BR Standard Classes on the Western Region

[The Johnster]

The 9Fs were successful on the WR and were the only steam locos that ever really got on top of the Ebbw Jc-Ebbw Vale iron ore train, which required loaded wagons to be hauled uphill and banked for the last 5 miles Aberbeeg-Ebbw Vale steelworks reception.  The GW had tried Kings on this job and had drawn up a 2-10-2 tank with a 47xx boiler, which would have likely been too heavy, and caused problems on the route's very sharp curvature.  The 8-coupled tanks used suffered with tank leakage caused by the frames flexing on these curves, and the longer 10-coupled loco would have been in even bigger trouble in this respect.

12 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

 

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). 

The use of Evening Star on the Red Dragon, which occurred over 3 successive days when the loco was new at Canton in 1960, was not to cover a failed Brit.  The loco apparently timed the train and no problems were encountered, and it was not until somebody high up in the office at Paddington noticed that a shiny loco from Canton that had lots of little wheels and started with a 9 had turned up that Canton was ordered to cease and desist.  I often wonder if the incident influenced the allocation of Kings to Canton shortly afterwards

 

I observed and photographed 92029 at Severn Tunnel Jc in 1965.  Photo is long lost, sadly; it was of the loco reversing along the up Tunnel Main through the platform having coupled off it's train on the down yard reception road, heading for the steam shed.  It was a cloudy day and not a good photo; I blamed the general uselessness of the Instamatic 100 it was taken with more than the general uselessness of the shutter operating mechanism (me).

Edited April 22, 2020 by The Johnster

[MidlandRed]

92220 was originally used to cover for a failed Brit on 27/6/60 on the up Red Dragon and down Capitals United. Others of the new allocations had been used on holiday specials - as you say regular use of Evening Star on express passenger turns came to the notice of officialdom when an unscheduled water stop was made at Reading and seen by higher Authority, and the realisation of the speeds and potential consequences of regular use in this way were realised. On the WR they only appeared subsequently for regular timetabled express passenger work on the rather more sedate S and DJR where their pulling power could be put to good use on the steep climbs. They continued to appear on holiday specials and other additional trains (or in lieu of failures (eg STJ's 92250 on a Gloucester to Bristol local in 1964). 

 

Tests in the early days on the Newport/Ebbw Vale ore trains included 44 loaded wagons (one train engine, one banker) whereas the previous max (unassisted) was 18 wagons. Too bad Ebbw Junction managed to crash two of them into each other at the shed on the first day (cold start regulator issue/brakes blamed). 

 

interesting you saw 92029 at STJ - however by that date the Crostis did appear on freights from the Midlands and East Midlands - 92028/9 were allocated to Saltley in the 60s and the only one I ever saw, 92024, was on a mixed freight on the Snow Hill to Wolverhampton line - possibly heading for Stourbridge Junction and south towards Worcester. This was after the transfer of the ex GW lines in the Midlands to the LMR, which possibly broadened operations of the Crostis (which was also post rebuild). Do you think 92029 had possibly arrived via Gloucester - too bad about the photo, that would have been good to see. 

 

In terms of the OP query, WRs 9Fs were based far and wide, Old Oak, Southall, Bristol SPM, Laira, Canton, Ebbw Junction, Banbury, Bath GP, Tyseley, STJ, Cardiff E Dock, Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol Barrow Road, Westbury, Bromsgrove, Neath all featuring. 

 

As as is well known, when the WR took over responsibility for the Lickey Incline the Jinties were replaced by 94xx tanks - however there were also attempts to oust 92079, Big Bertha's replacement - these were not successful and unless laid up in works (9Fs seemed to take an inordinately long time in Swindon compared with elsewhere), when it was replaced by another 9F from the WR allocation, it stayed until dieselisation - tests with a 72xx 2.8.0T were highly unsuccessful as it was out of gauge and reportedly, collided with platform edges!  

Edited May 2, 2020 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

On 22 April 2020 at 11:20, The Stationmaster said:

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.

 

That's very interesting - and that is correct that the Swindon mods to 92002 were both retro fitted to existing locos (and notably the stored Ebbw Junction ones) and to new build. The runaway as I understood (post dating the day 1 collision between two at the shed) was also at Ebbw Junction shed but of a more serious nature even though no collision occurred but the regulator had stuck open. However this problem did not appear to be reported on the LM allocated locos in the same way at the same time. 

 

It it also seems doubtful the WR had no need for further heavy freight locos as not only did they put a case together for building new 28xx/38xx before the 9Fs were delivered, they also put together a design for a standard 8F class 2.8.0, as a replacement for older 8Fs around the country (and WR) which got into the Swindon building programme, but was changed to the 53 9Fs they actually built (though WR only received 18 of those they built - plus 30 Crewe built ones and the original 8). They also took Stanier 8Fs for some time, cascaded from the LMR in lieu of new 9Fs. 

