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

[Miss Prism]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

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

 

Doesn't look like it. The earlier (Dean) saddletank support brackets are a bit flimsier and shaped differently to the later Churchward ones for panniers, and there tended to be three of them per side rather than the later two. There would however have been a general development of the brackets, in usual Swindon fashion. The supports aren't shown on the weight diagrams for saddles.

 

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

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?

 

That's complicated. The first 'built as new' pannier was the Collett 57xx, which featured a rear tank support resting on the footplate. As far as I know, none of the saddle to pannier conversions featured footplate-mounted supports, and the tanks still rested on smokebox and firebox brackets as per Churchward designs.

 

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Not that much in the scheme of things.

 

Indeed.

 

[Miss Prism]

[JimC]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

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

I don't believe so. They are drawn on none of the saddle tank diagrams I just looked at and all of the pannier tank ones. Having the brackets resting on the frames rather than riveted to the firebox is probably a better solution bearing in mind heat expansion of the boiler. 57xx, 8750 and 1366 show a smokebox bracket, 54xx, 94xx, 15xx  etc show both ends supported from the frames. 

[Nearholmer]

Interesting stuff about brackets. I knew they were there somewhere, but am now clued-up as to the general history of brackets.

 

I'm not sure I ‘buy’ this line of thinking that saddle tanks are time-consuming to remove, because I don’t think they are. Based on seeing what was done with minimal kit on industrial railways, and on sort of getting in the way while nominally helping on the K&ESR in the 1970s, when facilities were similarly limited, I can say that there aren’t may bolts to undo, and that it’s easier to deal with the boiler with the tank out of the way, because access is freer.

 

PS: panniers, as in bags on horses and bikes, derive their name from French loaves of bread, having originally been baskets to carry the same. I would argue that the motorcycle ones above are not ‘classic panniers’, not being top-hung.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Steamport Southport]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Interesting stuff about brackets. I knew they were there somewhere, but am now clued-up as to the general history of brackets.

 

I'm not sure I ‘buy’ this line of thinking that saddle tanks are time-consuming to remove, because I don’t think they are. Based on seeing what was done with minimal kit on industrial railways, and on sort of getting in the way while nominally helping on the K&ESR in the 1970s, when facilities were similarly limited, I can say that there aren’t may bolts to undo, and that it’s easier to deal with the boiler with the tank out of the way, because access is freer.

 

PS: panniers, as in bags on horses and bikes, derive their name from French loaves of bread, having originally been baskets to carry the same. I would argue that the motorcycle ones above are not ‘classic panniers’, not being top-hung.

 

 

How often would an industrial railway locomotive need a full boiler lift?

 

Very rarely I would think and they would probably be sent away to a manufacturers such as Hunslet for major boiler work. Very few industrial users would have had the facilities.

 

 

Jason

[Nearholmer]

Some did ‘stripping’ on-site, then sent the boilers away for work, likewise wheels for turning. It only needs a decent height and strength gantry/sheerlegs, indeed in some cases wheel-sets were got out by jacking and packing.

 

Worth bearing in mind that ‘back in the day’ almost every county town had a very capable agricultural/mechanical engineering firm that could handle smaller locomotive boilers, indeed many built (road) locomotives from scratch.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Nearholmer

[The Johnster]

On 03/09/2023 at 08:17, 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

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

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

Déjà vu

 

(you've already posted this 2 days ago😁)

[The Johnster]

You can say that again, I mean I can say that again, or at least, it got said again, I'd thought (correctly as it turnedout) I'd posted it but there it was unposted (apparently) so I posted it again before I'd even really looked properly to see what it was.  Don't laugh, you'll be old and useless one day as well...

[Siberian Snooper]

23 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

How often would an industrial railway locomotive need a full boiler lift?

 

Very rarely I would think and they would probably be sent away to a manufacturers such as Hunslet for major boiler work. Very few industrial users would have had the facilities.

 

 

Jason

 

These days a boiler ticket lasts 10 years, I don't know what it was back in the day. There would normally be a visual inspection of the visible parts at washout, by inserting a mirror through the mud holes.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Inspection and pressure testing was normal from an early period, and aside from legislation it was essential to getting insurance cover, hence testing companies like British Engine (now BES Group). This is better than my unreliable memory https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/D7903FF66F584B9203165B0DE26965CF/S0020859000006222a.pdf/state_and_the_steamboiler_in_nineteenthcentury_britain.pdf

Edited September 6, 2023 by Nearholmer

[The Johnster]

On 04/09/2023 at 19:30, Miss Prism said:

but the GWR was always keen on the notion of having easy access to the inside motion

I knew several Canton drivers and fitters whose work had involved prepping or repairing Castles or Stars who would take issue with this statement, or at least confirm that, while the company might gave been keen on the notion, they may have been less keen on actually providing easy access to the inside motion…

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

These days a boiler ticket lasts 10 years, I don't know what it was back in the day. There would normally be a visual inspection of the visible parts at washout, by inserting a mirror through the mud holes.

