Lima/Bachmann 94xx conversion.

[The Johnster]

I've been giving some thought to the cylinder cover ahead of the smokebox, sloping up from the footplate behind the front buffer beam in line with the frames, which is absent on BR built 'production' locos; I cannot remember what was there now, and it seems to be a difficult angle to find a photo of.  I have an idea that there was just plain flat footplate between the sloping parts of the plate frames visible above it ahead of the smokebox, but what, if anything, could be seen on the vertical surface, which was I assume the front of the smokebox saddle or the top of the actual cylinder fronts!

 

I am not sure I am going to go to the trouble of actually doing anything about it and might just live with it as it is, correct for the first 10 high pressure GWR engines.  But this is probably the biggest, if not the only, visible difference between the two types, and I suppose I ought to at least consider the alteration.  It's already a bit flimsy by there...

[TheSignalEngineer]

The site this comes from Rail-Online could throw up a few. There appears to be a cover for some valve rod ends or similar.

http://www.rail-online.co.uk/p30480076

[The Johnster]

Some good stuff there, Signal Engineer, and I now have the information I want.  The valve rod end covers, or whatever they are, do not seem to be too difficult to at least create a decent impression of, and, if I do take the plunge, it would be silly not to include them; anyway, at least I have a better idea of what I am looking at now.  Thank you for your help.

[The Johnster]

The 57xx will also be donating it's tank filler covers.  Not gonna be much left when I've finished with it!

[The Johnster]

I've been giving some thought to the cylinder cover ahead of the smokebox, sloping up from the footplate behind the front buffer beam in line with the frames, which is absent on BR built 'production' locos; I cannot remember what was there now, and it seems to be a difficult angle to find a photo of.  I have an idea that there was just plain flat footplate between the sloping parts of the plate frames visible above it ahead of the smokebox, but what, if anything, could be seen on the vertical surface, which was I assume the front of the smokebox saddle or the top of the actual cylinder fronts!

 

I am not sure I am going to go to the trouble of actually doing anything about it and might just live with it as it is, correct for the first 10 high pressure GWR engines.  But this is probably the biggest, if not the only, visible difference between the two types, and I suppose I ought to at least consider the alteration.  It's already a bit flimsy by there...

Before anyone points out my misrepresentation, BR didn't build any 94xx; they were ordered from outside contractors, as were the 67xx series of 57xx and the 66xx series of 56xx; the GW and it's BR (W) successor had form in this respect.  I regard these 200 locos as the 'production' run to differentiate them from the GW's 1947 Swindon built first 10, the 'prototypes'. There was little visual difference beyond the cylinder cover mentioned, but the Swindon engines had a higher boiler pressure; this was clearly not thought worth the effort on the 'production' engines, but has no visual impact.

[tomparryharry]

Before anyone points out my misrepresentation, BR didn't build any 94xx; they were ordered from outside contractors, as were the 67xx series of 57xx and the 66xx series of 56xx; the GW and it's BR (W) successor had form in this respect.  I regard these 200 locos as the 'production' run to differentiate them from the GW's 1947 Swindon built first 10, the 'prototypes'. There was little visual difference beyond the cylinder cover mentioned, but the Swindon engines had a higher boiler pressure; this was clearly not thought worth the effort on the 'production' engines, but has no visual impact.

 

I haven't got around to creating the space underneath the smokebox just yet  I wouldn't want a 94xx on the pool, but a 34xx would fit right in  I've just got to drill out the 3 lamp brackets on the firemans side, and the handrails above the motion plate Did you mention slitting saws?

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

.

[The Johnster]

I did, Ian, the major culprit of the brutality so far inflicted by me on your poor old body (the loco, not his actual body...).  I used drilled holes into which staples have been inserted for the purpose of working lamp brackets, but there are etches if you want a more scale approach.  I have not started on the replacement handrails yet or drilled the holes for the bunker hoop brackets, and, given that the model is to be a temporary fix, might not bother with replacing moulded handrails; on the other hand it's an excellent job for an evening when you're in the mood for it...

[Horsetan]

…..the Swindon engines had a higher boiler pressure; this was clearly not thought worth the effort on the 'production' engines, but has no visual impact.

I thought the first ten were superheated, rather than having higher boiler pressure. The rest were saturated, but boiler pressures were the same.

