Unrebuilt GWR ROD 2-8-0s

[MarkAustin]

It's hard to understand why the GW would run perfectly good 2-8-0s into the ground instead of fitting vacuum brakes and using them like 28XXs.  Could the GW drivers lack of understanding of how to drive these GC locos have been the cause?  From reading engineman's reminiscences from oop north  It seems they liked long cut offs and small regulator openings.....    The original GC versions did a fair bit of excursion passenger traffic.

But they wern't perfectly good engines, and I refer to the RCTS, Vol K for details, but the latter history is as follows. 3000-3019 had been previously purchased and were then new. Another 80 were acquired later and proved a very mixed bunch. Some were new, or nearly so, and some had been hard worked, and were effectively worn out. The GWR separated them into two batches. The best, numbered 3020-49 were united with their fellows and Swindonised. The remained, numbered 3050-3099, were beyond economic repair---they would have needed new boilers at least---and were run until they failed a boiler inspection: the last, 3093, going in December 1931.

 

MarkAustin

[Coach bogie]

I 

 

But they wern't perfectly good engines, and I refer to the RCTS, Vol K for details, but the latter history is as follows. 3000-3019 had been previously purchased and were then new. Another 80 were acquired later and proved a very mixed bunch. Some were new, or nearly so, and some had been hard worked, and were effectively worn out. The GWR separated them into two batches. The best, numbered 3020-49 were united with their fellows and Swindonised. The remained, numbered 3050-3099, were beyond economic repair---they would have needed new boilers at least---and were run until they failed a boiler inspection: the last, 3093, going in December 1931.

 

MarkAustin

At the back of my mind, I have a vague recollection that there were another 4 additional RODs numbered 6000-6003, all gone by the times the Kings were built which obviously used the number range.

 

Mike Wiltshire.

[JimC]

It's hard to understand why the GW would run perfectly good 2-8-0s into the ground

 

I think it likely they simply didn't need any more 2-8-0s than the number they kept, but the price they paid for the RODs was so low that it was worth taking them, grabbing what mileage was left on them (which naturally saved mileage on other locomotives) and then breaking them for scrap and spares. Literally asset stripping! After 1919 no more 28s were built until 1938. 

Edited February 10, 2018 by JimC

[JimC]

At the back of my mind, I have a vague recollection that there were another 4 additional RODs numbered 6000-6003, all gone by the times the Kings were built which obviously used the number range.

 

According to RCTS the last 4 of the 84 hired 1919-1922 were numbered thus, but only 80 were purchased in 1925, so the 6000/3 numbers weren't needed again.

Edited February 10, 2018 by JimC

[asmay2002]

But they wern't perfectly good engines, and I refer to the RCTS, Vol K for details, but the latter history is as follows. 3000-3019 had been previously purchased and were then new. Another 80 were acquired later and proved a very mixed bunch. Some were new, or nearly so, and some had been hard worked, and were effectively worn out. The GWR separated them into two batches. The best, numbered 3020-49 were united with their fellows and Swindonised. The remained, numbered 3050-3099, were beyond economic repair---they would have needed new boilers at least---and were run until they failed a boiler inspection: the last, 3093, going in December 1931.

 

MarkAustin

The timing is very important.  They were bought just before the Great Depression hit in 1929.  There was not even enough work for the standard locos and some of the brand new 42xx went straight into store.  Worn out non standard locos were just mobile scrap -it wouldn't have been worth wasting money on locos for which there was no work.   

Edited February 10, 2018 by asmay2002

[JimC]

The timing is very important.  They were bought just before the Great Depression hit in 1929. 

I'm not sure that  quite lines up. The day of the wall street crash was 29th October 1929, and I've just been through the list in RCTS and I make it that only 5 of the 50 were withdrawn Nov 1929 or later. 

[Ravenser]

I'm not sure that  quite lines up. The day of the wall street crash was 29th October 1929, and I've just been through the list in RCTS and I make it that only 5 of the 50 were withdrawn Nov 1929 or later. 

 

The S Wales export coal trade was in deep trouble all through the 1920s . Possibly the GWR was expecting some kind of recovery. It certainly sounds plausible that they bought more than they thought they needed because the bargain seemed outstanding, with the intention of cannibalising some of the fleet for spares to keep the rest running long-term. It may be that after the 1926 coal strike it became horribly apparent that the recovery in S Wales coal would never come, and the whole of the last 50 were surplus to requirements .

