43xx and their cousins..ask the audience option

Can anyone tell me if the building of granges follwed directly on from the stopping of building of the 93xx series?

Also whilst the Granges were being built (using 43xx parts of course) did the building of Halls stop? if so,why did they revert back to building Halls?

Also as the manors were effectively lighter versions of the grange, how did they compare in size and power with the 93xx 2-6-0s(You may phone a friend if you wish).

 

The 93xx series were built in 1932 & the first batch of Granges in 1936.
The Hall class were built throughout the 1930s with several built in 1936-1939 during the Grange construction period.

I think the reason for this would be that the Halls were classed as new engines, but the Granges as renewals of the existing 43xx class (for accounting purposes). I understand that Grange (& Manor) construction stopped due to WWII & the fact that no more 43xx were withdrawn during the war.

I believe the Manors were similar to the 43/93xx in terms of power output. Although the larger boilers should have provided more steam for sustained running (compared to the moguls) there were steaming problems originally that were not resolved fully until the 1950s.

 

BR classed the 43xx's as class 4 (TE 25,760 pounds) & the Manor's as class 5 (TE 27,340 pounds)

A very good source of info on these things is here: http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/index-st.htm

Specfically:
http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_260.htm
http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_man.htm
http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_grg.htm
http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_hal_hall59b.htm


Adrian.

 

Moguls - 200psi boiler
Manors - 225psi.

7802 and 7812 are great engines to work on, but 7325/ 9303, is one hell of a tool!!!!

 

When 1st restored in the early 1990's, it was rated at 225psi initially, but was put back to 200psi before too long. I never went on it when it worked at 225psi, but by all accounts, it's performance was very impressive. Not that it wasn't impressive at 200psi either! A cracking machine right up until the end of its ticket, sorely missed by me.

 

Hopefully she isn't far down the list. I'm looking forward to seeing the pig back in service in the next 3 - 4 months.

 

The 43's suffered from having a boiler which wasn't really big enough for the engine, and a firebox that could struggle to keep up. As a result flogging them for any period of time would beat the boiler, and they had a bit of a mixed reputation amongst firemen. Teamwork was definitely the order of the day; you couldn't just thrash them any old way and expect to get away with it.

But when handled right they were capable of putting down some very impressive performances - there's a well known story of a 53 being put on one of the Birmingham 2 hour expresses in an emergency, and maintaining a very high power output throughout the run. I think it reached about 75 at one point, on what was a 450+ ton train. They were probably best suited to stopping passenger services, where they were able to make full use of their power, but generally without the need to sustain it for extended periods.

The Granges, with their superb boilers and improved cylinders, were obviously a different kettle of fish. The Manors as built were not really a match, though of course after the improvements made in the early 50's they were completely changed. It's a shame that there hasn't appeared any detailed performance data for the 43's. As well as the 4-6-0's, these too were also subject to draughting improvements in the 50's, and a small number also received boilers with 3 row superheaters, so it would make an interesting comparison.

 

Well yes, it would be the same as a Grange.

I've seen it said somewhere that the trouble was that the 43s were so willing that it was quite easy to expect too much from a relatively small boiler.

It would certainly be intersting to know the behind the scenes discussions/decisions that lead to Halls or Granges, and with the Granges very well thought of by then, why the modified Halls rather than more Granges. I've heard it said that the Grages had Chapelon inspired changes to aspects of the front end design and that was why they were so good: yet the modified Halls don't seem to have been regarded as significantly better than the original ones. You'd have to wonder why the improvements weren't perpetuated with the brand new front end.

 

The improvements on the Granges weren't particularly groundbreaking; they had an enlarged steam chest and increased piston clearance, but as far as I'm aware that was about it.

I would've thought that similarly altering the cylinders on the modified Halls could've caused some problems with motion interchangeabilty between them and the original Halls, I couldn't say for sure though. As it happens the steam passages on the modifieds were considerably changed from what had gone before, in particular the exhaust passage arrangement is much better than in the original engines.

The feedback I've got about the modifieds was that they were generally rougher than the originals, and not as free running, but they could go like the clappers!

 

On the contrary the Modified Halls were regarded as a significant advance on the original Halls and were notably more free running at speed. They often performed well when deputising for Castles, as any one who travelled on the 9 May 1964 special will remember. They often worked Oxford expresses booked at over 60mph start-to-stop in later steam days.

David

 

I always remember back in the early 1960's when 6992 "Arborfield Hall" on the 5.30PM Oxford-Paddington(scheduled 60mins non-stop) run through Reading on the up main through road going like the clappers, must of been doing the max line speed through Reading at the time which I believe was 80mph (now much reduced!). You couldn't see the rods.

 

The loco was apparently 5326 on a Birmingham 2 hour express, with 465 tons to Bicester, and 430 tons beyond, apparently 76 mph was achieved at Hadenham, and the highest achieved average was 61.5mph at Leamington,.

The run was timed by G.P.Antrobus.

 

When 1st restored in the early 1990's, it was rated at 225psi initially, but was put back to 200psi before too long. I never went on it when it worked at 225psi, but by all accounts, it's performance was very impressive. Not that it wasn't impressive at 200psi either! A cracking machine right up until the end of its ticket, sorely missed by me.[/quote:kxt2kerg]

I had the opportunity to fire it at both settings and didn't notice any difference. What a fun machine it was. I loved it to bits and never had a bad day on it. I had it on my third turn as a passed fireman and for the rest of that week. It steamed for its country and didn't just do the business, it let everyone know it was doing it. A great engine and missed by me too, Ade. My ex-Bushbury fireman guest actually said, "I wish we'd had some of these," and he meant it.

My ex-Stourbridge mentor said, "These'm f***in' great, mayte. Yo cor goo wrong with one of these." He used to fire them on the Alveley coal trains, amongst others.

 

I have wondered why the 93XX were built as several lots of Halls had already been built and the moguls had a heavier axle loading. Only a few years later (older) moguls were being withdrawn for replacement by 4-6-0s.

 

One would presume the answer went on the lines of "why heat up and carry round a No1 boiler if a No4 is big enough"

 

...acording to the enginemen they wern't big enough. Casue people for some reason expected to much from it, people wanted the Moguls to be altered with the no. 1 (unfair really). The reason why the 93xx series came out was I think more stop gap then anything else.

 

Weren't the 93xx series intended for sharply curved Cornish branches and the like, with the additional bufferbeam weight to reduce wear on the leading coupled wheels? I would have thought that these were designed for the sort of routes where Halls were banned from, as restrictions weren't solely based on axle weight - e.g. Halls & Granges were banned from the Severn Valley line north of Bewdley, but 43xx's were permitted.