Jump to content
 

BR Standard Classes on the Western Region


Andy Kirkham
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

From my recollections as a spotter at Temple Meads, I think it was 1970 when regular loco changes ceased and diesel-electrics began working through to the West Country. It happened at about the same time Temple Meads was resignalled and I thought at the time that the two changes might have been connected, but  I guess it was coincidental.

 

To reinforce this and to add to Phil Bullock's interesting post above, these are West Country observations:-

1/7/67-14/7/67 variously at Teignmouth, Newton Abbott, Exeter St David's and one or two other places in between - NB these are the numbers of separate observations - some were seen multiple times, to my annoyance at the time-

Classes 08- 3; 22- 16; 35- 0;

42- 35; 43- 22; 45- 1; 46- 0;

47- 6; 52- 63; 116 batch 1- 3; 116 Batch 2- 5; 116 Batch 3- 0; 118- 5; 120 batch 1- 1; 120 batch 3- 5; W56292- 5 times coupled to different units each time

 

Similar, over the much shorter period 17-19/8/69, so much more of a snap shot, including Teignmouth, Newton Abbott and Laira:-

Classes 03- 1; 08- 3; 22- 7; 35- 0

42- 16; 43- 7; 45- 0; 46- 0;

47- 3; 52- 5; 53- 1; 116- 0; 

117- 1; 118- 3; 120(1)- 1; 120(3)- 3; 121- 1; 122- 2.

On this visit some of the 22s, 42s and 43s were withdrawn and shorn of nameplates and parts (windows particularly noted). All livery details were also noted for each loco or set, and headcodes. Quite a number of DMUs were in blue syp, red buffer beam, white roof in 1967. One of the class 47 workings was 1M09, whatever that is. Of particular note, especially in 1967, was the number of class 2 loco hauled passenger trains with quite a few double headed by class 22. 

 

So virtually no through workings of class 45 and 46 or class 47 it seems. The 53 (recorded as D0280) was at Goodrington carriage sidings. 

 

I hope these are of interest - my original input to this thread really did relate to BR standards (class 9F), and my feeling the WR rather unfairly didn't really want to give them 'garage space' to quote 60s motoring slang! That the 9F is my favourite steam type allows me to override GWR sentiment in this. We have morphed into a broader examination/ discussion about BR WR (or how ex was the GWR in the WR). It's probably linked to the original post about Standard classes on the WR (or lack of welcome). 

 

In terms of loco workings west of Bristol all of this does reinforce that dieselisation remained very parochial for many years and based on a very gradual change from steam practice. The 1967 view was great for enthusiasts, probably fine for the operators (if the locos worked), but from a professional transport planning viewpoint or national operating viewpoint, not at all. 

Edited by MidlandRed
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

 

Of particular note, especially in 1967, was the number of class 2 loco hauled passenger trains with quite a few double headed by class 22. 

 

 

 

Was this the period when West of England trains split at Exeter with Paignton portions worked forwards by 22s?

 

Looks a good fit for earlier conclusions.... anyone got similar later records 70 - 4 I wonder?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible as in 1967 there were locos and units stabled at Exeter and Newton Abbott (the Exeter would include Waterloo locos and possibly Barnstaple/ Ilfracombe stock). 

 

Examples of class 2 passenger were:-

D810 - 2C40; D6311/6318 - 2C96; D818 - 2C76; D854 - 2C76; D861 - 2C40; D805 - 2C76; D6318/6321 - 2C90; D825 - 2C76; D809 - 2C08; D1035 - 2C40; D6311/6312 - 2C90.

DMUs with four character headcodes 2C74; 2C76 etc. Therefore overlap between DMUs and loco hauled on similar workings. 

Edited by MidlandRed
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I didn't say in the post you refer to that B-P failed because they didn't get another Hymek order, Sillily; 

they had another 100 low-geared Hymeks on order from the WR when they went under (as well as the class 25 and Clayon work which was completed while the firm was in adminstration), and it was these locos that were replaced by 37s in order to enable withdrawal of 56xx steam.  There was some talk of them having ordered materials for these locos that WR had not paid for on time or something that was significant to the final cashflow issue that led to their being put into administration but the situation at the time was complex and I would not be willing to state that the WR was responsible for B-P's failure.

