Railroad Crosti 9F

[coachmann]

 

Hornby have stated publicly (interview with Roger Cranham and chats with SK at shows) they see RR as having 2 principal customer bases.

 

a/ Budget conscious modellers buying for children and/or themselves if on a tight budget

b/ Those who want a good base on which to work up something better themselves.

 

 

The Hornby Crosti image looks like a photo to me that has had the usual PS treatment to isolate it. I have enlaged the driving wheels on the image and they do not appear to be of the bevel rim type so characteristic of BR Std locos. Maybe I will be proved wrong but I for one would not contemplate re-wheeling this chassis with Markits drivers as part of "working up something better" for myself. After an outlay of £111.20, one could be faced with spending a lot more to bring the chassis up to Bachmann level in my opinion. It is up to the purchaser.

 

Hornby wheels....

 

Bachmann wheels....

Edited January 1, 2014 by coachmann

[Unknown Warrior]

Crosti Allocations once they left Wellingborough.

 

Once the class left Wellingborough between 1960 & 1964 they became quite widely spread: Kettering, Carlisle Kingmoor, Annesley, Saltley,, Banbury, Croes Newydd, Rowsley and Buxton, although my two sources: RCTS and British Railway Steam Allocation do not agree over 92022: Rowsley or Buxton.

 

By 1966 two were at Saltley: 28 & 29, 28 was withdrawn from there :10/66 and 29 went to join it's classmates at Speak Junction.

 

The rest ended up at Speak Junction:22,25 27 & 29. Birkenhead LMS: 20,21,23,24, & 27, from there they were withdrawn more or less en bloc 10-11/67 apart from 27 withdrawn 08/67.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Unknown Warrior

[JSpencer]

92028 received a light casual overhaul at Eastleigh in Sept/Oct 1964, and hauled a running-in freight turn to Wimborne on completion.

That means I have a 1 in 5 chance of Hornby doing one which briefly touched Southern metals.

[gismorail]

The ones moved to Croes Newydd  would have been to haul the trains up to Brymbo Steel works and those at Birkenhead would have been used on the Bidston to Shotton ore Trains. I can remember seeing one working the Dee Marsh line passed Chester Northgate triangle heading towards Manchester / Northwich. Always remember it as a youngster being confused by the smoke coming from the side of the boiler . strange how things like that stick in ones mind. !!!

[Dan Hill]

92028 received a light casual overhaul at Eastleigh in Sept/Oct 1964, and hauled a running-in freight turn to Wimborne on completion.

92028 also ran to Brighton Worksfor inspection in September 1955.

[250BOB]

The ones moved to Croes Newydd  would have been to haul the trains up to Brymbo Steel works and those at Birkenhead would have been used on the Bidston to Shotton ore Trains. I can remember seeing one working the Dee Marsh line passed Chester Northgate triangle heading towards Manchester / Northwich. Always remember it as a youngster being confused by the smoke coming from the side of the boiler . strange how things like that stick in ones mind. !!!

 

But wouldnt they have been converted to normal working boilers, using conventional chimney exhaust, by the time they were at Croess Newydd.????

Bob

PS....I agree with you about things sticking in your mind........my view of one between 1958 and 1961 sometime(as a 10 to 13 yr old), just North of Crewe on the WC mainline.

I just cant decide which of the versions I saw that day......suffice it was different enough for me to remember it.

Edited January 3, 2014 by 250BOB

[Unknown Warrior]

According to the detailed allocations in the RCTS Book only one of the ex-Crostis went to Croes Newydd: 92029, which was there from 5/66 to 8/66. This of course does not mean that other ex- Crostis did not visit.

 

Before conversion all the Crosti were at Wellingborough and returned there after conversion before moving on between 12/60 and 1/64 most then going to Kettering, before becoming more widely dispersed. Most (all except 92027 & 92028) came back together at Birkenhead LMS between 1/65 & 2/67, contrary to the information in my post (77) above. Since making that post I have been through the detailed allocations. 

 

I still do not have an adequate answer as to why:

 

1. They survived so long. The last eight were in the major cull of 11.11.67 after Birkenhead LMS was closed. 31 of the surviving 9Fs were withdrawn on that day, leaving only 23 on the books. It is quite remarkable that a group of 8 of 10 initially unsuccessful experimental engines should last longer than nearly 200 of the conventional members of the class. Was it just luck of the draw? In which case they were remarkable survivors! It has been suggested that their marginally lighter axle loading might have been the reason, but the highest loading was on the tender axles, like the LMS 8Fs. Another reason might have been that they had not done particularly high mileages, although they had probably done more that some other members of the class.

