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

[PenrithBeacon]

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.

Amongst the Stanier standards was a 5'-3" 2-6-0 intended to replace the 4F 0-6-0. Think of a Class 4 2-6-4T without the tanks, but with a 3500 ton tender and 5'-3" coupled wheels. There is a document in TNA which has weight diagrams of all the Stanier standard engines, included those that weren't actually realised.

 

In 1937 the LMS was already planning, under Government direction, for the needs of the forthcoming war with Germany.The company couldn't afford to divert engineering staff from this to the detail design of the new 4F 2-6-0 hence the order for more 4F 0-6-0s, which was, as you say, delayed until 1941. The 2-6-0 was eventually realised, in a revised design, by Ivatt.

[Corbs]

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.

 

True, my guess is the illustrator was making an LMS equivalent to the GWR 2251.

 

The 2-6-0 does make more sense in the context of the way loco design was going. I am guessing the Stanier Mogul that preceded the 5MT was not a direct replacement for the good old 4F?

[doilum]

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

I was thinking more of the "why new build J72". In the days when railwaymen had almost sectarian loyalty to their pregrouping employers never mind the big four, the ex Midland shed at Normanton had at least one J71/2 for shunting and working the Castleford branches. It is possible that only locos with a 6xxxx number were allowed past Whitwood junction on to ex NE lines!

[The Johnster]

True, my guess is the illustrator was making an LMS equivalent to the GWR 2251.

 

The 2-6-0 does make more sense in the context of the way loco design was going. I am guessing the Stanier Mogul that preceded the 5MT was not a direct replacement for the good old 4F?

 

I think the Stanier mogul was an attempt to replicate the GW 43xx in LMS parts; there's a story that the first one was turned out with a copper capped chimney, which Stanier immediately ordered removed.   In fact the work done by 43xx on the GW was being done by 4F 0-6-0s on the LMS; whether as effectively is another matter, but whether the difference was financially worth the effort was another other matter...

[The Johnster]

I was thinking more of the "why new build J72". In the days when railwaymen had almost sectarian loyalty to their pregrouping employers never mind the big four, the ex Midland shed at Normanton had at least one J71/2 for shunting and working the Castleford branches. It is possible that only locos with a 6xxxx number were allowed past Whitwood junction on to ex NE lines!

There may have been more reason for this sort of thing than company loyalty, real though that was; it must have taken a while after Nationalisation for clearance and loading trials for 'foreign' engines to be completed and them to be allowed on routes they had not worked over in big 4 guise.  The Castleford branch (don't know much about it) may not have been cleared for working by Midland engines immediately if that had not happened before.  This sort of information can be found in the relevant Section Appendix if anyone's got one...  

 

There was also the railway's general small c conservatism to consider.  If a loco had proved successful on a job, then it or a classmate was likely to be allocated to the job again, as long as it or a classmate were available, in preference to trying something new.  Trying something new ran the risk of particular driving or firing technique appropriate to that particular job (remember it's not just supplying steam and using the coal efficiently, it's about planning for idle periods and not allowing the safety valves to lift, timing your firing to particular parts of the job, that sort of thing; railwaymen liked doing exactly what they'd done before because they knew it worked) not working as well as it had previously, with possible disruption until new technique was developed and learned.  

 

At Canton in the 70s I was told that the reason the 47 was changed on the up fish every evening was that the tender was empty and there was no time in the train's schedule to coal it.  It worked; I never heard of a 47 running low on coal with this job!

[Regularity]

True, my guess is the illustrator was making an LMS equivalent to the GWR 2251.

 

The 2-6-0 does make more sense in the context of the way loco design was going. I am guessing the Stanier Mogul that preceded the 5MT was not a direct replacement for the good old 4F?

Loco design had already gone that way 30 years before Stanier arrived, at least on part of what would become the LMS. Crewe stopped building 0-6-0 tender locos and switched to 4-6-0s in 1903/4...

[cctransuk]

.. there's a story that the first one was turned out with a copper capped chimney, which Stanier immediately ordered removed.

 

Not a copper-capped chimney; a GWR-esque topfeed cover shaped like that railway's safety-valve 'trumpet'.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[brack]

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.

The same very astute LMS who'd employed the highly competent Hughes, Fowler and lemon to build vast numbers of semi obsolescent locos at the expense of shareholders?

 

Public Vs private is a daft argument here - the private sector are just as capable of stuffing things up, just their execs may be paid a bit more. Public sector are usually just as capable of doing their jobs if the politicians in charge can keep their fingers off things.