 

6 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

What did Cardiff use their class 46s on? Presumably Laira used their's on NE/SW (although they mostly started on the WR at Bath Road).

 

Cross country passenger (Leeds, Newcastle, etc) and freight via Gloucester heading in the same direction but including traffic to such as Corby, Pensnett, Scunthorpe and the like as well as Newcastle and Edinburgh freightliner traffic.  They were rare west of Canton; I only recall one working to Margam, and not used on oil trains which were wall to wall 47s except for the Waterston-Albion double headed 37s.  I never saw one west of Briton Ferry.  I regard the best performance run I ever had as a dead 56 minute non-stop Gloucester Tramway-Pengam reception freightliner with a 46, all PROS properly observed with a 1,200 ton train.

 

4 hours ago, David C said:

Midland Red: 11 82xxx locos allocated to Newton Abbott on various dates from January 1955. All had moved away by October 1956. See Pannier Tank's post on page 1 of this thread and http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=class&id=726202&type=S&page=alloc for full details of the locos' allocations before withdrawal. 

Warning: you waste hours on this site - I have!

David C

 

Oh, yeah, Brdatabase can suck hours of your time out of your life, an ideal lockdown site!  

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

 

Indeed - and this situation I find very curious. In the early 60s, D34-D42 and D154 were allocated to Bristol (they'd gone by sometime in 1966, presumably replaced by class 47). As at least one started at Barrow Road these were, presumably the south west's contribution to north east to south west services. However did the change to 'proper' WR locos still  happen as in steam days at Bristol? And also Newton Abbott in some cases?

 

It certainly seemed that way from spotting observations on several visits to Bristol, going round Bath Road shed and holidays in Teignmouth from 1967 onwards. 

 

However north of Bristol those services were almost exclusively in the hands of class 45 and some 46 in that era, from either Holbeck or Nottingham Division. 

 

There seems to have remained a very 'region centric' steam based approach to this until surprisingly late - and although the 46s clearly did replace Warship class 43, once again from spotting notes they didn't appear at Paddington. In 1969 the sea wall at Teignmouth appeared almost a constant procession of 22, 42 and 52 (with some 47), plus (remarkably few) DMUs - I will dig out my remaining spotting notes from that era and check later! 

What did Cardiff use their class 46s on? Presumably Laira used their's on NE/SW (although they mostly started on the WR at Bath Road). 

 

Not so much a Regioncentric steam approach as different Regions having different dieselisation programmes.  Thus the initial appearance of Class 45/46 'on the WR' was a consequence of the LMR's Midland Lines dieselisation rather than a WR scheme.

 

You then inevitably come to the big hurdle of who worked what where and how and that takes you into very different realms from saying 'why didn't they do this or that?' immediately following dieselisation.  And the answer you will always come up against is cost.  The WR basic diesel loco in early days was, hardly surprisingly a diesel hydraulic (probably the Swindon 'Warship') so the initial training would be several weeks on that as 'the basic diesel' plus  several days of a conversion course for each of the other Hydraulic classes plus handling training and assessment on each new type - again of several days.  To carry out the training Drivers had to be taken off thei booked work, Training Inspectors or other trainers were needed plus Inspectors or Tutor Drivers (also men taken off their ordinary driving turns) were needed to there was a considerable manpower cost.  At a depot where men also worked DMUs there was a basic DMU course also about a week long plus furrther type training and handling experience.

 

OK that's your WR done, gradually as locos became available etc.  Meanwhile the Midland Lines of the LMR were using diesel electrics so their basic diesel would probably have been either a Derby Type 2 or. Sulzer Type 4 (i.e. Class 45 or Class 46 as they came along.  They would then go through a similar conversion session for other types from their 'basic diesel'.   But if WR hydraulics were to work through, or diesel electrics were to work through in the opposite direction the Drivers involved would then need a basic diesel course on the other type to convert from diesel electric basic to diesel hydraulic basic or vice versa, then followed by the various type conversion training and handling.  Thus what didn't tend to happen on Inter-Regional work was additional training - which would have involved not only type training but additional Road Learning.  So depots stuck pretty rigidly to their existing Route Knowledge limits because Road Learning also involved taking men off booked work.  In a period when dieselisation itself was a major training workload and cost nobody was really going to be likely to go beyond it if they could avoid it because it was too difficult to resource.  

