BR Standard Classes on the Western Region

[jim.snowdon]

5 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Yes, but that isn't relevant to a comment on Elle's work. Basically he gave an 8P Pacific two chimneys each intended for a Class 2 0-6-0. Crackers.

His work was predicated on the inherent superiority of a small Victorian locomotive. Not good engineering.

That is to denigrate Ell's work unfairly. What he was doing was building on theoretical work that had been done decades before in the US and actually design exhaust ejectors on sound principles rather than the rule of thumb methods that had been used, not always successfully, by British engineers up until then. There is a great deal more to getting an exhaust ejector to work efficiently than meets the eye, as the owners of whichever of the Kings discovered when they reduced the height of the chimney and found that it wouldn't steam as well.

 

Jim

[Phil Bullock]

49 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

The WR might have arguing against using them, but BR wasn't just the Western Region. What Swindon was, though, was the centre for boiler design and, without any argument, draughting. It was the other regions that had the duties that merited the capabilities of the double chimneys.

 

Jim

 

But surely the point is - with the exception of Saltley's stoker fitted locos that were a bit of a special stud for Carlisle duties - that the other regions didnt get the double chimney locos. It might have been interesting to see them on the GC runners or the GN ..... two operations that required predictable and consistent loco performances.

[MidlandRed]

On 30 April 2020 at 23:08, Phil Bullock said:

 

But surely the point is - with the exception of Saltley's stoker fitted locos that were a bit of a special stud for Carlisle duties - that the other regions didnt get the double chimney locos. It might have been interesting to see them on the GC runners or the GN ..... two operations that required predictable and consistent loco performances.

 

This is certainly the point - however the ER did get allocated the remainder of the double chimney equipped locos - 92178 and 92183-92202 (21). There were investigations into 'indifferent steaming' of all the 9Fs (single and double blast pipe types) allocated to the ER starting in March 1960, the results of which weren't published. At the time the double chimney ones were allocated 5 Immingham, 9 Doncaster, 7 New England. It is thought the problems related to the workings (prolonged use on fast, heavy freights) - causing excessive piston/valve ring, piston heads and cylinder barrel wear. In 1959 the 55 ER locos were doing an average of 36.8 000 miles per annum. 

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by MidlandRed

[The Johnster]

We hear a lot about Mr Ells' almost magical ability with front ends, and he did some astonishingly good work with single and double chimneys, sorting out problem classes like the Manors, Hawksworth Counties, Ivatt Mickey Mice, and significantly improving the already good Castles and Kings with new superheaters and double chimneys, but he wasn't a magician.  He got decent performances out of the 75xxx 4MTs eventually, but Eastleigh did just as well with them, and it must have been his work that designed the front ends of these poor steamers in the first place.  A comment has been made about Duke of Gloucester, and to be fair the loco steamed well enough when it was rebuilt to Riddles' (and Ells' if he indeed had any input to the loco) specification and drawings.  I believe it exceeded any previous 8P steam performance (and some diesel ones as well) on Shap, didn't it?

 

Some of the other BR standards were good steamers as built without any input from Swindon.  The Brits, according to Canton men I spoke to in the 70s, would steam on a candle and Sam Gingell on the Kent Coast expresses got some cracking runs out of 5MTs, although he seems to have been a bit of a death or glory speed merchant type and flogged the locos (and his firemen).  The big 4MT tanks were an instant success as well.  Were these locos so good as originally designed that improvements were not necessary?  Or was it simply that nobody expected better of them than they got and let things be as they were?  I regard the 5MTs as different enough by virtue of the driving wheel diameter to Black 5s as to not be a development of them, but if you reckon they were, then surely the work done by Ivatt with double chimneys on Black 5s build under his tenure might have had potential uses with these locos?  

 

Don't forget, the idea prior to the infamous 1955 modernisation plan and the coup which ousted Riddles and his cabal was that steam had another 2 decades at least before being replaced by 25kv electric traction for main line work, so there was plenty of good reason to improve the standards, and the later Big 4 locos, if at all possible.  If Swindon was the 'centre of boiler design' on BR, it must be noted that it was building 94xx which did not steam particularly well, presumably in the expectation of another 20 years work for them, in 1954.  AFAIK Sam Ell never did anything about these!  Perhaps he was never asked...

[jim.snowdon]

It all comes down to whether locomotives were perceived by their users as being good enough to do the jobs they were being asked to do, both in regard to performance and cost. Looking back well before the Standards, no one at the time considered the original LNER A1 to be other than a good locomotive against the standards of its day. It was only when a GW Castle did the same job on less coal that questions started to be asked and, eventually, changes made to the valve gear. The later P2s were good engines in terms of operational performance, but poor in respect of operating costs because they were under utilised, so wasted money being stood by for long periods waiting for their next duty. At the other end of the scale was the LMS Jubilee, which the drawing office team, working with what knowledge they had, got badly wrong when it came to boiling water. It was a bad design because it patently couldn't do the job. There are lots of designs which potentially could have done better, but did their jobs well enough not to warrant further consideration. They were good enough within the multitude of parameters that determine the economics of running a locomotive.

