Clans. The next fifteen.

[JZ]

Reading today that if the next batch of Clans had been built, they may have had double chimneys to improve draughting. So, as I have one of the next five, 72012 Canute, I was thinking of fitting one. Question is, where can I get a whitemetal or brass 9F double one from?

 

Alternatively, as this is a Southern loco, fitting a rebuilt Bulleid chimney, which can be sourced from Alan Gibson.

[Steamport Southport]

I don't know where the double chimney idea has come from. 72010 Hengist isn't going to have one and that's being built to the specifications for the next batch.

 

 

However if you do want to disfigure the fine lines of a Clan then try 247 Developments. They do them.

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I imagine that the five examples for the SR (72010 - 72014) would've been coupled to BR1F 5,625 gallon capacity tenders.

[Steamport Southport]

Tender details here. https://www.theclanproject.org/hengist-components/tender

 

 

The lot 242 clans - the first 5 where going to the Southern Region and were to be fitted with the B.R 1B tenders without any water pick up arrangement. The next 10 clans of lot 242 were to be fitted with the B.R IC tender which had the water pick up gear.

The first five tenders for 72010 - 014 were numbered 1186 - 1190, but these tenders had their numbers changed along with the other ten tenders and were allocated to 9F's that were still being built when the cancellation order came for the lot 242 clans.

 

 

 

The tender is of the standard B.R. No. 1B, 4,725 gallon type, holding 7 tons of coal. It is carried on six wheels of 3ft. 3.5in. diameter. Extra 500 gallons capacity over B.R. No. 1 type for operation over routes not provided with water troughs.

 

 

Jason

Edited May 1, 2018 by Steamport Southport

[Hilux5972]

A double chimney wouldn’t look right on a Clan.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Hilux5972

[ianh1]

The tender to be fitted to Hengist is under debate. The priority is to maxmise water capacity to maximise the potential for main line operations. One possibility is a BR1G tender which would give 5,000 gallons.

[Right Away]

A double chimney wouldn’t look right on a Clan.

To the opinions of many, chimney modifications were an aesthetic disaster borne of necessity; the Hawksworth "Counties" being a typical example.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Double chimneys only look right on big powerful locomotives in short.

 

Whatever the limitations of the Clan may have been, I suspect a correctly proportioned double Kylchap ejector, possibly with ashpan draughting rearrangement much as was done to DoG, should extract the performance potential. (It wouldn't hurt to press the boiler to 250psi either.)

[Forester]

To the opinions of many, chimney modifications were an aesthetic disaster borne of necessity; the Hawksworth "Counties" being a typical example.

 

Really? A4, Duchess, Royal Scot, 9F much improved in appearance.

 

King looked good (Castle not so successful). LN and Schools were OK.

 

If Clan has been given a double chimney, wouldn't it have been in the style of Riddles?

[JZ]

 

If Clan has been given a double chimney, wouldn't it have been in the style of Riddles?

That was my thoughts, however a 9F one may be a little short. Going to pick up one though from 247 at the Bristol show on Friday and a Black 5 one from Wizard/Comet. I may or may not fit the one that looks best and I am still thinking about a modified LN or Schools one. Sacrilege I hear some shout, but did I not read in a book of BR Standards that BFB wheels were at one time considered for some Brighton built 4MT tanks? Or possibly a Giesl ejector.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

If Clan has been given a double chimney, wouldn't it have been in the style of Riddles?

 If this had happened during its BR service life, pretty certainly. But now, following the precedent of what fixed DoG post BR service, something better may be used.

 

There cannot be much wrong with the Clan design. The frame and  engine department must be sound, because these locos are on record as doing good work on occasion: and that really only leaves reliability of sufficient steam supply as the problem/limitation in the performance; yet the grate/boiler/superheater arrangements look sensibly proportioned compared to the Brit and 9F which were certainly adequate steamers.