 

So while a Laira or Newton 'Warship' would cheerfully be worked beyond Bristol and through the tunnel thence via the North & West to Salop (and even Crewe) to work it beyond Bristol the shorter distance to Birmingham would have involved a lot more training - so it didn't happen.  It was only as depot closures took place and work was integrated at the likes of Bath Road in Bristol by bringing in former LM men and work from Barrow Road that change could gradually occur.  And once the Brush Type 4/Class 47 became the basic diesel and the initial course was in any case shortened and rationalisation simplified Road Learning so change was more readily achieved and could then be exploited.  But it still remained awkward - at the traincrew depot I was managing in 1974 Drivers required DMU knowledge (not in every link fortunately), and Classes 25, 31, 35, 46, 47 , and 52 knowledge to which was subsequently added Class 37 although by then 25 & 35 knowledge had lapsed.  add in Road Learning for changed traffic flows and such like and there are always various cost equations to consider

 

Incidentally although it was a few years before my time on the railway I did a quick calculation for my local branch.  In the days of the steam/GWR railcar worked domestic branch service there were two sets of men plus an overnight Shedman locally - a total of 5 men (plus other depots working in and sharing w some of the domestic branch passenger work.  With dieselisation of the domestic branch passenger service the local crewing was reduced from 5 men to 2 - overnight saving of 3 posts.  Train mileage was basically unchanged because the service was unchanged as a result of dieselisation although it altered in later years.  One amusing oddity is that since the opening of the second intermediate station in 1900,  and thus through several generations of steam haulage plus three generations of diesel trains, the booked end-to-end journey time has never altered - it was 12 minutes for the 5 miles 120 years and it is still the same today although the service nowadays (excluding Covid) is the most frequent it has ever been so the trains are now working harder and accumulating more miles run each day.  So dieselisation saved wage costs and reduced overall operating costs but in terms of miles run it made no difference. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I get all of that Stationmaster.

 

I also understand that the class 45/46 which first went to Bristol were part of the NE/SW dieselisation and fundamentally LMR (with an even older fashioned hat on, Midland Railway). However locos were allocated at Leeds (Holbeck - NER) Derby (LMR) and Bristol (WR) (initially some at Barrow Road)- and possibly some at Gateshead (NER) - so truly inter-regional. The Bristol allocated locos quickly moved to Bath Road (in fact some went straight there). So BR men would have already had the training - other than route knowledge I can't see why these locos couldn't have worked through rather than changing engines at Bristol, other than WR hydraulics were available at Bristol - the route south-westwards was WR (GWR) not LMR (MR) - and the Jubilees were replaced by WR steam at Bristol etc previously. Unless I'm fundamentally missing something here, to an extent, what happened in 1969 (class 43 Warships replaced by class 46) might have been possible from the start if the BR organisation was set up to look more holistically (which happened to an extent after the BRB was implemented in 1963, sometimes more gradually than others) rather than being confined by regional boundaries and practices..... I'm sure this is anathema to some but looking back now seems very odd. 

 

Does anyone know what routes/services those headcodes I posted refer to? 

 

Edited by MidlandRed
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

Does anyone know what routes/services those headcodes I posted refer to? 

 

 

It wouldnt just be the loco crews that needed the traction knowledge - shed staff would also need to know what to do with the beasts when they turned up unless it was a straight out and back working. That would involve Newton Abbott and Laira and as their men were not trained I suspect it was easier to take the 16 wheelers off in Bristol. This article https://www.derbysulzers.com/class45wr.html confirms and adds detail to much of what has already been said.