 

2. Why, after being quite widely dispersed, were most of them brought back together to see out their time at Birkenhead?

 

Anyone any ideas.

[coachmann]

The Croes Newydd 9F's worked Brymbo steel for only a matter of weeks. Prone to derailing on works sidings.  Survival could have depended on boiler ticket. The rebuilt Crosti's would have been given a new ticket on conversion and they would have run until this ran out, then scrap. It's how it was for the 2-10-0's thanks to Wilson and the Wasters...

[Arthur]

 

2. Why, after being quite widely dispersed, were most of them brought back together to see out their time at Birkenhead?

 

Anyone any ideas.

Perhaps, like allocating all of the English Caprotti Standard 5's to Patricroft, it was seen as sensible to concentrate all of the experience with them at one location?

[coachmann]

Perhaps, like allocating all of the English Caprotti Standard 5's to Patricroft, it was seen as sensible to concentrate all of the experience with them at one location?

A lot to do with carrying spares too.

[bike2steam]

I still do not have an adequate answer as to why:

 

 Was it just luck of the draw? 

 

There you go, you've answered your own question. The Crosti's didn't have any advantage over the normal 9F's, in fact quite the reverse, the Crosti's were heavier on coal, figures recorded say they used a ton of coal more between Bedford, and Brent on coal trains:and were harder work to keep a good head of steam.

One other point of interest, the two Saltley examples (28 &29) could occasionally be seen on passenger workings between Birmingham, and Bristol, especially during the summer timetable when it's allocation of suitable locos could be stretched to the limit. I think there's a pic of one such train in one of Pixton & Mourton's series ' Portrait Of  Famous Midland Route'.

Edited January 3, 2014 by bike2steam

[asmay2002]

I still do not have an adequate answer as to why:

 

1. They survived so long.

 

See post 23.  But just to say it again.  Many standard 9Fs never got a general overhaul, but were scrapped when the first one would have fallen due.   The Crostis got a complete rebuild mostly after the very newest standard 9Fs were built.  Effectively they lasted longer because they were newer (mechanically speaking).  It isn't remarkable, it's exactly what you would expect - the ones in the best condition last the longest.

[Unknown Warrior]

See post 23.  But just to say it again.  Many standard 9Fs never got a general overhaul, but were scrapped when the first one would have fallen due.   The Crostis got a complete rebuild mostly after the very newest standard 9Fs were built.  Effectively they lasted longer because they were newer (mechanically speaking).  It isn't remarkable, it's exactly what you would expect - the ones in the best condition last the longest.

 

I'm sorry I will have to question this! First of all it depends on what you mean by a General Overhaul. All of the 9Fs received at least a light casual overhaul at one of the major works, mainly Crewe or Swindon, during their lifetime. .  

 

Only 81 of the class carried the same boiler throughout their lives, including three of the Crostis: 92020/22 &29 (there was a spare Crosti boiler: 1903 which was fitted to 92024, 11.61, and therefore only ran in converted form).Interestingly 92020 was withdrawn 21.10.67 (correction from my previous post) and the other two made it through to 11.11.67! As might be expected most of the 81 were from those built later but not exclusively. One interesting example is a very early build loco: 92004, built 01.54. It is probable that it never received a heavy general ( I can't be certain as there is no record of the level of overhaul it received at Crewe during it's last visit 10-11.66.) and it was not withdrawn until 23.3.68! One of the last handful of survivors. Conversely 92203"Black Prince", built 06.04.59, received two changes of boiler at heavy casual overhauls 05-07.64 & 10-12.66, the later ensured it's sale to David Shepherd and preservation. Another late survivor, one of the last three, 92167, one of the three fitted with mechanical stokers, built 05.58 also did not have a boiler change but survived until 06.68!