 

The 9Fs tended to be allocated by BR to long distance fast freight flows (Whitemoor to Ferme Park; Toton to Brent; Annesley to Woodford; Stanlow - various oil trains (eg Albion)), as well as certain shorter distance heavy bulk trains working on heavily graded routes such as Tyne Dock to Consett, Brymbo, Ebbw Vale, where their power could be put to good use. 

 

It seems inconceivable the WR couldn't find such work for 9Fs (indeed it did to an extent) but the fact is their utilisation and mileages were lower than those of what could be considered locos of a similar purpose, the 9 47xx freight locos. 

 

That other regions seemed to get better utilisation from their locos suggests other factors must have been involved in the WR experience. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by MidlandRed

[The Johnster]

The 47xx were typically employed on a specific type of duty; long distance express freight, and while 9Fs certainly did that sort of work on other regions the 47xx tended to monopolise it on the few routes they were allowed to run on; Halls did the work elsewhere.  The 9Fs on the WR were not used on this traffic, though they were capable of it and used in this way elsewhere, notably on the ECML.  The WR seems to have regarded it's 9Fs as heavy freight haulers, so inevitably the 47xx racked up higher mileages at higher speeds.

11 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

nteresting you saw 92029 at STJ - however by that date the Crostis did appear on freights from the Midlands and East Midlands - 92028 was allocated to Saltley in the 60s and the only one I ever saw, 92024, was on a mixed freight on the Snow Hill to Wolverhampton line - possibly heading for Stourbridge Junction and south towards Worcester. This was after the transfer of the ex GW lines in the Midlands to the LMR, which possibly broadened operations of the Crostis (which was also post rebuild). Do you think 92029 had possibly arrived via Gloucester - too bad about the photo, that would have been good to see. 

I would be very surprised if the Crosti had arrived from anywhere other than the Gloucester direction.  It was not uncommon at this time for no relieving loco to be available at Saltley, so the train loco would work through, only for there to be no relieving loco at Gloucester either, so the train loco would continue to work through.  Strident efforts were being made to eliminate steam from the WR in late 1965; there was officially no steam on the region after the end of the summer timetable on August the 31st, but Severn Tunnel Shed turned and serviced steam locos that had worked through on probably a several a day basis.  In October HInton Manor got through to Cardiff Long Dyke from Banbury, by then an LMR shed, and I saw Clun Castle at Severn Tunnel around this time as well.  

[Phil Bullock]

17 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

it stayed until dieselisation - tests with a 72xx 2.8.0T were highly unsuccessful as it was out of gauge and reportedly, collided with platform edges! 

 

Morning! It was a 52xx - 2-8-0T as you say. I had heard the out of gauge issue but operational difficulties have been cited as the prime reason - it counted as 1.5 banking loco units (9F = 2, 0-6-0T = 1) and therefore there were more occasions when multiple assistance was required than with a 9F.

 

9 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

 various oil trains (eg Albion)), 

 

Wasnt the Albion terminal a child of the block train era? Oil trains worked up to Brum from the WR by 9Fs were certainly a fact.... Avonmouth to Bromford Bridge booked up the Lickey and Cardiff Tidal to Soho Pool booked via Worcester and Kidderminster. There are some cracking videos on Youtube of 9Fs on oil with multople bankers ascending the Lickey...

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

 

That's very interesting - and that is correct that the Swindon mods to 92002 were both retro fitted to existing locos (and notably the stored Ebbw Junction ones) and to new build. The runaway as I understood (post dating the day 1 collision between two at the shed) was also at Ebbw Junction shed but of a more serious nature even though no collision occurred but the regulator had stuck open. However this problem did not appear to be reported on the LM allocated locos in the same way at the same time. 

 

It it also seems doubtful the WR had no need for further heavy freight locos as not only did they put a case together for building new 28xx/38xx before the 9Fs were delivered, they also put together a design for a standard 8F class 2.8.0, as a replacement for older 8Fs around the country (and WR) which got into the Swindon building programme, but was changed to the 53 9Fs they actually built (though WR only received 18 of those they built - plus 30 Crewe built ones and the original 8). They also took Stanier 8Fs for some time, cascaded from the LMR in lieu of new 9Fs. 

 

The 9Fs tended to be allocated by BR to long distance fast freight flows (Whitemoor to Ferme Park; Toton to Brent; Annesley to Woodford; Stanlow - various oil trains (eg Albion)), as well as certain shorter distance heavy bulk trains working on heavily graded routes such as Tyne Dock to Consett, Brymbo, Ebbw Vale, where their power could be put to good use. 

 

It seems inconceivable the WR couldn't find such work for 9Fs (indeed it did to an extent) but the fact is their utilisation and mileages were lower than those of what could be considered locos of a similar purpose, the 8 47xx freight locos. 

 

That other regions seemed to get better utilisation from their locos suggests other factors must have been involved in the WR experience. 