 

As for the headcodes I suspect they would be generic local route codes rather than train specific - someone with the relevant wtt should be able to advise the specifics. I am afraid mine dont cover that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Also, don't forget that drivers worked in links, as did guards and secondmen.  A link is a series of duties that you perform on a regular weekly rotation duties, perhaps 20 or so different jobs one each week, and you are promoted to higher links very strictly on a seniority basis, dead man's shoes.  So, if you want work in the next link up because the times are better and you will earn mileage, you keep an eye out on when a vacancy comes up in it, and have an idea about how the senior men in your own link might react to it; it may for instance involve work more amenable to family men, or more evenings off for those courting; there may even be an opportunity to jump the queue into the shoes of those dead men, or you may be disappointed as someone you didn't think would comes in left field and grabs it in front of you.  This enlivened work at many depots,  Not until a link vacancy could not be filled from within the grade at the depot did it get advertised to other depots, which is why you could always advance your career and your stress levels by moving to the Southern's London depots and learning to accelerate on double yellows courtesy of EPB...

 

When you moved up a link, there was usually work in that link involving traction or routes that you had not previously signed for because it didn't exist in your previous link, so time had to be be allowed for you to train and pass out on the traction and sign the new routes, while in the meantime your link work had to be covered by men from your own or senior links on rest days or spare days (big depots had sets of spare men signing on at regular intervals 24/7 to cover illnesses and other 'no shows').  It isn't like steam, where a new type allocated to the depot or work that involves it meant that you simply made some comment along the lines of 'what the f's this thing, 'aven't we got any 49xx', looked for the oiling points while your equally baffled fireman raised steam, and took her off shed when it was time.  A diesel driver or passed secondman passed out on the traction was required to know how to deal with fault lights demanding his attention, which is the reason he had to sign and pass out on traction knowledge in the first place; looking it up in the book wasn't going to cut the mustard while traffic was blocking up behind you all the way back to Swansea, you had to fix it now and get under way or declare a failure, which leads to an internal inquiry to find out whose fault it is, and you get one guess whose fault it is if you were supposed to be able to fix it.  Clue; the answer's in the mirror.

 

So, it's no good allocating 10 46s to a depot that's just lost 10 43s and never had 46s before and just expecting them to appear at the depot exit signal when the WTT says they should; men have to be taken off duties, and that work covered by men taken off other duties (which also therefore have to be covered), or expensively working at rest day rates, for them to learn the new traction.  The 46s and 43s have to go through an overlap period during which the railway as a whole is down 10 type 4 diesels, and you can rely on the quality of maintenance of the 43s being an afterthought once the fitters know they are going elsewhere. 

 

Many of the drivers I worked with at Canton in the early 70s were frankly terrified of the fault lights in case they couldn't repair the fault and were blamed for it, which suggests to me that, with all due respect, the failure rate of men on diesel familiarisation courses was not as high as it perhaps should have been in WR's rush to dieselise.  By about 74 or 75 they were a bit more experienced and in their comfort zone, but it had taken over a decade at Canton.  'With steam, we knew we could always get home' was a common comment'; of course steam was a mythical golden age during which there was unbroken comradeship and it was a pleasure to come to work; nobody ever, ever, burned through the firebars or dropped a fusible plug and had to throw the fire out, or had to stop for a blow up on Llanvihangel bank, never ever (there were blokes still failing to live down such misdemeanours down 30 years after they'd committed them*).  But if you messed up with a diesel, not that many did, you were treated with a bit of sympathy and understanding, qualities not normally associated with old time footplatemen, by your peers, though not your traincrew manager.

 

Now, in the case of a depot with men transferred in recently from a shed that had lost work or closed but did have knowledge of 46s, you might get away with it a bit; for example, Bescot men driving Westerns in the 70s might have fairly recently transferred from Tyseley or Stafford Road and been already familiar with these strange beasts, requiring only a quick refresher, but it illustrates what has to be managed when locos are transferrred from one place to another.  Throw in a few derailments or an overruning Sunday occupation or two during the changeover period and Control have their work cut out providing crews that know both the traction and the road over the diversionary routes!   And we haven't really discussed the fitters and electricians...

 

Then there are the manning agreements; drivers taken off a duty to cover this sort of thing, even with route and traction knowledge, have to be found secondmen on certain duties for which secondmen are required, such a steam heated trains, duties where the driver is required to be on the footplate for more than 5 continuous hours without a break for 'physical needs', in which case the secondman has to be route and traction passed.  You cannot sign on for duty within 12 hours of having booked off the previous one, so if something untoward has delayed you the previous night...  Any working not in the WTT must have a secondman as well, and any working over 100mph on a HST must have a traction and route passed secondman.  I liked working on trains but would not have gone into traincrew management for a million pounds a week.

