GWR Hall Class Locomotives(inc Modified Halls)

[cary hill]

I have just been reading the "New Castles Arriving" thread and it appears that "renaming a new Hornby Castle can be problematical.

 

It suddenly occurred to me that "renaming" a Bachmann Hall might have similar pitfalls.

 

So what were the major detail differences over time.?

 

Things that I am aware of include:

 

Avoid the prototype 4900 as main production run will have "improvements"

 

Modified Halls are materially "different" - nos 49XX, 59XX and 69xx to 6958 being the original Hall builds and nos 6959-6999 and 7900-25 the modified Halls.

 

Some were briefly converted to oil burning for a short period after WW2.

 

The background reading I have done seems to imply that relatively little changed during the build programme, but surely odd bits and pieces must have changed after overhauls etc.,?

 

I would be mainly interested in their appearance from 1955 to scrapping.

 

The original Bachmann names seem to be mainly OOC/Oxford and Brum allocated, whereas as I need "West Country" based locomotives, although I realise that Halls could roam all "over the place".

 

As an example, would it be "safe" to rename 6990 "Witherslack Hall" to either 6988 "Swithland Hall" or "6999" Capel Dewi Hall" - I think "6999" was a Canton loco, but I want to include it as the "clag" from it was the direct cause of one West Country family holiday starting off with a hospital visit half a century ago. I am hoping that locomotives produced with a year/18 months of one another will be the "same."

 

I assume the answer to the above will mainly be provided by reference to photographs, but it would be handy to know if there were any true "Hall" oddities and what to look for if there are detail differences.

 

Thanks

[melmerby]

I have just been reading the "New Castles Arriving" thread and it appears that "renaming a new Hornby Castle can be problematical.

 

It suddenly occurred to me that "renaming" a Bachmann Hall might have similar pitfalls.

 

So what were the major detail differences over time.?

 

Things that I am aware of include:

 

Avoid the prototype 4900 as main production run will have "improvements"

 

Modified Halls are materially "different" - nos 49XX, 59XX and 69xx to 6958 being the original Hall builds and nos 6959-6999 and 7900-25 the modified Halls.

 

Some were briefly converted to oil burning for a short period after WW2.

 

The background reading I have done seems to imply that relatively little changed during the build programme, but surely odd bits and pieces must have changed after overhauls etc.,?

 

I would be mainly interested in their appearance from 1955 to scrapping.

 

The original Bachmann names seem to be mainly OOC/Oxford and Brum allocated, whereas as I need "West Country" based locomotives, although I realise that Halls could roam all "over the place".

 

As an example, would it be "safe" to rename 6990 "Witherslack Hall" to either 6988 "Swithland Hall" or "6999" Capel Dewi Hall" - I think "6999" was a Canton loco, but I want to include it as the "clag" from it was the direct cause of one West Country family holiday starting off with a hospital visit half a century ago. I am hoping that locomotives produced with a year/18 months of one another will be the "same."

 

I assume the answer to the above will mainly be provided by reference to photographs, but it would be handy to know if there were any true "Hall" oddities and what to look for if there are detail differences.

 

Thanks

The main difference between Halls & Modified Halls were the frame extension at the front, different front bogie and crankpin* on driving wheel position. Plus 3 row superheater No. 1 boilers.

As long as you stay with the 'mods' you should be OK. RCTS doesn't note any substantial variations apart from a a few experiments with the early ones 6959/65/67.

6974 was the first with a Hawksworth tender. However some 'mods' received earlier boilers after changes which had 2 row superheaters.

 

EDIT *this mod started before Modified Halls!

 

Keith

[cary hill]

The main difference between Halls & Modified Halls were the frame extension at the front, different front bogie and crankpin* on driving wheel position. Plus 3 row superheater No. 1 boilers.

As long as you stay with the 'mods' you should be OK. RCTS doesn't note any substantial variations apart from a a few experiments with the early ones 6959/65/67.

6974 was the first with a Hawksworth tender. However some 'mods' received earlier boilers after changes which had 2 row superheaters.

 

EDIT *this mod started before Modified Halls!

 

Keith

 

 

Thanks for that information and I had completely forgotten about any potential tender variations.