[The Johnster]

I thought the first ten were superheated, rather than having higher boiler pressure. The rest were saturated, but boiler pressures were the same.

 

You are correct.

[tomparryharry]

I did, Ian, the major culprit of the brutality so far inflicted by me on your poor old body (the loco, not his actual body...).  I used drilled holes into which staples have been inserted for the purpose of working lamp brackets, but there are etches if you want a more scale approach.  I have not started on the replacement handrails yet or drilled the holes for the bunker hoop brackets, and, given that the model is to be a temporary fix, might not bother with replacing moulded handrails; on the other hand it's an excellent job for an evening when you're in the mood for it...

Too late, John.  I've drilled out all of the new handrail holes, now I need to make the new front footplate. Like you, I want to lose the sloped front cover, as we all know only a couple actually stayed on in real life. A mammoth handrail bending session beckons. However, if this works out, I'll keep my existing 94xx, and use the money for something else. The new predicted 94xx is about 10% of my projected new railway room, so a bit of a no-brainer, really.

 

Currently debating the bunker. I'd like to put in the window bars. None too happy about plastic coal. We are living in Wales, after all! Still, we'll see how it goes. One little problem is/are the bunker brackets. I've had a few goes, but I can't quite get it to look 'right'.

 

Cheers,

Ian

Edited July 3, 2018 by tomparryharry

[The Johnster]

I'm hoping the new donor, despatched today so I'm now predicting tomoz or Friday, has the bunker brackets (it does according to the photos on eBay); the previous one that turned into an 8750 didn't, and apparently never did as there is no trace of the holes or filling on this body.  The 94xx ones were a slightly different shape and profile, but I am prepared to compromise on this.  Rear window bars on the cab back will have to be sourced, but the loco may well go into service before this and the handrail work is done, and be worked up over time as my loco fleet is not really big enough for the rostered work if we are having two separate loco duties for the colliery clearances, and early and a late one.  6604 is sharing the work with 4214 at the minute, but is the 'spare' for all duties, and we have no wobble room.  

 

With the eventual availability of a 'proper' 94xx from Baccy and the upcoming Dapol 5101, I will have too many locos, but will still be in the market for a 4575, of which Tondu had one example (I assume as deputy to 4404 and 4408 on the Porthcawl pickup), and have a long term plan to have a go at 3100, using the old Airfix chassis/mech released by the Dapol prairie and the no.4 boiler from a construction kit CoT, proper oldfashioned kitbashing!  The loco worked the Cardiff or Swansea commuter trains from Porthcawl, and would have been a rarity up at Cwmdimbath, but might put in an occasional appearance on excursion or pigeon special work.  I liked these big prairies, the smaller driving. wheels making the engine look even bigger and more powerful, the 'ultimate' GW prairie.

 

This also has the attraction (for me, it might not suit everybody) of having a list of relatively small jobs that can be completed in an evening to satisfy my craving for actual modelling as a change from operating without taking on a major project.  This is how I like to work, in bite size chunks; the 94xx is still a 'project' and proves it by being in the box you brought it in, which is the project box, along with the bits and pieces germane to it kept in one place.  Once it is in service, even with work still to do on handrails or cylinder covers etc., it is no longer a project, just a loco being worked up over time.  It will live on the layout, an advantage of having a railway permanently set up; all my stock in service lives on the layout or it's immediate environs.  

 

Some stuff, like my Triang SR GUV/PLV which is awaiting new bogies and glazing, has been in project boxes for decades, and I like to keep the momentum up to prevent this happening.  This was the motivation for my probably spending more on a donor loco for the 94xx than I might have with a bit of patience.

[Horsetan]

….Rear window bars on the cab back will have to be sourced....

These used to be a general item available from Mainly Trains, so possibly Wizard / Andrew Hartshorne may have taken these on.

 

 

….have a go at 3100, using the old Airfix chassis/mech released by the Dapol prairie and the no.4 boiler from a construction kit CoT….

 

Careful with the Dapol no.4 - it's a bit undersized and needs a bit of layering to bring up to a no.4. Good luck with the 3100 - the cabsides, roof arc and bunker shape remind me more of a 42xx than a 41/5101/61

[TheSignalEngineer]

I picked up some Craftsman window bars for mine from a well-known internet site. Worth a look.

