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

[Regularity]

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

Fair point, but that was because they were told to, by Derby, not because they designed them.

[Adam]

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.

 

And that's fair enough - could you, however, be so kind as to provide the reference number from the TNA catalogue? Sounds interesting.

 

Adam

[Steamport Southport]

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.

 

The Hughes 2-6-0 was based on the L&YR 4-6-0s. It's a pure Horwich design.

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/LMSR-and-BRM/LYR-locomotives/i-BPTFgtx

 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

Fair point, but that was because they were told to, by Derby, not because they designed them.

 

True.

 

It's also worth pointing out the Fowler version of the LNWR 0-8-0s were a bit rubbish and most had gone before the early 1950s. Whilst the locomotives they were built to replace/supplement were still going strong.

 

 

 

Jason

[adb968008]

The Hughes 2-6-0 was based on the L&YR 4-6-0s. It's a pure Horwich design.

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/LMSR-and-BRM/LYR-locomotives/i-BPTFgtx

 

 

 

Jason

Except the tender..

[LMS2968]

There was a L&YR-derived tender designed for the Horwich Crabs, and in different circumstances would have run with them. George Hughes retired before the first Crabs were built, and Henry Fowler moved in to 'Midlanise' the design as much as possible, the intention being to fit the Midland Compound boiler, amongst others. Fortunately, the design was too advanced for him to do too much damage, but the Fowler tender was one of the results.

[Steamport Southport]

Except the tender..

 

 

 

 

Lima did it right and stretched the tender width wise to fit. 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[PenrithBeacon]

The Hughes 2-6-0 was based on the L&YR 4-6-0s. It's a pure Horwich design.

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/LMSR-and-BRM/LYR-locomotives/i-BPTFgtx

 

 

 

Jason

Have you looked at the RCTS volume and/or the Wild Swan monograph? Edited August 21, 2018 by PenrithBeacon

[PenrithBeacon]

There was a L&YR-derived tender designed for the Horwich Crabs, and in different circumstances would have run with them. George Hughes retired before the first Crabs were built, and Henry Fowler moved in to 'Midlanise' the design as much as possible, the intention being to fit the Midland Compound boiler, amongst others. Fortunately, the design was too advanced for him to do too much damage, but the Fowler tender was one of the results.

And the Midland whistle!

[Il Grifone]

omis

 

 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.

 

They don't seem to be making a very good job of the ECML!

Edited August 21, 2018 by Il Grifone

[Nedrahn]

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

Cox's "Locomotive Panorama Vol 1" has a diagram of a proposed  0-6-2T, which eventually morphed into the Fowler 2-6-2T. I don't if it's the same one, as it certainly wasn't intended as a replacement for the 0-6-0Ts. The same book has an austerity version of the 0-6-0, repeated in Haresnape's "Ivatt and Riddles Locomotives" along with the Stanier-esque 0-6-0. The Cox book has lots of goodies for anyone who likes proposed (or very speculative) locos, including the genesis of the Crab and an Ivatt style Lanky 2-4-2.

[Il Grifone]

Absolutely...

these would have looked good on boat trains.

17C30453-7EFE-4C56-81ED-AA32CC8BCB9F.jpeg987A534F-55EF-4F09-B950-26F7D406AC65.jpegE038E0D4-AF0C-4999-A813-BCCCF17863BF.jpeg7815F96D-F6D1-4C83-835A-35E16D0D8D9F.jpeg

 

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

 

She looks good but illustrates a serious problem with importing U.S. diesels. Even scaled down 7/8 she is still fills our loading gauge. Even the Continental version is too large. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSB_Class_MY I understand the eventual Class 66 is a tight squeeze. They are a The other problem was lack of foreign exchange to buy them and their fuel - we had spent it all on munitions and other supplies (we only finished paying off our war time debts to the States fairly recently). Government policy was build and buy British, so  imports were out.

 

The LNER considered a high speed diesel flyer before the war from Germany, but found it wanting both in terms of first cost and capacity. Gresley produced the A4 to provide the desired service. The war put paid to further development here, but the U.S.A. still had two years of peace to continue development before entering the war.

 

The GWR had a successful series of railcars in the thirties and would presumably have built more if conditions had been otherwise. The LMS also built some.

 

The Midland/early LMS designs tended to suffer from inadequate bearings. This nonsense stopped when Stanier brought in GWR know how.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Il Grifone

[cheesysmith]

Can we just clear up this love affair with EMD engines. The 567 didn't come with a BHP to match the EE engine until the 50s, as used in the LMS twins. By this time EE was offering the V16 with 2400bhp, Vs EMD with 1750BHP, and there is not much difference in mass or size of either engine. And wickky (I know, don't trust it) has a comment at the end stating many of the early locos with 567 engines survived because of their light weight of 120 tons. A 1350BHP loco with 120tons weight doesn't sound like what the UK wanted or needed. Not when the LMS could have turned out the twins at 130 tons and the engines were actually later in life upgraded to be identical to the southern ones, so had a BHP of 1750.

 

Also, remember the passenger locos they made had two engines to get the needed BHP. These would have been simply too heavy for UK rails.