[Guest dilbert]

more here : http://www.greatwest...uk/m_in_hal.htm

 

Offers some comparative data... dilbert

[bike2steam]

A couple of other variations between the early Halls and modified are the smoke box saddle, and the slide bar supports, on the early Halls the slide bar supports extend above the running plate, ahead of the front splasher, to what could be an additional boiler support.

[The Stationmaster]

Within the 'Modifieds' the main thing to watch is the tender (they swapped around) and the locos with improved draughting which had a narrower chimney (and were marked 'ID') in the angle between the buffer beam and the footplate.

 

The visual difference between 'original' and 'Modified' was most striking from head-on (easy to tell which was which from, probably, getting on for a quarter of a mile away!) because of the extended main frames, plate bogie and higher steam pipes on the 'Modifieds'. Remember too that some ID boilers finished up on 'orginals' as did Hawksworth tenders. Usual story - look for reliably dated photos.

[melmerby]

more here : http://www.greatwest...uk/m_in_hal.htm

 

Offers some comparative data... dilbert

Much of the pre-amble seems to have been lifted wholesale from RCTS, with the 2-8-0 being quoted as 28xx rather than 47xx as in RCTS!

 

Keith

[Karhedron]

The Fireiron tunnel on the fireman's side of the smokebox was introduced about half-way through production. The early Halls do not have it but the later Halls and the modified Halls all do. I think the dividing line is somewhere in the 59xx series but I cannot remember off the top of my head.

[Coach bogie]

Additional to postings above, appologies if I duplicate info.

 

2925/4900 Saint Martin. This is a unique engine. Boiler set at 4" lower than the production series. Also no steam pipes until much later on, rivet patches on smokebox side where pipes could be fitted. Tall safety valve cover at various stages. usually seen with a 3,500 gallon or intermediate tender. New nameplates were produced as a hall with letters closely spaced.

 

4901-5919 were built without fireiron tunnels.5920-6958 with fireiron tunnel

 

4901-80 all entered service with 3,500 gallon tenders. Officially 4000 gallon types were constructed but these were retro fitted to the first build Castles and the Halls got their tenders second hand. Tenders were swopped about a fair bit and these engines could be seen with a variety of small/intermediate types from the large collection available. As time went on the 4000 gallon became standard.

 

Apart from the obvious oil firing there are few visible variations, but here are a few I have noted from various publications/papers.

 

6916-6958 were not named originally and had the legend 'HALL CLASS' painted on the middle splasher. Names were applied post war as brass supplies improved.

 

4911 was the first withdrawl in june 1941 following a direct bomb hit at Newton Abbot.

 

in 1947 4905 was fitted with a mechanical lubricator, similar to the Castles with the appropriate fixtures mounted on the running plate, keeping the system until withdrawl

 

One remnant from its' oil firing days no 4972 retained electric lighting to loco and tender with additional fittings on the smokebox, drivers side in conjuction with the turbo generator.

 

20 halls were fitted with hydrostatic lubrication system in 1955 but I am not aware of any visible fixtures to this. (4944, 4949, 4953, 4984, 4987, 4995, 5905, 5915, 5923, 5928, 5990, 6906, 6915, 6932, 6955, 6962, 6984, 7910, 7911, 7918)

 

4987 was fitted with an experimental concrete fire arch in 1954 but again no visible difference I am aware of.

 

There are others such as four row superheater fitting (4927, 4940, 4972, 4994, 5930, 5937, 6956)

 

6958 was fitted with additional fittings, visible on firemans side firebox in connection with brake testing, March 1955.

 

There is of course the variation in tenders. By BR days it was a mixture of standard 4,000 gallon Collett and Hawksworth types but the unique 8 wheel collett tender 2586, was used behind a number of halls including 6951 in 1956, 5904 in 1963 and 4918, 5919 & 5957 at other times.

 

Some loco carried a white 'X' above the numberplates denoting improved draughting during the 50's/60's

 

Hopefully others can add to these notes, especially the visible alterations to some of the above.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[cary hill]

Thanks for all the replies and particular thanks to "Coach bogie" for taking the time to pull the information together and for clarifying some of earlier information provided.

 

So far so good as it appears that my shortlist of renames doesn't include any class "oddities".

 

Just have to decide what else needs doing to the Bachmann(former Replica) Modified Hall model to improve it as it is now 21 years(?) old but that's not strictly relevant here.

[unclebobkt]

more here : http://www.greatwest...uk/m_in_hal.htm

  ... .