 

 

This inspection had to be carried out by a qualified boilersmith.  

[Siberian Snooper]

I can do that, too! Although I'm a boilermaker and not a boilersmith, at least that's what my indentures say.

 

The last inspection job I did was superheater headers.

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Siberian Snooper

[JimC]

On 06/09/2023 at 20:24, The Johnster said:

, they may have been less keen on actually providing easy access to the inside motion…

I suppose the trouble was that whilst nearly everyone in the drawing office would have worked on inside motion during their apprenticeship, they would have done so as skinny teenagers...

[The Johnster]

This is a valid point; those older drivers who had become 'gentlemen of a certain carriage' by the time they got to the top links were known to send their firemen in to the squeezier recesses and shout instructions at them.  This was good experience for the firemen, of course. 

 

During my guard's career at Canton, I once had to rescue one of our senior guards, and a large gentleman by any standards, who had got himself wedged while coupling a 52 to a Freightliner train at Pengam FLT (now closed and replaced by Marshfield).  The combination of all those pipes, screw coupling, big buffers, and the Western's skirting had been his downfall, and I had to squeeze in and uncouple everything so that the loco could slacken off and he could be released, after which there was some question over whether I was pregnant with his child...  I then had to couple his loco on to his train for him, and connect the air brake hoses, but told him to do his own effin' brake test!  Driver and FLT staff were most amused, and I had a bit of a chuckle myself...

 

Some of our secondmen had put on some girth since the end of steam and their approach of middle age as well.  Westerns were magnificent machines, and I liked working on them, you felt like at least a demi-god up there in that lofty perch, but they were 'stards to climb on and off of from ground level, especially on adverse curvature when the bogie-mounted steps disappeared under the floor.  The handrails were recessed, and there was a pronounced overhang because of the bodyshell tumblehome, then when you'd got to the door, it was narrow, and led to a somewhat squeezy passageway inside the loco.  It was always gloomy in there, as the lights got covered in oil mist and became a bit dim, and they were hardly powerful to start with, not ideal for claustrophobics with the added fun of a big Maybach churning away in the same space like a caged and shackled demon in a bad mood, and not very far away!  You turned through ninety degrees, went up a step, and then had to do another 90 the other way to get into a very narrow cross passageway, one side of which was the cab rear bulkhead.  The cab was accessed by a door half-way across, and was small, with the seats backing on to the bulkhead, but cosy and very quiet (cab sound insulation was excellent on all the WR hydraulics).  But there is no doubt that they presented problems to larger traincrew, Heath Robinson's broad gauge men, especially guards who used bulky satchels to carry their kit in. 

 

I very much doubt if any of this was considered at the design stage of the locomotive's development other than as an afterthought; 'oh, yes, and we'll need to put steps on, hang on a mo, there you are, little metal ladder bolted to the bogie frame and a recessed foothole'.  Most engines had wider doorways which led directly into the cabs, though IIRC Warships had a similar setup to Westerns with the little half-corridors.  The best IMHO were the EE nose designs, 23s, 37s, and 40s, recessed doors with nice little ledges to stand on so you could stand outside the cab to give shunting directions but be safely inside the loading gauge.  20s, Deltics, and 50s did not have this feature. 

 

At least some of the companies addressed this with schemes like the GN's premium apprentice scheme, which gave firing turns to engineering apprentices who might one day end up in drawing offices, and who had a much better insight into this sort of thing as a result.  Maunsell's workshop floor experience certainly 'informed' his design work, making components easy to access; his view was that if it needed greasing and it was awkward to get at, most of the time it wouldn't get the greasing it needed.  Getting aboard a locomotive from ground level is never going to be easy; it's a long way up, it's vertical and sometimes overhanging, everything has to fit in the loading gauge, and the loco might be moving, but the Westerns almost seemed to be designed to repel boarders! 

 

You could forgive them a lot, though, and we did!