[Regularity]

The LNER was reportedly considering dual units (each single cabbed) based on the Alco RS-1. They may have fitted into the loading gauge - although their exhaust output could rival a steam engine on a bad day!

[LMS2968]

The LNER was reportedly considering dual units (each single cabbed) based on the Alco RS-1. They may have fitted into the loading gauge - although their exhaust output could rival a steam engine on a bad day!

A bit like Deltics, then!

[Nearholmer]

The LNER plan was definitely a prefiguring of the Deltic story. I haven’t read Fiennes for ages, but it would be interesting to see if he acknowledges picking-up and reviving an earlier plan. Not all of the reports of the LNER plan focus on imported locos, so I surmise that they were weighing-up options, and tangling with the short platforms at kings cross problem.

[PenrithBeacon]

The LNER was reportedly considering dual units (each single cabbed) based on the Alco RS-1. They may have fitted into the loading gauge - although their exhaust output could rival a steam engine on a bad day!

Where was this reported?

[doilum]

She looks good but illustrates a serious problem with importing U.S. diesels. Even scaled down 7/8 she is still fills our loading gauge. Even the Continental version is too large. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSB_Class_MY I understand the eventual Class 66 is a tight squeeze. They are a The other problem was lack of foreign exchange to buy them and their fuel - we had spent it all on munitions and other supplies (we only finished paying off our war time debts to the States fairly recently). Government policy was build and buy British, so  imports were out.

 

The LNER considered a high speed diesel flyer before the war from Germany, but found it wanting both in terms of first cost and capacity. Gresley produced the A4 to provide the desired service. The war put paid to further development here, but the U.S.A. still had two years of peace to continue development before entering the war.

 

The GWR had a successful series of railcars in the thirties and would presumably have built more if conditions had been otherwise. The LMS also built some.

 

The Midland/early LMS designs tended to suffer from inadequate bearings. This nonsense stopped when Stanier brought in GWR know how.

She looks good but illustrates a serious problem with importing U.S. diesels. Even scaled down 7/8 she is still fills our loading gauge. Even the Continental version is too large. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSB_Class_MY I understand the eventual Class 66 is a tight squeeze. They are a The other problem was lack of foreign exchange to buy them and their fuel - we had spent it all on munitions and other supplies (we only finished paying off our war time debts to the States fairly recently). Government policy was build and buy British, so  imports were out.

 

The LNER considered a high speed diesel flyer before the war from Germany, but found it wanting both in terms of first cost and capacity. Gresley produced the A4 to provide the desired service. The war put paid to further development here, but the U.S.A. still had two years of peace to continue development before entering the war.

 

The GWR had a successful series of railcars in the thirties and would presumably have built more if conditions had been otherwise. The LMS also built some.

 

The Midland/early LMS designs tended to suffer from inadequate bearings. This nonsense stopped when Stanier brought in GWR know how.

USA also had its own shallow on shore wells producing dirt cheap fuel. It also had the geographical challenge of delivering fuel on a continental scale. A no brainer.

We paid for oil in dollars and had to import it via the Suez canal in ships of less than 50,000tons.

There was also the optimistic thought that by the mid 60s nuclear power would be providing very low cost electricity to the grid and continuing R&D might miniturise reactors to fit in an individual locomotive. One last generation of steam locomotives would bridge the gap.

[The Johnster]

My Brother In Law to be was working on installing switchgear in Hunterston nuclear power station near Largs in 1963 while it was under construction, and was a big fan of nuclear.  He claimed that the energy would be so cheap that it wouldn't be economically viable to print the bills and post them out. 

 

I'm still waiting...

[bike2steam]

A bit like Deltics, then!

 

That's what yer get for adapting maritime 'stroker' engines.

[PenrithBeacon]

My Brother In Law to be was working on installing switchgear in Hunterston nuclear power station near Largs in 1963 while it was under construction, and was a big fan of nuclear. He claimed that the energy would be so cheap that it wouldn't be economically viable to print the bills and post them out.

 

I'm still waiting...

That was the consensus view then, seems to be a little optimistic now!

[RedgateModels]

Same line was spun with North Sea Gas so my Dad says - free byproduct from the extraction of oil. Seems to cost me quite a lot now ...

[Il Grifone]

Same line was spun with North Sea Gas so my Dad says - free byproduct from the extraction of oil. Seems to cost me quite a lot now ...

 

It didn't help that it was given away to the oil companies. Norway has done quite well from its share.

[doilum]

That was the consensus view then, seems to be a little optimistic now!

That's the problem with crystal balls and building for the future. Remember Thunderbirds? By the mid 21st century we would have atomic powered Vespas, plasma cutters the size of a hair dryer but would still need a manned communication satellite in fixed orbit. So wrong on all three counts.

In hindsight, without crystal balls, they made inevitable choices.

[bike2steam]

 Norway has done quite well from its share.

 

Apart from a few years ago they fell victim to savage inflation, I musta timed it wrong, £18 for a sandwich and £8 for beer in Bergen, yer don't pay that much in London!!!! edit - And that was in one of the bars outside of the main tourist area (trap?).

Edited August 23, 2018 by bike2steam