 

Everything I have read about them suggests it was the lack of the expected 'stretch' in performance where the trouble lay, to put it simply larger locos were expected at need to be able to exceed the official power rating by at least a power class. The comparable V2 for example, also rated 6MT, at need could do the work of all but the most severe schedules planned for class 8P power. Raise the boiler pressure to that of the Brit and 9F to give the Clan a bit more reserve, and then play with the draughting...

[jonny777]

To the opinions of many, chimney modifications were an aesthetic disaster borne of necessity; the Hawksworth "Counties" being a typical example.

 

 

The aesthetic disaster theme was taken to extremes with the double chimneys fitted to early Flying Pigs. 

[JZ]

The aesthetic disaster theme was taken to extremes with the double chimneys fitted to early Flying Pigs. 

The less said about that, the better.

[Dunsignalling]

The aesthetic disaster theme was taken to extremes with the double chimneys fitted to early Flying Pigs. 

They evidently didn't do anything for the performance. either. Otherwise I'd have expected to see something similar (but better-looking) re-emerge on the SR-allocated BR4 moguls. Their double-chimney 4-6-0s were highly regarded and often deputised on Cl.5 duties.

 

John

Edited May 2, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Steamport Southport]

To be honest whether something was aesthically pleasing was probably the last thing on the minds of the CMEs at the time.

 

The Clans were very highly regarded according to some of the enginemen in the North West that I've spoke to over the years. It was probably the fact that they were already well provided with Scots, Patriots and Jubilees that went against them. And the fact that a Five was capable of doing most duties that a 6MT could do.

 

Add in the new fangled diesels (mostly EE Type 4) then the writing was on the wall before they got started.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[mozzer models]

Reading today that if the next batch of Clans had been built, they may have had double chimneys to improve draughting. So, as I have one of the next five, 72012 Canute, I was thinking of fitting one. Question is, where can I get a whitemetal or brass 9F double one from?

 

Alternatively, as this is a Southern loco, fitting a rebuilt Bulleid chimney, which can be sourced from Alan Gibson.

from Me at 247 developments say hi at Bristol

Edited May 2, 2018 by mozzer models

[JZ]

from Me at 247 developments say hi at Bristol

Also want a Std Class 4 chimney and a GWR 4703 numberplate. See you friday afternoon.

[DCB]

 If this had happened during its BR service life, pretty certainly. But now, following the precedent of what fixed DoG post BR service, something better may be used.

 

There cannot be much wrong with the Clan design. The frame and  engine department must be sound, because these locos are on record as doing good work on occasion: and that really only leaves reliability of sufficient steam supply as the problem/limitation in the performance; yet the grate/boiler/superheater arrangements look sensibly proportioned compared to the Brit and 9F which were certainly adequate steamers.

 

Everything I have read about them suggests it was the lack of the expected 'stretch' in performance where the trouble lay, to put it simply larger locos were expected at need to be able to exceed the official power rating by at least a power class. The comparable V2 for example, also rated 6MT, at need could do the work of all but the most severe schedules planned for class 8P power. Raise the boiler pressure to that of the Brit and 9F to give the Clan a bit more reserve, and then play with the draughting...

I don't think the Clans had any problems steaming wise, as they are small boilered Brits the obvious solution to more power was adopted by BR, Build more Brits.

However as a reliable motive power unit the Clan was among the best, the motion, axle boxes etc  were under stressed with the reduced boiler pressure and a reduced ability to burn coal,  Basically as a specialist medium weight express loco they reliably filled a niche for 10 years. A real accountants loco.  Fifty more for the NE region would have saved a fortune in coal and maintenance compared to the BR built A1s.

 

 

The tender to be fitted to Hengist is under debate. The priority is to maxmise water capacity to maximise the potential for main line operations. One possibility is a BR1G tender which would give 5,000 gallons.

If Hengist is to the original drawings surely the BR1A 5000 gallon tenders is the logical choice, or would the next Clans have had the last style of Britannia cab with no rear handrail.