BR Standard Classes on the Western Region

[Andy Kirkham]

I've recently been investigating the employment of Standards on the WR with the aid of  BRDatatbase http://www.brdatabase.info/

 

It's fairly well known that Britannias, 75XXX and 82XXX were allocated when new to Newton Abbot or Laira, but only lasted a couple of years due to their unpopulariy with staff.  Apart from these there is a very striking pattern of allocations; almost every Standard on the WR was allocated to a shed north of a London-Bristol-Swansea line (of course excluding Southern sheds acquired in 1963). Most major sheds seem to have had some, although there are exceptions - there don't seem to have been any based at Wolverhampton until after it came into LMR territory, but on the other hand Shrewsbury seems to have had unusually high number.

 

What could account for such a stark dichotomy? Could it be that the northerly loco men were more receptive to the Standards because they were more familiar with LMS loco? 

 

Another explanation that occurs to me is that the northen half of the region had more older locos in need of replacement - Saints, Stars, 28XX, Dukedogs, Dean Goods and absorbed Welsh locos, but that begs another question: why had the loco stock in the West Country been preferentially modernised?

Edited April 12, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[The Stationmaster]

The Western's 82XXX all went new to South Wales and then stayed there until dieselisation of local passenger services.  Effectively their allocation there simply carried on from Swindon ceasing to build large prairies and subsequently they went mainly to Mid/North Wales to replace withdrawn 4575 tank engines (for which they were more suited than covering the more powerful large prairie work)

 

The 75XXX were initially quite well distributed again replacing older engines onthe long winded secondary services of the kind the GWR loved.  And again many moved on to Mid/North Wales to replace older engines such as the remaining Dukedogs and older moguls because they had the route availability that made them suitable for that sort of work.  Similarly the Western's 9Fs went where there was work for them so were quite well spread over the sort of areas where heavy freight work existed.

 

The 'Britannias' were the odd balls - they were generally disliked on the Western because they were the first left-hand drive engines many Western men had seen, they had draughty cabs, they required left-handed firing and so on.  One particular Laira Driver wrote some very disparaging letters about them to the national press which no doubt helped foster the view that Western men didn't like them.  Most District Motive Power Supts were not over keen on them and the Newport Supt - seeing an opportunity stated at a Supts' conference that he would happily take the lot which he duly did and the entire Western fleet was moved to Canton.  Canton men seemed to get on fairly well with them even if some were very obviously - from what I saw at Reading - none too clever at getting away trains with a pacific but their DMPS had told them they had no choice and they had to like them or lump them.

 

[Halvarras]

The old Bradford Barton albums "More Great Western Steam in Cornwall" and "Cornwall's Railways - A Pictorial Survey" contain photos of 70019 Lightning (especially) and 70024 Vulcan working the down Cornish Riviera through to Penzance in 1951/2. So far though I have only ever seen one photo of a 75xxx in Cornwall, 75025 exiting Truro's Highertown Tunnel with a down parcels in 1954, which appeared in an issue of the erstwhile Railway Reflections magazine. But for this picture I wouldn't have believed these ever crossed the Tamar. In case this is of interest.

 

Far too late now to take up the small matter of Britannias not being Great Western with the publishers I suppose, but 70019 on the Long Rock turntable is a sight to behold!

 

[DCB]

The Britannias were not well matched to GWR operating conditions, in many ways they were not well suited to any British operating conditions as they started as LMS versions of the LNER V2s.  Essentially fast heavy freight engines. However they came out with a bogie and  around 6 tons less adhesion weight than a V2 making them suitable for many branch lines such as SR to Barnstaple and GWR to Penzance and Falmouth.   They were built without any clear idea of where they would be used, just an assumption that every operator would clamour for them, and when built no one actually wanted them, except the GER which was trying to run express trains with clapped out almost new B1s.   They probably ought to have gone to the LMR to replace the original Patriots and Scots, but Crewe were determined to keep building new Rebuilt Scots just keeping the numbers of the old locos for accountancy purposes.

 

The GWR grudgingly accepted a few, but they were very big impressive engines no better than a King as an express engine and with the trailing truck and limited adhesion no better than a Castle on fast freight/ milk/ parcels trains.

Had they been based at Bristol Bath Road and employed on Bristol Paddington Bristol rosters with a quick turn round, no need to go over a pit for servicing, and been available for Barrow road to borrow for Bristol Birmingham, or Bristol Sheffield turns they might have been legendary but they couldn't do anything noticeably better than the GWR locos of 1951 and were never improved with double chimneys etc so couldn't even match the post 1957 Kings and Castles for speed. Clun Castle was worked up to 98 MPH on the level,  

 

The GWR did make good use the Std 3 tanks. The replace pre grouping 0-6-2 tanks on welsh valley trains. They could manage very quick turn rounds as they had grease gun lubrication of the motion and didn't need a pit for oiling so they could run the service with less locos than had older types been employed.  They were gutless wonders, with the shortened GWR No 2 boiler as used on the 1903 2-4-2 tanks (not the std 4 often quoted)  so didn't knock their motion to bits like the Britannias, but neither could they manage the 10 coach trains the 0-6-2T had hauled, but they did fine with 8 coaches.

