Census of GWR/WR standard gauge 6-coupled saddle and pannier tanks, 1864-1966

[JimC]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Then there are the 97xx, usually described as panniers but they weren't really. 

Oh no, the 97xx are clearly pannier tanks with the tanks extended downwards, whereas, for example,  the 1101s are obviously side tanks with the tanks extended forwards.  [grin]

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by JimC

[The Stationmaster]

Having seen a 97XX with one tank removed (to deal with a leak) what you could see behind it was exactly the same as seeing a, 8750 with one of the pannirer tanks removed.

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Having seen a 97XX with one tank removed (to deal with a leak) what you could see behind it was exactly the same as seeing a, 8750 with one of the pannirer tanks removed.

 

s'funny, looked like a Dean Goods to me...

 

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

s'funny, looked like a Dean Goods to me...

 

They do more than a bit actually - forward of the cab that is.

[crackedmember]

Ten Dean Goods Locomotives were actually fitted with Pannier Tanks and Condensing Gear by the War Department in WW2

 

[The Stationmaster]

22 minutes ago, crackedmember said:

Ten Dean Goods Locomotives were actually fitted with Pannier Tanks and Condensing Gear by the War Department in WW2

 

They were converted at Swindon - for the War Dept - and not by the War Dept.

 

There's a picture of 0ne at the foot opf thos page -

 

 

[drmditch]

Please excuse a person largely ignorant of the GWR reviving this thread.

There was an interesting article this morning on the BBC news website.

Henry Ford moving a Cotswold cottage to the USA

 

There is an interesting picture, about a third of the way down.

(I could have copied it in here, but since it is credited to the the Henry Ford Museum, I thought I had better be careful!)

 

The picture shows a train, largely of sheeted open wagons, claimed to be 67 vehicles long hauled by what seems to my eyes to be a GWR Pannier tank.

The caption claims that 'The 67-strong wagon train was the longest the UK had ever seen'.

 

I have two questions:

1.  Is this likely to have been the longest UK train as of 1930, or is this claim just 'American exaggeration ?

2.  Is the (presumably shunting) locomotive a GWR tank ?

 

The article is also of interest for more than the railway content!

 

 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, drmditch said:

Is the (presumably shunting) locomotive a GWR tank ?

It's a GWR double framed Pannier tank maybe a Buffalo?

[JimC]

962 was an 1874 built 727 class, but by this stage 1076, 727 and 1134 classes had merged. According to RCTS it was withdrawn Mar 1931, having only received pannier tanks Dec 1927, quite late. 100 wagon coal trains had been run, so unless there were a load of long flats, macaws or something further back longest train seems unlikely. 

 

[kevinlms]

This looks rather like a pannier tank to me.

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LNWR_engine_No.808,_0-6-0ST.jpg

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, JimC said:

100 wagon coal trains had been run, so unless there were a load of long flats, macaws or something further back longest train seems unlikely. 

28XX could do that.

Britains most powerful freight locos were the Gresley P1 and LMS Garretts, both should be capable of exceeding that considerably

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

This looks rather like a pannier tank to me.

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LNWR_engine_No.808,_0-6-0ST.jpg

That's a square saddle tank!, it sits on the boiler.

[Miss Prism]

For me, a loco qualifies for the moniker 'pannier' if it has two separate tanks either side of the boiler. This allows the boiler to be dropped in and taken out without too much disturbance to the tanks. The advent of the Belpaire firebox was certainly an important factor in the move over to panniers, but the works time saved in dismantling and re-assembling (compared to a saddle tank) was an equally important attraction to the GWR.

 

 

[phil_sutters]

On 01/01/2021 at 23:30, melmerby said:

Hordern Colliery had an Andrew Barclay saddle tank "Hordern" with square tanks (currently being restored at Tanfield.)

Not a true pannier and more like the LNWR locos.

 

I can remember seeing a photo of a loco (not GWR, probably industrial) that had what I would call pannier tanks, the join between the tank and the boiler had a radius to it, unlike the Western panniers.