I suspect that collisions on shed, or in yards, actually tell us very little about inherent problems in any sort of loco class as various 'explanations' (aka excuses) will be advanced by thise involved in order to take the heat off themselves - that is the way of human nature.   The 9Fs on the Western Valley ran away coming down the valley and in several instances ran for a number of miles before eventually stopping or being stopped.  Serious failures of a regulator in traffic, proven by trials over the same road with similar results, are in a very different category from a bump on shed  or in a yard especially when teh problem was only known to occur when involved in train working.

 

If I had a £ for every report I've read, or had submitted to me, to explain a collision on shed or in a yard I could give a near endless list of the reasons advanced for the incident.

 

That sounds a bit strange to me - for several reasons.  firstly post 1949 design was effectively under Railway Executive control and designs were only developed as part of the Standard programme although various alternatives were schemed out such as the 2-8-2 version of what eventually became the 9F.  Oddly Cook says nothing about any sort of independent design when he was in charge at Swindon and Doncaster.

 

The WR share of Stanier 8Fs actually declined through the 1950s although their distribution also changed.  The Region initially inherited nearly 40 when the Penetrating Lines organisation ended and while some moved away from South Wales the major concentration remained at Llanelly once Paxton Street had closed.

 

I find your comment about 'utilisation' rather puzzling the obvious question being what do you mean by 'utilisation'?  The BR regions all had different ways of measuring availability (which lasted well into the diesel era) so on what basis have you compared 'utilisation' especially when the WR always based availability on the total fleet size allocated rather than most other Regions using only the fleet out of works hands/not stopped for repair etc as the basis for calculating availability.  If you calculate availability on a different basis then utilisation - however you measure it - is bound to vary because it will obviously start from a different base figure So how have you arrived at the statement you made about WR utilisation?  for example even if you work on miles per day for engines actually available for traffic (itself an inconsistent starting point between Regions) how do you then account for different types of work, and indeed how do you arrive at a consistent way of measuring miles run in the first place?  I would be interested to see how you have resolved all those differences.

Edited April 23, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[MidlandRed]

On 23 April 2020 at 07:12, Phil Bullock said:

 

Morning! It was a 52xx - 2-8-0T as you say. I had heard the out of gauge issue but operational difficulties have been cited as the prime reason - it counted as 1.5 banking loco units (9F = 2, 0-6-0T = 1) and therefore there were more occasions when multiple assistance was required than with a 9F.

 

 

Wasnt the Albion terminal a child of the block train era? Oil trains worked up to Brum from the WR by 9Fs were certainly a fact.... Avonmouth to Bromford Bridge booked up the Lickey and Cardiff Tidal to Soho Pool booked via Worcester and Kidderminster. There are some cracking videos on Youtube of 9Fs on oil with multople bankers ascending the Lickey...

 

Cheers

 

Phil

 

Thanks for the correction,  and indeed re the loco values (eg 9F = 2). Given that the LMR had operated the system with one large loco for years, one can only wonder why the WR thought it sensible to change it - maybe maintenance for a remotely allocated 9F worried them as a one off, and the nearest other shed with an allocation could have been Banbury (or actually Stafford Rd works). Anyway a 9F remained on the Lickey until dieselisation, another one appearing when 92079 was away for repairs.

Regarding the oil trains, in the mid 60s the Albion block trains from Stanlow/ Ellesmere Port were worked by Birkenhead 9Fs, taken over by class 47s (and possibly class 40 though I never saw any) after the mass cull of 8H's 9Fs. They used to run back the empty tankers via Soho, Handsworth Park, Bescot, Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury etc. A treat for us spotting youngsters to see.  

WR 9Fs were transferred to Eastleigh for the Fawley to Bromford Bridge trains - a 9F on a heavy oil train on Lickey would be a sight to behold!!! I will go searching! 

Edited April 24, 2020 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I suspect that collisions on shed, or in yards, actually tell us very little about inherent problems in any sort of loco class as various 'explanations' (aka excuses) will be advanced by thise involved in order to take the heat off themselves - that is the way of human nature.   The 9Fs on the Western Valley ran away coming down the valley and in several instances ran for a number of miles before eventually stopping or being stopped.  Serious failures of a regulator in traffic, proven by trials over the same road with similar results, are in a very different category from a bump on shed  or in a yard especially when teh problem was only known to occur when involved in train working.

 

If I had a £ for every report I've read, or had submitted to me, to explain a collision on shed or in a yard I could give a near endless list of the reasons advanced for the incident.

 

That sounds a bit strange to me - for several reasons.  firstly post 1949 design was effectively under Railway Executive control and designs were only developed as part of the Standard programme although various alternatives were schemed out such as the 2-8-2 version of what eventually became the 9F.  Oddly Cook says nothing about any sort of independent design when he was in charge at Swindon and Doncaster.

