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

[Alex TM]

Hi Corbs,

 

Those are the sort of images I had in mind when I asked the question.  Interesting variation in tank lengths and shapes too.

 

Have you got round to building one?

 

Again, thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

[Nearholmer]

Corbs

 

Excellent!

 

Have you compared it with the GWR 15XX?

 

K

[Big James]

That picture looks amazing it. But to me it looks like an SR Z class and a USA tank had a baby.

 

Big James

[brack]

I mean no comment on your Photoshopping, it is a plausible design, but I'm rather glad they built a batch of J72s instead! No grace, proportion or aesthetic consideration in the later LMS or BR standard designs.

[PenrithBeacon]

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.

It all depends on the date of the document RM was using. The LMS made a decision in the mid 1930s that it would build no more steam shunters because it was clear after trials that diesel shunters were vastly more economical.

BR went back on that decision.

[Steamport Southport]

I mean no comment on your Photoshopping, it is a plausible design, but I'm rather glad they built a batch of J72s instead! No grace, proportion or aesthetic consideration in the later LMS or BR standard designs.

 

What?

 

The BR Standards are probably among the finest looking engines the UK has ever built. Much better looking than all that Victorian rubbish.

 

Just look at this beauty.

 

 

 

Wiki photo so in common usage.

 

 

 

Jason

[Il Grifone]

The decision to switch to diesel had to be put on hold due to the country lacking foreign exchange. We were almost bankrupt after the war (Apparently it cost three million pounds a day when a pound was worth something!). The GWR had a small project for oil burning, which the Government thought was a good idea and proposed a wide expansion,  which,after a not inconsiderable amount of money had been spent, had to be abandoned due to not having the money to buy the oil. Thus steam had to carry on and rather than building existing designs a whole new range was designed and built in large numbers. Later thanks to properly applied 'austerity'. funds became available ane the 'Modernisation Plan' was born. A few years earlier with a fully nationalised transport system, this might have worked, but with denationalised road transport allowed to cream off the profitable traffic, yet more money was wasted (The other lot this time - all politicans seem good at wasting taxpayers money....). A headlong flight into diesel traction followed with expensive and almost new locomotives being sent for scrap long before they were worn out.

There was a TV programme not long ago about this where it was insinuated that we were behind the rest of Rutopein switching to diesel and electric, which is just not true. I have pictures I took in France of working steam locomotives (141Rs I think, but the photos aren't very clear) several years after the last fire had gone out in this country. Germany also had steam and Italy kept a reserve into the eighties. I saw one shunting Genoa harbour after I moved there in 1976.

 

I've given way to waffle again....

[Corbs]

Hi Corbs,

 

Those are the sort of images I had in mind when I asked the question. Interesting variation in tank lengths and shapes too.

 

Have you got round to building one?

 

Again, thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

Thanks, yes the short tanks were based on the Z class, the idea being this is a yard shunter, the long tank version perhaps being needed for longer trips away from a water crane.

I’ve bought a damaged LMS 2MT to cut and shut into this one day. Just need to work out what chassis to use. The one in the photoshop is from the Bagnalls ‘Victor’ and ‘Vulcan’, which feature Walschaerts valve gear.

 

The principle was based on the 15xx, yep!

Edited August 19, 2018 by Corbs

[south_tyne]

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

BR-standard-shunter5-long-4a.jpg

BR-standard-shunter5-short-2a.jpg

Fantastic!!

[Alex TM]

What?

 

The BR Standards are probably among the finest looking engines the UK has ever built. Much better looking than all that Victorian rubbish.

 

Just look at this beauty.

 

 

 

Wiki photo so in common usage.

 

 

 

Jason

Hi again,

 

Just one word in response to such a sweeping statement - Crosti

 

Only kidding - I do like the look of the Standard Classes, though the Crosti boilered ones take a bit of getting used to (especially the proposed Std cl 5 4-6-0).