The policy swings on BR in the 50s and changing circumstances to do business in were more often than not down to Westminster fiddling about. Given a free hand, I suspect they'd have pretty much just bought a range of EE diesel electrics as that's what the big 4 had been working on, they had proven export designs that could be adapted, and (unsurprisingly in light of the above) their products generally turned out to be better than all the other types tried in any case (08, 20, 37, 40, 50/DP2, 55).

The fact that anyone who could spell diesel was allowed to build a dozen or two locos was mostly down to a desire to build our home industrial suppliers.

 

Back to the proposed shunters, the bigger question was why not a bigger diesel trip/ shunter? The class 14 would've made a lot more sense in 1948/50 than when they were finally built.

[LMS2968]

There was little connection between the 4Fs and Stanier Crabs, the former being primarily goods engines. Stanier wanted two mixed traffic locos, one for the slower end of the spectrum and one for the higher. The Crab was the former and the Black Five the latter. The immediate predecessor of the Stanier Crab was the Horwich version from George Hughes, and the two classes worked turn and turn about for over thirty years.

 

Below the running plate, there were also similarities between the Stanier classes in the forms of wheels, axleboxes, springs, brake gear, cylinders and valve gear. The 2-6-0 boilers were designed in conjunction with those for the Jubilees, Black Fives and, later, 8Fs, and share many components and flanging blocks. The designers of the boilers, realising that they were working to a GWR script, placed the safety valves in the top feed for all classes. This edict was changed before any boilers were built, and the instruction to move them on to the firebox was sent from Derby to Horwich in good time. What happened later is not known, but the first ten Stanier Crabs had the combined top feed and safety valves, GWR style. The first, 13245, also had a GWR-style safety valve cover, which Stanier immediately ordered to be removed.

 

There is a tendency to try to link his first designs to GWR types: the 2-6-0s and the Black Five with the Halls. There was little in common between them: the Mixed Traffic 2-6-0 was well established on the LMS from 1926 and the Five was a similar loco with a bogie to reduce axle load and provide better stability at speed.

[Nearholmer]

Brack,

 

Ah, well, that clever Mr Bulleid had that thought, producing a 500hp trip loco, which could do what a traditional 0-6-0 could do. It had a mechanical transmission, though ....... as a DE, it would probably have been great!

 

http://www.semgonline.com/diesel/bull-500_01.html

Edited August 20, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Corbs]

the Mixed Traffic 2-6-0 was well established on the LMS from 1926 and the Five was a similar loco with a bogie to reduce axle load and provide better stability at speed.

 

True although I guess the Fowler Crab drew from the success of the 43xx and the N class on the SECR?

[PenrithBeacon]

The Hughes/Fowler 2-6-0 was based on a Caledonian design that wasn’t actually built. Advocates of the GW & SECR designs are forgetting the contribution of Gresley’s GNR moguls - these were more powerful than either and a better comparison with the Horwich mogul.

[doilum]

The same very astute LMS who'd employed the highly competent Hughes, Fowler and lemon to build vast numbers of semi obsolescent locos at the expense of shareholders?

Public Vs private is a daft argument here - the private sector are just as capable of stuffing things up, just their execs may be paid a bit more. Public sector are usually just as capable of doing their jobs if the politicians in charge can keep their fingers off things.

The policy swings on BR in the 50s and changing circumstances to do business in were more often than not down to Westminster fiddling about. Given a free hand, I suspect they'd have pretty much just bought a range of EE diesel electrics as that's what the big 4 had been working on, they had proven export designs that could be adapted, and (unsurprisingly in light of the above) their products generally turned out to be better than all the other types tried in any case (08, 20, 37, 40, 50/DP2, 55).

The fact that anyone who could spell diesel was allowed to build a dozen or two locos was mostly down to a desire to build our home industrial suppliers.

Back to the proposed shunters, the bigger question was why not a bigger diesel trip/ shunter? The class 14 would've made a lot more sense in 1948/50 than when they were finally built.

There are parallels with the aircraft industry and MoD. Rival firms would carry out R&D at their own expense, build prototypes and fund the trials. Once happy BR could then lease the locos until they had finally made up heir mind.

This method also sidestepped union politics and the rivalry of inherited steam centric design centres in Swindon, Derby, Crewe, Doncaster........

[PenrithBeacon]

True, my guess is the illustrator was making an LMS equivalent to the GWR 2251.

 

The 2-6-0 does make more sense in the context of the way loco design was going. I am guessing the Stanier Mogul that preceded the 5MT was not a direct replacement for the good old 4F?

The TNA document I mentioned earlier has a weight diagram of a Class 3 0-6-2T which was intended to replace the 3F Jinty. In the event it was replaced by the d/e shunter.