 

As far as the level of repair received by the Crostis at the time of conversion only 92020 received a heavy general. (92022 &23 never received a heavy general and both survived to 11.11.67.) 92021/26/27&28 only received a light casual, 92022-24 & 29 received a heavy casual and 92025 received a light intermediate. Therefore the notion that the Crostis received a complete rebuild at the time of conversion does not stand up. I would therefore suggest that their late survival did no relate to the thoroughness of the work at conversion. It could well be that work concentrated mainly on that necessary to conversion plus the replacement of any parts in need of repair.

 

So that leaves us with "luck of the draw" and the fact that they were mainly concentrated in one area, Speke Junction and Birkenhead LMS to explain their late survival, unless anyone knows better!

 

As far as the "8F" classification is concerned there is no doubt that it was never official. However two comments of interest from:

 

1. The RCTS Book - "After conversion to conventional operation, the Crosts were unofficially down-rated to 8F. This rating could even have slipped into the 7F category if an ad hoc alteration to the tractive effort calculation formula, attempting to take into account the substantial reduction in total heating surfaces of the over 40% following the removal of the preheater." 

 

2.Terry Essery in "Steam Locomotives Compared" - "In this form they (the converted Crostis) tended to be used on duties which did not call for high boiler output but this still allowed them plenty of scope." Terry Essery was a top link fireman at Saltley during the 1950's and was a great fan of the 9Fs. He regularly fired on the Birmingham-Carlise non-stop freights and was involved in the initial trials of the mechanical stoker fitted 9F's on those turns. On one occasion he hand fired 92167 for nearly 200 miles when a large lump of coal jammed the stoker. Anyone who has seen a photo of the fire hole door of the stoker fitted 9Fs will recognize what a feat of endurance that was!

 

I would accept that the extra pair of driving wheels would be very helpful in transmitting the available power to the rails, whatever the power classification, which is why Riddles insisted on a 2-10-0 rather than a 2-8-2 for the 9Fs.

 

All the above information, apart from the "Terry Essery Quote" is taken from "A detailed history of British Railways Standard Steam engines, Volume 4" RCTS.

[bluebottle]

I'm sorry I will have to question this! First of all it depends on what you mean by a General Overhaul. All of the 9Fs received at least a light casual overhaul at one of the major works, mainly Crewe or Swindon, during their lifetime...

...

 

All the above information, apart from the "Terry Essery Quote" is taken from "A detailed history of British Railways Standard Steam engines, Volume 4" RCTS.

 

All interesting and useful information (note that I've edited UW's post to the minimum; why do people quote longer posts in their entirety when the quoted post is near at hand?), and I appreciate that references are duly given.

[coachmann]

The front of the smokebox appears to have been a huge casting serving upper and lower boilers.  Removal of the Crosti lower pre-hewater boiler necessaitated this casting either being cut in half or a replacement casting fitted. Other alteration might include re-routing some plumbing. Would any alteration be necessary to the balancing?  No doubt other fittings attached to the main boiler were removed or altered, so it seems to me that after all this tampering the boiler would have to be tested and recertificated. So on conversion to normal steaming circa 1960 the loco would re-enter service with a new (seven year) boiler ticket yeh?

Edited January 4, 2014 by coachmann

[Grovenor]

Why do you think the smokebox front would have been a casting? I see no reason for it to be anything other than fabricated platework as normal for a smokebox. Removal of the preheater did require major modifications to the smokebox to accommodate the new cylinder exhaust and blastpipe and that very likely involved a new frontplate if not a wholly new smokebox, but the boiler as a pressure vessel was not affected, I have not seen any suggestion that the boiler was retubed or anything so I would be dubious if the boiler had enough done to give it a life extension.

If a longer life was still envisaged at that time it would have made more sense to use the boilers till major work was needed then replace them with normal 9F boilers.

Regards

Keith

Edited January 4, 2014 by Grovenor

[Unknown Warrior]

The front of the smokebox appears to have been a huge casting serving upper and lower boilers.  Removal of the Crosti lower pre-hewater boiler necessaitated this casting either being cut in half or a replacement casting fitted. Other alteration might include re-routing some plumbing. Would any alteration be necessary to the balancing?  No doubt other fittings attached to the main boiler were removed or altered, so it seems to me that after all this tampering the boiler would have to be tested and recertificated. So on conversion to normal steaming circa 1960 the loco would re-enter service with a new (seven year) boiler ticket yeh?