 

All part of the fun and games.

 

 

 

*''Don't go with 'im, guard, 'ee ran out of steam 'alfway up Llanvihangel with a 28xx and only 20 of coal on'.  

 

'Well, 'ee's not going to run out of steam with a 47, is 'ee'?  

 

'Wouldn't put it past 'im'!

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I didn't say in the post you refer to that B-P failed because they didn't get another Hymek order, Sillily; 

they had another 100 low-geared Hymeks on order from the WR when they went under (as well as the class 25 and Clayon work which was completed while the firm was in adminstration), and it was these locos that were replaced by 37s in order to enable withdrawal of 56xx steam.  There was some talk of them having ordered materials for these locos that WR had not paid for on time or something that was significant to the final cashflow issue that led to their being put into administration but the situation at the time was complex and I would not be willing to state that the WR was responsible for B-P's failure.

 

When were these Hymeks ordered? I have spent hours going through the minutes of the BTC/BR Works & Equipment Committee and Supply Committee meetings and not found anything.  These were the two main bodies within the BTC or from 1963 onwards BR that were responsible for locomotive orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23 April 2020 at 12:47, The Stationmaster said:

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.

 

A number of 8Fs were transferred from various locations on the LMR (not subsequently WR depots or vice versa) - to particularly, but not exclusively St Philips Marsh, Bristol from around 1955 onwards, coinciding with the 9F building programme, and suggested to be in lieu of 9Fs originally planned for allocation to the WR, to meet a need they'd identified for additional freight locos (or to replace older locos (maybe the G2s they'd inherited?) These

Stanier 8Fs were, of course, Swindon-built locos. As you say, Swansea Paxton St already had some. What the WR actually did in terms of freight locos as a result of receiving these transferred locos, I don't know.  

 

Amazing what you find trawling through BR database!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, slilley said:

When were these Hymeks ordered? I have spent hours going through the minutes of the BTC/BR Works & Equipment Committee and Supply Committee meetings and not found anything.  These were the two main bodies within the BTC or from 1963 onwards BR that were responsible for locomotive orders.

 

The only reference I've found is in a book, which refers to BP approaching BR to enquire whether orders were likely for more Hymeks - this may have been with the backdrop of the WR having, in its area-wide dieselisation schemes originally estimated a need for 400 type 3s. 

As we've already said, they subsequently built Clayton class 17s as sub contractor, and had an order for 54 class 25s (of which they built 36 before ceasing - the last 18 being built at Derby). It's interesting that their last loco (D7659) according to BR database, didn't enter service until later than the others - I wonder if this was whilst problems were being sorted out for the ongoing build? I personally don't recall D7659 being delayed entry into service and recall it as just one of many on the LMR. 

Edited by MidlandRed
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

 

The only reference I've found is in a book, which refers to BP approaching BR to enquire whether orders were likely for more Hymeks - this may have been with the backdrop of the WR having, in its area-wide dieselisation schemes originally estimated a need for 400 type 3s. 

As we've already said, they subsequently built Clayton class 17s as sub contractor, and had an order for 54 class 25s (of which they built 36 before ceasing - the last 18 being built at Derby). It's interesting that their last loco (D7659) according to BR database, didn't enter service until later than the others - I wonder if this was whilst problems were being sorted out for the ongoing build? I personally don't recall D7659 being delayed entry into service and recall it as just one of many on the LMR. 

A key document is the BTC General Staff "Standardisation of Main Line Locomotives". from 1959. The Western Region Area 4 scheme covered areas that backed onto other regions and where there would be much cross border traffic so to speak. The BTC for that said it was proposed to use diesel-electrics rather than hydraulics. At this point only 45 Hymeks were on order.

Edited by slilley
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
52 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

 

What the WR actually did in terms of freight locos as a result of receiving these transferred locos, I don't know.  

 

 

Birmingham area sheds had some...

