Unnecessary Steam Classes

[Merthyr Imp]

There's a conspiracy theory- that Buckingham Palace (more influential then!) objected to it being returned to service because it would tarnish the name of the Princess. And, not unrelated, there was the suggestion that 71000 was originally to be named Duke of Edinburgh, resulting in objections from the same source. The choice of someone a little way down the succession instead does seem odd.

The Duke of Gloucester at that time was fourth in line to the throne, so nothing to do with line of succession. Maybe seniority?

 

[Wolfie]

Not as a specific activity in the early 20th century. Operations modelling, or operational research, as a structured activity was a child of the Second World War, specifically in the planning of D-Day when the logistics of getting some 150,000 men and all their equipment and support over 100 miles of sea onto 50 miles of beaches in the right sequence on one day demanded some serious prior planning.

OR was used earlier in WW2 for among other things the U-boat campaign. You are into an area dear to my heart (l have a masters in OR). It's called Operations Research across the pond. In MOD, where l spent a big chunk of my career, it's called Operational Analysis (the term OR has another long-established meaning). BR were major users of OR and l came damned close to working for them.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Am I allowed to say anything built after 1950?

 

[Merle Haggard]

Am I allowed to say anything built after 1950?

With the benefit of hindsight, yes. - although at the time the import of fuel (for diesels) was regarded as a problem for sterling.
But will the railway industry's investment decisions in the very recent past be similarly questionable in the future, with events unfolding that could not be predicted at the time the decisions were made?

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@Taunton
Outside Walschaerts valve gear on a shunter: why not? What advantages do inside cylinders have?
..
I think the biggest locos were also good for prestige/publicity. Most of them were made in small numbers, the far more numerous Black Fives, Castles/Halls/Manors etc were the backbone of the services

A bit like advertising for motor vehicles I fear, the most expensive vehicles are impractical, very few people can afford them, but their glamor (?) rubs off on the Cortinas etc

 

[Taunton]

With the benefit of hindsight, yes. - although at the time the import of fuel (for diesels) was regarded as a problem for sterling.

Contrary to much belief, there was not a problem with shortage of Sterling for oil, as evidenced by the total rollover of shipping from coal fuel to oil fuel, the expansion of aviation, etc. This was because most, if not all, of the oil in those times came from the "Sterling area", the likes of Bahrain etc, all paid for in Sterling. However, the government was keen for this oil to be sold on the international market, to "prop up" the exchange rate of Sterling, then unbelievably US$4.04 = £1 ! The newly-nationalised railways were an easy target for a very public campaign to support continued coal production, gaining political credibility in the very substantial coal mining areas of the time (where, of course, many were meanwhile going out and buying petrol-fuelled cars).

 

[Spamcan81]

I've never seen this justification as valid: was the Midland Region that short of 8Ps that they needed a replacement, and especially one that was a completely new design? Could they not have borrowed a spare 8P from another region, or were they all also working to the limit?

LMR never had more than 51 Class 8 passenger locos. Think of how many the ECML regions had. 34 A4, 49 A1 and 40 A2 of various types.

 

[edwin_m]

LMR never had more than 51 Class 8 passenger locos. Think of how many the ECML regions had. 34 A4, 49 A1 and 40 A2 of various types.

Does that mean that the LMS/LMR needed more, or that some of the LNER ones were unnecessary? Arguably Gresley concentrated too much on the front rank motive power, and secondary lines soldiered on with a range of rather ancient and inadequate designs. The Southern could be accused of the same, but many more of its secondary services went over to electric operation.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Does that mean that the LMS/LMR needed more, or that some of the LNER ones were unnecessary? Arguably Gresley concentrated too much on the front rank motive power, and secondary lines soldiered on with a range of rather ancient and inadequate designs. The Southern could be accused of the same, but many more of its secondary services went over to electric operation.

I referred to my bewilderment about the number of LNER Pacifics but the supply of LMS Pacifics also seems ample.
They were confined to the West Coast (even Royal Scots were too heavy for the Midland route to Manchester) and to Euston trains. They were not permitted to Manchester via Stoke. Birmingham/Wolverhampton expresses were powered by the legendary Bushbury and Aston Jubilees. Liverpool/Manchester to Scotland similarly Jubilees.
Looking at a 1948 Euston departure sheet, there were 32 departures in 24 hours of expresses on which they might have been used. That includes Holyhead trains (possibly more likely to be a Royal Scot) and trains dividing at Preston.
Obviously there were similar return trains, but 81 locos to cover 32 round trips a day doesn't seem tight. perhaps I've missed something.
On the former LNER, it was interesting that the front-line express diesel fleet to replace steam was 22 locos...

