Jump to content
 

BR “Britannia” Standards


TravisM
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I’m just doing a little research into BR’s Britannia’s and trying to find out why they were not liked on some regions and liked on others.  I was told ages ago that Cardiff Canton was quick to get rid of their’s stating the handrails on the smoke deflectors caused sighting problems and also they didn’t like the way the footplate controls were laid out.
 

Did the Southern Region prefer their Bulleid’s over the Britannia’s as they didn’t seem to last long and I can’t seem to find a reason the GE section of the Eastern Region were fairly quick to get rid of theirs or was it a case that the Class 40’s appeared and they went?

 

From the evidence I can find, they seem to be held in high regard on the Scottish region and the Midland section of the London Midland, not so much on the WCML.  I would assume the Stanier Pacific’s held sway on that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In the Observer's Book of Locomotives published in 1966, just two steam classes were said to be intact, having suffered no withdrawals. One was the Britannias (the other was the 77XXX moguls). So they must have been appreciated on the LMR.

Edited by Andy Kirkham
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

GWR/WR never really liked anything other than a copper cap.

 

Also, the Brits are left hand drive and the GWR was right hand drive - hence the dislike of cab controls and issues with the deflector handrails - cited as a factor in the Didcot derailment and later modification with cut out hand holds instead of handrails.

I've also read somewhere that the crews didn't like firing the wide fireboxes.

 

Brits - with the trailing rear axle were more prone to slipping than a 4-6-0 which would "sit" on the rear driving axle and less likely to slip.

All it needed was a gentler touch on the big lever. As the ScR and LMR were more used to handling Pacifics, they found favour there.

 

Part of the reason for Brits being displaced from the WR and GE lines was the onslaught of dieselisation/modernisation and the policy of removing steam area by area.

 

But for some reason, the WR apparently loved the 9Fs - and there's always the tale of one on the Red Dragon reaching speeds way beyond the normal realms of a freight loco.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They were much appreciated on the GE section, for the significant power increase over the light weight GER and LNER 4-6-0s that preceded them, a necessity due to the weak bridges from the GER construction which the LNER could not upgrade because there wasn't the revenue opportunity to justify it. (Outline description, in reality more complexity than that as ever, but it will do.)

 

As above mentioned it was a straightforward policy decision to completely replace steam on the GE section of Eastern Region that led to their removal to points North and West, nothing to do with their being unsatisfactory in service on that section.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The history of the class on the WR was that Swindon, in 1951, wanted permission to build more Castles, which was denied by Marylebone Road, and the WR batch, 70014-29, were named after Broad Gauge locos in an attempt to win the region over.  The first, 70014, was sent to Old Oak just as the Southern Region was having trouble with Merchant Navies and Old Oak took the opportunity to lend the new loco to Stewart's Lane as reserve for the Golden Arrow, and took care to never ask for it back.  WR drivers complained about the locos at Old Oak, Bath Road, and Laira, and one Laira driver wrote a published letter to the Times about their shortcomings.

 

At Canton, however, the work on the heavily loaded but comparitively easily timed Paddington and North to West routes was conducive to the qualities of a 2 cylinder loco with 6'2" drivers that could slog hard up long gradients without running short of steam, a niche easily filled by a Britannia, and at a meeting of divisional loco superintendents the Newport Division's man said that he would be happy to have as many Brits as he could get his hands on, so the entire class was transferred to Canton with the willing participation of the other sheds.  They were well liked at Canton being described to me by drivers who were firemen at that time (I was a goods guard at Canton in the 70s) as 'equal to a Castle', which is about the same as saying they were perfect to GW men.  They were said to be draughty and heavy on coal though, and hard work for the firemen who were used to the narrow firebox of a Castle.

 

Up South Wales expresses had to manage the continuous gradient between the bottom of the Severn Tunnel and Badminton, including 40mph speed restrictions at Patchway and Stoke Gifford which prevented any momentum being built up, and were allowed 14 bogies, 16 with assistance.  