The only whinge I have about the d/e shunter is that it wasn’t suitable for transfer freight and suburban passenger trains. As a shunter it had a tractive effort far greater than a Class 3F steam engine but this meant that it was useless for anything else. A change to the gearbox design would have made it into a genuine Jinty replacement. BR went part of the way with the 09 but even that was more of a Class 4 replacement than a Class 3.

[Dava]

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?

 

 

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

post-5625-0-15501300-1305713873_thumb.jpg

It resembles a Maunsell Q class...

[Corbs]

The TNA document I mentioned earlier has a weight diagram of a Class 3 0-6-2T which was intended to replace the 3F Jinty. In the event it was replaced by the d/e shunter.

The only whinge I have about the d/e shunter is that it wasn’t suitable for transfer freight and suburban passenger trains. As a shunter it had a tractive effort far greater than a Class 3F steam engine but this meant that it was useless for anything else. A change to the gearbox design would have made it into a genuine Jinty replacement. BR went part of the way with the 09 but even that was more of a Class 4 replacement than a Class 3.

Very interesting. Is there any chance you could post a photo of it up here?

[PenrithBeacon]

Very interesting. Is there any chance you could post a photo of it up here?

No sorry! All TNA docs are Crown Copyright so I’d have to get explicit permission.

The loco looks very much like the Collett 0-6-2T but with 5’-3” wheels.

[Dava]

Brack,

Ah, well, that clever Mr Bulleid had that thought, producing a 500hp trip loco, which could do what a traditional 0-6-0 could do. It had a mechanical transmission, though ....... as a DE, it would probably have been great!http://www.semgonline.com/diesel/bull-500_01.html

English Electric produced a pair of demonstration 500hp locos, D0226-7, in 1956, one electric and one hydraulic transmission. In effect the next step up from the 350hp shunter. Both were tested and no others were ordered. D0226 went to the Worth Valley as 'Vulcan'.

[adb968008]

The same very astute LMS who'd employed the highly competent Hughes, Fowler and lemon to build vast numbers of semi obsolescent locos at the expense of shareholders?

Public Vs private is a daft argument here - the private sector are just as capable of stuffing things up, just their execs may be paid a bit more. Public sector are usually just as capable of doing their jobs if the politicians in charge can keep their fingers off things.

The policy swings on BR in the 50s and changing circumstances to do business in were more often than not down to Westminster fiddling about. Given a free hand, I suspect they'd have pretty much just bought a range of EE diesel electrics as that's what the big 4 had been working on, they had proven export designs that could be adapted, and (unsurprisingly in light of the above) their products generally turned out to be better than all the other types tried in any case (08, 20, 37, 40, 50/DP2, 55).

The fact that anyone who could spell diesel was allowed to build a dozen or two locos was mostly down to a desire to build our home industrial suppliers.

Back to the proposed shunters, the bigger question was why not a bigger diesel trip/ shunter? The class 14 would've made a lot more sense in 1948/50 than when they were finally built.

I’m not sure the LMS would have invested heavily in EE Mainline diesels, the GWR demonstrably did not.

 

The plethora of modern tech delivered in December 1947 across the big 4, was probably more about increasing the value of the companies based on its R&D efforts prior to nationalisation, than any technological drive to modernise.

 

If any railway was serious about modern tech in the UK in the 1940’s we would have seen the likes of General Motors with a slimmed down FT unit, which by 1945 had over 1000 units in service, and at 1350hp (2700 HP as an A/B unit) would have made 6229 Duchess of Hamilton look antiquated at the 1939 Worlds Fair. If not for WW2, the US would have probably been dieselised before 1950, as Prior to WW2 the £ was much stronger, and as the LMS were in better position to buy US than wait decades for EE to evolve with untested designs... much like the class 66 did in the late 90’s, we wouldn’t have had the trial and error of BR. (The LNER would likely have gone 1500vdc from London to Scotland, SR fully 3rd rail and GWR might have joined the LMS in looking to US traction technology, but I don’t think they cared, nor needed to in 1939.

 

As the UK renewed steam fleets in the 1920’s/30’s, and an expected life of 40+ years The UK was on target to be going Diesel at a rate 40 -50years behind the US, and was already at least a two decades behind even before the war. US manufacturers turned to diesel technology post WW1 and started diesel production in the 1920’s, long haul diesel services started in 1934 with the 115mph / 1000+ mile journey with the Zephyr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Zephyr, but in same year the LMS fated 5552 Silver Jubilee as “the future”, and managed to produce this paltry 0-4-0 Diesel shunter..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_diesel_shunter_7050, Coronation wouldn’t equal the Zephyrs speed for another 3 years, Mallard surpassed 4 years later.