 

EDIT this one:

 

Also found a Bagnall 0-6-0PT "Fife" from 1940 which was at Rosyth dockyard, it had typical dock shunter short wheelbase and O/S Walschaerts gear.

It was scrapped in 1968 and the only photo I can find is on blogspot which can't be linked to.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fT8ad5hT86c/SygQ7aAckMI/AAAAAAAAAKY/wMZW3jVvrtg/s1600-h/Bagnall+0-6-0PT.jpg

Edited September 3, 2023 by phil_sutters

[The Johnster]

10 hours ago, drmditch said:

Please excuse a person largely ignorant of the GWR reviving this thread.

There was an interesting article this morning on the BBC news website.

Henry Ford moving a Cotswold cottage to the USA

 

There is an interesting picture, about a third of the way down.

(I could have copied it in here, but since it is credited to the the Henry Ford Museum, I thought I had better be careful!)

 

The picture shows a train, largely of sheeted open wagons, claimed to be 67 vehicles long hauled by what seems to my eyes to be a GWR Pannier tank.

The caption claims that 'The 67-strong wagon train was the longest the UK had ever seen'.

 

I have two questions:

1.  Is this likely to have been the longest UK train as of 1930, or is this claim just 'American exaggeration ?

2.  Is the (presumably shunting) locomotive a GWR tank ?

 

The article is also of interest for more than the railway content!

 

 

How cam anything be of interest for anything other than railway content!

 

67 wagons not even close to the longest in 1930; there had been and still would for many years be  90 and 100 wagon coal trains running for many years, on the GW, GN, Midland, and LNWR.  Common features were that the trains ran from marshalling yards like Stoke Gifford, Peterborough, Toton, Stafford, and that 8-coupled locos were used except on the Midland which double or triple headed with 0-6-0s

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, melmerby said:

28XX could do that.

Britains most powerful freight locos were the Gresley P1 and LMS Garretts, both should be capable of exceeding that considerably

The real limit on train length had a lot more to with things that didn't involve the engine.  Speed, or lack of, could be critical when it came to line capacity; the length of loops and yard reception sidings was absolutely critical and was the real decider when it came to Length Limits.  So even if engine power could do teh job, as with the P1, other things mitigated against that power being exploited to the full.  Gradients of course also havea part to play

 

One thing which doesn't seem to have featured very much back then was the question of coupling strength but it is critical in contemporary freight trains - and has been for the past 40+ years where trailing loads have risen way in excess of 1,000 tons and 50 ton couplings have replaced earlier designs.  But the situation can still arise where trains 'run out of length' before they reach the maximum trailing load permitted for particular locomotives running in a train's booked timings

[Compound2632]

On 03/09/2023 at 14:58, Miss Prism said:

For me, a loco qualifies for the moniker 'pannier' if it has two separate tanks either side of the boiler. This allows the boiler to be dropped in and taken out without too much disturbance to the tanks. The advent of the Belpaire firebox was certainly an important factor in the move over to panniers, but the works time saved in dismantling and re-assembling (compared to a saddle tank) was an equally important attraction to the GWR.

 

 

 

So there's something I've never really understood, my primary interest being in a railway that used side-tank engines. The side tanks were supported on brackets from the frames, with some lateral bracing at the top to fixings on the boiler. These, as I understand it, could be uncoupled before the boiler was lifted out - which was of course only done with the tanks empty, so the brackets were not supporting the full load of water.

 

A saddle tank, on the other hand, would generally be supported on the boiler, though I think in some designs they may have been supported on brackets from the frames. But as you say, the tank had to be lifted off before the boiler could be lifted out.