 

The handrail issue was nothing to do with Canton except that it involved a Canton loco, 70026 Polar Star, which was being driven by an Old Oak crew on the return leg of an xmas shopping excursion from Paddington to Treherbert.  The train derailed as a result of running through an open trap point at the end of Milton loop, near Didcot, in 1955, tragically with fatalities.  The Old Oak driver mistook the signals on the main line, which were off for a train overtaking him, for his own, or mistook the line he was on, and complained that the smoke deflector handrails had obscured his proper view of the signals as he was driving from the left side of the cab.

 

The Board of Trade report picked up on this, and the LMR and WR replaced the handrails as locos went through works for overhauls.  The LMR used circular 'grab holds' similar to those on Coronation, Royal Scot, and Patriot smoke deflectors, and the WR installed rectangular grab holes in little brass frames, which Canton polished to the nines.  The regime at Canton in those days, as the shed had sufficient staff to keep some of it's locos clean, was to clean any loco on a Paddington turn or any loco going 'off region', including the 72xx on the Salisbury and Corby coal trains from Radyr.

 

Not all Britannias were modified in this way, and some retained their original smoke deflector handrails until withdrawal.  All had ended up on the LMR by the very early 60s.  As to the visibility problems caused by the handrails, there were 240 9Fs and 10 Clans with exactly the same arrangement that never, apparently, caused such a problem, not to mention the rebuilt Bulleid pacifics.

 

The last 9F built, Evening Star, was allox Canton as it's first shed and was put on the 'Red Dragon' turn for the first 3 days in traffic.  The timetable required speeds of around 80mph on the run up from Badminton, which is probably inadvisable for a 9F but the loco performed perfectly with this turn.  Officialdom at Paddington eventually noticed that the clean loco on the Red Dragon had a double copper capped chimney, and a halt was called to proceedings.  Another double chimneyed 9F is said to have run at over 90mph as a replacement for a failed A4 from Peterborough to KX.  WR 9Fs, Evening Star included, frequently ran up to 70mph during summer service on the S & DJ.

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jools1959 said:

From the evidence I can find, they seem to be held in high regard on the Scottish region and the Midland section of the London Midland, not so much on the WCML.  I would assume the Stanier Pacific’s held sway on that route.


I would be interested to know where you’ve seen evidence of them being held in high regard on the Scottish Region. (I’m not saying you’ve not, but I've not heard or seen that.)

 

The ScR only ever had 5 allocated, and they didn’t stay too long. And by the time Kingmoor started collecting them and using them on services into Scotland, they were pretty run down - in some cases very run down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I know mine is the LBSC version and not the Riddles version, but as a loco !  Goes like snot off a shovel, and burns little coal.  Has issues with having run >1000 km, and rather hard driven.  Has been run as far east and west as is possible in Canada, as far as I know.  (Dr Lockwoods in NL, my driveway out here...)

 

The rumor mill has it that Riddles supplied LBSC with the drawings as they came off the diazio, so that Curly could get the model done...

 

There are a couple issues with the LBSC engine-
1:  it's light on its feet.  No doubt about it, for a 3.5" gauge loco that weighs in at about 110 lb, it is light.  I can/have gotten high speed slipping up to about 8 MPH.  (I generally don't have enough weight in the train if I am trying faster than that to be able to slip with any certainty...)
2:  The boiler design as per LBSC has the crown about 1/2 way through the gauge glass.  That is stupid.

 

So, the stories about them being light on their feet- I'd take it as being true.  I know that it's easy to end up with a different problem with models (where 1/8" difference in bore between design and build is possible, and substantial), but I tend to think that the full sized engines would have suffered the same sort of problems.   The issue is that in order to be able to get 1500+ dbhp at 40 MPH, the engine is going to be slippery at low speeds.  Answer is that it isn't a 2-10-0, don't pretend it is !

 

Why one shed loved them, and another loathed them ?  I'd guess it's experience.  All it takes is one person to say "that engine's a dog", and the reputation is set.  Seen it with ships- but sometimes the "why" one engine is great, and the other two are scrap metal is totally a guessing game.  (I'm thinking of Solar-Saturn Gas Turbine Alternator sets...)