 

Back in the UK, Sure shunters were on radar, but did the war really delay it ? A steam shunter was already history by 1939, (last Jinty was built in 1931, so the need for a replacement was at least 30-40 years away), but for the impetuous of BR in the 1950’s, the LMS probably would have remained at a sedate replacement into the 1970’s, like the rest of Europe, but it would have still happened.

 

What’s worth asking is what would our railway network look like, would there have been 900 class 08’s... the railways were closing branches and adding buses in the 1930’s, some Air transport was being offered, the question is if WW2 had not happened would we have roads, trucks and DC3’s on the same volumes and in the same timescale to challenge railways ? - afterall the A4’s and Duchesses weren’t built for fun, and an ROI would have been sought for decades post the 1930’s speed trials and investments.

 

To circle back to the question, why did BR not design a std shunter... they simply didn’t need to.

Indeed all the BR standards in entirety were a cheap solution based on the old way of doing things.

If anything it was the war the sped up the demise of UK steam, it did not prolong it, the 1955 plan was the jump start to something other countries got to grasp with decades earlier... for example the Dutch were done with steam in 1958, and it could have been done by the early 40’s.

Edited August 20, 2018 by adb968008

[Corbs]

It's a fun 'what if', though

[Nearholmer]

ADB

 

This debate has been had here before, at enormous length.

 

To summarise brutally: yes, all of the big four were dead serious about investing in “tech”, as fast as their access to capital would permit, for the simple reason that it was vital as a means of cutting costs.

 

The big issue for them, as it was for BR, access to capital. Other than, possibly, the SR they, didn’t look like fantastically good investments, so might have found it hard to raise funds with which to make big/fast changes.

[bike2steam]

Loco design had already gone that way 30 years before Stanier arrived, at least on part of what would become the LMS. Crewe stopped building 0-6-0 tender locos and switched to 4-6-0s in 1903/4...

 

Really ?? Crewe built over 150 4F's between 1924 and 1941.

[bike2steam]

It resembles a Maunsell Q class...

 

A lot of Derby ideas were included in loco classes that Maunsell was responsible for, as amongst his team the chief draughtsman was James Clayton, a former Derby man.

[brack]

I'm not sure we were so far behind as you think ADB. Armstrong Whitworth had practical working domestic and export diesels which were more successful than their US counterparts in the early 30s (their mixed traffic loco ran on the LNER throughout 1933, their railcars and shunters around the same time), but were pushed out of the railway market to concentrate on other stuff in the run up to war (planes, tanks, munitions, warships were needed). In the USA there were an awful lot of steam locos built in the 30s/40s too, they just dropped them in the 50s when they could get diesels (supply was restricted during the war, especially for builders who also produced steam locos, nicely crippling the competition for EMD). the big drivers for US dieselisation were labour costs, distances, water availability and multiple unit operation. The eastern coal hauling roads with relatively short runs, ample coal and water and intensively used lines (much closer to UK conditions) were the last holdouts for steam.

The LNER were looking at GM/EMD locos post Ww2 but financially and politically that wasn't really going to happen. In fairness had WW1 not happened Raven would've electrified the ECML north of York, never mind WW2. Had there been capital to do it, I suspect the LNER would have been a lot more interested in diesel or electric main line traction but the investment required was high. They couldn't even afford to replace the worn out substations on the shildon-newport route so had to deelectrify it in 1935 (but kept the locos in storage). It isn't that our railways couldn't see the future so much as they were trapped by lack of cash. Riddles could see that electrification was the answer in 1948, any idiot can see this today, yet we still build diesels and main line electrification keeps getting cancelled because there's never enough money for the initial investment.

Shunting locos had a far quicker payback time in terms of availability, startup time and reduction of shed workforce required, plus being based in one place meant the facilities needed could be provided easily.

[adb968008]

It's a fun 'what if', though

Absolutely...

these would have looked good on boat trains.

 

Imagine if Bulleid hadn’t happened, EMD567 engine delivering 2000hp since 1937, at speeds of upto 115mph...

although ignored in the UK, from 1954 it was used in Nohab diesels across Scandinavia and M61 in Hungary, although outdated by 1954, it killed any chance of international sales of UK designs due to its already proven reliability, and mass production capability.

 

Original class here..

https://www.deviantart.com/aranimu/art/Southern-6900-481717265

 

Sadly 2923 didn’t do so well..

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3251843

Edited August 21, 2018 by adb968008