 

 

 

      Quoting from the above-mentioned 'Great Western Archive.':  'Although the Mogul class were successful, it was felt that a 4-6-0. engine would reduce nosing ...'.

  What, specifically and in this context,  was meant by 'nosing.'?

     

[david.hill64]

      Quoting from the above-mentioned 'Great Western Archive.':  'Although the Mogul class were successful, it was felt that a 4-6-0. engine would reduce nosing ...'.

  What, specifically and in this context,  was meant by 'nosing.'?

     

Not 100% sure but I would say that it is the tendency for 2 cylinder engines to rock from side to side - the front of the engine moving left to right and back again - under power. A 4 wheel bogie may have been better at containing this.

 

I cannot remember any of my rides behind BR steam in normal operation but I can remember a ride behind a 2 cylinder German loco working hard where even the first coach was oscillating - driven by the movement of the loco.

[Coach bogie]

The front bogie on GWR setam engines was designed to guide the loco into and through the curves. With a four wheel bogie there is more rigid wheel base to guide main driving wheels than with a two wheel single axle arrangement.

 

In addition, a two cylinder engine has a rocking motion as the two opposing cylinders exert their forces onto the wheels as they are set 90 degrees from each other leaving  . On a four cylinder loco the opposing forces are in balance in a full revolution and less of an issue. These two issues combined caused problems with the moguls at speed with excessive flange wear on the front pony especially in areas with tighter curves such a Devon and Cornwall. From 1928 65 moguls had an addition weight added behind the buffer beam to counter act the forces and reduce the 'rocking motion' with the front end moving from side to side.This was not an issue on 4-6-0 two cylinder engines as the four wheel bogie helped keep the front end in line as detailed above.

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/tyseley/shed/gwrt1076.jpg

 

Collett was no fan of single axle bogies and all 'new' designs requiring a front bogie had a two axle arrangement during his time in office, hence why the mogul replacements in the form of Grange and Manor's were built as a 4-6-0.  Collett's updated versions, 9300 - 9319, were not seen as a new design but were built with the additional weight to the buffer beam.

 

http://www.railuk.info/gallery/steam/br_gwr/9303.jpg

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Castle]

Hi All,

 

The last few Modified Halls had mechanical lubricators too. For an early(ish) loco with modifications look no further than the GWS' No. 5900 Hinderton Hall. She has the later 3 row boiler fitted. See here:

 

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/locos/5900/5900.html

 

For comparison here is the Modified Hall from the collection, No. 6998 Burton Agnes Hall

 

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/locos/6998/6998.html

 

Not 100% sure but I would say that it is the tendency for 2 cylinder engines to rock from side to side - the front of the engine moving left to right and back again - under power.

Quite right - when you gave No. 5322 a good standing start you really could feel it squirming under your feet!

 

All the best,

 

Castle

Edited April 9, 2015 by Castle

[unclebobkt]

   ... .

Collett was no fan of single axle bogies and all 'new' designs requiring a front bogie had a two axle arrangement during his time in office, hence why the mogul replacements in the form of Grange and Manor's were built as a 4-6-0.  Collett's updated versions, 9300 - 9319, were not seen as a new design but were built with the additional weight to the buffer beam.

      Mike Wiltshire

 

     Was it not Collett who was alleged to have said that he could run the GWR. with just two classes of locomotives: ' Halls.' and pannier tanks?

  In fact was his seemingly high opinion of 'Halls.' justified?

     

[Twright]

The last few Modified Halls had mechanical lubricators too. 

 

Sorry to resurrect this thread but were they any majorly visible changes from the outside with the mechanical lubricators or were they hidden away? I've been looking at photographs of them and can't see any changes but I thought I had best ask. I'm wondering as I want to use one of the 69xx Bachmann Modified Halls for these higher numbered ones (7928 in particular).

Edited February 26, 2016 by Twright

[B15nac]

Yes there is the lubricator on drivers side running board an lots of small lubricator piping around that area. Its a smaller mechanic lubricator box than the kings an castles had.

 

Regards Neil

[Twright]

Yes there is the lubricator on drivers side running board an lots of small lubricator piping around that area. Its a smaller mechanic lubricator box than the kings an castles had.

 

Regards Neil

 

Cab handrails below and around the side window differed. Some had a horizontal handrail, some a horizontal and a separate vertical ahead of the window and some a one piece  'L' shaped handrail.