 

James

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Brits were under development, Riddles went to a lot of trouble to improve footplate conditions for the crews, even building a wooden mock-up of the cab for inspection. It didn't work. When the engines hit the road the cabs were found to be cold (all the pipework had been moved outside to keep them cool in Summer), draughty as there was no fall plate between engine and tender, filthy as coal dust was blown forward into the cab, tiring, as vibrations came up through the floor from the trailing truck, and harsh, with two outside cylinders instead of the three or four that mean were used to. So men running Lizzies and Scots, Castles and Kings, Bulleid and Gresley Pacifics were not going to be impressed after those excellent riding engines.

 

On the other hand, no-one could doubt these engines' capacity to do the job, so as said by  34theletterbetweenB&D, in many places, they gave the men far more powerful machines to do the work, so such things assumed less importance. The Brits, like other Standard types, tended to be loved in places and hated in others, but none of the men I worked with would choose a Brit over a Scot, and these were hardly renowned for giving a comfortable ride.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, newbryford said:

But for some reason, the WR apparently loved the 9Fs - and there's always the tale of one on the Red Dragon reaching speeds way beyond the normal realms of a freight loco.

 

This is not strictly true - the WR spent many years avoiding having them allocated to the region, and like with a new batch of Castles suggested instead of Brittanias, attempted to get authorisation for new 28xx/38xx to be built instead of 9Fs for the WR. 

 

Apart from the initial batch used on the Newport - Ebbw Junction workings the batch of 48 (92203-50) appeared at the end of the 50s and coincided with Swindon being allocated a batch to build. Even so, WR had argued originally the financial benefits of these locos over an 8F would not be realised on the WR because of different operating conditions - that presumably changed as block oil trains and the like became necessary.

 

The original use of Evening Star on the Red Dragon was to cover for a failed Brit.

 

The treatment of the smoke deflectors is interesting, and has been observed, was not applied to the 9Fs, which one would have thought would have created similar problems.

 

From observation, the GE Brits got the modification (using two hand holds), whereas the WR ones got a series of rectangular cut outs, with the shiny surrounds. Did any LM/ScR locos get them (remembering the GE and WR ones ended up on the LM). 

 

I guess these new locos were launched into a newly nationalised railway system where the regions had a lot of autonomy and exhibited differing levels of parochial behaviour - so it was inevitable differing levels of problems would occur. It seems that Canton shed had a more flexible attitude than others - or maybe it's workings were just that much different from others so we're able to work with the new engines.

 

I must say, as a child enthusiast in the Midlands in the early 60s, the Brits were viewed as one of the most prestigious classes of express passenger steam locos - the A4s, Coronation, Merchant Navy probably at a similar level along with Kings - although the latter were always treated with slight suspicion as they weren't even Pacifics!! The fact the Brits weren't located only in one region made them different also. I suspect the fact the Brits were newer was the main factor in their popularity in our eyes (everything new in the 60s tended to be brighter, shinier, bigger, faster etc - remember this all shone out in the rather grey and dank early post war urban landscape of the time - even if the Brits were quite grey and grimy at times by then). 

Edited by MidlandRed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget they were only a 7P and were built to replace life expired locomotives and improve the running on certain routes such as the GE Mainline. The B17s were all going to be rebuilt as B2s and join the B1s as MT locomotives. They needed something more powerful and had even tried a Bulleid Light Pacific with the idea of moving some over to the GE.

 

More a replacement for Saints, Stars, etc. which were getting on for thirty or forty years old than replacing things like Duchesses. Don't forget they were meant to have a life span of forty odd years and many locomotives were getting on a bit. The earliest Castles and A3s were over 25 years old. Lord Nelsons and Arthurs were a similar age.

 

Some places didn't need them. The SR used them for the Golden Arrow as they were perfect for it, I think that was due to a problem with Bulleids slipping when starting the heavy train. Only being replaced by the Class 71s later.

