repainted green even though 30932 had been repainted (or more probably patch painted) in lined black. I remember seeing 30932 with the low-sided tender as it remained at Bricklayers Arms for a while, but I don't remember that tender still having the early crest and I certainly would have expected Ashford to have patch painted the tender and provided a new crest by 1958 given that its original parent loco was in for overhaul.

 

I couldn't find any photos which verify the situation one way or the other, but would be happy to be proved wrong. I do believe that the loco wasn't repainted again before withdrawal.

[Jack P]

Ah cheers guys, It wasn't so much about the specific locos in the photos, I'm modelling 1946-1947, all of this information is excellent though, so thank you!

 

It might be just me but I think those lord nelson tenders look really great behind the schools engines, any of the double bogie tenders really:

 

 

 

As for the differences between the first 10 and the last 30, was it just the cab windows and cutouts? any other major oddities or differences?

 

cheers

[Nick Holliday]

Nobody seems to have discussed the chimneys fitted. In particular, the large diameter type fitted to suit the Lemaitre blast pipe. This alteration was started by Bulleid in 1939, I think, but the programme was curtailed by wartime conditions and the perception that it didn't deliver a significant improvement, so not One, Epsom, even received an interesting extended smokebox, not to mention the plywood streamliner!

[Jack P]

AFAIK, the engines that received the Lemaitre chimneys were: 900, 901, 907, 909, 914, 921, 924, 929, 937 and 938.

 

Do you have any photos of the extended smokebox? I saw a photo of the odd plywood streamlining, do you know when that was fitted?

[Nick Holliday]

I'm afraid that my info came from the RCTS Locos of the Southern Railway Volume 1 by D L Bradley, and I am not in a position to copy the photo of Epsom.

[RFS]

AFAIK, the engines that received the Lemaitre chimneys were: 900, 901, 907, 909, 914, 921, 924, 929, 937 and 938.

 

Do you have any photos of the extended smokebox? I saw a photo of the odd plywood streamlining, do you know when that was fitted?

 

Complete list of Lemaitre-fitted locos is 900, 901, 907, 909, 913-915, 917-921, 924, 929-931, 933, 934 and 937-939.

 

There's a photo of 935 Sevenoaks in plywood mock-up streamlining here - https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827822729822871552

[Jack P]

Complete list of Lemaitre-fitted locos is 900, 901, 907, 909, 913-915, 917-921, 924, 929-931, 933, 934 and 937-939.

 

There's a photo of 935 Sevenoaks in plywood mock-up streamlining here - https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827822729822871552

 

Close but no cigar on my behalf, going off memory. That streamlining - What an odd design, any idea why they did it?

[phil-b259]

Close but no cigar on my behalf, going off memory. That streamlining - What an odd design, any idea why they did it?

It might have something to do with the recently apointed CME who came from a railway company well known for its streamliners. Said company also didn't restrict itself to the A4s, I believe a couple of GE section locos were streamlined in the 30s too.

 

The thing is the schools class were widely acknowledged as an excellent free steaming design well able to cope with loads that on other lines would have called for a 4-6-0 design - so why bother? The fitting of Lemaire chimneys being a case in point - they didn't improve things because there wasn't any improvement to be had (unlike the Nelsons, and the Q class which did show a marked improvement after fitting of said chimney).

[Nick Holliday]

Being pedantic, the large diameter chimney is not the actual Lemaitre equipment.  That is the actual blastpipe and the increased chimney size is to accommodate the wider blast from the multiple exhausts. The first two conversions, Eastbourne and Epsom, had stark plain stovepipes, which did little to improve their appearance, and the later ones had a cosmetic ring welded on to make things better.  The first two had the revised design by 1943.

The extended smokebox on Epsom was as a result of the fitting Bulleid cylinders, with improved steam passages, although they did not actually prove effective, and were replaced in December 1945 with the standard Maunsell set.

21 were fitted with Flaman speedometers, with drive taken off the left rear coupled rear wheel, but these were removed by 1941.

If you are modelling 1946-47 then you need the Maunsell snifting-valves on the smokebox.  Bulleid started removing them in February 1947.

As for tenders, the most significant change was the fitting of distinctive Isothermos axle boxes to 908's tender in 1932, which were retained until 1957, the tender briefly running behind 30901 in September 1949. 914 and 926 were initially provided with SKF roller bearings, but they only lasted until 1936. As for the disc wheels, Bradley helpfully says "Most were fitted with disc wheels when new, but these in many cases they were replaced by the spoked variety in later years".

[RFS]

The thing is the schools class were widely acknowledged as an excellent free steaming design well able to cope with loads that on other lines would have called for a 4-6-0 design - so why bother? The fitting of Lemaire chimneys being a case in point - they didn't improve things because there wasn't any improvement to be had (unlike the Nelsons, and the Q class which did show a marked improvement after fitting of said chimney).

 

According to  "Locomotives in Detail - Schools Class" (Peter Swift) the changes did result in a free-steaming more powerful loco, but that came at the cost of increased coal consumption. The reason why the programme only extended to half the class was that the locos in their original format were more than capable of dealing with the required loads, so there was no traffic requirement for more conversions.