 

As for the std 4 75000 no one wanted them, the GWR had Manors for wales, 75000s were supposedly built for the central wales line but it was upgraded for 8Fs and Jubilees before they were built, They didn't steam initially until re drafted and were again gutless wonders markedly inferior to Midland 4Fs and the like for starting freight trains.

 

Still they make nice models, my Triang Britannia "Vulcan" 70024 puts on a brave show slipping wildly over my n/s trackwork on our 1950s WR themed layout and it makes a change from the usual 4-6-0 

 

[The Johnster]

On 12/04/2020 at 12:30, The Stationmaster said:

The Western's 82XXX all went new to South Wales and then stayed there until dieselisation of local passenger services.  Effectively their allocation there simply carried on from Swindon ceasing to build large prairies and subsequently they went mainly to Mid/North Wales to replace withdrawn 4575 tank engines (for which they were more suited than covering the more powerful large prairie work)

 

The 75XXX were initially quite well distributed again replacing older engines onthe long winded secondary services of the kind the GWR loved.  And again many moved on to Mid/North Wales to replace older engines such as the remaining Dukedogs and older moguls because they had the route availability that made them suitable for that sort of work.  Similarly the Western's 9Fs went where there was work for them so were quite well spread over the sort of areas where heavy freight work existed.

 

The 'Britannias' were the odd balls - they were generally disliked on the Western because they were the first left-hand drive engines many Western men had seen, they had draughty cabs, they required left-handed firing and so on.  One particular Laira Driver wrote some very disparaging letters about them to the national press which no doubt helped foster the view that Western men didn't like them.  Most District Motive Power Supts were not over keen on them and the Newport Supt - seeing an opportunity stated at a Supts' conference that he would happily take the lot which he duly did and the entire Western fleet was moved to Canton.  Canton men seemed to get on fairly well with them even if some were very obviously - from what I saw at Reading - none too clever at getting away trains with a pacific but their DMPS had told them they had no choice and they had to like them or lump them.

 

If you think they were none too clever at getting away from Reading, you should have seen them trying to keep their feet lifting a train out of Cardiff General Platform 2 over the Canal Wharf Bridge on a curve!  It was high drama and impressions of Vesuvius until at least half the train was over the hump and had enough on the bank going down to Newtown to pull the other half out of the platform, and it took several minutes to clear the platform.  Britannia last year made very easy work of this with 12 on (Tornado a few months later on a wet rail and with the weight of a 47 as well treated it with complete contempt), and the idea that the men were not as comfortable with a Pacific as they might have been with a Castle (I never saw a Castle having any trouble getting away from Platform 2, or anywhere else; the driver opened the regulator and the loco pulled the train, and that was that) may be not too far off the mark, but none of the Canton men I knew would have ever admitted it!

 

They were reasonably well liked at Canton because, despite being a bit light footed and driven from the wrong side of the cab, Canton had quite a lot of work requiring steady climbing at about 45-50mph with heavy trains, which Britannias were very good at; Severn Tunnel Bottom to Badminton, and some of the banks west of Cardiff on the SWML, and the North to West, being good examples.  High mileage locos with a bit of diameter worn off the tyres were preferred for 'down line' work, which included the very steep ascent from a standing start round a sharp 180 degree curve from Neath on the Down.  Canton firemen were initially terrified of the cavernous firebox, but the Brit's raised steam quickly and efficiently, as did the even bigger 9Fs. and the soon got the hang of it; it was noticed that they had to shovel half a ton more than they would with a Castle on a Paddington run, though.

 

The 82xxx allocated to South Wales sheds were (according to BR Database) initially sent new to Tyseley,  in replacement for new 5101s, but were very quickly re-allox to South Wales, Barry getting the first.  Like the 5101s, their larger driving wheels gave them the edge in terms of water capacity over 56xx, but they were not really up to 5101 work; 3MT cf 4MT for 5101 and 5MT for 56xx.  Where they replaced 4575s later it is worthy of note that BR classified the small prairies as 4MT, so they were a step down in power from these as well.  They used the slightly shorter domeless version of the no.2 boiler as David says; I am unaware of anyone suggesting that they used a no.4, which would have made them very heavy.  

 

On the subject of boilers, the shortened domeless no.2 was also used on the 77xxx and the no.14 Manor boiler was the basis of the 75xxx domeless, which may be why there were draughting problems, as the Manors also experienced these in their early days.  All the standards which had designs overseen by Swindon used versions of Swindon boilers.