 

http://www.miac.org.uk/wilcox2.html#lmsr48410

 

Handy for off region workings across the northern frontier I guess...

 

Phii

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

to particularly, but not exclusively St Philips Marsh, Bristol from around 1955 onwards, coinciding with the 9F building programme, and suggested to be in lieu of 9Fs originally planned for allocation to the WR

Or perhaps a case of 'cascading' from the LMR when it started receiving new 9Fs.  I don't know what St Philips Marsh used these Stanier 8Fs for, specifically, but if that could be identified it might determine whether these were replacements for planned 9Fs that didn't turn up or for older withdrawn locos; RODs being the most likely culprits.  St Philips Marsh freight work was more express fully or part-fitted orientated than the heavy mineral drags of South Wales, Banbury, and the West Midlands, so RODs or Austerities might have been considered less suitable for the work.  Stanier 8Fs (and 28xx) can run at a pretty good pace, where an ROD or an Austerity might be shaking itself to bits.

 

Just a suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
53 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Or perhaps a case of 'cascading' from the LMR when it started receiving new 9Fs.  I don't know what St Philips Marsh used these Stanier 8Fs for, specifically, but if that could be identified it might determine whether these were replacements for planned 9Fs that didn't turn up or for older withdrawn locos; RODs being the most likely culprits.  St Philips Marsh freight work was more express fully or part-fitted orientated than the heavy mineral drags of South Wales, Banbury, and the West Midlands, so RODs or Austerities might have been considered less suitable for the work.  Stanier 8Fs (and 28xx) can run at a pretty good pace, where an ROD or an Austerity might be shaking itself to bits.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

The white star 8Fs - as per both in my link - had improved balancing expressly for that purpose.

 

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the RCTS book 'BR Standard Steam Locomotives Volume 4 - the 9F 2-10-0 Class', which seems to be an extraordinarily deep and extensively researched history of the class (thoroughly recommended if you're really interested in 9Fs) , before the first 8 arrived in 1954, the WR had attempted to direct them to other regions and to persuade the RE to allow them to build 48 38xx class locos and the proposal was supported in a memo from K.W.C Grand (WR Chief Regional Officer). They put together a costing analysis which seemed to suggest better value for money but was subsequently challenged for various technical reasons - the response to these proposals (reproduced memo from R.C Bond to R.A Riddles) concluded that if the WR felt their particular operating conditions could not make use of the additional power of the 9F locomotives, thus justifying the additional running costs (£414 per annum), then the locos should be allocated to the LM or E Regions, who would no doubt be glad of them, and would transfer an equal or greater number of 2-8-0s to the WR. It also refers to Mr Grand's reluctance to have WD 2-8-0s and they should receive Stanier 8Fs which would be available. The memo concludes these are interim notes pending receipt of two other reports - one on the supposed operating conditions and the other from the Accountant's Mechanical Engineering sub-committee on the costings for the proposed 38xx locos. The WR had another go at this before conclusion (the 8F transfers), a Standard Class 8F for their region, to be built at Swindon (93xxx series). Two initial diagrams (not drawings) were prepared and are included in the RCTS book. The 53 locos proposed were included in the 1956-58 building programmes and became the Swindon 9Fs (the 30 for 1958 were delivered from Crewe; the 18 for 1957 from Swindon (in 1959-60)). Presumably Swindon's build was later than required operationally by the WR - their's had double chimneys.  

 

I think is therefore reasonable to assume the WR had identified a need for either an additional 48 freight locomotives (or perhaps as replacements for the ROD, inherited G2 7Fs etc). The first 8 9Fs were provided but all attempts to provide any more ended up with their rejection and redirection to other regions, and by way of complicated cascades as WR would only accept Swindon built locos, received Swindon-built Stanier 8Fs from the LMR. 

 

The cynic in me suggests the WR were more interested in keeping Swindon busy - that they eventually built 53 9Fs is interesting (and received an additional 48 9Fs for use on the WR - but only 18 built at Swindon). 

 

That book has a wonderful photo showing two 9Fs parked with a 28xx 2-8-0 in front - interesting juxtaposition - the 9Fs look huge in comparison to the 1904 GWR design, which looks a bit of a whippersnapper in comparison (I'm ducking for cover.....)  - the lineage via the Stanier 8F and WD 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 is very clear though - 50 years of evolution! 