[TheSignalEngineer]

These used to be a general item available from Mainly Trains, so possibly Wizard / Andrew Hartshorne may have taken these on.

 

MT226 I think you probably mean.

[Andy W]

These used to be a general item available from Mainly Trains, so possibly Wizard / Andrew Hartshorne may have taken these on.

 

 

 

 

Indeed they are now available from Wizard. I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread by Timbowilts, and seeing it I ordered the etch and it has been delivered from stock. Catalogue number is MT226.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Andy W

[DCB]

Careful with the Dapol no.4 - it's a bit undersized and needs a bit of layering to bring up to a no.4. Good luck with the 3100 - the cabsides, roof arc and bunker shape remind me more of a 42xx than a 41/5101/61

 The 1938 ish 31XX.    will be a real challenge.    The 3150 might be easier as the cab looks like the 42XX/ 56XX cab but the boiler will be an issue, Hornby 4-4-0 County?

The 1938 31XX has a cab all its own which looks most peculiar.   It was very odd that the GWR could come up with a very successful Suburban tank by accident while trying to produce a banker, and only made 5 while yet the LNER made 100 L1s with almost the same size wheels which suffered valve gear failures when used on suburban workings .

 

 

The sloping panel below the smokebox appears to cover the sand box operating rod for the left hand leading sandbox which goes through the lifting eye holes in the frame on the 2251s and probably the GW built 94XX.  The BR built 94XX had the rod coming across the left hand leading splasher at an angle.  I presume the Flat plate was removable for access to the valve covers etc. Earlier GW Locos often had these plates hinged and ran with them lifted up.    As the 94XX and 2251 had a one piece smoke box saddle there should not be a joint mark down the centreline un like the two piece outside cylinder casting which bolted together down the centreline 

Edited July 16, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[JimC]

... and only made 5

External circumstances I believe. More were planned originally.

[The Johnster]

The 31xx project is very much a future thing, 'in the bank' against a time when the railway is finished and I need some modelling to do.  It may well never see the light of day, and has not been fully planned.  I will be using an Airfix prairie chassis as the basis, so absolute high fidelity scale modelling is not the top priority. the idea is to make a representative attempt.  I view the biggest problem as being raising the sit of the footplate on the frames to the correct level, as the smaller drivers will lower it; this may also lead to issues with the cylinders and too much of a gap above them.  The tanks and bunker from the Airfix will be used, but the cab may need a bit of scratch to be made up out of.  Maybe the Airfix roof can be used.  Chimney and other boiler top furniture will be City of Truro kit, and a 61xx kit may have parts, literally, to play; the footplate will be particularly useful.

 

The 94xx that we are drifting OT from will provide good experience, and, if you look at the 'Teenage Confessions' topic (don't, under any circumstances, google 'Teenage Confessions', please!) you will see that I've got form in this area.  I likes a good kitbash, I does...

 

The war put an end to Collett's messing around with the classic large prairie; there were different boilers, driving wheel sizes, and boiler pressures to try and get a bit more out of the design, when arguably what was really needed was a 2-6-4tank like everybody else's, but 2-6-4T were not liked at Swindon after the Sevenoaks crash on the Southern, and the large prairies all came in at 4MT under BR's power classification, so were in any case pretty good for their size and had sufficient range for their work.  The 31xx were a throwback to Churchward's 3150, which had a no.4 boiler as a heavy freight engine.  The Collett 31xx were very good Severn Tunnel bankers, and were used on the Porthcawl commuters due to their ability to get away from stops quickly with a good load so as to keep out of the way on the SWML, the same principle as the high pressure 61xx in the London division.  They accelerated hard, and could spin along happily at 60mph or so.

 

Post war, Hawksworth was in the hot seat, and was clearly happy with the 'standard' 5101 for general large prairie work, as more were ordered by him, the last being completed in 1950.  These were effectively replaced by the 3MT 82xxx BR Standard 2-6-2tanks, which were a step down in power and not well regarded by the drivers despite being easier to prep and dispose, but dmus arrived and the 3MTs found work elsewhere very quickly, while the 5101s outlasted them on the WR, finding work right to the end of steam in 1965 on the region.

 

But I have always regarded Collett's 1938 31xx as the ultimate GWR prairie.