 

There were of course a number of 73xxx allocated to the WR as well, which seem to not have attracted either praise or criticism, which probably indicates that they were thought of in much the same terms as a Hall.  They should have had an edge for speed with nominally 2" larger diameter drivers, but I have never heard this commented on except in relation to Black 5s.  The 4MT tanks  were not allocated to the WR until some were allox Swansea Paxton Street for the ex-LNWR Central Wales line services, and some of these ended up at Carmarthen towards the end of steam, working over the Pembroke Dock branch and the Aberystwyth route (I have no knowledge of them to Neyland/Milford Haven or Fishguard).  AFAIK no 76xxx was ever allox to the region (Machynlleth had one but this was after it had been transferred to the LMR) and AFAIK no 77xxx or 84xxx were ever allox either, nor Clans (these might have been quite useful west of Cardiff).  78xxx were allocated for the Mid Wales Brecon-Moat Lane line and at least one was overhauled at Caerphilly and painted in fully lined out green livery.

 

92000 was allox new Ebbw Jc for use on Ebbw Vale iron ore trains, one of the heaviest uphill hauls in the country, along with several subsequent members of the class.  

 

The region's reluctance to accept Britannias is well known and naming them after Broad Gauge singles did not cut the mustard.  The first, 70014 Iron Duke, was allox OOC just when the problems on the Southern with MNs manifested themselves and OOC jumped at the opportunity to 'lend' the loco to Stewart's Lane as reserve to 70004 for the Golden Arrow, and were careful never to ask for it back!  A loco named after the Duke of Wellington may not have been the most tactful choice for the primary French boat train service, but it wasn't intentional.  At least the Golden Arrow terminated at Victoria and not Waterloo...  By and large, the standards were regarded as 'Midland' locos by the crews, even Swindon products like 75xxx, 77xxx, and 82xxx, meaning LMS (Midland Railway would have been a serious insult from a GW man), as were the WDs.  Not bad, but not as good as a proper GW loco.  The left hand drive wasn't liked initially but it is not difficult to learn to fire from the right hand side of the cab and the men mostly just got on with it.

Edited April 17, 2020 by The Johnster

[Pannier Tank]

83A Newton Abbott had an allocation of 82xxx's between Jan 55 to Oct 56 some of which worked the Moretonhampstead Branch Line.

 

82001,82002,82004,82005,82006, 82009, 82031,82032,82033,82034,82038

 

 

[jjnewitt]

On 16/04/2020 at 03:41, DavidCBroad said:

As for the std 4 75000 no one wanted them, the GWR had Manors for wales, 75000s were supposedly built for the central wales line but it was upgraded for 8Fs and Jubilees before they were built,

 

Jubilees were very late in the day on the Central Wales. They didn't arrive until the ended up at Shrewsbury in the 1960s, displaced from elsewhere. It was all 8Fs, Black and Std 5s, G2s and class 4 tanks before then. The line would have been upgraded for the significant freight traffic that travelled over it rather than passenger work.  

 

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

78xxx were allocated for the Mid Wales Brecon-Moat Lane line and at least one was overhauled at Caerphilly and painted in fully lined out green livery.

 

I'm not sure this is true. I've never seen a Std 2 2-6-0 on the Mid Wales (Moat lane to Three Cocks) while it was open. The standard 2s were heavier than their Ivatt sisters and according to their Wiki entries had a higher route availabilty (3 as opposed to 2). I think they were too heavy for the line. It was wall to wall Ivatts after the Dean Goods and Cambrian 0-6-0s went. I wonder if this was the reason why BR built Ivatts at Swindon for the area rather than the Std 2 which was on the drawing board at the time. Indeed the two types were being sent to the WR at the same time in 1952/3. 

 

The only standard 2 to operate regularly in that area was 78004 which was at Hereford for a long time. It's job was the daily Hereford to Three Cocks freight. I haven't seen any evidence of it getting past Three Cocks but it's possible, at least in the Brecon direction. 

 

The only instance I've seen of a Std 2 2-6-0 on the Mid Wales was 78004 (again but this time allocated to Llanelly) which was used to take up the line in 1964, 18 months after it had closed.

 

According to the RCTS book on the class there were several Std 2 2-6-0s in lined green including 78005, 6, 8 & 9. 78005 was the only one painted at Caerphilly (twice, in 60 and again in 62). The book states 78004 was only unlined green which is incorrect as it got lined green in early 62. There are plenty of pictures around showing it in lined green.

 

Justin

[Phil Bullock]

Worcester and Gloucester also acquired 78xxx in pretty short order - but its the Standard 5s that puzzle me.