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by The Johnster

[DCB]

According to H Holcroft's book the Pannier tanks came about because of the difficulty in getting to the back of a saddle tank when the inside was modified to fit round a Belpaire firebox, which you had to do to rivet it together.    They were originally direct replacements for the saddle tanks and a large number were built to suit new build replacement boilers following the change to Belpaires. early in the Churchward era during the Churchward era  halt to new 0-6-0 tank building.    The new boilers were produced to replace life expired boilers on the various  Saddle tanks Dean Goods, Metros  etc.  It's possible new Belpaire fireboxes were grafted onto existing boilers.  Most Saddle tanks had round top fireboxes and most panniers Belpaires but not all.  The first new build 0-6-0 pannier was the first 57XX but whether that was 5700 or 5701 I don't know.
The advantages of the pannier tanks are they are easier to remove and fit than saddle tanks coming off the side and not having to be lifted and the loco wheeled out from under.  There isan efficiency loss from the loss of free pre heating of a full water tank situated above the hot boiler, 
Both Saddle and Pannier give improved access to the motion vis a vis side tanks,  Big  GWR Prairies had holes in the frames for access see the WSR 9351 which tender locos did not have,  Side tanks often had strange leak prone shapes to allow access  to the innards  thinking J50 and L1 here.  It was just a sensible common sense  solution.  The Dean Goods derived boilers seemed to carry the tank brackets on the smokebox and the smaller 16/54/64/74 ones with drum head smoke boxes had separate brackets down to the running plate and presumably braced to the mainframes as was the 57XX rear mounting.
Some Racing motorcycles had Pannier Tanks  the 1973 JPN was a very successful example and still one of the best looking bikes ever..

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

the difficulty in getting to the back of a saddle tank when the inside was modified to fit round a Belpaire firebox, which you had to do to rivet it together. 

 

For the riveter's mate inside the tank, you mean.

[JimC]

6 hours ago, DCB said:

The Dean Goods derived boilers seemed to carry the tank brackets on the smokebox and the smaller 16/54/64/74 ones with drum head smoke boxes had separate brackets down to the running plate and presumably braced to the mainframes as was the 57XX rear mounting.

That's a very good point, it hadn't occurred to me, but I think you're right, it was the classes with drum head smoke boxes that had supports to the footplate at the front end. Hence 94 and 15 . The usual GWR exception seems to be the 1366, which had brackets to the running plate but not a drum head box. I can't think of any drum head boxes with the support brackets though.

[The Stationmaster]

On 04/09/2023 at 19:30, Miss Prism said:

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.)

 

Don'r forget that on order to lift a boiler it has to be slung  to whatever is lifting it and the slinging has to pass right round the boiler.  The only one I saw with a tank off in BR day was a 97XX and the tank had been lifted to trace a water leak from it but I doubt if the boiler could properly be slung with the tanks in place.

[BWsTrains]

On 01/01/2021 at 16:20, Miss Prism said:

Build dates, pannier conversion dates and withdrawal dates are from RCTS Part Five and BRdatabase. In keeping with the 'overview' nature of this census, some minor complications, e.g. a few locos reverting to saddle tanks and then back again to panniers, and the locos originating with side tanks for a short while (a few Buffalos and the 1813 class), have been ignored. A total of approx 2380 standard gauge saddle and pannier tanks were built by the GWR/WR. The total population (saddles plus panniers) peaked in June/July 1955 at 1285 locos. Absorbed locos are not included in this survey.

 

(The current notation of the graph axes is 'as given' by Excel, and I will be exploring ways of improving it.)
 

 

Saddle to pannier conversion dates indicate the benefit of panniers was considered important enough for the programme to continue throughout WW1, and many of the conversions in the 1920s and 1930s were done in the knowledge that the locos would last only a few years longer, or at least until the Collett pannier designs began to come on stream in significant numbers from 1929 onward. Of the approx 1100 saddle tanks built, only 73 never received pannier tanks. (Off the scale of the graphic are the early 1813 class panniers of 1903-6 and 2021 class loco 2048, which was converted as late as 1948.)
 

 

 

 

Miss Prism,

 

This fascinating topic suffers from the loss of the key images in post#1 due to the great crash. Any chance of reinstating them for us please?

 

PS Then again, I have this sudden deja vu that this info lurks somewhere on GWR.org. Might that be the case?

 

Colin

Edited September 16, 2023 by BWsTrains

[Miss Prism]

Images re-instated. (And yes, they do appear on the panniers page.)