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

[Dava]

It all depends on the date of the document RM was using. The LMS made a decision in the mid 1930s that it would build no more steam shunters because it was clear after trials that diesel shunters were vastly more economical.

BR went back on that decision.

I've uploaded the 1947 article for anyone who's interested. It appears to be editorial based on official LMSR information at the time, early-mid 1947 appearing in the Jul-Aug 1947 Railway Magazine. Possibly news was rationed then as well.

 

It includes the Fowler '2F' and '3F' 0-6-0Ts among the 'New Standard LMSR locos' even though none had been built since before the war. It also includes the 0-6-0 diesel shunting loco. The other steam types make interesting reading.

 

LMS standard locos 1947.pdf

Edited August 19, 2018 by Dava

[LMS2968]

I suspect that a lot of that came from Tom Coleman, who was very much pro steam, note that diesels, either shunting or the proposed main line units, don't get a mention in the text. He always included the dock tank in his projections over two decades. The inclusion of the Claughton is interesting: not only were no more to be built, but only 6004 of the class remained.

[RedgateModels]

On 17/08/2018 at 17:31, Alex TM said:

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.

 

Like this 😉

 

 

Don't forget the class 8 freight engine that was actually in the 1956 build program, but got axed in favour of more 9f's

 

 

Thanks to Chris Nevard for the last photo

Edited August 17, 2022 by RedgateModels

[doilum]

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

.

Brian R

More probably due to weight limits. In the 1950s there were still many factories with their own sidings taking single wagon deliveries. Often on lightly laid branch lines or across ancient bridges. Early disels were probably too heavy The J72 was replaced by the 04 diesel.

 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132029-wantage-tramway-no5-jane-or-shannon-from-the-sandy-potton-tramway-1850/

[doilum]

More probably due to weight limits. In the 1950s there were still many factories with their own sidings taking single wagon deliveries. Often on lightly laid branch lines or across ancient bridges. Early disels were probably too heavy The J72 was replaced by the 04 diesel.

 

From Wiki

Class 08=49t

J72=39t

Class 04=32t

J94=48t

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132029-wantage-tramway-no5-jane-or-shannon-from-the-sandy-potton-tramway-1850/

[Nearholmer]

Doilum

 

True in some senses, but the ‘light diesel shunter’ had been available from the market since the early 1930s, so they could have bought them, if they’d wanted.

 

The ‘heavy diesel shunter’ took a bit longer to develop, and didn’t settle as a design until the late-1930s.

 

We tend to forget this light/heavy distinction now that shunting is largely gone, but in the late 1940s it was important - I’ve got a technical and financial text book about diesel locos from the British perspective, published in 1949, and the author devotes a whole chapter to it.

 

Kevin

[Regularity]

During WWII, all resources were sparse and directed towards the war effort. The railways had to make o and mend, rather than invest in the wholesale replacement of small, worn out engines of Victorian origin. Post-war austerity didn’t help, but many programmes were created to replace aging fleets with new builds. New builds require new design work, which can take time, and simply getting permanent way restored to pre-war conditions was a higher priority.

 

Given the above need, and the reasons outlined above (oil needed to be imported, size of engines and transmission components, but not the novelty of the technology - English Electric had established themselves in the export market) then the resumption of steam loco construction was inevitable, at least in the short term.

 

The new work was, generally, about introducing new efficiencies in build and operation, and the replacement of a plethora of designs and variations with something more standardised. A prime example from before the war is the Collett 0-4-2T of 4800/5800 class. Essentially an update of an existing design, to meet the motive power requirements of a specified type of service. The 1600 class of pannier was intended as a replacement of the 850/2020 class of (by then, mostly) pannier tanks. Without the war, they have been built 10 years earlier, and had a more useful lifespan. But these were not shunting tanks, witness their use on various branchlines, especially in Wales.

 

The GWR County 4-6-0s, the LNER B1, the Bullied light pacific and Q1, and Ivatt’s steam locos on the LMS were all built with an eye to future needs, and had detail design differences that looked forward, not backwards.

