Jump to content
 

LMS Jubilee’s with different tenders


TravisM
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I was doing a little digging around regarding my layout and I noticed that the LMS Jubilee’s were fitted with different tender types.  There seemed to two types of Stanier tender, the 3500 and 4000 gallon types but the one that’s left me scratching my head is that some were fitted with a Fowler tender.

 

Can someone explain to me why Stanier Jubilee’s were fitted with Fowler tenders?  Did they have a surplus and used them instead of building new?  Also, the two different water capacities of the Stanier tenders.  Thanks in advance 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection is that turntables on the routes for which the Jubilees were intended were not long enough to accommodate the loco and standard Stanier tender.  Therefore, a short Stanier tender was designed with a wheelbase the same as the Fowler.  However at some point a decision was taken to reassign some of the short Stanier tenders to another class.  Surplus Fowler tenders were drafted in to make up the shortfall.

 

P1010004-001.JPG.83381db714fb297e7ab5a7dd549fec75.JPG

 

This is my Bachmann model, Nelson, with a short Stanier tender. It is a Gibson kit.

 

John

 

Good articles, by John Jennison (of Brassmasters), on LMS tenders can be found in LMS Review, Nos 1 and 2. 

 

https://britishrailwaybooks.co.uk/books/ISBN/1908763094.php

 

Edited by brossard
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Run away now! Do not get into the minute details of Jubilees and their tenders! Save yourself while you can, before you’re hooked!

 

But if you do have to find out more, there are books such as the Irwell ‘Book of the Jubilee 4-6-0s” edited by Chris Hawkins and the RCTS “The Jubilee 4-6-0s” by Ray Townsin which will let you find out the most obscure details of individual engines.

 

From the Irwell book section on ‘Tenders’:

 

“There were four basic types, Fowler short and high sided and Stanier 3500 and 4000 gallons (…) but on the basis of external appearances they can be subdivided to give seven or even eight ‘varieties’ in all. Many of them were second-hand.”

 

The RCTS book says that the number of variations can be counted as nine if changes after withdrawal (!!) are taken into account.

 

Seriously, the Jubilees are a fascinating class.

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

3 hours ago, pH said:

Run away now! Do not get into the minute details of Jubilees and their tenders! Save yourself while you can, before you’re hooked!

Good advice! The permutations of tenders fitted to the 5Xs is huge and complex. Fowler 3,500 gallons of various configurations; Stanier 3500 gallon tenders, and at least two types of Stanier 4000 gallon tenders.

 

5552 and her first sisters appeared before the development of the Stanier 4000 gallon type and were fitted with the Fowler type. Later examples received, or were due to receive, the Stanier 4000 gallon type, but the Royal Scots were still running with Fowler 3500 gallon tenders. These were the long distance class and needed the extra water capacity, so received the new Stanier tenders and their original tenders went to the 5Xs. Much later, some of these 5Xs received 4000 gallon Stanier tenders, mostly from 8Fs, which got the Fowler tenders in exchange.

 

The Stanier 3500 gallon tenders were the result of a study within the CME's / Traffic Departments which concluded that 3500 gallons was the optimum water capacity for a tender, so fifty of these were built before it was decided to standardise on 4000 gallons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

 

The Stanier 3500 gallon tenders were the result of a study within the CME's / Traffic Departments which concluded that 3500 gallons was the optimum water capacity for a tender, so fifty of these were built before it was decided to standardise on 4000 gallons.

The optimum water capacity for what services? There is was such a wide variety of work required that no standard tender made a difference. It needed to be adequate for the job required, relating to speed, weight, distance travelled, water trough availability if at all, how long allowed for filling at a water column, weather.

The reasons are many, not just a report, never mind how well intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

The optimum water capacity for what services? There is was such a wide variety of work required that no standard tender made a difference. It needed to be adequate for the job required, relating to speed, weight, distance travelled, water trough availability if at all, how long allowed for filling at a water column, weather.

The reasons are many, not just a report, never mind how well intended.

It was to be the 'standard' - probably influenced by Derby - for all future tenders for all classes of work, given such things as water column and trough spacings, operational speeds and weight of the tender to be added to the train weight, plus axle loading. There might have been a 'need' for different capacity tenders for different work, but it didn't happen; once the Stanier 4000 gallon type was adopted as standard in 1934, no other new tenders of a different capacity were built until the introduction of the Ivatt Class 2s twelve years later. So however logical your theory of specialised tenders for different tasks, it simply didn't happen.

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

If you look at the allocations of Jubilees at the time of their building was complete i.e. about 1937ish, you will see that every loco allocated to former Midland Railway territory was fitted with one or other of the short wheelbase 3500 gallon tender types. I have assumed that this was because of turntable size although the situation doesn't seem to have lasted long as 4000 gallon tenders can be seen on Midland allocated Jubilees by 1939.

 

It seems to have been in about the late 1950s and early 1960s that some 8Fs had their Stanier tenders swapped with Fowler tenders off Jubilees. A small number of 8Fs also managed to acquire the 3500 gallon Stanier type as did one rebuilt Royal Scot.

 

The information given in the Irwell book appears to be based Engine Record Cards which are not infallible, one loco is given in the book as keeping a 3500 gallon Stanier tender all its life yet the photograph of the loco shows it with a 4000 gallon type!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

The information given in the Irwell book appears to be based Engine Record Cards which are not infallible, one loco is given in the book as keeping a 3500 gallon Stanier tender all its life yet the photograph of the loco shows it with a 4000 gallon type!

To be very pedantic, the Irwell books are based on the Engine History Cards, not the Record Cards. The difference is that the ERCs were basically the engines' histories from the engineers' viewpoint while the EHCs were the engines' histories from the accountants' viewpoint. A lot was not added to the EHCs from about 1960 onwards as steam had a limited life expectancy so no-one was interested in monitoring costs, but the ERCs should be accurate, for a given value of accurate, as the clerks who filled them in were human and fallible. The same goes for the EHCs up to 1960-ish, but they cannot be relied upon after that. Tender exchanges, for instance, didn't involve expenditure so weren't always recorded.

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

On 29/08/2021 at 08:20, LMS2968 said:

To be very pedantic, the Irwell books are based on the Engine History Cards, not the Record Cards. The difference is that the ERCs were basically the engines' histories from the engineers' viewpoint while the EHCs were the engines' histories from the accountants' viewpoint. A lot was not added to the EHCs from about 1960 onwards as steam had a limited life expectancy so no-one was interested in monitoring costs, but the ERCs should be accurate, for a given value of accurate, as the clerks who filled them in were human and fallible. The same goes for the EHCs up to 1960-ish, but they cannot be relied upon after that. Tender exchanges, for instance, didn't involve expenditure so weren't always recorded.

 

I stand (sit) corrected.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As pH sez, it can get complicated, but the best book to explain it all is the RCTS book which lists the swaps individually, and it explains it all. Basically as the pre-rebuilt Scots were heavy on coal and water, and Baby Scots were rebuilt, rather than scrap the older Fowler type tenders, just swap them from a lesser class, and save building new ones.

 

Edited by bike2steam
  • Like 1
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...