 

The WR share of Stanier 8Fs actually declined through the 1950s although their distribution also changed.  The Region initially inherited nearly 40 when the Penetrating Lines organisation ended and while some moved away from South Wales the major concentration remained at Llanelly once Paxton Street had closed.

 

I find your comment about 'utilisation' rather puzzling the obvious question being what do you mean by 'utilisation'?  The BR regions all had different ways of measuring availability (which lasted well into the diesel era) so on what basis have you compared 'utilisation' especially when the WR always based availability on the total fleet size allocated rather than most other Regions using only the fleet out of works hands/not stopped for repair etc as the basis for calculating availability.  If you calculate availability on a different basis then utilisation - however you measure it - is bound to vary because it will obviously start from a different base figure So how have you arrived at the statement you made about WR utilisation?  for example even if you work on miles per day for engines actually available for traffic (itself an inconsistent starting point between Regions) how do you then account for different types of work, and indeed how do you arrive at a consistent way of measuring miles run in the first place?  I would be interested to see how you have resolved all those differences.

Noted re the regulator problem. I have read other examples of 9Fs not stopping well. My reference is the RCTS book on the 9F.

 

Table 11.13 of the above book also compares annual average mileage by the 9Fs by region and then other freight classes by region. For 1960, WR 9Fs did 25,800 annual miles whereas 47xx did 33,700. The average may be skewed by the Ebbw Vale workings (short distance) to an extent. It is also notable the works dwell times at Swindon were higher which would also affect this. 

Tables 11.14 to 11.17 give mileages by class member by region.

Tables 11.9-11.11 give annual mileage, weekdays out of service, days in service and % of possible days (availability) for the years 1955,6 and 7 by region for 9Fs and other freight classes. NB at this time WR only had 8 X 9Fs (and 8 X 47xx)

 

The comments about 8F builds are also taken from that book. It appears the WR was trying to make a case to the RE not only to build something at Swindon but also to build something they perceived more suiitable for them than 9Fs. 

It was up to the WR what to do with their cascaded Swindon-built Stanier 8Fs which was apparently the agreement (the 9Fs to be allocated to WR went to LMR and the first were 92008/9) - so did they replace older locos, or maybe transfer other locos they didn't like (including non Swindon-built 8Fs or WDs etc)? 

[The Johnster]

Collisions on shed are not representative of other types of collisions, as Mike has stated.  Movement on running lines is controlled by fixed signalling or handsignals, and by handsignals in goods and marshalling yards, but on shed a loco can move off under the authority of it's driver; the instruction is to have a good look around, sound your horn before moving, keep a good lookout, and proceed with caution.  If somebody else is doing the same thing, perhaps along on the footplate and only observing one side at a time, there is potential for conflict.  At Canton in the 70s, we had 2 inlets and what was effectively a one way system, but I can recall some near misses!  

 

Bear in mind that the 9F runaways in the Western Valley were on comparatively light trains of empty hoppers with a brake van holding them back; a serious problem was identified and rectified.  As for the Lickey, it had been traditionally worked by Big Bertha, which was replaced by a 9F and a brace of Jinties, between them able to provide a suitable combination of power for any load, and the 9F and 94xx format was more or less a WR interpretation of the same thing; it wasn't broke so they didn't fix it.  94xx have a bit more grunt than a Jinty.

 

The WR had 4 heavy freight 2-8-0 tender types to choose from, the 28xx/2884, ROD, Riddles Austerity, and Stanier 8F.  The unfitted RODs were concentrated on mineral work and the other 3 classes were more or less equal in capacity, and used turn and about indiscriminately where both were allocated unless speed was required, in which case the Austerities took a back seat.  Pontypool Road in it's last years used Staniers on the Aberdare/Vale of Neath route; I saw one at Mountain Ash in '64.

 

The 47xx are really not heavy freight locos, and were in any case severely route restricted to Plymouth or Wolverhampton, and I contend are not really relevant to this sub thread discussion.  Utilisation and mileage were high because they had very little short haul work and were rostered exclusively to fast fully fitted express freight jobs carried out elsewhere on the region by Castles, Halls, and Standard class 5MTs.

 

The ROD and Austerities were both locos that were cheap and available at the time that the GW got hold of them, and neither were what the railway, or WR, would have considered ideal, but certainly cost effective.  Given that we have already discussed the dislike of 'Midland' engines on the WR in this thread, I am unaware form conversations with drivers in the 70s, many of fired and drove these locos, of any complaint about the Stanier 8Fs over and above the inconvenience of LH drive and the general disdain in which 'Midland' engines were always held.  By and large the crews just got on with it and I'm sure would have been more than happy to complain had there really been any cause.  The RODs and Austerities were considered rough, but good strong pullers ideal for slow unfitted main line mineral drags.  I recall one driver saying that the ROD was the best heavy coal hauler at any speed below 20mph he'd ever worked on, but that they'd try to throw you off the footplate at speeds higher than that; this was an ex Pontypool Road man.