 

Shrewsbury had an allocation of 10 new build Caprotti locos which didnt stay long and a smattering of Walschaerts locos from new. But fairly soon sheds all over the WR started acquiring Walschaerts locos - Swindon, Yeovil, Gloucester, Canton and Llanelli are ones which didnt have an association with LM, SR or S&D services and therefore presumably were using them on WR services, 

 

Wonder why this was when Modified Halls had been churned out which might be considered equivalent?

 

[Andy Kirkham]

45 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Worcester and Gloucester also acquired 78xxx in pretty short order - but its the Standard 5s that puzzle me.

 

Shrewsbury had an allocation of 10 new build Caprotti locos which didnt stay long and a smattering of Walschaerts locos from new. But fairly soon sheds all over the WR started acquiring Walschaerts locos - Swindon, Yeovil, Gloucester, Canton and Llanelli are ones which didnt have an association with LM, SR or S&D services and therefore presumably were using them on WR services, 

 

Wonder why this was when Modified Halls had been churned out which might be considered equivalent?

 

 

I wondered whether at least some of  the places that got Standard 5s were the ones that until then had been hanging on to Saints and Stars.

[Phil Bullock]

31 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

I wondered whether at least some of  the places that got Standard 5s were the ones that until then had been hanging on to Saints and Stars.

 

Nice thought Andy. However looking back at withdrawal dates the Saints and Stars were largely gone by 52 - which perhaps suggests it was the new build Halls and Castles that saw them condemned.... whereas the Standard 5s were not more widely distributed until later in the 50s.

 

Perhaps it was the desire in BR senior management to extract the GW out of the WR and therefore the 5s were forced on to the WR to dilute the native power? There were certainly plenty of very competent 4-6-0s around on the WR at the time and although type 4 diesel power was just starting to appear on the WR it was perhaps a bit early for diesel induced cascades to be releasing surplus locos from elsewhere....

 

 

[doilum]

2 hours ago, Pannier Tank said:

83A Newton Abbott had an allocation of 82xxx's between Jan 55 to Oct 56 some of which worked the Moretonhampstead Branch Line.

 

82001,82002,82004,82005,82006, 82009, 82031,82032,82033,82034,82038

 

 

82004 of Triang fame!

[Phil Bullock]

16 minutes ago, doilum said:

82004 of Triang fame!

 

It would never have made it to Moretonhampstead with those flanges - or lack of!

[The Stationmaster]

28 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

Nice thought Andy. However looking back at withdrawal dates the Saints and Stars were largely gone by 52 - which perhaps suggests it was the new build Halls and Castles that saw them condemned.... whereas the Standard 5s were not more widely distributed until later in the 50s.

 

Perhaps it was the desire in BR senior management to extract the GW out of the WR and therefore the 5s were forced on to the WR to dilute the native power? There were certainly plenty of very competent 4-6-0s around on the WR at the time and although type 4 diesel power was just starting to appear on the WR it was perhaps a bit early for diesel induced cascades to be releasing surplus locos from elsewhere....

 

 

But which shed at Salop did the Caprotti 5s go to?  Notwithstanding Regional boundary changes I believe the two sheds at Salop retained very much their old pattern of work for some years - possibly even to the rundown of steam and the LMR takeover.  The Caprotti Std 5s of course only lasted 2 years at Salop before moving en masse to Patricroft.

 

One thing which seems to have got a little confused in earlier posts is how various Standard classes fitted into WR power classification and were equated in power to Western engines.  These are the official equivalents for passenger train load purposes (Note *) -

70XXX 'Britannia' = 70XX 'Castle'. (70XX covered the entire class)

73XXX Class 5       = 79XX 'Hall' and 68XX 'Grange'  (79XX covered the entire class of Halls and Modified Halls) 

75XXX Class 4       = 78XX, 73XX, 41XX, 56XX. (73XX covered all the moguls, 41XX covered all the large prairies). 76XXX was also in this group and 80XXX Class 4 tank would have later been fitted in this group.

82XXX Class 3.      = 4575, 36XX, 94XX (36XX covered all 57XX & 8750 class engines)

78XXX Class 2.      = 32XX (i.e the 2251 class).  84XXX Class 2 tank also fell into this group

 

Note *  What this means is that on passenger train working that class of engine should officially be capable of maintaining the booked running times with the same load as the listed equivalent GWR engines.   So as simple examples a 'Britannia' should be able to manage the same load in the same timings as a 'Castle' while an 82XXX tank engine should be able to maintain the same load in the same timings as a 4575  (but would obviously lose time if it was hauling a 41XX load).

