BR Standard steam classes - was there a proposed shunter class?

[Alex TM]

Hi everyone,

 

I was flicking through a newly acquired book on BR Standard Steam classes, and noticed an appendix on proposed classes that were never built; these were the 2-8-2, and a Class 5 Crosti-boilered 4-6-0.  That got me wondering:

 

was there ever a proposal for a standard steam class of shunter?

 

Thanks and regards for any help on this.

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

[LMS2968]

No, shunting had been allocated to diesels by the time of Nationalisation, or at least once the LMS people were in power, just as it was on that railway from prior to WWII.

Edited August 17, 2018 by LMS2968

[PenrithBeacon]

No, shunting had been allocated to diesels by the time of Nationalisation, or at least once the LMS people were in power, just as it was on that railway from prior to WWII.

Which is true but it does beg the question of just why WR was allowed to get away with building so many steam shunters when the official policy was to build diesel because they were so much more efficient

[LMS2968]

I think those panniers were already ordered, but could be wrong. But, the original question referred to Standard types, which the panniers most definitely weren't!

[Nearholmer]

Did they build shunters, or trip engines?

 

By the time of nationalisation, all of the big four were committed to diesel shunting, with the GWR explicitly committing itself in public. The LMS had led the way, and illustrated the benefits - they didn’t need to get into power and issue edicts, they’d already used far better a method of persuasion: solid financial evidence.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Steamport Southport]

Which is true but it does beg the question of just why WR was allowed to get away with building so many steam shunters when the official policy was to build diesel because they were so much more efficient

 

Not just the Western Region. The North Eastern built a batch of shunters of a design that was obsolete decades previously in the J72s. Now that is baffling.

 

 

 

Jason

[br2975]

Not just the Western Region. The North Eastern built a batch of shunters of a design that was obsolete decades previously in the J72s. Now that is baffling.

 

 

 

Jason

Obsolete.......or, tried, tested and not found wanting for the job in hand ?

.

Brian R

[LNWR18901910]

If anybody remembers the film The Great St. Trinian's Train Robbery, an Austerity J94 was altered to resemble a J50. In my opinion, I'd say that it makes a great candidate for a shunting locomotive from the Pre-Grouping Era or as a private industrial shunter?

[The Johnster]

The standard shunting engine had already been more or less settled before Nationalisation on all 4 railways as something not unlike the 08, and no steam shunting engine was considered.  

[south_tyne]

Obsolete.......or, tried, tested and not found wanting for the job in hand ?

.

Brian R

Definitely the latter. There was a reason that the J72 was built by the NER, LNER and BR - ultimately it was a fantastic design, robust, hard wearing and did the job it was designed to do. The class didn't have an overall working life of over half a century for no reason......

 

As for a standard shunted, is the austerity/J94 not the nearest example to a 'nationalised' example? Albeit adopted by the WD rather than BR. No doubt everyone knows this (so apologies in advance) but the original order by the WD was oriinally going to be for the Jinty, before a last minute change...

[Ian J.]

Turn the question around, and wonder instead why there were standard steam classes of any type.

 

AIUI, after WWII money was very tight in this country. The diesel shunters had already been in development by the big four, who were trying to move forward into mainline diesel traction. But there just wasn't enough money in the economy to keep developments moving properly, so we ended up with nationalisation. Within that system and with too little cash, we stuck with what we knew which was steam. But the diesel shunters had already made their mark so they didn't need a standard shunter class.

[LMS2968]

At Nationalisation there was ONE main line diesel loco, so basing a policy on that and the few experimental ones which followed would have been foolhardy, to say the least. This though was what happened in 1955, and the first generation diesels were hardly a major success.

 

Robin Riddles' plan was for complete electrification, which he knew would take time and money. The need was for locos to fill in until electrification was complete, around the end of the century. He didn't go for diesels as a short / medium term fill in, with the inherent development problems he knew would arise, but for well known steam. His electrification plans have, over the last few decades, made progress, despite being rejected by BR with the 1955 Modernisation Plan.

[brack]

It may also be significant that the post WW1 build programmes had included J72 and Y7, partly I think as a way of keeping the works going during a lean time when they hadn't the resources and materials for building bigger locos. Given that the last batch of J72s was ordered by peppercorn a few years before nationalisation I wonder if there wasn't similar reasoning (plus I don't doubt they may have wanted 350hp diesel shunters, but they cost money and came from an outside supplier, whereas another batch of locos where they already had patterns and parts in house makes sense).

Either way, most of those locos had a longer service life than quite a few of the early diesels or standard steam locos, in spite of shunting being a prime area for dieselisation.

[Poor Old Bruce]

Which is true but it does beg the question of just why WR was allowed to get away with building so many steam shunters when the official policy was to build diesel because they were so much more efficient

 

The pannier tanks were not just shunters. The 94xxs were used on many passenger trains, particularly in south Wales and the 16xxs were sent to Scotland for branch line work rather than shunting as well.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Which is true but it does beg the question of just why WR was allowed to get away with building so many steam shunters when the official policy was to build diesel because they were so much more efficient

Not just the Western Region. The North Eastern built a batch of shunters of a design that was obsolete decades previously in the J72s.

Think infrastructure. The UK's railway at the time was all set up to distribute and supply coal, water and lubricants for steam operation, with an engineering establishment of trained staff at depots and main works with tools and spares to maintain steam locomotives. Even the LMS (pioneer of diesel shunting in the UK) successor in the form of LMR didn't eliminate steam shunting locos until about 1966.

