Mainline 56xx rebuild advice.

[RCP]

Is this black door thing a regional hangover from the various absorbed companies? Did certain ones paint their cab doors black vs a uniform colour?

Edited January 13 by RCP
Spelling

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, RCP said:

Is this black door thing a regional hangover from the various absorbed companies?

 

Not as far as I know. The black door advocates cite works grey portraits, which show cab doors darker than general bodywork. That however may be a works grey convention, in the same way that brakes, frames and wheel centres are differentiated colourwise.

 

[88D]

Black doors and steps makes sense: the GWR tended to paint areas black that would get dirty, even specific window areas in signal boxes. 

Edited January 13 by 88D

[tomparryharry]

On 12/01/2024 at 12:39, RCP said:

Can anybody tell me what this item is? Is it some form of lubricant device. What is its name?

Vacuum pump lubricator.

 

[Happy Hippo]

Nobody has yet pointed out that the entire 56xx series were also fitted with porthole windows in the front cab sheet.  These were omitted on the 66xx locos.

 

I don't know when these were plated over on the 56xx series of locos.

 

As a matter of interest, 5689 is to the best of my knowledge, the only member of the 56xx series of locos not to have the weld creases (the bottoms of the tanks were replaced due to corrosion) along the side tanks.  Amazingly 6690 was one of the 66xx that was also blessed.

 

Since they were both based at Rady in 1964, 5689 and 6690 will be my own number choices when Minerva release their 7 mm version.

 

It's a small world.

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, Happy Hippo said:

Nobody has yet pointed out that the entire 56xx series were also fitted with porthole windows in the front cab sheet.  These were omitted on the 66xx locos.

 

It's logical when considering the build dates. 1924 was the cusp of the porthole era.

 

1 hour ago, Happy Hippo said:

As a matter of interest, 5689 is to the best of my knowledge, the only member of the 56xx series of locos not to have the weld creases (the bottoms of the tanks were replaced due to corrosion) along the side tanks.

 

Most of the 56xxs did get the seam weld on their tanks, but not all. There's an Ian Sixsmith book for the fans (I don't have it), who could provide a more accurate answer. Likewise, many of the 66xxs got seam welds.

 

Here's 5614 at Banbury on 25 April 1962. It was withdrawn a year later, so very unlikely to have received significant further works attention. Note the shiny safety valve bonnet!

 

 

 

[Happy Hippo]

59 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

It's logical when considering the build dates. 1924 was the cusp of the porthole era.

 

 

Most of the 56xxs did get the seam weld on their tanks, but not all. There's an Ian Sixsmith book for the fans (I don't have it), who could provide a more accurate answer. Likewise, many of the 66xxs got seam welds.

 

Here's 5614 at Banbury on 25 April 1962. It was withdrawn a year later, so very unlikely to have received significant further works attention. Note the shiny safety valve bonnet!

 

 

 

I picked up the info about 5689 and 6690 from the excellent Sixmith books plus some Robert  Masterman photos.

 

 

[DCB]

It seems to me while we are discussing small details there is  a small problem in that at a glance the Mainline 56XX doesn't look much like a 56XX   In particular the cab aperture is much smaller than it should be on a 56XX , More like a 1938 31XX cab than a 56XX as there is a large beam below the cab roof on the Mainline / Bachmann 56XX which is  rain strips are massively oversize, you can barely see them on many photographs of full size 56XX .
One item missing from or greatly undersize on the Bachmann model is the tank brace (?) over the boiler at the leading edge of the tanks which many had vertical hand rails attached .   

On the flip side I have two of these so a five minute makeover with a few files and a bit of sandpaper is on the agenda, filing out the cab aperture and filing down the cab angle irons where there should be rain strips will be the first steps.

[tomparryharry]

In his book about Caerphilly Works, Eric Mountford mentioned that a 'Tank Shop' was proposed for the works. It never happened, as closure overtook the proposal. 

 

However, side tank locomotives, such as the 56-66xx had renewals to the lower portions, on an 'as needed' basis. In addition, the 42-52-72xx, as well as the Prairies, came under this repair requirement. 

Seam welding is the better repair, although somewhat unattractive. If you don't have the time or money, then welding is quick & efficient. 

 

In terms of era it will limit the scope for modellers. I wouldn't think that the Western would allow a non-standard repair prior to the 1950's. You wouldn't see a 1960-repaired loco on a 1930 era layout! 

[The Johnster]

Tank leakage was an issue for GW side-tank locos, particularly in South Wales where they would often have to work hard, straining the frames, on sharp curvature.  The 42xx/5202s hauling iron ore trains up the twists of the Gwent Western Valley to Ebbw Vale were particularly prone, and were said to lose more water to leakage than they converted to steam in a single loaded uphill journey in some cases.  Repairs were needed frequently, and as Ian says welding was the usual method in the post-war years.  The problem was that, as the frames flexed on the curvature, the boiler moved in a different way to the running plate, resulting in a sort of tug-of-war for control of the tanks.

 

There was a proposal for a 2-10-2T with a King boiler for the Ebbw Vale iron ore trains, after Kings were trialled successfully on the traffic; this would have been highly prone to such leakage, which may have been one of the reasons it was never built.  The answer was eventually the Riddles 9F, but the intitial trials with these in 1954 were not successful; the loco left a trail of thick filthy smoke up the valley, and the fact that it was Monday, washing day, didn't help... Double chimneyed 9Fs were fine on the work, though even these beasts had to be banked from Aberbeeg. 