 

One important point alluded to by Andy and Phil above that needs to be borne in mind is that in several cases the allocation of Standards to the WR followed on in the aftermath of final builds of GWR designs for similar work.  The programme for 'Britannias' for the Western was barely a year behind the final build of 'Castles'  - similar engines for similar work.  The same can be said of the 75XXX with the postwar batch of 'Manors' being delivered at the end of 1950 and the 75XXX more or less immediately following them from Swindon in 1951 with the initial build going to the WR.   The situation with the 82XX was different as their construction - at Swindon - did not immediately follow the end of building an equivalent GW class and in any event they were less powerful than the earlier large prairies although their boiler was based on the original GW design of the larger engines.

 

Thus in a couple of cases Standards which went to the WR were effectively new designs following on almost immediately after the final build of indigenous designs - similar to what happened elsewhere.   An even closer succession came with the arrival on the WR of the first Standard 78XXX Class 2s built at Darlington almost simultaneously with completion at Swindon (for WR use) of the final batches of the original Ivatt LMS design.  There had of course been a 4 year gap between completion of the final batch of 2251 and construction of the Ivatt design intended for similar work - something which could well be overlooked if we talk only about the Standards.

[Phil Bullock]

Thanks Mike. I deliberately avoided quoting other acquired "western region" sheds who were in fact mainly responsible for off region workings - Bath Green Park, Templecombe, Oxley, Bristol Barrow Road, Gloucester Barnwood  - but forgot that Shrewsbury had a foot in both camps too! Will have to look and see if the Caprotti 5s ever worked south to Hereford and beyond.....

Edited April 17, 2020 by Phil Bullock

[The Border Reiver]

I have photos of 82000 at Dovey Junction Station and 75002 at Machynlleth shed both taken on 15 August 1965

[Andy Kirkham]

I have the impression from photographs that, other than Britannias (and the occasional visit by 92220), Standards were unknown at Paddington, Would that be true?

Edited April 17, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Andy Kirkham said:

I have the impression from photographs that, other than Britannias (and the occasional visit by 92220), Standards were unknown at Paddington, Would that be true?

Judging by some published photos I have seen and their captions - assuming the latter were correct? - it is possible that 75XXX might have got further east than Reading (where they could regularly be seen until various byways such as the Devizes line were closed).  There have been a number of published, and no doubt unpublished, photos of 9Fs other than 92220 on passenger trains at Paddington.

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Pannier Tank said:

83A Newton Abbott had an allocation of 82xxx's between Jan 55 to Oct 56 some of which worked the Moretonhampstead Branch Line.

 

82001,82002,82004,82005,82006, 82009, 82031,82032,82033,82034,82038

 

 

All xfer from Barry IIRC

 

5 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

I wondered whether at least some of  the places that got Standard 5s were the ones that until then had been hanging on to Saints and Stars.

 

5 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

5 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

 

Nice thought Andy. However looking back at withdrawal dates the Saints and Stars were largely gone by 52 - which perhaps suggests it was the new build Halls and Castles that saw them condemned.... whereas the Standard 5s were not more widely distributed until later in the 50s.

 

Perhaps it was the desire in BR senior management to extract the GW out of the WR and therefore the 5s were forced on to the WR to dilute the native power? There were certainly plenty of very competent 4-6-0s around on the WR at the time and although type 4 diesel power was just starting to appear on the WR it was perhaps a bit early for diesel induced cascades to be releasing surplus locos from elsewhere....

The WR wanted to continue to produce GW designs but were prevented by the Kremlin at Marylebone. Thus what would have been a new build of Castles was delivered as Britannias, 28xx as 9Fs, Halls as 73xxx, Manors as 75xxx, 5101s as 82xxx, 4575s also as 82xxx.  Swindon had an ongoing policy of upgrading by replacing older designs with newer GW standards, thus Stars were replaced with Castles, Saints with Halls, 43xx with Manors, pre-grouping Welsh 0-6-2Ts with 94x, Dean Goods and the Churchward 4-4-0s with 2251s; this simply continued with BR standard designs substituted for the Collett or Hawksworths.  

 

I am sure the provision of BR standards was seen by many on the WR as a political move by Marylebone to dilute the GW-ness of the region; it was universally believed by the Canton drivers I knew in the 70s that Marylebone had been undermined and infiltrated by a cabal with a secret LMS agenda, and all the new standard locos are what the LMS would have been building in the early 50s had there been no nationalisation. 

 

There was no evidence for this whatsoever.  Some BR standards were certainly adaptations of LMS designs, but Britannias, DoG, and Clans were completely new and owed much to Doncaster practice, the 73xxx were held to be restyled Black 5s but IMHO the different wheel size and new boiler makes them a new design.  76xxx were restyled Ivatt flying pigs sho nuff. The 75xxx were based on a Swindon design, the Manor, using a domed version of a Manor boiler and being similar in leading dimensions.  77xxx were a new design again using a domed version of a Swindon boiler, the no.2, but a lightweight mogul rather like the loco now on the WSR had been a GW suggested neverwazza.  78xxx were restyled Ivatt Mickey Mice.