 

 

It was the Modernisation Plan that did for them rather than anything else.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Interesting comments about the rough riding, draughts, and dust, but I believe the latter two problems were addressed by the high-sided tenders on the later batches.  If they were worse than a Royal Scot, they were indeed bad.  We had an ex-Patricroft fireman as a guard at Canton in my time who swore that a rebuilt Scot was the finest loco ever created, but even he admitted that you had to hang on for dear life.  Can't for the life of me recall the guy's name now, tall bloke with swept-back brylcreemed black hair.

 

I have a theory that, on the WR, pacifics were regarded as capable of 8P work, and we had Kings for that thank you very much, and that they should ride like Pullmans, which the LMS and LNER ones largely did; Bulleid's were still an unknown quantity in 1951 and going through their extended teething troubles.  So the Brits were a bit of a let down cf what was expected, not as good as a Coronation or an A4.  The leading dimensions should have informed everyone that this was not the case or the intention; the Brit was a mixed traffic light pacific, a concept relatively new in the UK with only the Bullieds as precursors, but a loco bigger than a Castle and especially one with that cavernous firebox should be better than a Castle, right?  

 

No, not necessarily.  But it wasn't the GW/WR (same thing to all intents and purposes) way of doing things in the early 50s.  The LMS, LNER, and the Southern had all adopted pacifics with wide fireboxes over the trailing wheels by nationalisation, and on the ECML virtually all the express work, even the stoppers, was in the hands of pacifics.  Big free-steaming boilers that could burn coal which could be loaded from high coaling plant tipplers were much more suited to post-war operating conditions than the WR's preferred Churchwardian model.  Victorian 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s were being replaced by bigger locos to do the same work by the likes of Ivatt 4MT moguls or B1s, but the GW/WR bucked the trend.  In some cases they may have had a point; compare the Ivatt 2MT with the Churchward 45xx, rated by BR at 4MT.

 

The WR as a whole didn't 'get' the Britannias, but Canton did, for the reason I stated.  They were 'strong' engines, and nobody denied that they could pull heavy trains, especially at around 45-55mph up hills.  Canton had a lot of this work, Severn Tunnel to Badminton and the North to West line, and also 'downline' work to Swansea and beyond.  The shed used high mileage locos for downline work because the driving wheels were worn down to more like 6', handy for starts and the gradients.  On the Swansea run there is a long uphill drag from Ely Bridge to Llanharan, then from Bridgend to Stormy Down with only a very short run from the start, and a vicious left hand curve to start a steep climb to Skewen directly off the platform at Neath.

 

I can remember the Brits at Canton, and can testify that they were slippery starters.  The exit from the up main line platforms at Cardiff is round a sharpish curve and over a short but steep rise to cross the Canal Wharf bridge, then a drop to pass beneath the CEJ lines to Queen Street.  A Castle or a Hall would simply have it's regulator cracked open and take the train away, but a Brit made a song and dance about it, slipping and struggling to get and keep the train moving and not able to pick up any speed at all until at least half the train was over the hump.  Last year, Britannia herself managed with 10 coaches on a dry rail, but 10 coaches are a featherweight to a 1950s up train from Cardiff, another 6 was not uncommon.  Tornado managed 12 and a deadweight 47 out of platform 3 in November on a wet rail with contemptuous ease, but Tornado is a much bigger and more powerful kettle of anteaters than a Brit.

 

It was usual with a Brit to lose time on up SWML trains because of these starting issues, which were repeated at Newport, and because if the load was over 14 assistance was required from Severn Tunnel, sometimes not available to Badminton and the pilot, usually a 3150, came off at Pilning, or Stoke Gifford.  Recovery was built into the timings and losses could easily be made up past Badminton, and especially past Reading where one could open up if the road was clear.  