[tomparryharry]

A quick addendum to these posts. Internal condition of the water spaces varied enormously area by area. Whereas locomotive boilers were washed out on a regular basis, tanks were very rarely washed out. 

 

Water from the Thames Basin is fairly hard, but the water coming off the Brecon Beacons is very soft, almost acidic* Locomotives working in south Wales were prone to shorter working lives, especially if they stayed for a long working life.  Boilers were less of a problem, due to the inspection regime, but a leaky tank only showed up on a drivers' fault card.  

 

When TVR 28 was first steamed, you could hear the chalk coating 'pinging off' as the boiler warmed up. This softer hot water got underneath the chalk coating, and effectively cleaned it all off.  Later on, the side tanks did start to rot through, especially at the riveted joints below the normal tank water line.

 

56xx locomotives spent almost all of their working lives in soft water areas, at least for the majority of the class. 

 

* The people at Pontypool & Blaenavon regularly check the PH level, and make additive on a daily steaming basis. 

[The Johnster]

Well, leaky tanks were a pita but not a safety issue with strict regulations applying to them like boilers.  Water ph depends on the aquifer geology (and to some extent on lead/cast iron pipes), so as you rightly say Thames basin water is hard, mostly from artesian aquifer sources on the North Downs or Chilterns, chalk hills; chalk being basically calcium, shells of marine creatures from the Cretaceous Period, dissolves in rain water and calcite deposits form on kettles, taps, pipes, and of course steam engine boilers and tanks.  
 

Brecon Beacons, sorry Bannau Brycheiniog, water, is pretty acidic but soft, carrying little dissolved mineral, running off peat bogs into the reservoirs and having little effect on the relatively impermeable underlying Devonian Period Old Red Sandstone geology; water sources further south in the Glamorgan  or Gwent uplands are similar, being on Carboniferous Pennant Sandstone.  So it attacks steam engines in different ways, corroding the joints rather than furring things up.  Carboniferous Limestone outcrops on the northern border of the coalfield within a mile to the north of Blaenafon, but there is little surface water here for similar reasons to there being little on the chalk uplands; it soaks into the soluable rock, forming cave systems. 

[57xx]

On 28/02/2024 at 20:54, Miss Prism said:

Here's 5614 at Banbury on 25 April 1962. It was withdrawn a year later, so very unlikely to have received significant further works attention. Note the shiny safety valve bonnet!

 

 

 

 

It looks very much like the copper cap on the chimney has also been buffed up.

[Penrhos1920]

 Is the smokebox door a separate piece or is it integral with the boiler moulding?    I have a BR version that I want to backdate to GWR. 

[RCP]

On 06/03/2024 at 22:55, Penrhos1920 said:

 Is the smokebox door a separate piece or is it integral with the boiler moulding?    I have a BR version that I want to backdate to GWR. 

integral on the mainline model. So scalping job

[Halvarras]

On 05/03/2024 at 09:18, The Johnster said:

Well, leaky tanks were a pita but not a safety issue with strict regulations applying to them like boilers.  Water ph depends on the aquifer geology (and to some extent on lead/cast iron pipes), so as you rightly say Thames basin water is hard, mostly from artesian aquifer sources on the North Downs or Chilterns, chalk hills; chalk being basically calcium, shells of marine creatures from the Cretaceous Period, dissolves in rain water and calcite deposits form on kettles, taps, pipes, and of course steam engine boilers and tanks.  
 

Brecon Beacons, sorry Bannau Brycheiniog, water, is pretty acidic but soft, carrying little dissolved mineral, running off peat bogs into the reservoirs and having little effect on the relatively impermeable underlying Devonian Period Old Red Sandstone geology; water sources further south in the Glamorgan  or Gwent uplands are similar, being on Carboniferous Pennant Sandstone.  So it attacks steam engines in different ways, corroding the joints rather than furring things up.  Carboniferous Limestone outcrops on the northern border of the coalfield within a mile to the north of Blaenafon, but there is little surface water here for similar reasons to there being little on the chalk uplands; it soaks into the soluable rock, forming cave systems. 

 

Blimey Johnster, you don't 'alf know some stuff 😃!!

[The Johnster]

6th form geology, failed the A level. 

[RCP]

On 29/02/2024 at 01:10, DCB said:

It seems to me while we are discussing small details there is  a small problem in that at a glance the Mainline 56XX doesn't look much like a 56XX   In particular the cab aperture is much smaller than it should be on a 56XX , More like a 1938 31XX cab than a 56XX as there is a large beam below the cab roof on the Mainline / Bachmann 56XX which is  rain strips are massively oversize, you can barely see them on many photographs of full size 56XX .
One item missing from or greatly undersize on the Bachmann model is the tank brace (?) over the boiler at the leading edge of the tanks which many had vertical hand rails attached .   

On the flip side I have two of these so a five minute makeover with a few files and a bit of sandpaper is on the agenda, filing out the cab aperture and filing down the cab angle irons where there should be rain strips will be the first steps.

I found some drawings and rescaled them. It would appear that the opening is the correct dimensions but sits low on the cab side. I'm thinking this is a "feature" I'm willing to turn a blind eye too.

[DCB]

I spent a few minutes with set of needle files a craft knife and a photo of a photo and one of mine earlier.   Not finished yet but I am quite pleased with it.

[The Johnster]

That's a significant, and not too difficult for Johnster, improvement, and I shall be attacking my 56xxs with files in the near future.

Edited March 23 by The Johnster