[tomparryharry]

One 'bash' I'm looking at, the Alexandra, Newport, Docks & Railway Prairies. They bear a familiarity with the Midland Jinty. Both fairly modern locomotives, they lasted well into the 50's at Hereford & Llantrisant. IF I can find some decent photos, I'll give it a go. Makes a change from a pannier or 56xx.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

Edited July 5, 2018 by tomparryharry

[timbowilts]

One 'bash' I'm looking at, the Alexandra, Newport, Docks & Railway Prairies. They bear a familiarity with the Midland Jinty. Both fairly modern locomotives, they lasted well into the 50's at Hereford & Llantrisant. IF I can find some decent photos, I'll give it a go. Makes a change from a pannier or 56xx.Cheers,Ian.

Ian, if you are a member of the Welsh Railway Research Circle you should have received a drawing and photo in the latest members mail shot :^)

 

Tim T

[JimC]

arguably what was really needed was a 2-6-4 tank like everybody else's,

[snip]

But I have always regarded Collett's 1938 31xx as the ultimate GWR prairie.

I don't think there was a 2-6-4 available from the kit of parts, unless you count the possibility of a 7200alike based on the Std 4 3100/3150s which would merely have more water and coal capacity than the 31s. A Std 1 would be too heavy, so the only available boiler would be the Manor. I can make a 4-6-2T work with the Manor boiler, but not a 2-6-4T.

 

No arguments about the 3100 as being the top spec Prairie. Its interesting that the entire early renewal programme of Churchward locomotives was cancelled post war. The financial situation must have been very different.

Edited July 5, 2018 by JimC

[The Johnster]

 The 1938 ish 31XX.    will be a real challenge.    The 3150 might be easier as the cab looks like the 42XX/ 56XX cab but the boiler will be an issue, Hornby 4-4-0 County?

The 1938 31XX has a cab all its own which looks most peculiar.   It was very odd that the GWR could come up with a very successful Suburban tank by accident while trying to produce a banker, and only made 5 while yet the LNER made 100 L1s with almost the same size wheels which suffered valve gear failures when used on suburban workings .

 

3150 no use to me as there were none at Tondu in BR days...

 

I don't think there was a 2-6-4 available from the kit of parts, unless you count the possibility of a 7200alike based on the Std 4 3100/3150s which would merely have more water and coal capacity than the 31s. A Std 1 would be too heavy, so the only available boiler would be the Manor. I can make a 4-6-2T work with the Manor boiler, but not a 2-6-4T.

 

No arguments about the 3100 as being the top spec Prairie. Its interesting that the entire early renewal programme of Churchward locomotives was cancelled post war. The financial situation must have been very different.

No, I don't think you could have build a GW 2-6-4 out of Swindon standard bits; the point would have been to take advantage of a larger boiler, and had Collett gone down this route he'd have had to design one for the job.  He had already designed (or at least signed off on) several non-Churchward standard boilers, for the Castle, King, and Manor as well as the no.10 for South Wales absorbed locos, which found it's way on to the 2251 (and later the 94xx and 15xx), so it's not impossible, but would have been hard to justify as the prairies were doing the work satisfactorily enough for the traffic people, and could be uprated with different boiler pressures, boilers, cylinders, or driving wheels if more was needed.

 

One might make an attempt based on a Churchward 2-8-0 tank, but the firbox front comes very close to the trailing driving axle. My impression, and it is no more than that as I can claim no empirical knowledge, is that finances were certainly tighter after the war than before it, and this no doubt had an impact on prairie policy, but it is at least as important in my view to remember that there was a new b*m in the hot seat, Hawksworth's, and his ideas were different to Collett's.  There was enough cash for the new Counties, 94xx, 15xx, and 16xx, and an oil firing program, not to mention the Gas Turbines.

 

No progress today; the donor has yet to arrive and it's too 'ot for modelling!

[JimC]

No, I don't think you could have build a GW 2-6-4 out of Swindon standard bits; the point would have been to take advantage of a larger boiler, and had Collett gone down this route he'd have had to design one for the job.

Looking at the BR design it could be characterised as having a larger diameter boiler than the GW prairies with smaller side tanks and presumably the water capacity moved to the bunker.

I suppose a shortened castle boiler might have worked. which would have had to have had a larger grate than the Std4, which was perhaps abit undersized in the firebox. Of course the question is whether the Std4s on the prairies ever ran short on steam in the way that 43s could if they were given fast and heavy loads. If not it would be hard to justify a 2-6-4T.