Edited by MidlandRed
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and high praise indeed for the 82xxx. 

 

The MIAC photos are great (great site - as is the Warwickshire one) and It's interesting that Stourbridge Junction had Stanier 8Fs.  Strangely the 9Fs weren't really allocated in quantity to the Birmingham Division ex WR sheds (other than Banbury) - however they were a major feature at Saltley. One of the later build was allocated to Tyseley - I had thought it may have been potential cover for 92079s periods away in works?

Edited by MidlandRed
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/04/2020 at 13:03, DavidCBroad said:

Conversely after a damn good rain storm even an unkempt goods engine could look quite presentable.

 

That's the way I keep my car looking presentable ......

 

David C

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

IIRC 92233 performed at one stage .... was it that one? 

 

92223 was at Bromsgrove, withdrawn and then reinstated at Tyseley. There are photos of it banking on Flickr.

 

92230 and 92234 also performed in place of 92079. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Theres some rather interesting comments from a WR fireman on the 82045 thread this month....

 

http://www.82045.org.uk/news/82045_news-apr20.html

 

 

 

Yes, very interesting.  He verifies some of my comments, in that the no.2 domed boiler was fired in the same way as the 5101 and used on much the same work, at least in South Wales, and he negates some of them by stating that the locos were superior to 5101s in every respect!  I can believe they rode better and the cab kept you warmer in bad weather, and were easier to prep, but the power classification says it all; these were 3MT and the 5101s were 4MT; 56xx with the same boiler were 5MT.

 

OTOH the 82xxx had wider RA and could go where a 5101 could not, which I mention because of Mike Stationmaster's comment that they were used as replacements for 45xx.4575; not in South Wales they weren't.  They were effectively the continuation of the last Lot of 5101s, a continuation from 4179, and used on 5101 work in South Wales because, like the 5101s, their larger driving wheels enabled longer distance diagrams to be performed on a bunker of coal than could be done with a 56xx, the loco that did most of the passenger work in the area.  In this sense, and again like the 5101s, they were a replacement for the Taff Vale 'A' and Rhymney 'P', passenger 0-6-2Ts with 5'3" drivers.  

 

A 6 coupled loco with 5'3" drivers would not be considered a passenger loco anywhere else, it is the classic Victorian 'goods' (which effectively meant mixed traffic) type.  But in the Valleys the gradients meant that the pre-grouping companies tended to use driving wheels of around 5'3" for passenger work, 4'6" for 'goods' and 4'1" for mineral locos, and locos of this sort were still in service when the 82xxx was designed and introduced.

 

It is an oversimplification to consider the 3MT as a replacement or continuation of either small or large GW prairies IMHO (small and large GW prairies were both rated 4MT by BR).  We'll leave 44xx out of the loop for now...  One might tabulate the differences as follows:-

 

                                        45xx/4575                                              5101                                           3MT

 

Driving wheel dia.       4'7"                                                            5'8".                            5'3" (cf TVR A & RR P)

Loco weight.                58tons/61tons                                         80tons                                     75tons

Adhesive weight.       not given*/47tons                                    not given*                                50tons

Cylinder.                      17x24"                                                       18x30"                                    17½x26"

T.E                               21,250lbs                                                    24,300lbs.                                21,490lbs

GW/WR power                C                                                                  D                                           not given*

GW/WR R.A                  Yellow                                                          Blue.                                        Yellow

Boiler pressure            200psi                               200psi (GW domeless no.2)    200psi (BR domed GW no.2) 

 

*Not given in Wikipedia, can't be bovvered looking anywhere else.  

I have rounded up some weights.

