Hall vs Grange

[pH]

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/shopimages/Driving axlebox 1 crop small.jpg

 

 

Yes, of course - I have clear memories of inspecting various parts of GW engines in Woodham’s in an attempt to identify them, sometimes on the balance of probabilities when there were several different numbers on the same engine.

 

The reconditioning process would presumably be the same whether the part was going to be used in a new build or on an existing engine under maintenance.

 

I should think a bit more sometimes before asking questions! 😏

[Pacific231G]

On 29/11/2022 at 14:56, Steamport Southport said:

I read somewhere and I doubt I could find the source, that they wanted to rebuild the earlier Moguls due to poor quality steel due to using steel made during WWI. Leading to them being susceptible to cracked frames. This mainly affected the first 200 or so. They tried a few methods of trying to improve them such as weight distribution. But rebuilding was seen as being a better solution.

 

That's curious Jason as- preserved locos apart-  the very last main line steam locos used in France in 1975 were 140C Consolidations built in Britain (mainly by NBR in Glasgow) during WW1 and I'm not aware of them having had any problems with poor quality steel or anything else.

[JimC]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

But they didn’t.  The 31xx were all gone by 1960

Its complicated by the end of steam and redundancy by DMUs, but what makes me think that is looking at the pre great war Std 2 boilered locomotives, 99/3100/5100 and 3111/5111-3149/5149. On the data I have the ten that were rebuilt as 81s nine were withdrawn between 1960 and 1965 and one in 1957, but those that weren't rebuilt were mostly withdrawn between 1948 and 1953. But as you say its much less evident with the Std 4 types, with the 31xx being apparently withdrawn as a group 1957-60, but even then most of the earlier 3150s seem to have gone in the early 50s. 

[JimC]

1 hour ago, pH said:

The reconditioning process would presumably be the same whether the part was going to be used in a new build or on an existing engine under maintenance.

And the trouble is even if you were to study the surviving Manors I'm quite sure that they *now* have a selection of components from all over the place, no matter what might have been there when originally turned out.

Edited December 4, 2022 by JimC

[jim.snowdon]

On 29/11/2022 at 14:56, Steamport Southport said:

I read somewhere and I doubt I could find the source, that they wanted to rebuild the earlier Moguls due to poor quality steel due to using steel made during WWI. Leading to them being susceptible to cracked frames. This mainly affected the first 200 or so. They tried a few methods of trying to improve them such as weight distribution. But rebuilding was seen as being a better solution.

Frame cracking was endemic to steam locomotives and never really resolved until into BR days, when it was realised that the axlebox keeps needed to be engineered as part of the structure, ie be load bearing. Until then, all of the longitudinal forces that tended to bend the frames vertically ended up creating stress concentrations round the top corners of the hornguide openings. Welding up cracks from these corners and the riveting on of flitch plates over the tops of the openings were routine parts of the overhaul process for larger locomotives. I recall reading that Crewe kept spare sets of frames for the Black Fives and Doncaster did similar for the Gresley locomotives, whose frame plates were reckoned as being on the thin side.

 

As far as I can recall, the weight redistribution on some of the 43xx family was more to do with reducing flange wear on the leading drivers on certain of the more curved routes, essentially by putting more side load on the pony truck springs, requiring added downforce to mitigate the risk of their wheels derailing by flange climbing.

 

The major rebuilding from 43xx to the Grange/Manor classes had more to do with getting a loco with more route availablity and, to an extent, a larger boiler. The engine part of the locomotives was virtually unchanged.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, JimC said:

And the trouble is even if you were to study the surviving Manors I'm quite sure that they *now* have a selection of components from all over the place, no matter what might have been there when originally turned out.

 

Exactly, and not an issue confined to preservation.  The process when a loco entered works for overhaul was that it was stripped down to the frames and re-assembled, but not necessarily with the same parts that came off it.  The boiler took longer to overhaul than the rest of the loco, so that was replaced at thw time the loco was re-assembled with one from the pool suitable for that class that had already been overhauled, tested, and certificated, so that the loco could be returned to revenue and the workshop bay freed up for the next patient. 

 

A similar process was applied to the other parts, for convenience, though motion was usually kept with the same frame and stamped with the loco's number.  Other parts would be stripped, sent off to a workshop to be reconditioned, and reconditioned equivalents would be supplied from the relevant workshop to the erecting shop when re-assembly was in progress.  Nothing re-useable was thrown away, even scrap locos were dissassembled and anything serviceable returned to the appropriate store, so that only the worn out frames and anything else not wanted again went to the scrappie. I read, I think in one of Nock's books years ago, that it was rumoured that some LNWR Claughtons had axles and wheel bosses from Grand Junction engines, and passed them to the Patriots when the time came.

 

It begs the question of what is identifiable as an individual locomotive and what is a Trigger's broom.  How much of the current FS survives from the original 1923 loco?  My view is that a locomotive's identity is the releationship between it's frames and it's motion, which is ratified by the works plate, but that is only my view, and I don't claim it to be incontravertable fact! 