 

Similar story with the tanks; 80xxx were a new design though clearly a development of LMS big tanks, 82xxx were based on GW 5101s but had smaller cylinders, and 84xxx were restyled Ivatts.  The 9F was a completely new design owing it's heritage to no previous railway or loco.  So, if we break that down, out of 11 BR standard designs, 5 were completely new and one was a new progression of an LMS evolution, 3 were GW influenced, and 2 were restyled LMS Ivatts.  You can reasonably claim that 3 out of 11 designs were basically LMS locos, hardly an LMS dominated collection. 

 

There are not just locos on a railway, and the mk1 coaches were a completely new design owing more to Bulleid and Thompson practice than the LMS.  The standard van and it's derivates were fundamentally the GW updated with corrugated ends, and the all steel opens were LNER derived.  The brake van is basically LNER.  Signals were based on LMS practice, and an LMS power classification system was introduced, to be largely ignored on the WR which continued to paint coloured spots on it's locos well into diesel days.  BR was not an LMS clone run by a secret cabal of Midland men, but you wouldn't have thought that listening to any traincrew cabin discussion on the matter (and there was quite a bit) on the WR in the 70s.

 

Breaking down the numbers of locos built, out of 999 so far completed, 644 were what I would regard as completely new designs though I'll admit that the 73xxx and 80xxx were strongly LMS influenced, 145 were GW based. and 210 LMS restyles.

Edited April 17, 2020 by The Johnster

[The Stationmaster]

6 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

All xfer from Barry IIRC

 

 

The WR wanted to continue to produce GW designs but were prevented by the Kremlin at Marylebone. Thus what would have been a new build of Castles was delivered as Britannias, 28xx as 9Fs, Halls as 73xxx, Manors as 75xxx, 5101s as 82xxx, 4575s also as 82xxx.  Swindon had an ongoing policy of upgrading by replacing older designs with newer GW standards, thus Stars were replaced with Castles, Saints with Halls, 43xx with Manors, pre-grouping Welsh 0-6-2Ts with 94x, Dean Goods and the Churchward 4-4-0s with 2251s; this simply continued with BR standard designs substituted for the Collett or Hawksworths.  

 

I am sure the provision of BR standards was seen by many on the WR as a political move by Marylebone to dilute the GW-ness of the region; it was universally believed by the Canton drivers I knew in the 70s that Marylebone had been undermined and infiltrated by a cabal with a secret LMS agenda, and all the new standard locos are what the LMS would have been building in the early 50s had there been no nationalisation. 

 

There was no evidence for this whatsoever.  Some BR standards were certainly adaptations of LMS designs, but Britannias, DoG, and Clans were completely new and owed much to Doncaster practice, the 73xxx were held to be restyled Black 5s but IMHO the different wheel size and new boiler makes them a new design.  76xxx were restyled Ivatt flying pigs sho nuff. The 75xxx were based on a Swindon design, the Manor, using a domed version of a Manor boiler and being similar in leading dimensions.  77xxx were a new design again using a domed version of a Swindon boiler, the no.2, but a lightweight mogul rather like the loco now on the WSR had been a GW suggested neverwazza.  78xxx were restyled Ivatt Mickey Mice.

 

Similar story with the tanks; 80xxx were a new design though clearly a development of LMS big tanks, 82xxx were based on GW 5101s but had smaller cylinders, and 84xxx were restyled Ivatts.  The 9F was a completely new design owing it's heritage to no previous railway or loco.  So, if we break that down, out of 11 BR standard designs, 5 were completely new and one was a new progression of an LMS evolution, 3 were GW influenced, and 2 were restyled LMS Ivatts.  You can reasonably claim that 3 out of 11 designs were basically LMS locos, hardly an LMS dominated collection. 

 

There are not just locos on a railway, and the mk1 coaches were a completely new design owing more to Bulleid and Thompson practice than the LMS.  The standard van and it's derivates were fundamentally the GW updated with corrugated ends, and the all steel opens were LNER derived.  The brake van is basically LNER.  Signals were based on LMS practice, and an LMS power classification system was introduced, to be largely ignored on the WR which continued to paint coloured spots on it's locos well into diesel days.  BR was not an LMS clone run by a secret cabal of Midland men, but you wouldn't have thought that listening to any traincrew cabin discussion on the matter (and there was quite a bit) on the WR in the 70s.

 

Breaking down the numbers of locos built, out of 999 so far completed, 644 were what I would regard as completely new designs though I'll admit that the 73xxx and 80xxx were strongly LMS influenced, 145 were GW based. and 210 LMS restyles.