 

Now pannier tanks seem to be a half-way house. I had assumed that, like panniers carried across the shoulders, or the pannier bags on my bicycle, they were supported from the top - on the boiler - just like a saddle tank. Or were they supported on brackets from the frames, with lateral bracing to fixings on the boiler, as described above for ordinary side tanks? On photos of some but not all classes, I can see what may be the rear support bracket, alongside the firebox.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Now pannier tanks seem to be a half-way house. I had assumed that, like panniers carried across the shoulders, or the pannier bags on my bicycle, they were supported from the top - on the boiler - just like a saddle tank. Or were they supported on brackets from the frames, with lateral bracing to fixings on the boiler, as described above for ordinary side tanks? On photos of some but not all classes, I can see what may be the rear support bracket, alongside the firebox.

They are normally supported from underneath with bracing bands across the top of the boiler, presumably to stop sideways play.

The boiler does not carry any load from the tanks.

[Miss Prism]

Late Collett and Hawksworth panniers did have supports fore and aft that were attached to the footplate, and thus boilers could be released with little fuss. Earlier locos had supports attached to the side of the smokebox and/or firebox at the front and rear respectively, the 57xx having introduced a footplate-mounted one at the rear. In these earlier cases the tanks would need lifting before the boiler could be released. Generally though, it was quicker than a saddle tank, which was cumbersome, and occupying a large bit of erecting shop floor space if left there. I would love to have seen pics of exactly how they went about refurbing those locos in the erecting shops. I will try and pick the brains of people at Didcot and Tyseley.

 

Side-tank engines were immune to most of these complexities, as you note, but the GWR was always keen on the notion of having easy access to the inside motion. (Although the GWR had a fair number of sidetank locos as well of course.)

 

[Compound2632]

50 minutes ago, melmerby said:

They are normally supported from underneath with bracing bands across the top of the boiler, presumably to stop sideways play.

The boiler does not carry any load from the tanks.

 

In other words, no different from side tanks. the boiler will, however, always experience some downwards pressure from the bracing bands, unless the tanks are taller than the top of the boiler barrel.

 

So in fact these are elevated side tanks and the term "pannier" is a misnomer!

 

(Pannier tanks preserve the convenience of a saddle tank in respect of access to the motion; the tanks of a conventional side tank stop short of the leading axle by a sufficient distance to allow access; pannier tanks make up for the volume lost by not extending down to the level of the running plate by extending forward to the front of the smokebox.)

[Steamport Southport]

32 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In other words, no different from side tanks. the boiler will, however, always experience some downwards pressure from the bracing bands, unless the tanks are taller than the top of the boiler barrel.

 

So in fact these are elevated side tanks and the term "pannier" is a misnomer!

 

(Pannier tanks preserve the convenience of a saddle tank in respect of access to the motion; the tanks of a conventional side tank stop short of the leading axle by a sufficient distance to allow access; pannier tanks make up for the volume lost by not extending down to the level of the running plate by extending forward to the front of the smokebox.)

 

Not always.

 

Ben Brooksbank wiki.

 

 

Jason

[Miss Prism]

This extract from an early Pannier (1701 class) drawing shows the tank-mounting brackets attached to the side of the smokebox and firebox. There are no supports that reach down to the footplate. Therefore, the boiler does carry the vertical load of the tanks in this case.

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Not always.

 

Ben Brooksbank wiki.

 

 

Jason

 

Well if that's a pannier tank (or at least, a demi-pannier) so is this:

 

 

[Ben Brooksbank via Wikimedia Commons, embedded link.]

[Miss Prism]

For perspective, 1200g of water is approx 5 tons, saying another ton of so of steel per tank, so that means in region of 3 tons hanging on each side of the boiler.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

This extract from an early Pannier (1701 class) drawing shows the tank-mounting brackets attached to the side of the smokebox and firebox. There are no supports that reach down to the footplate. Therefore, the boiler does carry the vertical load of the tanks in this case.

 

 

 

Presumably those self-same brackets supported the previous saddle tank?

 

Is there, the, a distinction in the way the tanks are supported between those engines converted from saddle tanks and those engines built new as pannier tanks?

 

  

1 minute ago, Miss Prism said:

For perspective, 1200g of water is approx 5 tons, saying another ton of so of steel per tank, so that means in region of 3 tons hanging on each side of the boiler.

 

Not that much in the scheme of things.

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Compound2632