 

I think we can say that some parts of withdrawn 43xx went into Granges and Manors, and beyond the discussion about whether this qualifies them as rebuilds or renewals or new builds, irrelevant except to the bean counters, this was normal workshop practice; only the diagram and blueprints were new, and the works built the engines to the blueprints.  In this sense, a Grange or Manor is not a renewed or rebuilt 43xx, it is a locomotive constructed to a set of drawn specifications identified as 'Grange', or 'Manor'.  The main thing is that everybody concerened understands what is meant by 'Grange' or 'Manor', and by and large we do, even if we are unable to describe the differences between them.

 

A Grange, even a new one, might have a no.1 boiler that has previously seen service on a Star, Saint, 28xx, 49xx, or even early 4700, and it would be next to impossible to trace where anything else on it came from.  Or it might have a brand new boiler that will in future see usage on any of those classes except 47xx but now also including 6959 Modified Hall and 2884.  Re-use of 43xx cylinders, motion, and other bits could involve 42xx, 5202,  5101, 61xx, 81xx, 3150, and Collett 1938 31xx, and might have originated on Churchward Counties.  The first batch of Manors had new boilers because a new design was built specifically for them, but the second batch built by BR might well have been given one of those boilers while new ones, built to cope with the increased total number of locos in the class, might be put on an original batch loco in 1949/50.  It is possible to trace the migration of boilers between locos because records are kept of their certification, but other parts may well be more difficult.

 

Is it relevant to modelling?  Perhaps not in the case of Granges and Manors, but it is when it comes to the pannier classes (except 94xx and 15xx) and parallel boiler locos, where the question arises of whether a loco carried a top-feed boiler or not at a given time.  In general, top-feed boilers became more common over time, but boilers without them were still being put on to locos that might previously have had top-feeds.  Photographic evidence is needed, but not always available, and sometimes one has to take a best guess...  panniers rebuilt from saddle tanks never have top-feeds (don't know why, but there'll be a reason), so 57xx/8750 (including 67xx, 6750, and 97xx condensing variants), and 54/64/74xx are affected, as are 48/58xx (but not, at least TTBOMK, 517s or Metros, probably for whatever reason the previously saddle tank panniers didn't have them), Dean Goods, and Dukedogs. 

 

The saddle tanks that were converted to panniers were so converted in order to accommodate new Belpaire boilers, but were sometimes later given older non-Belpaire replacement boilers which resulted in the saddle tanks being put back on them.

 

All GW engines are the same, except for when they are different...

[Miss Prism]

17 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

panniers rebuilt from saddle tanks never have top-feeds

 

Quite a few pannier 2021s/2721s/Buffalos/1661s had top feed. (All were rebuilt from saddles.)

[LMS2968]

24 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 read, I think in one of Nock's books years ago, that it was rumoured that some LNWR Claughtons had axles and wheel bosses from Grand Junction engines, and passed them to the Patriots when the time came.

 

Possibly what Nock wrote, but not the truth. The Claughtons, four cylinder engines all driving on the leading coupled axle, had their balance weights in the wheel centres which had a very large boss to contain them. Some Precursors, George the Fifth and even some Compounds also had these bosses, but other engines, especially from the GJR, had them conventionally at the rim. The first two Baby Scots, and only these two, inherited their very recognisable wheels from the Claughtons they replaced, but not so any of the others.

[JimC]

57 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

but were sometimes later given older non-Belpaire replacement boilers which resulted in the saddle tanks being put back on them.

And there's apparently some evidence that tanks were kept with boilers at that period, which must have been a considerable pain for storage, although I suppose they could have been left out in the rain.

[melmerby]

9 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/shopimages/Driving axlebox 1 crop small.jpg

 

 

Seems to have been on all types of 2 cylinder 4-6-0s (except Saint) as well as a 61XX and a 43XX! (If I'm seeing them correctly😄)

[The Johnster]

Presumably on 42/520/72xx, and the other large prairies as well, then. 

[Miss Prism]

GWR loco axleboxes are so boring. They all look the same.

[Wickham Green too]

GWR loco axleboxes are bored.

[asmay2002]

On 04/12/2022 at 17:42, LMS2968 said:

The first two Baby Scots, and only these two, inherited their very recognisable wheels from the Claughtons they replaced, but not so any of the others.

...but they all had ex Claughton leading bogies as did the first 53 Crewe built Jubilees (but not the Derby or NBL ones which had the Stanier type).

[LMS2968]

Yes and No. I think most people realised that I was referring to the coupled wheels, and if not the mention of balance weights was a pretty strong clue. But saying that the Baby Scots used the Claughton bogie requires some explanation. The Claughton bogie was a two-axle radial truck and this was used in that form on the first ten engines only. The others used the bogie in a modified form in that it became a true bogie with a centre pivot and weight transfer by side bolsters. But yes, The Baby Scots did use the Claughton bogie in one form or another complete with the wheelsets.