As all the GWR locos delivered after 1948 were basically what they GWR had ordered, and those deliveries went on well into the 1950s there is no evidence at all that Paddington/Swindon wanted to carry on ordering GW designs.  It simply got locos of the type it needed - which was the same everywhere else because once pre 1948 orders had been delivered everybody got the appropriate Standard design when it wanted engines of any particular power class covered by those designs (which was just about everything).  The only exception was in respect of small steam tank engines - the NER E1/LNER J72 and WR 16XX both of which began new deliveries in 1949

[Pannier Tank]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

8 hours ago, Pannier Tank said:

83A Newton Abbott had an allocation of 82xxx's between Jan 55 to Oct 56 some of which worked the Moretonhampstead Branch Line.

 

82001,82002,82004,82005,82006, 82009, 82031,82032,82033,82034,82038

 

 

All xfer from Barry IIRC

 

All except 82031 which went to 83D Laira (From Barry) and then to 83A Newton Abbott.

                  82033, 82034, 82038 went New to 83A Newton Abbott.

[Mallard60022]

When the well-liked and excellent running WR loco's reached 1962/3 then the Standards were not required as Diesels gradually took over from 1958 onwards on the mains. Before that the WR's extensive fleet of engines were all well looked after and why bother with new fangled stuff other than maybe the 9Fs . Old habits also die hard; management weren't interested.

I really hate to say this but most Standards were actually a waste of money and came too late and or were redundant almost before they were built. Sad but true. 

Phil

Edited April 17, 2020 by Mallard60022

[The Johnster]

17 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

I really hate to say this but most Standards were actually a waste of money and came too late and or were redundant almost before they were built. Sad but true. 

Phil

I have to comment that this view is very much informed by 20/20 hindsight; decisions made in 1949 and 50 regarding new stock were made to look ridiculous within a very short time by changing events.  We had just come out of a financially ruinous war, needed to limit foreign spending so coal as a fuel made sense, diesel technology had yet to prove itself within the UK loading gauge, and indeed didn't until the early 60s apart from the Ivatt twins and DP1, which was unacceptable to anyone by the ECML with it's prima donna maintenance and availability issues.  A new diesel cost 3 times as much as a comparable steam loco, 4 times when you factored in the infrastructure of refuelling and maintenance facilities, but was allegedly 3 times quicker to prep for service and could run for 3 times the daily service time, and was thus a bargain in 1958 when the size and weight of generators that could be used in a British loco had come down to a viable point.  In practice the modernisation plan diesels failed to replace steam on a 3 for 1 basis, it was more like 2 to one, and were underpowered; the railway 'got away' with it because traffic was hemorrhaging; the WR's timetable came close to collapse in '62 because of failed Warships blocking bays at Swindon works, one of the reasons Crewe finished building 9Fs before Swindon and had to take on some of the Westerns.  This was at a time when the well liked and excellent running WR locos were blocking scrap roads because you had to take 3 out of service for every diesel you put in.  Hymeks replaced Kings on the very heavy South Wales trains in 1962, not because anybody thought that a type 3 diesel could manage an 8P timetable but because there wasn't anything else; the few remaining Castles had been concentrated on Worcester/Hereford.  A shambles.

 

In addition, the nationalised railway found itself in 1948 with a fleet of locos that were mostly obsolete (WR excepted, and even they had a few Dean-age locos) and in poor condition, far too high a proportion of which were Victorian museum pieces that needed immediate replacement with low maintenance easily prepped and disposed modern outside cylinder locos.  

 

The standards were good sense when they were ordered, and the railway reacted to the changing environment by cancelling them as soon as it was aware of the situation and contract obligations were fulfilled for materials obtained.  To the best of my knowledge, only one class was ever delivered in it's original uncancelled entirety, Duke of Gloucester.  In this light, they were certainly no worse value than some of the 1955 plan diesels, particularly classes 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 35, 41, 42, 43, and 52.  The 20s would be included but for that they found a niche double headed on MGR work and were reliable.  Class 14 probably should not have ever been built, but they were ordered pre Beeching to replace steam 94xx, themselves justifiable originally as replacements for worn out South Wales pre-grouping 0-6-2s, and Beeching effectively annihilated the trip and pickup traffic they were designed for.  That's a dozen diesel classes that arguably should not have ever been built, and there were only 11 standard steam classes, which as has been pointed out had much more justification for their original ordering.  I would further argue that most diesels should never have been built anyway because the trunk routes should have all been electrified to the 25kv OLE system by about 1975.

 

Traffic dropped sharply after about 1955, as road haulage improved in reliability and power, car ownership began the upward spiral it is still experiencing, clean air acts encouraged electric, oil, or gas fired domestic and industrial heating systems, and long distance coach networks established themselves.  Increased road traffic meant a motorway and upgraded to dual carriageway road network which boosted further road haulage and private car ownership, then Beeching put the boot in to what in many cases was a mercy killing.  All this made nonsense of the decisions made in 1948 or 9, and much of those made in 1955, but they didn't have crystal balls, they had the same sort as everyone else.  So no wonder some of it turned out to be a balls up...