 

As a light overhaul did not include a boiler lift, it would seem that the modifications require to isolate the preheater and remove the side chimney etc. did not require the removal of the boiler as five of the locos were converted as part of either a light casual or light intermediate overhaul. The lower smoke box door would be straight forward to remove and the aperture plated over. I think the current system of boiler inspections was brought in more recently than the end of BR steam as boiler repairs which would require recertification now would have been fairly common place in BR Days and would be certified at the time, which would have been considerably sooner than seven years! Do bear in mind that BR locos covered more miles in 2-3 years than preserved locos do in a full boiler certificate!

[Unknown Warrior]

Why do you think the smokebox front would have been a casting? I see no reason for it to be anything other than fabricated platework as normal for a smokebox. Removal of the preheater did require major modifications to the smokebox to accommodate the new cylinder exhaust and blastpipe and that very likely involved a new frontplate if not a wholly new smokebox, but the boiler as a pressure vessel was not affected, I have not seen any suggestion that the boiler was retubed or anything so I would be dubious if the boiler had enough done to give it a life extension.

If a longer life was still envisaged at that time it would have made more sense to use the boilers till major work was needed then replace them with normal 9F boilers.

Regards

Keith

 

We both ended up posting similar ideas at the same time, it is just that I took longer! The front smoke box was a welded chamber not a casting. The smoke box doors were of normal design. 

 

Given that there was a spare Crosti boiler it would have been some time before there would have been a need to fit a standard 9F boiler to a Crosti loco. It might well have needed some modifications to fit it. No doubt it would have happened if the 9Fs had survived for their full design life of 30-40 years.

[coachmann]

I mentioned the possibility of a casting as that is what it resembled in photos taken during the Crosti's construction. The bottom half of this assembly must have been removed seeing as the smokebox was left proud of the new platework after conversion. Was the pre-heater boiler left in place after conversion? If not, then the main boiler must have been lifted in order to dismantle and remove the lower boiler.

Edited January 5, 2014 by coachmann

[Poor Old Bruce]

Bear in mind folks that a boiler could be changed at any time and not just at heavy general overhauls, it was no big deal to do one in main works. Even a 3F had one in about 1962 IIRC but it didn't get a repaint.

 

The 2013 Steam World calendar contains a photo of 92025 looking not long out of the paint shop in 1965. It didn't necessarily mean it had had a heavy general overhaul though, the Irwell Book of the 9Fs indicating it had had a 'Light Intermediate'. Even the visit to Crewe in 1960 is described as a 'Light Intermediate' with the note "Conversion to normal operating boiler."

 

Coach,  The corrosion of the pre-heaters was one of the main reasons for the rebuild and there are several mentions of retubing the pre-heaters and of 92028 recieving "specially treated pre-heater tubes". Irwell's book tells of 92024 visiting Crewe for a 'Heavy Intermediate' in 1958 saying that the pre-heater was blanked off and the exhaust chimney removed with "conversion to normal operating boiler" taking place at a 'Heavy Casual' repair in 1960. So at least that one ran for a time with the pre-heater in place but blanked off.

[Pandora]

During the last months of the Crostis, I saw two at Leeds Holbeck in the roundhouse, that would be late 1966 or  early 1967, and during Summer 1967 Crostis were working freight out of Doncaster Belmont Yard heading in the down direction.  How they all came to be shedded at at Birkenhead, I do not know the reason

[bike2steam]

Among their main duties from Birkenhead shed was the Stanlow (Ellesmere Port) oil trains to Huddersfield, Neville Hill, and Hunslet, and the return empties. They also tended to be used on any lighter loaded 'C' class freights, especially those south to Chester, Shrewsbury, or Wolverhampton. In the book 'Wolverhampton Railway Album Volume 2' there is a pic of 92021 & 2 next to each other in Oxley shed in late 1966. 

Edited January 6, 2014 by bike2steam

[John M Upton]

Visited Brighton and then Eastleigh is enough justification for me.  Pre Order placed...   

[Michael Delamar]

I know a few ex drivers who said they were treated as 9f by their sheds, same with clans that were often diagrammed the same trains as britannias, thats not to say the drivers knew they wernt as good or had trouble with them when on overloaded trains, but it was the shed personnel who basically told them to get on with it.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Michael Delamar

[Dava]

The Hornby chassis looks worryingly like the 'Evening Star' from 1974 or whenever! Evolution or recycling?