Edited April 23, 2020 by The Johnster

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, MidlandRed said:

Noted re the regulator problem. I have read other examples of 9Fs not stopping well. My reference is the RCTS book on the 9F.

 

Table 11.13 of the above book also compares annual average mileage by the 9Fs by region and then other freight classes by region. For 1960, WR 9Fs did 25,800 annual miles whereas 47xx did 33,700. The average may be skewed by the Ebbw Vale workings (short distance) to an extent. It is also notable the works dwell times at Swindon were higher which would also affect this. 

Tables 11.14 to 11.17 give mileages by class member by region.

Tables 11.9-11.11 give annual mileage, weekdays out of service, days in service and % of possible days (availability) for the years 1955,6 and 7 by region for 9Fs and other freight classes. NB at this time WR only had 8 X 9Fs (and 8 X 47xx)

 

The comments about 8F builds are also taken from that book. It appears the WR was trying to make a case to the RE not only to build something at Swindon but also to build something they perceived more suiitable for them than 9Fs. 

It was up to the WR what to do with their cascaded Swindon-built Stanier 8Fs which was apparently the agreement (the 9Fs to be allocated to WR went to LMR and the first were 92008/9) - so did they replace older locos, or maybe transfer other locos they didn't like (including non Swindon-built 8Fs or WDs etc)? 

Maybe I wasn't clear - the WR acquired nearly 40 39 to be precise) 8Fs because the depots to which they were allocated became part of WR territory.  in others words they were cascaded but simply transferred with the sheds to which they were allocated.  a few went to other sheds (e.g Pontypool Road as mentioned by Johnster) but  the principal allocation stayed in their deeper South Wales haunts but simply moved to another shed as their original depot shut.  The only later exchanges were little more than swapping what the Western had finished up with for Swindon built engines - don't forget that Swindon built 80 of them i during the war and many of those had originally worked on the GWR until handed over to the LMS post-war.

 

Annual mileage figures of course prove very little (even if they happened to be accurate, which I suspect is a very different debate) as they intended on the length of workings available of which the Western had very few truly long distance turns to compare with the various northern routes.  An engine working over the S&DJt wouldn't knock up much mileage but it would do a heck of a lot of work.  'Dwell times at Swindon' (presumably days in shops) only have an impact if you look at how the mileages were compiled - as I said other Regions didn't count locos in shops as available hence they wouldn't impact average mileages aexcept to inflate them.  and don't forget - availability figures were calculated differently by different Regions hence true comparison is difficult.

 

The 47XXs are an irrelevant comparison - as I originally pointed out, and Johnster has repeated - they were Mixed Traffic engines and by their very nature worked largely on long distance vacuum fitted trains with little bits of local work added in during the daytime when the sort of trains they designed for weren't running.  Plus of cpurse they were used to a limited extent on Summer saturday passenger extras which again were long distance services.

[MidlandRed]

Thanks both, interesting info. I don't propose to start quoting tables but the S and DJR 7Fs, as you say, show shorter mileages as well. 

 

I will quote, however from the very comprehensive RCTS book on the 9Fs regarding the regulator and steam brake modifications. The book states:- 

"On arrival at Newport Ebbw Junction in early 1954, the first batch of 9Fs, 92000-7, quickly displayed two disconcerting characteristics:

(1) the slow action of the steam brakes following periods of inactivity

(2) the tendency of the regulator to stick wide open.

In other words once the engines were up and running, they were, under certain circumstances, quite difficult to stop."

The section goes on to detail the tests and modifications proposed including road trials with modifications to 92002, which showed promising results, in South Wales followed by trials with 92015 at Rugby Testing Station. The modifications are thought to have been introduced as a new feature in the batch 92030-49, but no record has been found of the exact changeover point. Retro fitting occurred to the WR locos and the ER ones at March (92010-14). 

The 9F received a number of mods through the years, the ER/NER fire hole door item referred to before being one of them. 

 

I dont want to prolong a conflict of opinion but surely, after the larger WR allocation of 9Fs, the description you've given of work which you've given as carried out by the 47xx mirrors that of the 9Fs? The 'availability' data is derived, as I understand, from loco record cards and other sources giving mileages, but takes account also of periods in classified shop and shed, running and exams, and also not required for service. This gives a number of days in service, and a percentage calculated of total possible days. Thus the information should be comparable across regions and classes. The LNWR 7F 0.8.0s show low availability on WR (31 locos, 57%). 

Edited April 23, 2020 by MidlandRed

[Rivercider]

34 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The 47XXs are an irrelevant comparison - as I originally pointed out, and Johnster has repeated - they were Mixed Traffic engines and by their very nature worked largely on long distance vacuum fitted trains with little bits of local work added in during the daytime when the sort of trains they designed for weren't running.  Plus of cpurse they were used to a limited extent on Summer saturday passenger extras which again were long distance services.

