Jump to content
 

SR Steam Locomotives with Eight Wheel Tenders


Stefen1988
 Share

Recommended Posts

The N15 King Arthurs did, well many of them, the similar S15s, the Lord Nelsons, the rebuilt N15Xs, and a small number of Schools late on in their lives.

 

Different tenders for different types and different ones within classes so tread carefully.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Couple of Schools class locos also ran with 8-wheel tenders from withdrawn Nelsons for a while. Earlier Drummond locos included K10, S11, D15. 

 

S15s and N15s running on the Central Section had 6-wheel tenders due to that section having shorter turntables. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As others have said and a few more off the top of my head to the list (although sometimes not all members of the class or at all times as the tenders were often exchanged) 

 

H15

N15

S15

N15X 

LN

V (Two exchanged with LN tenders briefly)

T9

D15

L11

L12

T14

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure the D15s ran with watercarts (?) ..... what about K10s though ? ................ then there were a number of Drummond 'oddballs' : his pre-T14 4-6-0s and the double singles.

 

I've heard it suggested that Bulleid considered eight-wheelers for some of his Pacifics - but would they have been a sort of curved-sided 'Nelson' tender or would they have a rigid chassis in the Gresley mould - considering the guy's background ? ( "What If" models invited ! ) 

One thing's for certain, the Q1s would have benefited from eight-wheel tenders - and they'd not have been hampered by turntable length like the Pacifics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Wickham Green, the D15's had 8 wheel watercart tenders when new but were replaced by 13ft 6 wheeled ones in 1925/6. Six of the K10's received 8 wheel bogie tenders from T9's in the summer of 1928, there own short 6 wheeled tenders going to the T9's in a straight swap permitting their use on the Central Section.

 

All of the pre T14 4-6-0 classes, F13, E14, G14, aand P14 had 8 wheel watercart tenders which they kept until withdrawal. additionally all Drummond's early stuff had them as well, T7, E10, the C8's gained 8 wheel tenders between 1902 and 1907.

Regards

Martin

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had unintenionally overlooked the S11 and L12 class. As far as I can tell the S11's, a class of 10 locos retained the 8 wheel tenders until withdrawal, almost en-bloc in 1951. The L12's were built with 8 wheeel tenders until 1925 when half of the class (10) had 6 wheel tenders fitted and were transferred to the Eastern Division. It would seem that they kept these until withdrawal, again almost en-bloc in 1951.

 

I've had a look at the SEMG info re K10's, it generally agrees with that I posted upthread but I can't find enough concinving evidence that would suggest that they migrated around the engines of the class although undoubtedly some differing couplings may well have occurred at works visits.

 

There is no doubt that the LSWR and it's successor were able to vary types of tender with work according to need with some degree of success, but it does make tracking it all from mostly a century ago a haphazard affair.

Regards

Martin

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't due to small turntables, just that the Central and SE Section locomotives didn't need large capacity tenders. You don't particularly want to be dragging more weight than is necessary. 4000 or 4500 gallons of water is heavy, especially for the small and medium sized locomotives.

 

Solved on sensible railways by having water troughs....

 

 

Jason

Edited by Steamport Southport
Link to post
Share on other sites

SR trips weren't quite long enough to justify installing water troughs, except for those to the far SW, for which they decided it was simpler just to change engines at Salisbury and refill the tender at leisure. 

 

Troughs were one of Ramsbottom's strokes of genius but were quite expensive to install and maintain - the water that misses going up the scoop ends up all over the track and surrounding area - there were usually brick facings at trackside to stop mud washing into the ballast but it still needed more repacking than usual.  You need to stop them freezing in winter, too.  I don't know what happens if a lowered scoop hits a frozen trough, but I imagine it's not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rogerzilla said:

SR trips weren't quite long enough to justify installing water troughs, except for those to the far SW, for which they decided it was simpler just to change engines at Salisbury and refill the tender at leisure. 

 

Troughs were one of Ramsbottom's strokes of genius but were quite expensive to install and maintain - the water that misses going up the scoop ends up all over the track and surrounding area - there were usually brick facings at trackside to stop mud washing into the ballast but it still needed more repacking than usual.  You need to stop them freezing in winter, too.  I don't know what happens if a lowered scoop hits a frozen trough, but I imagine it's not good.

 

It's the LSWR that I meant. Nowhere else on the SR (and constituents) needed them.

 

So you ended up with locomotives needing large tenders with 4000/4500 capacity that weighed more than some of the locomotives pulling them. The GWR didn't need large tenders for their locomotives doing virtually the same journey, a small 3000 or 3500 gallon tender was sufficient. It was only later with the large 4-6-0s that they started using 4000 gallon tenders.

 

I don't think frozen water troughs were ever a problem. They were used in the grim and frostbitten North after all.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

It's the LSWR that I meant. Nowhere else on the SR (and constituents) needed them.

 

So you ended up with locomotives needing large tenders with 4000/4500 capacity that weighed more than some of the locomotives pulling them. The GWR didn't need large tenders for their locomotives doing virtually the same journey, a small 3000 or 3500 gallon tender was sufficient. It was only later with the large 4-6-0s that they started using 4000 gallon tenders.

 

I don't think frozen water troughs were ever a problem. They were used in the grim and frostbitten North after all.

 

Jason

LSWR crews had more allowances for tea breaks on the footplate so needed the extra water?

 

Did the GWR invest more in water supplies at regular intervals and perhaps the LSWR worked on carried capacity so they didn't need to plumb as many stations out in the middle of nowhere as seemed to be the case in North Cornwall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

It wasn't due to small turntables, just that the Central and SE Section locomotives didn't need large capacity tenders. You don't particularly want to be dragging more weight than is necessary. 4000 or 4500 gallons of water is heavy, especially for the small and medium sized locomotives.

 

Solved on sensible railways by having water troughs....

 There is some truth in what you say however the round of tender swapping between the D15,L11, and 700 classes was done for the specific reason of equipping the D15 with a 13ft wheelbase tender to fit on Fratton turntable. Besides the 6 wheel tenders held 3500 gallons when full, which is only 4.4 tons lighter than the 4500 gallon variety so not much difference really.

 

I can't think of an instance where the tender weighed more than the loco, in the three classes above D15 loco 59T 15C tender 49T , L11 loco 46T 14C tender 39T 12C, 700 loco 42T 15C tender 37T 14C. These are the as built weights, superheating would add an amount to the loco in due course. Of course as a journey progressed and the water and coal was used the weight of the tender as a percentage of the total diminished and compared to the weight of the train a few tons here and there made little difference.

Regards

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Martin Shaw said:

 There is some truth in what you say however the round of tender swapping between the D15,L11, and 700 classes was done for the specific reason of equipping the D15 with a 13ft wheelbase tender to fit on Fratton turntable. ................

Sorry, got that the wrong way round - I knew it was something to do with tender wheelbase.

Yes the length of run on the LSWR would have justified water troughs - but I believe they couldn't find suitable level stretches of track at the right sort of intervals ! ( No problem when you build your railway on a billiard table, of course ! )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...