 

I've just sketched something up with a much shortened Castle Barrel and a standard Castle Firebox. Most likely rather out of proportion..  It might be better as a 2-8-2T with a longer bunker.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14790-imaginary-locomotives/page-137&do=findComment&comment=3222765

 

[Next Day] - having started to sketch up a 2-8-2T I would say that a 5ft8in wheel 2-8-2T is a decidedly tricky proposition. I don't think basing it on the Std Prairie chassis is a going proposition. A more major boiler change than this simple shortened Castle one would also be required I suspect.

Edited July 6, 2018 by JimC

[The Johnster]

8709, the donor, arrived this morning, and seems in perfect condition as well as being as silent and very smooth runner.  If it was a little stiffer I'd have said it was brand new and never run.  It will be ideal for the 94xx, but the 1920s livery looks marvellous on it and it's a shame to waste it.  It's got rather nice Beyer Peacock works plates on the leading splashers; none of my other panniers has works plates!  Perhaps if I redevelop the layout for 1920s running and buy some new stock...  Stop that, Johnster, concentrate!!!

 

Few chores and errands to run today, and it's too hot for modelling anyway, but I might do some trial fitting of chassis and body this evening, if the pub doesn't seduce me.  But progress is promising, and promised, soon!

Edited July 6, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Trial fitting last night showed up a surprise; the new donor chassis doesn't fit either.  It has the block built up at the front in a way that would have required a bit more cutting around the smokebox saddle, and there already isn't much material left there after the initial butchery.  But I know the chassis from 5756, orignially 7739, will fit, so I swapped them; 5756 has 8709's chassis and is running like a sewing machine (which may not be much use when I want to pull a train...).  It's original chassis now sits under the putative 8497, and seems fine at the front, but of course will need some means of supporting the 94xx body at the rear.  As this end needs a cab floor and bunker front, and a crew, as well, this will be the next step, followed by replacing the buffer beams; 8497 will have sprung buffers.  The body sits about half a mm too low at the front so. there is a bit of space for a support bracket without messing up the 'sit' of the engine too much and acting as a spacer simultaneously.

 

Too my further slight surprise, I found in a rough compatibility trail that the rear coupling of the 57xx chassis is long enough to be operable on my curves, so I do not need to remount it.  The front coupling, which I thought I'd get away with, is not long enough to engage it's hook on the bar of the adjacent vehicle's, so if I cannot use a longer shank coupling I will have to make up a mount for it.  Milliput seems favourite at the moment...

 

I am clearly in a state of some confusion (I'm at that sort of age, you know) about Mainline/Dapol/Bachmann 57xx chassis.  My old ML had a split chassis with a pancake motor driving through spur gears, and the one from 5798, Bachmann but I think a Dapol version, which I bought 2 weeks ago for this project but proved unsuitable and ended up under an 8750, also has split frames and a pancake motor, but driving through a worm, then spurs.  5756's (7739's) original chassis, which is now under 8497's body, has conventional pick ups and drives the rear axle (as they all do) with a rear facing can motor and worm and spurs, with wiper pickups.  It is a very high quality piece of kit, silent and smooth running, and is 'DCC ready'.   8709s chassis, now under 5756, is similar but shaped differently at the front, rendering it less useful for a 94xx conversion.  This may be of some use to anyone else doing this conversion.  I suspect that the 8709 chassis is more recent than the 5756's, the loco it is now under.

 

Keep up at the back, questions will be asked later...  basically, all 3 panniers have a chassis that fits their body and works, but not the one they were supplied with, not that this matters much.  There are 2 spare 57xx bodies, and these will donate bits and buffer beams to 8497.  A minor puzzle is the bunker rear hooks, used for fire irons and the loco's bucket as well as the fireman's bike.  These have been present on all my 57xxs since Mainline days, except the early Bachmann/Dapol 5798, which does not have them.  They have not been removed, as there are no locating holes, marks, filling where the holes were plugged, or other marks on this loco; as far as I can tell it never had them.  8709's are destined for the 8750, which has a K's kit cab but no hooks;  I will make some up out of wire for 8497 as the profile is slightly different, unless they can be sourced, which would be better as, even if they are slightly out, they will all be identical.

Edited July 7, 2018 by The Johnster