 

Thanks both, shouldn't be too difficult to knock up a lubricator box and I'll keep an eye for the handles.

[slilley]

Cab handrails below and around the side window differed. Some had a horizontal handrail, some a horizontal and a separate vertical ahead of the window and some a one piece  'L' shaped handrail.

7903 has the L shaped version, just looked at pics of it from a couple of years ago

[Phil Bullock]

On 26/02/2016 at 22:37, B15nac said:

Yes there is the lubricator on drivers side running board an lots of small lubricator piping around that area. Its a smaller mechanic lubricator box than the kings an castles had.

 

Regards Neil

Just resurrecting this post as James and I both had a new Bachmann 6990 for Christmas. James’s will become 7928 with Collett tender whereas mine will become 7920 which retains the Hawkesworth tender that comes with the model. 
 

Both were solid 85A locos from new to scrap and they were very highly thought of .

 

So what are we doing g with them? Well will look at Brassmasters fret to see what is worth adding…. Certainly the bogie front plate. And then there’s the smoke box dart, lamp brackets, superheater cover fall plate, crew and coal to sort. 
 

Both locos are in the batch …. 7910 to 29 I reckon … with mechanical lubricators. Has anyone tackled this please … especially the mass of pipe work between the lubricator and outside steam pipe? Can’t even find a decent photo and none of the preserved locos are in this batch. 
 

Thanks in advance! 

[B15nac]

Here's a couple pictures of them they are at a different angle than that of kings an castles 

 

Kind regards Neil

 

 

 

 

[Phil Bullock]

Many thanks those are far better shots than anything I found. Have you modelled all that pipe work? 

[The Stationmaster]

Phil,

 

if you wish to get that pernickety there is also a difference in the cab of the mechanically lubricated engines.  The first  link below will show you a bit about a cab of an engine which has standard GWR hydrostatic lubrication - the thing with 4 upright pipes and some valves over on the Driver's side of the backhead and which should be represented to some extent in the cab of the Bachmann model.

 

Very clearly visible in this photo -

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GWR_Castle_Class_5080_Defiant_footplate_1.jpg

 

GWR/WR mechanically lubricated engines didn't have that arrangement because the mechanical lubricator did the job instead.  I can't find an online photo of the cab of a 'Hall' witha mechanical lubricator but I'm fairly sure that teh can equipment would be little different from the pther mechanically lubricated engines as seen here on a King.  you will see that the hydrostatic lubricator control has been repalced by a large dial with sectors coloured red ('No Oil') and white.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[Phil Bullock]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Phil,

 

if you wish to get that pernickety there is also a difference in the cab of the mechanically lubricated engines.  The first  link below will show you a bit about a cab of an engine which has standard GWR hydrostatic lubrication - the thing with 4 upright pipes and some valves over on the Driver's side of the backhead and which should be represented to some extent in the cab of the Bachmann model.

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/archivesignals/brer.php

 

And very clearly visible in this photo -

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GWR_Castle_Class_5080_Defiant_footplate_1.jpg

 

GWR/WR mechanically lubricated engines didn't have that arrangement because the mechanical lubricator did the job instead.  I can't find an online photo of the cab of a 'Hall' witha mechanical lubricator but I'm fairly sure that teh can equipment would be little different from the pther mechanically lubricated engines as seen here on a King.  you will see that the hydrostatic lubricator control has been repalced by a large dial with sectors coloured red ('No Oil') and white.

 

 

Happy new year Mike - couldn’t get picture on first link but this shows it very nicely 

 

Castle hydrostatic lubricator

 

Bachmann have a clear representation on the Hall but probably easier to change that than all the gubbins on the footplate!

 

Phil

[The Stationmaster]

On 02/01/2022 at 17:34, Phil Bullock said:

Happy new year Mike - couldn’t get picture on first link but this shows it very nicely 

 

Castle hydrostatic lubricator

 

Bachmann have a clear representation on the Hall but probably easier to change that than all the gubbins on the footplate!

 

Phil

Thanks Phil - I'll delete that link which crept in from elsewhere.  as far as the hydrostatic lubrocator is concerned I have few of the original glass 'tubes' somewhere - liberated fro Southall stores during a big clearing-out session of no longer needed items back in 1967 - maybe I should have had a few gauges as well but they went onto the money (aka scrap) bin.