 

[Revaulx]

Does that mean that the LMS/LMR needed more, or that some of the LNER ones were unnecessary? Arguably Gresley concentrated too much on the front rank motive power, and secondary lines soldiered on with a range of rather ancient and inadequate designs. The Southern could be accused of the same, but many more of its secondary services went over to electric operation.

Gresley’s locos were fabulous but high maintenance; I don’t think their availability figures were great. Plus, as you say, the vast majority of LNER locos were elderly pre-grouping designs.

The much maligned Edward Thompson set about to standardise and modernise the fleet, thus increasing availability and reducing the amount of maintenance labour needed; a major priority during the war years. The Great Western had been doing thus for decades, and Stanier had brought similar practices with him to the LMS.

 

[The Crab]

Gresley’s locos were fabulous but high maintenance; I don’t think their availability figures were great. Plus, as you say, the vast majority of LNER locos were elderly pre-grouping designs.

The much maligned Edward Thompson set about to standardise and modernise the fleet, thus increasing availability and reducing the amount of maintenance labour needed; a major priority during the war years. The Great Western had been doing thus for decades, and Stanier had brought similar practices with him to the LMS.

In 1951 A1s were allocated to Polmadie And A2s were allocated there in 1963.

 

[Revaulx]

In 1951 A1s were allocated to Polmadie And A2s were allocated there in 1963.

Interesting. So maybe the LMS really hadn’t got enough, and the LNER had too many.

 

[Irascible]

Another unnecessary lot were all the WR Pannier Tank types, two completely new designs (15xx and 94xx), 210 of them, built well after nationalisation, including quite a number built after the first Class 08 diesel shunters had also started to be delivered to the WR. Notably the 200 94xx were all built by outside contractors, as if Swindon didn't have the capacity to do them. Last one delivered at the end of 1956. Hawksworth had done the first 10 94xx at Swindon just before nationalisation, then wisely given up. And quite how the ten 15xx even got approved, a completely non-GWR concept (outside Walschaerts valve gear - on a shunter) is lost now.

I hadn't realsed they were Red, that's pretty ridiculous. Why not just use an existing Prairie tank ( or build more 5600s maybe ) if you really want something that heavy - maybe not a good fit for whatever the 1500s were for ( what *were* they for?? ) but any of the existing GWR tanks would have made more sense than the 9400s.

Outside valve gear is not a bad idea for maintenance, Walschaerts on a shunter is a bit excessive though for whoever was asking ( I lost the post ) outside cyls on a short wheelbase, especially when they're quite big, can exacerbate any tendancy to waddle. Inside cyls are considerably more awkward for maintenance - and of course you can only go so big & fit between the frames.

 

[dubscottie]

Regarding the number of LNER pacifics, remember that they were not just used on the King's Cross to Leeds/Edinburgh trains.
The LNER also used large numbers of them on Edinburgh to Aberdeen/Perth, Waverley Route & GCR.
A number were built to replace life expired NBR & NER express engines.

 

[Gloster]

Would the number of LNER pacifics available been the reason they were used on Glasgow-Aberdeen ‘Three hour’ expresses via Forfar?

 

[Harvester]

Would the number of LNER pacifics available been the reason they were used on Glasgow-Aberdeen ‘Three hour’ expresses via Forfar?

The Three Hour expresses were introduced in 1962, and the A4 pacifics that worked them had been replaced by diesels elsewhere. Before their acceleration these trains were worked mainly by Class Fives, with some V2 and A2 partipication.

 

[Bevan Price]

Would the number of LNER pacifics available been the reason they were used on Glasgow-Aberdeen ‘Three hour’ expresses via Forfar?

They only used them (mainly A4s) on the "Three Hour expresses" after they had been displaced from ECML by Deltics and other diesels.

To comment on other matters, the 94xx Class were basically a modified tank engine version of the Collett 2251 Class 0-6-0s. Deliveries should have finished earlier than 1955/56, but there were many "late" deliveries from contractors.
0-6-2T or 2-6-2T designs (suggested above) would have been too long for use on many shunting duties.

The first batch of 1500 Class locos was sent to Old Oak Common, mainly for use on e.c.s. duties to/from London Paddington.

According to the RCTS History of GWR Locos, a large number of 94xx Class were ordered because they (BR Western Region) were undecided about if/when to adopt widespread dieselisation. Large numbers of new shunters were required around 1948, because WR still had several hundred old shunters that needed to be replaced -- many were 40-50 years old, and neglected after WW2.

It should also be noted that 70 "light" Class 1600 Pannier tanks (1600 - 1669) were built entirely by BR, some as late as 1955. A few 57xx & 74xx Pannier tanks were also built by BR up to 1950, but these were just continuations of GWR orders.