 

The Kings, for the short time they were available at Canton in 1960-61, were complete masters of the work in every respect, but were going down like ninepins with frame failures (the bane of the Royal Scots as well), and they were replaced by Hymeks, which were not capable of keeping time and were flogged to death.  Not until type 4 diesels, 47s and 52s, were available in late 63 did the situation improve, and almost immediately the loads were cut to 12, 11, 10 to achieve timetable improvements to compete with the piecemeal opening of the M4.  By the time the HSTs were introduced, two 8 coach trains per hour were carrying the same amount of passengers as the 16 coach steam service, but in nearly half the time.

 

The Canton Brits weren't perfect, but they did the job for a ton of coal more than a Castle.

 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, pH said:


I would be interested to know where you’ve seen evidence of them being held in high regard on the Scottish Region. (I’m not saying you’ve not, but I've not heard or seen that.)

 

The ScR only ever had 5 allocated, and they didn’t stay too long. And by the time Kingmoor started collecting them and using them on services into Scotland, they were pretty run down - in some cases very run down.


When I lived up in Scotland between 2009 and 2011, the model railway club I used to go to had a very elderly ex BR steam loco driver who heaped praise on the Britannia’s.  He also said that he never had a problem with the Clan’s though a lot of drivers and firemen didn’t like them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

More a replacement for Saints, Stars, etc. which were getting on for thirty or forty years old than replacing things like Duchesses

I'd agree with this comment.  Canton men, along with Hereford and Salop, had preferred Saints to Stars or Castles for the North to West line work, a 2 cylinder heavy uphill slogger with some similarities to the Brits, though valve gear and long piston stroke were elements here.  Brits coped well with the North to West roller coaster.

 

The GE liked them because their previous best was the B17, which was to be honest not the world's best ever 3 cylinder 4-6-0.  Their Brits were replaced with D200s, which Sir Brian Roberston commented were less powerful than the Brits after a cab ride on the inaugural run, a precursor of the Hymeks replacing the Kings at Canton but at least the D200s looked big enough...

 

William Shakespeare and Iron Duke were used on the Golden Arrow and Night Ferry as showcase locos to impress Johnny Foreigner, and I'm not sure about the political position of Iron Duke on the premium French connection services.  We'd previously used the Lord Nelsons on these jobs, but not the actual loco!  The Nord never named a 241E 'Napoleon Bonaparte' for the Fleche D'or AFAIK.  Mind, we ran Eurostars from Paris into Waterloo for a while as well, though to be fair they named a station Austerlitz, which must have upset half of Europe.  Presumably the next stage is to name a Eurostar Henry V, or Agincourt.  They could respond with William of Normandy or Jean (we have burned a saint) d'Arc.

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, newbryford said:

GWR/WR never really liked anything other than a copper cap.

 

Also, the Brits are left hand drive and the GWR was right hand drive - hence the dislike of cab controls and issues with the deflector handrails - cited as a factor in the Didcot derailment and later modification with cut out hand holds instead of handrails.

I've also read somewhere that the crews didn't like firing the wide fireboxes.

 

 

 

But for some reason, the WR apparently loved the 9Fs - and there's always the tale of one on the Red Dragon reaching speeds way beyond the normal realms of a freight loco.

WR did not want the 9Fs,  they counterbid for a batch of new 28XX/38XX 2-8-0s,  Swindon argued we still had the  patterns and to cost to build  a 28XX saved several several thousand £ per loco over a 9F

Link to post
Share on other sites

The B17s were good engines. It was the middle cylinder which was the problem as it was with many Gresley locomotives. They couldn't use anything bigger due to weight limits and turntable length later sorted (which is why some of them had the small tenders).

 

They were all to get the B1 boiler and be converted to 2 cylinders. But when the Brits arrived it wasn't deemed to be a priority and only ten were done.

 

Same with the Patriots and Jubilees which were also going to be rebuilt. The priorities were elsewhere.

 

I'm afraid many of the WR locomotives would have been amongst the first to go. They weren't compatible with platforms.

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pandora said:

WR did not want the 9Fs,  they counterbid for a batch of new 28XX/38XX 2-8-0s,  Swindon argued we still had the  patterns and to cost to build  a 28XX saved several several thousand £ per loco over a 9F

 

They wouldn't have got them regardless. They would have got 8Fs instead.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jools1959 said:


When I lived up in Scotland between 2009 and 2011, the model railway club I used to go to had a very elderly ex BR steam loco driver who heaped praise on the Britannia’s.  He also said that he never had a problem with the Clan’s though a lot of drivers and firemen didn’t like them.

