GWR 28xx and 2884 2-8-0s

Are the main frames different to take the side window cab on the later engines? No 28xx was fitted with the improved cab as far as I know.

Similarly was there a reason why 45xx locos were never uprated to 4575 spec?

 

Certainly the frames on the first 20 43xx were 6" shorter and carried the Saint cab whilst the rest carried the County (4-4-0) cab which was 6" longer. IIRC the early 45xx's had shorter frames hence the packing piece behind the rear buffer beam when fitted with the larger bunker. I think the frame length of the later batches of 45xx was the same as the 4575 but can't check at present. Possibly the 28xx/2884 situation is similar to the 43xx with the latter having longer frames but would have to look it up when I get home. Ray.

 

Is it a similar reason why the 43XX after the first 20 as mentioned never got the window cab as fitted to the 73XX/93XX as per 7325 has one but 5322 doesn't ?.

 

If I remember correctly 5390 - 7321 had cabs which were 6" longer again than 4321 - 5389. The final batch, 9300-19 including 7325 (originally 9303), were built with side window cabs but I think they were the same length as the previous lot but I can't check until I get home. For a class that, at first glance, looks pretty similar there is a lot of variation between the various lots. Nearly all the early locos (80 of the 43xx and 20 of the 53xx) were dismantled around 1938 and some parts, mainly wheels and motion, used to build the Manors and Granges. As you can see from my picture I'm kinda fond of the Moguls. Hope this helps. Ray.

 

I'm confident all the 28s had the same length frames. The side window cab is extended forward rather than backward.

I'm not seeing a mention of a longer cab for 5390 on in my references. Looks like 5'3 rear overhang in all the weights diagrams in Russell. The 93 side window cab appears the same length as the earlier one, but the cutout is shallower and of course the roof much longer.
Interesting to know whether the layout of fittings etc was different in the 2884 cab to take advantage of the extra room.

|any number of tank engine classes had rear frame extensions.

 

Do the 2800s still have compensation, or was it removed as it was with the 4-6-0s? I can't find a contemporary photo on line where I can see the suspension clearly.

 

if the frames were the same length , is there any reason why the bigger cabs were not swapped or retro-fitted to the older locos?

 

I must admit that I was surprised when I read it in David Andrew's " The Churchward 2-6-0's" as up until then I thought that cabs on 4321 - 7321 were all the same length. Could it be that the frame length is the same but the cab extended further forward as you mention for the 2884 class? If this is an error on Andrew's part it is the first I have found. It is interesting that he also states that the cabs on 5390 onwards were 3 7/8" lower ! Cheers Ray.

 

There are really 3 classes of loco here (or sub classes if you prefer):
2800 - 2855
2856 - 2883
2884 onwards

Re the compensated springing certainly 2857 & 2859 still have this & perhaps 2807 & 2818 do also? - not sure about 2873/4.

There are a number of detail differences between the "2800" & "2856" classes and a considerable number of differences (not just the cabs) between the earlier locos & the 2884 classes.

 

IIRC 5322 has the strips forming the rear sections of the cabsides riveted on. This might be for production reasons or it might be that the cab sheets were cut out & then found to need extending.

 

Comparing exact side on photos of 5322 and an NRM sourced frame plan of the side window cabs I'm pretty confident they are the same length. I really don't think I could miss a 6" difference.

 

I agree the odd inch might not be obvious but 6'' should be. I wonder if Andrew could have omitted the word "roof" ? Was the cab roof on 5390 - 7321 any longer - that might not be as obvious. Unfortunately there are no survivors to measure up and as I'm away from home don't have access to my library. An interesting topic thanks for your thoughts Jim. Cheers Ray.

 

I'm even more confused now, on re reading RCTS it claims that 9300-9319 had the frames lengthened a further 6.5 inches at the back, however I'm looking at the following drawings.

1) Russell, Diagram G. 4301-4320. Rear overhang not dimensioned, spacing between trailing wheels and tender wheels 9'3.75 which suggests 4'6 rear overhang, which the drawing scales to.
2) Russell, Diagram V. All except 7322 series. BR drawing dating after 4301-4320 were scrapped. 5'3 rear overhang, trailing wheels -> tender wheels 10'0.75
3) Russell, Colonel Templar drawings. 5'3 rear overhang. There are 3 cab variations shown in those drawings: Fig 1 captioned 9300 series, Fig 3 captioned 6300 & 7300 series and Fig 4 captioned 4301 series. A statement in the notes that 4300 , 4321-5399 have cab roof like figure 4, which scales to about 4'6, not fig 3, which scales to around 4'9. The 9300 cab roof scales to around 6'6.
4) Russell. diag M, 6342 et al. No dimensions shown. Rear overhang scales to about 5'3, cab roof about 4'9
5) Russell, diag W 7322-41 (ex 9300). No dimensions shown, Rear overhang scales to about 5'3, cab roof about 6'6.
6) GW drawing 92700, 1932. Class 9300 lot 276. Rear Overhang dimensioned 5'3, cab roof dimensioned 6'6.25

So it seems there was a difference in cab roof length, but according to RCTS 9300-19 had longer frames at the back which I can't match to any drawings...

 

Considering how much is known about other GWR classes there seems to be a lot of doubt and contradiction regarding the 43xx class. I wonder why Col. Templar chose 5399 as the dividing point? The change in motion bracket design was at 5384 and the long splasher over the vac pump went at 5390 (with, if David Andrews is correct, a change in frame/cab length). Curiouser and curiouser ! I've just had a look in the GWJ index and they only list (in Journal #19) Swindon dwg 42120 a 43xx GA of 1910 showing the short cab. Ray.

 

Thanks for all the replies! This thread is exceeding my expectations!

 

Can anyone point me at a high res really square on photo of the cab area on 7325/9303? I have such photos of 5322 and it would be interesting to compare. Unfortunately Google hasn't foound me one yet.