 

Jim

[MidlandRed]

I do wonder (to answer a previous point of mine, why did Swindon bother with trying to improve the 9F) whether the significant improvement made by Ells to 75029 and subsequently applied to the later build of the class was a factor, combined with Swindon embarking on its build of the batch of 43 of the class. Also at this time, the issues mentioned on the ER may have begun to affect 92000-92007 on Ebbw Vale workings. Incidentally those locos were dispersed around the system eventually, 92000-2 to Tyseley at one time. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by MidlandRed

[jim.snowdon]

I think the question is more likely to be "why did BR bother", not Swindon. It just happens that S O Ell and his team were based at Swindon, rather than anywhere else.

 

Jim

[MidlandRed]

30 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

I think the question is more likely to be "why did BR bother", not Swindon. It just happens that S O Ell and his team were based at Swindon, rather than anywhere else.

 

Jim

 

This thread contains lots of nuggets of info but a pertinent one to this is the creation of 'BR workshops' in 1962. Prior to that Swindon was surely to a large extent an element of the WR, although allocated new build work by the centre - it is also notable that the Mickey Mice, 75XXX and late 9F 'improvement' (as it's marginal nature was never really proven) all resulted from either Swindon builds or WR based problems. I'm not sure who Ells and team reported to but I would bet Swindon had a good claim to their input when they wanted it, and an interest in keeping them busy (if part of their establishment and costs).

 

To diverge slightly I said earlier the ER 9Fs were doing 36800 miles per annum on average. 

 

Regional 9F average mileages for 1960 when all had been delivered (fleet size in brackets) is interesting  -

ER - 33200 (55)

WR - 25800* (54)

NER - 22500** (10)

LMR - 29000 (119)

 

* 92218-20 entered service in the first months of 1960 - Ebbw Vale workings result in low mileage

** Consett workings result in low mileages possibly supplemented by weekend holiday extra passenger/ excursion trains. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by MidlandRed

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, MidlandRed said:

This thread contains lots of nuggets of info but a pertinent one to this is the creation of 'BR workshops' in 1962. Prior to that Swindon was surely to a large extent an element of the WR, although allocated new build work by the centre

As far as I can ascertain, BR Workshops, as a division under the British Railways Board, was simply a continuation of what had been British Railways Workshops Division, with the impliucation that whilst the various works may have been buried inside their respective Regions, they were not part of that Region's financial responsibility, ie Swindon Works was not administratively part of Western Region but simply serviced its requirements.

 

Jim

[slilley]

42 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

As far as I can ascertain, BR Workshops, as a division under the British Railways Board, was simply a continuation of what had been British Railways Workshops Division, with the impliucation that whilst the various works may have been buried inside their respective Regions, they were not part of that Region's financial responsibility, ie Swindon Works was not administratively part of Western Region but simply serviced its requirements.

 

Jim

Whereas before the workshops had been managed regionally under the regional CM&EE, with the creation of the Workshops Division this was now managed centrally. The first General Manager from 1963-65 was HO Houchen. This sat alongside Sir Steuart Mitchell's Workshops Plan of 1962 which greatly reduced the number of workshops and those employed in them.

[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

 

There were two trials of a large WR tank loco on Lickey - firstly a 72xx 2-8-0 which had platform collision problems, then 5226, also a 2-8-0, which did not have the gauge problem but 92079 continued it's duties, no doubt for the reason its extra power was necessary as you've described. 

 

A bit more gen on 9Fs - 92008 (diverted to the LMR from WR and built with WR lamp brackets) was originally trialled on Lickey with apparent success - the virtually new 92079 was transferred from Toton in the summer of 1956. 

 

The ER March allocation, after resolution of initial braking problems, was able to, and regularly used to pull 59 loaded mineral wagons (18% more than a WD 8F) and brake from Whitemoor to Ferme Park with up to 75 empties on the return workings. Perhaps the WR didn't realise initially the potential efficiency savings it was missing out on. 

 

Re the double chimney question, 92250 was turned out from Crewe with the Geisel ejector in 1958 the debate about which may have influenced the double chimney build and testing at Swindon. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by MidlandRed

[The Stationmaster]

On 30/04/2020 at 21:45, MidlandRed said:

 

Interesting - double chimneys were fitted to 92165-67, 92183-92249 (Giesel to 92250) and 92178. They were retro fitted to 92000-92002, 5 and 6. Which is 77 locos. It is possible 92163/4 (planned for stokers but not fitted) and 92079 were included in the numbers as they were planned to have double chimneys but didn't receive them.