 

Also sad but true...

[jim.snowdon]

Diesel-electric technology had proved itself well before even the mid-50s, and was getting quite well established in the UK by 1960. EMD in the US had led the way, very successfully, but both there and here, engines were the weak link. EMD (like English Electric) were onto a solid, reliable engine; other US builders suffered from engines that did not take kindly to being transferred from the marine environment to railway traction, just as happened in the UK. The biggest impediment to the development of non-steam traction in the UK was government interference by way of pushing lots of money at the railways and insisting on it being spent on modernisation before industry was ready. Instead of the steady, structured approach of the Pilot Scheme that would have weeded out most of the duds, many of them were purchased in considerable numbers, to the railway's subsequent embarrassment. Electrification was the ultimate intention, except that after funding the London-Manchester/Liverpool lines, main line electrification stopped dead for over a decade, and has been stop/start ever since.

 

Jim

[MidlandRed]

The WR had 9Fs 92000-07 from new until the early 60s though it appears they tried hard not to (even suggesting a new 8F standard class build 2-8-0 based on the 28xx/38xx design). They rejected any further 9Fs for a number of  years eventually taking 92203-20 of the Swindon built 92178-20 - and also receiving Crewe built 92221-50, all in the late 1950s/60. 

 

Once in service fully (92000-07 were stored after a couple of weeks in 1954 following problems stopping them when cold starting, until early 1955 after Swindon had developed rectification for the steam brake and regulator problems afflicting the Ebbw Junction batch, and they'd all been fitted - it was introduced on all new build and retro fitted to others). They were more powerful than any other freight locos on WR and highly successful in all of the regions though the WR didn't get such high mileages from theirs. 

 

Im a great GW/WR fan but even I have the distinct impression the standard classes suffered on the WR from 'anti BR' attitudes,  ie anti nationalisation. I guess left hand drive locos in a right hand drive fleet are an immediate potential irritation! 

9Fs were reported at Paddington on passenger services quite frequently and as stated by others, not just confined to 92220. In terms of passenger workings of WR 9Fs only 92236 and 92242 had no workings traced for the table in the RCTS book.

 

A number were allocated to the ex S and DJR when the WR took it over, where they could use their power but not be exposed to the higher speeds (and potential wear and other issues) of other express passenger work (eg Evening Star deputising for a failed Brit on the Red Dragon). 

 

So eventually - the 9Fs seemed to be quite successful on the WR. Much of this info is gleaned from the fabulous RCTS book on the class - it contains lots of photos of them all regions but including the WR. The WR examples  certainly appeared at Banbury in the Birmingham Division and further north (some also received classified work at Stafford Road). There is an interesting report (amongst many) of Swindon testing the mod carried out to the ER/NER allocations - namely fitting LNER style fire hole doors to help limit glare on the footplate. The outcome of the test to 92002 was it was not adopted, and use of the 'WR pattern shovel' in the test appeared to not be assisted by the slot type door.... 

 

The first 8, once settled down, stayed on the Newport/Ebbw Junction ore workings but ventured through Hereford on the north and west route in the early days. 

 

One other thing - 92025-9 were originally earmarked for the WR - now that would really have been interesting, Crosti boilers and all... 

 

You'll have to excuse my enthusiasm but 9Fs really are one my favourite steam loco classes! 

Edited April 21, 2020 by MidlandRed

[The Stationmaster]

The problem with the first batch of 9Fs on the Western was very straightforward.  They went to Ebbw Junction for use on Ebbw Vale ore trains where their additional power enabled loads to be increased and the use of additional banking engines north of Aberbeeg to be reduced.  The Western had  worked the Western Valley ore etc trains with tank engines for many years and had never been able to find or develop a suitable tender engine for the job until the 9Fs arrived.

 

But not long after the 9Fs arrived several runaways occurred when engines were working down the valley and an investigation was set up to try to find out what was happening although it centred around an inability to shut the regulator, nothing to do with starting from cold but when moving.  Joe Field, a senior Loco inspector from Regional HQ was sent down to Newport and made a number of trial runs to recreate the problem as he explained at an evening class I was attending in the late 1960s.  The cause was identified through these trials and the regulator design on the 9Fs was modified on further builds and the existing engines were modified.

 

That apart the Western had little need for new heavy freight engines with three types of freight 2-8-0s on the books plus the 2-8-0T and 2-8-2T  tank engine designs and the 47XX large mixed traffic engine.  It was only when withdrawals, of 2-8-0s in particular, began to outpace the decline in freight traffic that the Region had any need at all for new heavy freight engines and even then if fairly soon had to scratch around to find enough freight work for them but they were useful heavy mixed traffic engines albeit restricted in speed.