 

[Taunton]

Walschaerts on a shunter is a bit excessive though for whoever was asking ( I lost the post )

Not just a bit excessive but a confounded nuisance. Walschaerts is a complex gear (evidently) which requires a screw reverser. Shunting is just forwards-back-forwards-back. With a pole reverser you just whack the lever forwards and backwards, you only ever use full gear to start. Screw reverse means you have to wind and wind and wind and wind to get from forward to backwards - and 20 seconds later all that winding again. And for the whole shift ...

Apparently the 94xx, although simpler Stephenson gear, had screw reverse as well - for a designated heavy shunter

Same with superheaters. A real nuisance in shunting, there were some accidents. The regulator is in the dome. If you shut it on a non-super loco, the steam supply direct to the cylinders stops pretty instantly. On a superheated loco, after the regulator, you have high pressure steam in all the length of the superheater, often wrapped fore and aft the length of the boiler four times to get rid of first. On the main line it doesn't really matter. It does when shunting.

 

[Wolfie]

Not just a bit excessive but a confounded nuisance. Walschaerts is a complex gear (evidently) which requires a screw reverser. Shunting is just forwards-back-forwards-back. With a pole reverser you just whack the lever forwards and backwards, you only ever use full gear to start. Screw reverse means you have to wind and wind and wind and wind to get from forward to backwards - and 20 seconds later all that winding again. And for the whole shift ...

Apparently the 94xx, although simpler Stephenson gear, had screw reverse as well - for a designated heavy shunter

Same with superheaters. A real nuisance in shunting, there were some accidents. The regulator is in the dome. If you shut it on a non-super loco, the steam supply direct to the cylinders stops pretty instantly. On a superheated loco, after the regulator, you have high pressure steam in all the length of the superheater, often wrapped fore and aft the length of the boiler four times to get rid of first. On the main line it doesn't really matter. It does when shunting.

I'm no expert but that all sounds far too much like "clever design" for the sake of it and no user involvement.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not just a bit excessive but a confounded nuisance. Walschaerts is a complex gear (evidently) which requires a screw reverser. Shunting is just forwards-back-forwards-back. With a pole reverser you just whack the lever forwards and backwards, you only ever use full gear to start. Screw reverse means you have to wind and wind and wind and wind to get from forward to backwards - and 20 seconds later all that winding again. And for the whole shift ...

Apparently the 94xx, although simpler Stephenson gear, had screw reverse as well - for a designated heavy shunter

Same with superheaters. A real nuisance in shunting, there were some accidents. The regulator is in the dome. If you shut it on a non-super loco, the steam supply direct to the cylinders stops pretty instantly. On a superheated loco, after the regulator, you have high pressure steam in all the length of the superheater, often wrapped fore and aft the length of the boiler four times to get rid of first. On the main line it doesn't really matter. It does when shunting.

But they did other work as well as shunting, including some passenger services and freight workings.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The 94xx weren’t a plain shunter. They were also intended to replace pre grouping 0-6-2T in South Wales so there was a logic in their order. They were more expensive to build than a 57xx but that class could, at times, be overloaded so having something with a bit more punch would also have been logical.

The GWR standard no 10 boiler was more expensive to build than the modified 2301 type fitted to the 57xx but that boiler had a good shopping life and, before dieselisation affected matters, the 94xx were shopped for classified overhaul, in actual average months achieved, at a longer periodicity than the 57xx. In 1955-7 a 57xx would, on average, be shopped every 48 months whereas a 94xx would, on average, be shopped every 55 months. A 57xx would “do” about 80k miles between shops, a 94xx about 86k miles.

The 15xx were obviously influenced by the USA tanks and it looks as if there was some comparison going on with diesel traction.

With hindsight, a lot of these engines shouldn’t have been built but, given the circumstances of the time, there was a need and they were ordered.

 

[david_g]

Not just a bit excessive but a confounded nuisance. Walschaerts is a complex gear (evidently) which requires a screw reverser. Shunting is just forwards-back-forwards-back. With a pole reverser you just whack the lever forwards and backwards, you only ever use full gear to start. Screw reverse means you have to wind and wind and wind and wind to get from forward to backwards - and 20 seconds later all that winding again. And for the whole shift ...

Apparently the 94xx, although simpler Stephenson gear, had screw reverse as well - for a designated heavy shunter

Same with superheaters. A real nuisance in shunting, there were some accidents. The regulator is in the dome. If you shut it on a non-super loco, the steam supply direct to the cylinders stops pretty instantly. On a superheated loco, after the regulator, you have high pressure steam in all the length of the superheater, often wrapped fore and aft the length of the boiler four times to get rid of first. On the main line it doesn't really matter. It does when shunting.