 

Enginemen in the North West seem to have liked the Clans. Spoke to a few over the years who had very good words for them.

 

To be honest I would always take a lot of enginemen's views that new locomotives were rubbish with a pinch of salt. It was just that most of them didn't like change and were very set in their ways.  Half of them would prefer to use Locomotion to Flying Scotsman just to be awkward. The rest were worshipping the brand new diesels.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

The B17s were good engines. It was the middle cylinder which was the problem as it was with many Gresley locomotives. They couldn't use anything bigger due to weight limits and turntable length later sorted (which is why some of them had the small tenders).

 

They were all to get the B1 boiler and be converted to 2 cylinders. But when the Brits arrived it wasn't deemed to be a priority and only ten were done.

 

Same with the Patriots and Jubilees which were also going to be rebuilt. The priorities were elsewhere.

 

I'm afraid many of the WR locomotives would have been amongst the first to go. They weren't compatible with platforms.

 

 

Jason

Almost incompatible by definition, but I believe there was a plan to make the 94xx the standard steam shunting loco for situations where the 08s and their predecessors were unsuitable, scuppered by the 1955 plan, along with much else including Riddles' career...

 

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

They wouldn't have got them regardless. They would have got 8Fs instead.

 

Or Austerities.

 

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

  Half of them would prefer to use Locomotion to Flying Scotsman just to be awkward.

I know what you mean.  Locomen are very small c conservative, and once they have learned how to successfully accomplish a turn of duty with a particular type of loco, they will form the unshakeable opinion that this is the loco best suited to that particular job.  There are reasons for this; a new loco, especially a radically different one, will need completely new technique and methodology for each job it has replaced an old one on; firing will need to be done in different places, water taken at different times and in new locations, which will upset signalmen, stationmasters, yard foremen and others whose routines are upset by the new 'out of course working'.  Braking and acceleration points will be different and must be re-learned, and stopping positions for water cranes have to be re-learned as well.  Driving technique may upset guards, and the general smoothness of the job is destroyed.  A classic case is provided by the attempt to replace the S & DJ 2-8-0s with more powerful Austerities, which on the face of it were ideal for the coal traffic.  Given time to practice, the Green Park men might have made a go of the Austerities, but they were unfamiliar with them and did not fully grasp the technique needed to get the best out of them; no criticism is intended here, BR's view was that any steam locomotive driver understood enough about these relatively simple machines to step aboard one and drive it. 

 

What locomen, and railwaymen in general, like to do is to develop a way of doing the job that works and never, ever, ever, change it even if another method is clearly better.  Tradition is wonderful, but not when it holds things back, progress is terrifying, but not when it means the job is genuinely improved.  But it is important to remember that if the job was improved that much, there'd be redundancies.  If the police prevent crime, or doctors cure all disease, as is their job, their job ceases to exist!

 

But it can and does mean that locos that are genuine improvements over the ones they replaced are reviled unjustly for some time after their introduction.  Of course, 40 odd years later the same rigmarole is gone through again, except that the newer locos are even worse, even when they are GW designs like the Hawksworth Counties or 94xx.  

 

It is undeniable that this attitude was at it's most prevalent on the WR, and most ingrained in the thinking of the management, works, loco dept. and traffic of the Great Western Region.  But it existed everywhere, assisted by improvements made to older locos to keep them on top of their games such as the rebuilt Scots and Patriots.

 

The Clans were a bit of an oddball case.  Nobody could see the point of a Brit with a smaller boiler, but they rapidly made a name for themselves on the difficult Port Road out of Carlisle, and gained respect quickly as a result.  

 

I spent a good bit of time in the 70s listening to drivers telling me how much better the job was in steam days, with the challenge, camaraderie, satisfaction and so on.  'So', I'd say 'you'd go back to it in a flash, then, wouldn't you'?  The response was always a brief look of panic followed by a short phrase ending in 'off'!