The matter of inconsistency for me is the WR argued in the early 1950s the extra annual running cost of a 9F was not balanced on the WR owing to its operating characteristics, as the extra power of the locomotive couldn't be used. So, unless things had changed in a couple of years, why try to improve the steam rate when the stock power couldn't be used in the first place? 

But don't forget that things had changed.  it's dead easy to talk about motive power in isolation but in many respects that is a pointless debate because what matters is the work required to be done.  So as freight train loads increased (which they did) so the power demand changed), and that includes the Ebbw Vale ore trains.  and of course, but far less obviously, having the wight and ability to stop a loose coupled train is far more critical than having the power t get it rolling in teh first place.

 

Ebbw Vale is an interesting illustration of another factor because trains had to be assisted rear - consistently above Aberbeerg and at times coming up the valley below Aberbeeg.  The first question that must always be asked when you see any sort of freight train being assisted rear is why is that being done?   And no doubt 999 people out of 1,000 will say 'because one engine isn't powerful enough' - which of course at times might well be right, so why not put both on the front if that is the case?  Simple answer - there are far more reasons for assisting rear than ;lack of power.  One might simply be convenience but one very important reason for many years was down to coupling and drawbar strength of the wagons - the back end of a broken away train won't roll back down a grade if the second engine is on the back instead of the front.

[Phil Bullock]

This looks like chapter and verse on the Lickey bankers...

 

http://lickeyincline.blogspot.com/2011/03/large-engines-on-lickey-incline-1956.html

[MidlandRed]

Thanks for the link to that site (it contains excellent photos and information) - one point of detail - there has been no photographic evidence of 92079 ever receiving a double chimney found. It is presumed it didn't as photos post dating the 1960 Swindon visit don't show it.

 

it did have its flush sided BR1C tender changed to the inset type BR1G in 5/56, on transfer to Bromsgove to assist tender first running back down the incline. 

 

I have read most locos (including Jinties, 84XX pannier tanks and 92079) banking on Lickey suffered from leaking tube plates (also experienced on the Bidston and Consett 9F locos). 

Edited May 2, 2020 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

But don't forget that things had changed.  it's dead easy to talk about motive power in isolation but in many respects that is a pointless debate because what matters is the work required to be done.  So as freight train loads increased (which they did) so the power demand changed), and that includes the Ebbw Vale ore trains.  and of course, but far less obviously, having the wight and ability to stop a loose coupled train is far more critical than having the power t get it rolling in teh first place.

 

Ebbw Vale is an interesting illustration of another factor because trains had to be assisted rear - consistently above Aberbeerg and at times coming up the valley below Aberbeeg.  The first question that must always be asked when you see any sort of freight train being assisted rear is why is that being done?   And no doubt 999 people out of 1,000 will say 'because one engine isn't powerful enough' - which of course at times might well be right, so why not put both on the front if that is the case?  Simple answer - there are far more reasons for assisting rear than ;lack of power.  One might simply be convenience but one very important reason for many years was down to coupling and drawbar strength of the wagons - the back end of a broken away train won't roll back down a grade if the second engine is on the back instead of the front.

 

I definitely agree on the change in traffic patterns - for instance, smokeless zones in built up areas reduced significantly household coal consumption in the late 50s/early 60s especially in large urban areas. And I don't question the use of bankers at Ebbw Vale. 

 

However 9Fs were always well suited to block train workings (including iron ore and coal) but were put to work on some of the new traffic like fuel oil block trains (eg Fawley to Bromford Bridge; The Wirral to Albion) for a few years before dieselisation. 

 

Incidentally Ebbw Junction's 9F contingent had grown to 13 by early 1960. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

Duplicate post deleted - not sure why it happened....

Edited May 2, 2020 by MidlandRed

[Phil Bullock]

23 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Thanks for the link to that site (it contains excellent photos and information) - one point of detail - there has been no photographic evidence of 92079 ever receiving a double chimney found. It is presumed it didn't as photos post dating the 1960 Swindon visit don't show it.

 

Only this one....! 

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/202410/djh_model_railway_kits_k79_ln_class_9f_2_10_0_92079_br1g_tender_in_br_black_pre_owned_kitbuilt/stockdetail.aspx

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

Only this one....! 

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/202410/djh_model_railway_kits_k79_ln_class_9f_2_10_0_92079_br1g_tender_in_br_black_pre_owned_kitbuilt/stockdetail.aspx

 

Haha interesting find! There are probably other issues but it only had that style of BR1C tender for the first two months after construction, whilst at Toton (and certainly no double chimney in 1956) and then transferred to Bromsgrove at which point it received the inset sides style tender (BR1G) (as someone said its pedant Sunday elsewhere on this forum earlier.......actually it received three different ones between then and withdrawal)....!!

Edited May 3, 2020 by MidlandRed