Interestingly in my lockdown afternoon reading today Peter Gray in 'Rail Trails -South West' has a picture of 4705 at Exeter St Davids on a summer Saturday working on 23 July 1960. He mentions that both 92249 and 92218 had earlier headed west with passenger trains. Elsewhere is  92218 again in passenger use on 3 September 1960.

He also mentions Newton Abbot's only Brit 70022 was not popular with the engine men there.

 

cheers 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Rivercider
Grammar

[The Johnster]

'Dwell times' at Swindon may also be influenced by the crisis of the early 60s on the WR, when a combination of problems with the Warships and, shall we say enthusiastic?, withdrawals of steam locos  on the principle that, firstly, 3 steam locos of equivalent sort had to be withdrawn for replacement by one diesel,  and that, secondly, the region was in a race with the ER to be first to 'eliminate' steam led to unplanned bay blocking at Swindon by Warships.  Caerphilly, being run down but working flat out, and closed in the winter of '63, was unable to take up the slack and locos spent extended periods waiting for a bay at Swindon.  The D95xx ordered in 1961 were not even started on until mid '64.

 

By 1962 the region was starting to get on top of this, but the timetable came perilously close to collapse for lack of serviceable motive power.  The Kings, thrashed on the 2 hour Birminghams, were going down like ninepins with cracked frames, and the new Westerns were only just becoming available to traffic.  Hymeks had started to make a difference at the cost of Canton's allocation being nearly destroyed on King timings and loadings (they were never the same afterwards).  Both the last batch of Swindon 9Fs and the Westerns were affected, being beaten to the punch in both cases by Crewe.  When the second order of Hymeks fell through because Beyer Peacock went bus, the region started taking brand new EE type 3s and Brush type 4s in 1963, and a combination of falling traffic and rapid, reliable, delivery of these diesel electrics enabled steam to be eliminated at the end of the summer timetable of 1965.  Inroads had been made into passenger locos by 1960 by the Warships and the increasing number of dmus, but the freight work was still very largely in the hands of steam locos in 1962 and a good half of it was still steam hauled in '63.  The RODs were getting thin on the ground as were the Austerities and earlier 28xx, but there were plenty of 2884s, 9Fs, 56xx, 42xx, 52xx and 72xx still working in 1962, and plenty of work for them to do.  There were still a good few mixed traffic locos about as well, and plenty of fitted freight and parcels work for them to do as well.

[MidlandRed]

The Johnster, that may well have influenced the time taken in the early 60s. Very difficult period for the WR. 

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

 

I dont want to prolong a conflict of opinion but surely, after the larger WR allocation of 9Fs, the description you've given of work which you've given as carried out by the 47xx mirrors that of the 9Fs?

The 9Fs could have undertaken 47xx work as they had proved to be capable of fast running, and they were far more versatile than the 47xx in terms of route availability.  But the 47xx was designed for specific duties and performed them well, plus they were quite happy on the odd heavy passenger job as well.  I imagine the WR's thinking was that the larger driving wheels of the 47xx made them more suitable for fast long distance work than the 9Fs.  This is because a larger driving wheel will go further for the same number of piston strokes than a smaller one, and there was 8" difference between the 9F and the 47xx.  This must mean that the 47xx was cheaper to operate on the duties it was designed for because it burned less coal to travel the same distance, though the differences between the two designs make it difficult to be precise and objective about this.  

 

It is worth mentioning that the 9F was designed as a freight loco, and the 47xx as a fast mixed traffic loco; they are quite different beasts.  That the 9F could do anything that a 47xx could do does not mean that it should have; the smaller driving wheels meant more piston strokes over a given distance as we've seen, and as well as using more steam, and consequently more coal and water, there will be more hammer blow, resulting in increased maintenance for both track and loco.

 

The 47xx is popular among enthusiasts that like big engines and takes it's place with the LNER P2 and the putative Riddles 2-8-2 as a 'might have been' denied it's chance by the recalcitrance of the GW's civil engineers, but Churchward knew what was required and still built a loco that was too heavy for most of his railway.  I regard it as a failure.  in it's original form with a no.1 boiler it could not produce enough steam for the work and the larger boiler made it too heavy.  It could, otherwise, have proved a very useful design for heavy passenger work such as the South Wales expresses, the very slot the Brits eventually filled on the WR and for the same reasons, but the Brits were much better than the 47xx; at least as powerful, faster, and better riding.

 

I suspect that had Churchward assembled from his range of standard parts a 4-6-0 with 5'8" wheels, Saint/28xx cylinders and a no.1 boiler (Collett's Grange, in effect), he'd have had a very effective heavy mixed traffic loco suitable for work anywhere on the system, and the 47xx would never have been built; neither would the Halls.  