Not quite true. I regularly fire two locomotives with outside Walschaerts valve gear and lever reverse, or used to pre-covid. Given that the reversing lever is on the fireman's side and the line has many, many changes in gradient, having to listen out for the driver's requests for "one up" or "two out" (usually in the middle of baling a round in the box) is a .... joy. Any action with the reversing lever is frequently followed by the "one, not two" conversation or "where had I got to round the box?" on the part of the poor overworked fireman. I think we have Beyer-Peacock to thank for this arrangement rather than the Great Western but I wouldn't put it past the GWR.

As you say, we can only be thankful it isn't screw reverse.

 

[Taunton]

Always good to hear of the real practical world. Thank you.

Although I must say I have never heard of any driver getting the fireman to handle the reverser.

 

[Grumbler]

After the grouping, only two companies - the Southern and London Transport - took electrification seriously. The mainline companies remained wedded to steam, and this culture continued after nationalistion. I recall growing up in the fifties when train travel was increasingly perceived as dirty and out of date. We lived in south London so at least had electric trains. Other countries were getting rid of steam while BR decided to develop new standard designs, which would have been great in the Edwardian era. Even after the decision to phase out steam in 1955, BR carried on building new steam locomotives for another five years!

 

[etr221]

All the other three of the big four did have thoughts of electrification, but only the LNER made any serious progress: and after nationalisation BR did see electrification as the long term future - but couldn't afford it - and continued with steam until they could.

 

[Grumbler]

All the other three of the big four did have thoughts of electrification, but only the LNER made any serious progress: and after nationalisation BR did see electrification as the long term future - but couldn't afford it - and continued with steam until they could.

The LNER inherited an electric locomotive from the NER, then renumbered it. It was renumbered several times before being officially withdrawn by BR, having never entered revenue-earning service - is this a record?

 

[Spartacus]

The LNER inherited an electric locomotive from the NER, then renumbered it. It was renumbered several times before being officially withdrawn by BR, having never entered revenue-earning service - is this a record?

The LNER simply didn't have the money to do the work to make the electrification scheme a success, just electrifying York to Newcastle might have made sense for the NER, but for the LNER simply electrifying a section in the middle of it's main line made no sense. It's not even like it would have been the most useful application of electric traction anyway. The LNER turned instead to other schemes where electric traction would have far greater benefits over steam traction, Shenfield, Altrincham and Woodhead, but a little Austrian amateur painter meant two of those scheme's openings were heavily delayed. Perhaps the LNER had plans to use No.13 on one of those?

 

[Grumbler]

The LNER simply didn't have the money to do the work to make the electrification scheme a success, just electrifying York to Newcastle might have made sense for the NER, but for the LNER simply electrifying a section in the middle of it's main line made no sense. It's not even like it would have been the most useful application of electric traction anyway. The LNER turned instead to other schemes where electric traction would have far greater benefits over steam traction, Shenfield, Altrincham and Woodhead, but a little Austrian amateur painter meant two of those scheme's openings were heavily delayed. Perhaps the LNER had plans to use No.13 on one of those?

Regarding money, didn't the Southern finance its electrification programme largely with government grants?

 

[Taunton]

Regarding money, didn't the Southern finance its electrification programme largely with government grants?

Yes, they weren't grants as such but more a series of concessions, including of tax (which the railways, some of the biggest commercial organisations of the era, still paid) if they invested in certain items. Varied from year, probably depending on who had lobbied who in government. It was what was behind the 1930s main line schemes mooted for electrification, LNER York to Newcastle, GWR west of Taunton. Only the Southern got on with it.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Kings actually had slightly smaller wheels, which allowed them to claim the hallowed 40,000lbs of tractive effort. Agree Castles probably a better prospect. Kings were just a glory class.

And yet the operating dept treated them differently. Taunton may be able to confirm, but I believe The Bristolian in some of the 1950s timetables was diagrammed for a Castle on most weekdays, when it was seven coaches, but on a Friday it was eight coaches, and King diagram.

A Castle had 6'-8.5" drivers, boiler presure 225 psi, theoretical max TE 31,625 ibf.

A King was 6'-6' drivers, with 250 psi boiler, TE 40,300 lbf.

That extra near 2 atmosphers in the boiler, plus the smaller drivers makes a huge difference in pulling power. At least if your fireman can keep up and the loco is in good condition.

To get back on topic re the Standards, AIUI many of the smaller variations - 75xxx, 76xxx, 77xxx, 78xxx were designed to minimise axle weights.
but by the time the locos appeared, many of the routes they were specifically designed for had either been upgraded or closed (or both, pretty soon afterwars!).