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pandora said:

WR did not want the 9Fs,  they counterbid for a batch of new 28XX/38XX 2-8-0s,  Swindon argued we still had the  patterns and to cost to build  a 28XX saved several several thousand £ per loco over a 9F

 

The WR actually got Stanier 8Fs, cascaded from the LM on receipt of their new 9Fs - the 8Fs were allocated to sheds like St Philip's Marsh - they were ones built at Swindon (part of the deal, and achieved through a cascade process). As I said before, they did eventually receive 92203-92250 (92221-50 having been built at Crewe) - the remainder of Swindon's late 50s build went to the ER.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Britannias smoke deflectors

1) 2 Handhold design
2) 6 Handhold WR design
3) Original Full handrail design

 

1) 2 Handholds - 29 locomotives in total
70001-70003
70005-70013
70017
70020
70024
70028-70030
70034-70041
70044
70053-70054

 

2) 6 Handholds - 9 locomotives in total
70015-70016
70018-70019
70022-70023
70025-70027

 

3) Original Full Handrail Deflectors - 17 locomotives in total
70000
70004
70014
70021
70031-70033
70042-70043
70045-70052

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, peach james said:

...The rumor mill has it that Riddles supplied LBSC with the drawings as they came off the diazio, so that Curly could get the model done...

 

...So, the stories about them being light on their feet- I'd take it as being true  ... The issue is that in order to be able to get 1500+ dbhp at 40 MPH, the engine is going to be slippery at low speeds.  Answer is that it isn't a 2-10-0, don't pretend it is...

I long ago had one of Curly Lawrence's books in which various builds of Brits from his plans featured and were illustrated, and the text as good as confirmed that the drawings came from Riddles. Cannot for the life of me remember the title, the cover jacket had a lot of orange in it.

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...Tornado managed 12 and a deadweight 47 out of platform 3 in November on a wet rail with contemptuous ease, but Tornado is a much bigger and more powerful kettle of anteaters than a Brit...

Indeed, but at the other end of the UK wide firebox scale, the much smaller (Britannia equivalent) V2 would do equally well. Riddles' mistake was to place the design with an inexperienced team. Doncaster only had thirty years experience with wide firebox locos, why look elsewhere? (Because Doncaster would have told him that three cylinders were the way better plan. A lot of the trouble with the Brits related to the 2 cylinder decision. They were failing with mechanically induced cracking much faster then they ought after their relatively short time on the GE section, which is well documented. One of them broke the tender drawbar while running, the kind of failure that should be impossible... )

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jools1959 said:


When I lived up in Scotland between 2009 and 2011, the model railway club I used to go to had a very elderly ex BR steam loco driver who heaped praise on the Britannia’s.  He also said that he never had a problem with the Clan’s though a lot of drivers and firemen didn’t like them.


What shed had he worked from? I don’t think Polmadie, in general, liked the Clans. They ended up using them on daily pickup goods on the Gourock line. (To be fair, they had used their Jubilees on that duty in previous years.) As people have commented above, other areas got on well with them. There is a story that Kingmoor said they would take the Polmadie Clans rather than them being scrapped - how true that is, I don’t know. I got the impression Polmadie liked their Duchesses and anything else suffered by comparison. All their Brits had been transferred away before the first Duchess was withdrawn from the shed. And they certainly did not like the ex-LNER Pacifics I they got in the early 1960s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

So I take it the general 'problem' with the Clans was they were treated/used like the bigger Pacifics and hence we found wanting?

Whereas, if they were driven/fired more in keeping with their design and rating, they were good locos?

What was the reason for the Clans' existence anyway? - was there a genuine need for a 6P 'little Britannia' or was it just a paper exercise in filling the gap between 5P/MT and 7P i.e. a solution looking for a problem?

(EDIT: I don't have much knowledge of the intricacies of steam locos, so this is a genuine enquiry)

Edited by keefer
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...