 

I'm puzzled how locos that were nearly new (built 1917-19) could be nearly worn out by the mid 1920s , when the LNER bought 400 ex ROD locos which ran until the late 50s and early 60s. Did the LNER get there first, resulting in the GWR ending up with nearly all the dregs of the ROD fleet??

[JimC]

According to LNER.info the LNERS last 100 were after the GWR ones. The LMS had the last 75 of all I believe.

 

As you say its hard to believe they were worn out beyond the reach of a heavy general and a new firebox, but who knows. You can go to Kew and read *what* the Loco Cttee decided, but never have I found a word of why.

 

After reading these comments and other material about RODs today I find it very easy to believe the policy was "we want to keep 50 and we'll have 50 more for some cheap mileage, spares and tenders", but I fear it will never be more than surmise.

Edited February 11, 2018 by JimC

[Darwinian]

I’m not sure the S. Wales coal exports are relevant to these ROD 2-8-0s being acquired by the GWR. The export trade was mostly pit to port, short haul down from the valleys and handled by tank engines. I’ve not seen many pictures of tender locos being used for that job. These were more suited to long haul slow goods. Perhaps to augment the Aberdare class role.

Some of the non Swindonised ones only lasted a few years in GWR hands.

[NCB]

"worn out" means they were due a heavy general shopping;  in the GWR's eyes it simply wasn't worth it at the time. No locomotive is that worn out that it can't be refurbished, if required.

 

They weren't really direct alternatives to the 28XX class, which were arguably the best and most effective 2-8-0 heavy freight locomotives produced in Britain.

[Coach bogie]

I came across this image in my collection recently. I wonder if any of these made it to the GWR?

 

Tattenham Corner Station, closed Sept 1914 - reopened March 1928 (when it gained 3rd rail electric).

 

Mike Wiltshire

Edited February 14, 2018 by Coach bogie

[JimC]

Interesting to see the eccentric rods with all the others apparently just slung in the tenders with odd lumps of cotton waste. I suppose it was conventional to take all the motion down for travelling, but it doesn't feel encouraging to see it left in the rain. I suppose one can't tell how heavily (if at all) greased it was.  Also I see that there appears to be a second something on the cab roof alongside the whistle. My feeling though,looking at photos of GWR RODs, is that its too close to the existing whistle to be a location where a second whistle might have been fitted. I'm away from my books: is it recorded whether the locomotives loaned to the GWR had a second whistle for the duration of the loan? I'd think the brake whistle would have been regarded as important for unfitted locomotives...

Edited February 14, 2018 by JimC

[LaScala]

On 10/02/2018 at 23:12, asmay2002 said:

The timing is very important.  They were bought just before the Great Depression hit in 1929.  There was not even enough work for the standard locos and some of the brand new 42xx went straight into store.  Worn out non standard locos were just mobile scrap -it wouldn't have been worth wasting money on locos for which there was no work.   

Let's not forget the tenders lived on for a long time and

went onto Aberdares & many 22xx Collett Goods, probably saving a fair proportion of the knock down purchase price.

[DCB]

The RODs lacked versatility as they were air brake locos and lacked vacuum brakes.  This would have mitigated against them as there were cases of all sorts of Vacuum braked locos being pushed into passenger use in an emergency, Even the 4ft wheeled  MSWJR 2-6-0 rescued an expresses, while in "Through the Links at Crewe" (I think) a 72XX was purloined for a local passenger and had its vacuum pump fly apart at around 60 MPH 

From engineman's reminiscences I have read it seems they were very sluggish but would keep plodding on almost no matter how low the boiler pressure.  Now that sluggishness it seems only applies to GWR 30XX, the contemporary reminiscences from Yorkshire and the North East referring to the GC originals which had Vacuum brakes seemed to suggest they could do very well on excursion trains.

Which makes me wonder if the GW valve setting giving negative lead in full gear was applied to the GC locos which with GC valve gear would have also given precious  little lead at short cut offs and probably made any real speed uncomfortable.  The GC Atlantics with similar cylinders and valve gear certainly weren't sluggish.

[The Johnster]

Drifting a bit, bit 42xx and 72xx were often pressed into excursion duty on bank holiday weekends in the late 50s, as was anything else that might potentially be able to turn a wheel...

[Steamport Southport]

Weren't they all scheduled to be gone by 1940 and only kept because of the upcoming war?

 

They were due to be replaced by the batch of 2884s built from 1938.

 

 

 

Jason

[JimC]

I was reading loco committee minutes the other day and I'm sure the 30s weren't on the to be condemned list. I'm pretty confident that the 38s were listed as Aberdare replacements.