 

Building more of locally standardised steam designs was in principle a good move BTW, as it didn't increase class diversity, with new sparing and all else that goes with it. That's the major critique of Riddles standard classes: with the sole exception of the 9F which introduced new capability to the UK railway, all the other 'standards' were failures in the matter of bringing standardisation, as they increased the diversity of classes in service for no performance gain. It would have been far better to continue building the existing equivalent ex-Big Four designs instead. That way there is no increase in class diversity and expense of preparing  and building new designs and providing sparing provision for them: just get right on with no delay in building proven performers to displace the life expired classes and bring about reduction of diversity.

[The Bigbee Line]

With regard the 'why did they build steam shunters' comments.  The infrastructure was there and the loco could be build with minimum overheads and imported materials.  When you look at the parts replaced at heavy overhaul, to build a new loco was to much more.  Maunsell moguls were receiving new frames very late in their lives.  I have seen a picture of a set of inside cylinders for a Z class 0-8-0 being cast in the foundry at Eastleigh in the early 60's. 

 

Maybe with Brexit we will be digging up the black stuff and building such loco's again, to move things when we have no oil......  The government could requisition all the existing steam locos.......  A bit of modern technology regarding lubrication and brakes and 'bobs your uncle'......

[Alex TM]

Hi everyone,

 

Thanks for all the input; it's genuinely fascinating.

 

As 2968 effectively answered my question in the first response, I wonder if the subsequent ones should see this discussion moved to a different section (i.e. prototype discussions)?

 

Thanks again,

 

Alex.

[The Johnster]

Turn the question around, and wonder instead why there were standard steam classes of any type.

 

AIUI, after WWII money was very tight in this country. The diesel shunters had already been in development by the big four, who were trying to move forward into mainline diesel traction. But there just wasn't enough money in the economy to keep developments moving properly, so we ended up with nationalisation. Within that system and with too little cash, we stuck with what we knew which was steam. But the diesel shunters had already made their mark so they didn't need a standard shunter class.

 

Good points.  In 1948 and for about another decade the problem with diesel electric traction was finding a lightweight and powerful enough generator to fit into the body of loco build to the UK loading gauge; the American technology that was inspiration for the early efforts could not be simply imported or copied.  Eventually higher rated suitable generators became available, in the early 60s, but then the locos were too small for diesel engines powerful enough to exploit them, hence the second generation diesels with supercharging and maintenance problems.  The WR thought it saw a solution in German hydraulic technology, but again the less capable hydraulic systems that had to be squeezed into the loading gauge had trouble handling the output of the diesel engines.  

 

Diesel shunting engines had already proved themselves on yard work, especially in the big marshalling yards, their availability being instantly much better to that of steam shunting engines.  Don't forget that a steam engine purely for shunting was a rare beast on Britain's railways at nationalisation; most of what we tend to think of as shunters (Jinties, 57xx, J50 and the like) also performed trip, transfer, and local passenger duties and the real shunting engines were either the various breeds of dock pugs (I'll include USA, 15xx, and 1361/1366 in this for the sake of argument) or 8 coupled hump yard shunters from the GC, NER, and Southern Z.  Other railways had previously used 8 coupled locos for heavy shunting, including the Barry and Port Talbot, but these had gone by 1948.

[AMJ]

There were probably no designed steam locomotives as many of the existing kit had quite a few years life remaining. Additionally in the post war period transportation of goods has moved onto the roads for smaller loads. The exception being the ideal product the ISO containers, here is your modern local pick-up to a central location.

 

Some of the private engine building companies had moved into diesel construction before the war and had ceased steam locomotive products. Example being John Fowler.

 

A hypothetical standard tank would have the same style as the 3MT and 4MT probably shortened to a smaller wheeled 0-6-0T. I'd probably use 9F wheels as a standard component.

[Nearholmer]

What’s that GWR class that is obviously inspired by the Yankee Tanks? I can imagine a standard steam shunter turning out rather like that.

 

I just checked: 15XX.

Edited August 18, 2018 by Nearholmer

[duncan]

Cost has been touched on, but the biggest problem with going for diesels was the cost of importing the oil, in dollars whereas the coal was available in sterling.  Britain was broke for many years after the war, & it was only when labour costs / scarcity forced the move away from coal that diesels were accepted.

 

edit, I mean mainline diesels

Edited August 19, 2018 by duncan

[Mad McCann]

The future, as previously stated for shunting, was Diesel from about 1935 on.

Having said that and with the fine example of the J72 to hand, I suppose any standard ‘steam shunter’ requirement would be adequately met by Hunslett’s Austerity 0-6-0t, large, powerful and proven in industry.

Also readily available.

 

D.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Mad McCann

[Dava]

There was a Railway Magazine article in about 1947 which showed the official LMSR 'standard' locos. The shunter was the 3F 0-6-0T. I may still have the copy.

 

A small number of 0F 0-4-0ST were built after nationalization. But the norm was diesel.

[Steamport Southport]

There was a Railway Magazine article in about 1947 which showed the official LMSR 'standard' locos. The shunter was the 3F 0-6-0T. I may still have the copy.

 

A small number of 0F 0-4-0ST were built after nationalization. But the norm was diesel.

 

Yes. The Jinty was still the standard shunter but it's worth bearing in mind the first diesel the LMS built was a conversion of MR 0-6-0T No 1831.

 

So you could possibly say that they carried on with the lineage from the early days of steam right up to the present day by using very similar dimensions. I think the 08 has a slightly shorter wheelbase.

 

That's probably why they were so successful as they were using tried and tested ideas with new technology.

 

 

Jason

[Corbs]

I mused about this recently. Total fiction, of course, for the reasons above.