 

What no one foresaw was the rapid change in circumstances, leading to a rather hasty demise of steam (the plan was for it to be removed in 1972) and the abandonment of the pilot scheme, with somewhat disastrous results in many case, and the ordering of too many indifferent classes (Claytons, anyone?) or indeed engines for which the need was soon to evaporate (class 14 - quite possibly a much more suitable candidate for passenger train pilot and shunting work than the 08). This was further exacerbated by the lifting of the “common carrier” status of the railways in 1962 - possibly 40 years too late, given the post WW1 development of motor transport - which had prevented the railways from developing more efficient methods for doing what they are best at: the bulk movement of people and freight. (Hence, too many shunting locos, whatever the motive power!)

 

As for a standard steam shunter... No, was never going to happen. All of the big four had tried out variants on the EE 350hp design, and had publicly committed to it in the case of the LMS and the GWR. The 08, whilst based on the LMS design (later class 11, confusingly not renumbered into the TOPS scheme but retaining their 12000 number range), owed two key features to the SR example: 4’6” wheels (providing 3” extra clearance above the third rail) and vacuum brakes. The class 11 was a purely freight shunter, but the Southern’s changes (other than the Box-pok wheels!) made it a universal shunter, capable of 335 hours work every fortnight (an hour to refuel was the only downtime): no steam engine could match that level of availability, so that is why it was never going to happen.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Regularity

[Steamport Southport]

I thought I put a winky face after the "Victorian rubbish" so here it is.

 

 

I don't want the pre grouping lot getting upset again. 

 

 

 

Jason

[kevinlms]

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

True the LMS 'standard' shunter was officially the 3F 0-6-0T. But they didn't need any more, once they had built 422 examples (mostly by private builders), between 1924 & 1931. 

[kevinlms]

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'......

Don't forget that Stanier (reluctantly) approved the construction of 45 more 4F's in 1937. Such was the low level of urgency for them, that it took until 1941 for the last pair to be built. Yes, I know they weren't shunters, but they could be built on the cheap, using many parts already in stock.

[Corbs]

Interesting the point about light and heavy shunters - was that why the LMS had the 2F and the 3F versions? Also consideration of wheelbase length, I guess?

 

Don't forget that Stanier (reluctantly) approved the construction of 45 more 4F's in 1937. Such was the low level of urgency for them, that it took until 1941 for the last pair to be built. Yes, I know they weren't shunters, but they could be built on the cheap, using many parts already in stock.

I know not where this drawing comes from originally, but it's a musing on a 'Stanier 4F'

[Regularity]

Incidentally, at Northampton they used 3F 0-6-0 tender engines for shunting at the marshalling yard, and 3F tanks for transfer/trip work.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Regularity

[Steamport Southport]

The Fowler 2F was a dock tank built for places like Birkenhead, Greenock and Fleetwood.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Fowler_Dock_Tank

 

 

http://brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=class&id=41&type=S&page=alloc

 

 

 

Jason

['CHARD]

I fully understand that the EE 350 hp diesel put paid to the notion of a BR Standard shunt or trip loco, but as others have mooted, I could envision an oil-fired beast with family stylings somewhere between a USA Class 0-6-0 and Ivatt's Flying Pig, and frankly it sounds rather wonderful!!!!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I know not where this drawing comes from originally, but it's a musing on a 'Stanier 4F'

But the real Stanier 4F, along with the 2P 0-4-4T and OF 0-4-0ST which he signed for were all parallel boilers... Standardisation again, don't be tempted to build new designs for the same task in what will only be penny packet quantities, if 'same old' will do. And possibly even be more sure of a welcome from the operating staff.

 

...all politicans seem good at wasting taxpayers money....

 

 Now we come to a well proven core truth which everyone should know. This is why private industry is always superior, see Stanier above in the employ of the very commercially astute LMS: it's the shareholders who bear the cost of blunders.