[The Stationmaster]

The route restrictions for 92XXX on the WR were rather confusing.   Although they were Blue restriction (based on axle loading of course) they were actually restricted in speed on Blue routes  (to 50mph) and to 25 mph on Dotted Blue routes,  Siding etc restrictions on both of these were as 38XX.  On Red routes their siding etc restrictions were the same as 38XX and 47XX and like the 47XX they were not permitted to cross the Royal Albert Bridge.

 

The Red restriction on 47XX was also a little confusing as they were banned from quite a number of Red secondary routes.  And, as I've mentioned elsewhere in the past, 47XX were not liked (by Firemen in particular) on long distance passenger work because the lever reverse didn't encourage Drivers to notch them up hence they were hard work for the Fireman (and they didn't ride too well at higher speeds).

Edited April 24, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[slilley]

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

'Dwell times' at Swindon may also be influenced by the crisis of the early 60s on the WR, when a combination of problems with the Warships and, shall we say enthusiastic?, withdrawals of steam locos  on the principle that, firstly, 3 steam locos of equivalent sort had to be withdrawn for replacement by one diesel,  and that, secondly, the region was in a race with the ER to be first to 'eliminate' steam led to unplanned bay blocking at Swindon by Warships.  Caerphilly, being run down but working flat out, and closed in the winter of '63, was unable to take up the slack and locos spent extended periods waiting for a bay at Swindon.  The D95xx ordered in 1961 were not even started on until mid '64.

 

By 1962 the region was starting to get on top of this, but the timetable came perilously close to collapse for lack of serviceable motive power.  The Kings, thrashed on the 2 hour Birminghams, were going down like ninepins with cracked frames, and the new Westerns were only just becoming available to traffic.  Hymeks had started to make a difference at the cost of Canton's allocation being nearly destroyed on King timings and loadings (they were never the same afterwards).  Both the last batch of Swindon 9Fs and the Westerns were affected, being beaten to the punch in both cases by Crewe.  When the second order of Hymeks fell through because Beyer Peacock went bus, the region started taking brand new EE type 3s and Brush type 4s in 1963, and a combination of falling traffic and rapid, reliable, delivery of these diesel electrics enabled steam to be eliminated at the end of the summer timetable of 1965.  Inroads had been made into passenger locos by 1960 by the Warships and the increasing number of dmus, but the freight work was still very largely in the hands of steam locos in 1962 and a good half of it was still steam hauled in '63.  The RODs were getting thin on the ground as were the Austerities and earlier 28xx, but there were plenty of 2884s, 9Fs, 56xx, 42xx, 52xx and 72xx still working in 1962, and plenty of work for them to do.  There were still a good few mixed traffic locos about as well, and plenty of fitted freight and parcels work for them to do as well.

The second Hymek order did not fall through because Beyer Peacock went bust in 1962, BP were churning out Class 25s in 1966.  NBL went bust in 1962 were you thinking of them?

[MidlandRed]

42 minutes ago, slilley said:

The second Hymek order did not fall through because Beyer Peacock went bust in 1962, BP were churning out Class 25s in 1966.  NBL went bust in 1962 were you thinking of them?

 

BP would have built 54 Type 2s (final 18 transferred to Derby as BP requested to be relieved of the contract owing to financial difficulties), but in addition they also built the last 29 (NER and ER) batch of Claytons. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The route restrictions for 92XXX on the WR were rather confusing.   Although they were Blue restriction (based on axle loading of course) they were actually restricted in speed on Blue routes  (to 50mph) and to 25 mph on Dotted Blue routes,  Siding etc restrictions on both of these were as 38XX.  On Red routes their siding etc restrictions were the same as 38XX and 47XX and like the 47XX they were not permitted to cross the Royal Albert Bridge.

 

The Red restriction on 47XX was also a little confusing as they were banned from quite a number of Red secondary routes.  And, as I've mentioned elsewhere in the past, 47XX were not liked (by Firemen in particular) on long distance passenger work because the lever reverse didn't encourage Drivers to notch them up hence they were hard work for the Fireman (and they didn't ride too well at higher speeds).

 

Thanks, Stationmaster. The WR classifications appeared to be extremely complex - going back to the early 1950s 2.8.0 v 2.10.0 debate on the WR, the main point of the 2.10.0 is to both reduce the driving axle loading, whilst still having the rear axle driving when the loco 'sits back' when starting from a standstill (compared with a 2.8.2 which would sit back on the pony truck)  - I wonder if this actually helped the 9F that much on the WR in reality given the complexities of the WR

route classifications? All interesting stuff anyway, thanks to you all for the debate. 

PS there's a link to a video in another thread covering development of the heavy freight loco from the Stanier 8f onwards - great film including a whole section on 9Fs! 

Edited April 24, 2020 by MidlandRed

[The Stationmaster]

On 23/04/2020 at 16:43, The Johnster said:

'The D95xx ordered in 1961 were not even started on until mid '64.