[tomparryharry]

On 29/11/2022 at 13:56, Steamport Southport said:

I read somewhere and I doubt I could find the source, that they wanted to rebuild the earlier Moguls due to poor quality steel due to using steel made during WWI. Leading to them being susceptible to cracked frames. This mainly affected the first 200 or so. They tried a few methods of trying to improve them such as weight distribution. But rebuilding was seen as being a better solution.

 

They planned on keeping the later builds as Moguls especially the 93XX series as they weren't affected.

 

The Granges and Manors were really new engines using a minimum of spare parts.

 

 

 

Jason

 

Err, sorry; no, no, no. The 43xx was ending it's life by accountancy rules. This is-was normally 30 years. A suitable example is the humble 57xx pannier. The early batches were becoming accountancy expired, hence the newer batches of 8751 classes, The early Star  class was thoroughly checked and the lower standard locomotives were rooted out: The same for the Saints. Having a smaller boiler meant that the Manor was often 'beaten' by its load. The major problem normally arose due to misconception: A '43' is still a 43, whichever way you paint it. 

 

By comparison, the 9F locomotives were expected to work into the 1980's. In this case, working practices trumped superannuation.

 

Ian.

[tomparryharry]

On 04/12/2022 at 16:31, Miss Prism said:

 

Quite a few pannier 2021s/2721s/Buffalos/1661s had top feed. (All were rebuilt from saddles.)

A top feed allows the boiler to be accessible from the top of the boiler barrel. saddle tanks all had backfeed injectors. Correction: Saddle tank locomotives can have backfeed clack valves, as per the Hunslet 18" Austerity. Locomotives such as Andrew Barclay also position  them on the boiler barrel.

[Miss Prism]

Most early GWR saddle tanks had side feeds. Back feeds became more prevalent c 1890. (But that date is a bit of a guess!)

 

[melmerby]

According to Essery & Jenkinson, the last 10 from 1934 had Stanier modified bogies/axleboxes*

 

RE Patriot & Jubilee bogies: They are different, the centre boss on all (but the last 10 Patriot's?) as built bogie wheels is different to the Jubilee's bogie wheels..

The bogie wheelbase on a Jubilee is also different.  Claughton & Patriots 6' 3" and Jubilees 6' 6". It's shown on some LMS drawings reproduced in the book and wheel differences can been seen in the photos reproduced.

Of course wheelsets could be swapped during overhaul, so photos of new brand ex-works are needed to confirm original details.

 

*This is slightly confusing as earlier in the same article it says any pretence at them being rebuilds was dropped and were classed as new engines, although all bogie frames and some wheels have been used from Claughton's.

 

The wheelsets on 5551 as built and 5552 look the same small centre boss, unlike most early Patriots

 

[OnTheBranchline]

On 29/11/2022 at 17:40, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

Quite possible that some of the metal was used in new castings as there were a lot of steam locos being cut when the diesels were being built there.

 

So it's like that Stephen King novel/movie 'Christine' 😉

[The Johnster]

Yes, only much, much, scarier.

 

Mwa ha ha ha haa...

[TheSignalEngineer]

5 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

By comparison, the 9F locomotives were expected to work into the 1980's. In this case, working practices trumped superannuation.

Around 1967 I found a document in the office which had a running order for main line electrification schemes under the Modernisation Plan. It envisaged most main lines would be progressively wired by the 1980s. Steam would be gradually eliminated as electrification progressed, not the mad rush for diesel everywhere by 1968 as actually happened. 

[The Johnster]

In 1964 all the overbridges between Cardiff and Newport on the SWML were raised over several weekend occupations (including some for other work) by 4 courses of brick added to the abutments, in preparation for electrification which was expected in about a decade.  By the time the OLE was actually installed, the ballast depth had increased considerably and all the bridges were replaced.

[tomparryharry]

2 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Around 1967 I found a document in the office which had a running order for main line electrification schemes under the Modernisation Plan. It envisaged most main lines would be progressively wired by the 1980s. Steam would be gradually eliminated as electrification progressed, not the mad rush for diesel everywhere by 1968 as actually happened. 

Although Beeching reshaped the railways, the staff levels were haemorrhaging even quicker. People weren't joining in enough numbers to make up the shortfall. I've got my very own rose-tinted spectacles about BR, but getting up at an ungodly hour, 12 hours of sh1t with some grumpy so & so would soon take the shine off.  In the meantime, people were earning up to twice as much, and going home clean. There was a strong story (don't know if it's actually accurate) that at one point in '63-'64, there was 200-plus fireman vacancies on the London Division of BR-WR. Modernisation had to happen; nostalgia or not.  

[TheSignalEngineer]

8 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

There was a strong story (don't know if it's actually accurate) that at one point in '63-'64, there was 200-plus fireman vacancies on the London Division of BR-WR. Modernisation had to happen; nostalgia or not. 

The Birmingham area was similar. That was one of the reasons you didn't find any 'captive' yard shunter turns worked by 0-6-0T locos by the late 50s. Most of the local passenger services except at peak times had gone over to DMUs c1956/7.