 

There are similarities between all 3 GW prairie classes and the standard 3MTs, which can be seen as a half way house between small and large GW prairies, which doesn't fit with the distinction between the small GW locos' BR 4MT power class and the BR 3MT.  There are significant enough differences for them to considered as separate beasts, horses for courses.  The route availability was irrelevant in the South Wales Valley division as all routes were considered 'red'.  I never saw or heard of 82xxx being used in South Wales on any other than passenger work, despite the 'MT' classification and livery, while both large and small prairies could be seen on freight trip or transfer work, less so any 4575 that was auto fitted.  Both types of GW prairie were turned out in lined passenger livery post 1956.  They were certainly used as mixed traffic locos by the Southern, and probably elsewhere on the WR as well, but as I say they were part of a replacement program for pre-grouping passenger 0-6-2s; this may have had an influence both on the jobs they were used for and the opinions of their drivers and firemen.  Have to say the complaints I was aware of were that they were weak compared to 5101s and 56xx, and these were from drivers; the firemen thought they were fine.  They were, of course, in actual fact weaker than 5101s and much weaker than 56xx, just like the drivers said they were. 

 

From a fireman's pov a no.2 boiler is a no. 2 boiler once you've learned right handed firing

 

My opinion, based on the work they were given in South Wales and later (70s) conversations with locomen who had worked with them is that the men ignored the LMS power classifications that meant little to them and thought of the 3MTs as power class D like the 5101s; they had the same boiler and were about the same size.  This sets them up for disappointment on 5101 class D work, and invites comparison with class C 45xx, 4575, and even 57xx.

 

Another interesting such comparison is between the 4MT GW small prairie classes and the Ivatt/Riddles 2MT 2-6-2 tanks.                     

Link to post
Share on other sites

The boiler was a shortened version of the No 2, in fact they were pretty much the same as the 1903 standard No 3 boiler.  Std  2/3/10 all had the same tube plate dimensions with variations in barrel length, as did No1 and No4.   I suspect at some stage someone decided to lower the std 3 boiler pressure from the boilers design pressure 225 lbs psi as per the later GW Std 2's to 200lbs psi, putting the tractive effort down in the 45XX league, instead of being almost the same as the (1903) 51XX coupled with ross pop safety valves which maintaining full pressure more difficult.   Post 61XX I understand all the Std 2 (and 10) boilers were designed for 225 lbs psi.   At least one 2251 ran with 225 pressure, like the similar LMS 4F the big ends and axleboxes could not cope with the extra power, GW limited the power, LMS put up with constant hot boxes...  You pays your money.

The std 3 undeniably had better seats and a roomier cab than anything the GWR built so you can't say no progress had been made in the intervening 50 years since the first 51XX.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I saw what I suspect were the last 3 Standard Class 3 2-6-2ts on the Western Region - and in Wales - in Newport, Easter 1968.

 

82003/31/34

 

Looked like you could put the rods back on, light a fire and drive them away. 82031 had come home to die - she was originally a Barry engine - and 82034 started off at Newton Abbot. Dont believe the scrapping dates on Brdatabase - it was Easter 68 when I saw them IIRC and theres plenty of photos on Flikr to confirm they were not cut until Autumn that year.

 

Remember feeling moved when we saw them - 82045 will be well worth seeing when she steams.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The boiler was a shortened version of the No 2, in fact they were pretty much the same as the 1903 standard No 3 boiler.  Std  2/3/10 all had the same tube plate dimensions with variations in barrel length, as did No1 and No4.   I suspect at some stage someone decided to lower the std 3 boiler pressure from the boilers design pressure 225 lbs psi as per the later GW Std 2's to 200lbs psi, putting the tractive effort down in the 45XX league, instead of being almost the same as the (1903) 51XX coupled with ross pop safety valves which maintaining full pressure more difficult.   Post 61XX I understand all the Std 2 (and 10) boilers were designed for 225 lbs psi.   At least one 2251 ran with 225 pressure, like the similar LMS 4F the big ends and axleboxes could not cope with the extra power, GW limited the power, LMS put up with constant hot boxes...  You pays your money.

The std 3 undeniably had better seats and a roomier cab than anything the GWR built so you can't say no progress had been made in the intervening 50 years since the first 51XX.

I thought the LMS ended up simply accepting hot boxes on the 4Fs (and various other pre-Stanier locomotives) as normality. There wasn't much that could be done with either the 4F or the 7F but I could never understand why it took until Ivatt to abandon them and build a sensible 2-6-0 (even if the DO made a mess of the draughting).

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...