 

 

The 95XX were not ordered until 1963 - the first order was placed at the beginning of that year and delivery commenced in the summer of 1964.

 

Swindon Works seems to have entered its first period of malaise in around 1960 and from then on it got worse.  The first real sign of this on new work was the 1000s which were an extremely slow build with very limited progress visible over an entire year and delivery starting over a year late.  There were technical and supply problems with those due to troubles at North British and late delivery of transmissions from them and from Germany but the decline of Swindon had got probably got partially underway by then.

 

But the big blow came in 1962 withe creation of the BR Workshops Division and the development of a major plan to reorganise the works including taking work away from some, complete closure of others and a general reduction in workload as dieselisation took hold.  Swindon lost the carriage works in its entirety with limited remaining carriage work transferring to the loco works site on the opposite side of the main lines and the large ferrous foundry went completely as did the plate rolling shop.  With over 3,000 redundancies planned to take place over the 5 years from 1962 it must have hit morale pretty heavily not helped by remaining work disappearing before the eyes of the staff who were still there.

 

From something I was told some years later there were clearly management troubles as well with the works planning a steam overhaul workload into 1963/4/5 which bore no resemblance at all to the reality of the WR's pace of dieselisation and that too can't have helped n morale.  Plus of course the WR's adoption of diesel hydraulics of itself gradually reduced work at Swindon because a lot of major component change work could be undertaken by depots while the change to DMUs had a similar impact.

Edited April 25, 2020 by The Stationmaster
Correct typo in date

[MidlandRed]

I think the change to the structure of BTC in 1963 with creation of the British Railways Board and less regional autonomy resulted in the Brush 4s and EE Type 3s. This along with regional changes (loss of north of Banbury, gain of ex SR withered arm, west of Salisbury and lots of rural back water branches), along with the first national traction plan in 1965/66 (the first real look at traction needs on a countrywide basis) also made huge differences to the WR. Mass introduction of diesel electrics, putting up (as redundant) batches of class 43s, 14s, class 116, 122, Railbus for inter regional transfer (along with class 37, but replaced with new ones). Then Beeching - the whole railway, but especially the WR must have felt under siege. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by MidlandRed

[Phil Bullock]

And took over 20 years to recover. The early 70s felt like the bottom of the pit although perhaps the threatened closure of the S&C in the 80s was the true nadir ... and may be a turning point. 

[The Johnster]

My impression, and I do not claim it to be more than that, is that the Brush type 4s and EE type 3s almost happened by accident with the perfect storm of nobody being able to build more Westerns by the required delivery date, and B-P’s next 100 Hymeks out of play, both Brush and EE were able to supply locomotives immediately and quickly; this effectively killed off the hydraulics. 
 

I think there is some influence on this from Gerald Fiennes’ coming to the WR from the ER, where both classes had proved their worth already.  If there is any credence in this, we must be thankful that he was clearly less take with the lumbering behemoths of the EE type 4 and Brush type 2 classes.  The Brush type 4s and EE type 3s served the WR well until privatisation. 
 

I worked on the railway in the early 70s and it was really was a nadir.  Morale was very low, and if there was light at the end of the tunnel we’d have been delighted if it was an oncoming train.  And then we had Serpell... The turning point came with the 1977 timetable and the introduction of the train that saved BR, the HST.   

[slilley]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

My impression, and I do not claim it to be more than that, is that the Brush type 4s and EE type 3s almost happened by accident with the perfect storm of nobody being able to build more Westerns by the required delivery date, and B-P’s next 100 Hymeks out of play, both Brush and EE were able to supply locomotives immediately and quickly; this effectively killed off the hydraulics. 
 

I think there is some influence on this from Gerald Fiennes’ coming to the WR from the ER, where both classes had proved their worth already.  If there is any credence in this, we must be thankful that he was clearly less take with the lumbering behemoths of the EE type 4 and Brush type 2 classes.  The Brush type 4s and EE type 3s served the WR well until privatisation. 
 

I worked on the railway in the early 70s and it was really was a nadir.  Morale was very low, and if there was light at the end of the tunnel we’d have been delighted if it was an oncoming train.  And then we had Serpell... The turning point came with the 1977 timetable and the introduction of the train that saved BR, the HST.   

The Brush Type 4 procurement story is a long and complicated one. It is dealt with in great detail in Chapter 2 of Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History covering ten pages. The story is based on original source material from the Brush archives held at Leicester County Record Centre and the BR archives at the National Archives at Kew. If things had taken a slightly different turn No D0260 Lion would be preserved these days as 47401.

[PenrithBeacon]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

...

From something I was told some years later there were clearly management troubles as well with the works planning a steam overhaul workload into 1953/4/5 which bore no resemblance at all to the reality of the WR's pace of dieselisation and that too can't have helped n morale. ...

Are those dates correct?