CLAN VS BRITT

[Holby Railway]

Ive noticed recently on SM that several people are modelling Clans now, this set me thinking,

 

What are the visual differences between Britts & Clans, with exception of experts would a Britt pass as a Clan in 00 gauge

[Wheatley]

Smaller boiler on the Clan so less powerful but also lighter, giving it lower axleweight and a greater route availability.

 

Visual clues are the taller chimney and dome on the Clan, and a narrower 'ring' around the smokebox door - the doors were identical but the smokebox was a smaller diameter on the Clan. Side by side the Clan is noticeably skinnier as it doesn't bulk out to the full extent of the loading gauge like the Britannia (almost) does. 

 

Everything else was more or less common across both classes, at least in terms of things you would notice on a model. 

 

Cue 40 page argument about whether the Clans were rubbish or not. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Wheatley

[slilley]

I would re-iterate the previous post. The main visual difference was the smaller boiler on the same chassis. The 6MTs had the BR1 tender . 

 

Simon

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

15 hours ago, Holby Railway said:

with exception of experts would a Brit pass as a Clan in 00 gauge

The bar for the degree of expertise is set very low:

700xx = Brit.,

7200x =Clan, and the names are something of a giveaway too.

 

Renumbering a Brit in the 7200x series with a nameplate such as Clan MacSquerade, would be a test for some expertise present...

 

 

[Wheatley]

Oh yeah ! Doh !! 

 

Sometimes the most obvious things aren't. 

[Wickham Green too]

19 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

... nameplate such as Clan MacSquerade,  ...

... or Clany McClanface ?

[The Johnster]

The chimney and dome are noticeably more prominent on the Clan’s smaller diameter boiler, and are the obvious distinguishing features.  Take the boilers off and there’s very little difference; the cab fronts must have been different and so must the distance between the smokebox and the smoke deflectors, but that’s about it.  If it’s got LMR- or WR-type smoke deflector handholds or anything other than a BR1-style tender, it’s definitely a Brit.  If it’s south of Crewe or Leeds, it’s probably a Brit.  

[Steamport Southport]

37 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The chimney and dome are noticeably more prominent on the Clan’s smaller diameter boiler, and are the obvious distinguishing features.  Take the boilers off and there’s very little difference; the cab fronts must have been different and so must the distance between the smokebox and the smoke deflectors, but that’s about it.  If it’s got LMR- or WR-type smoke deflector handholds or anything other than a BR1-style tender, it’s definitely a Brit.  If it’s south of Crewe or Leeds, it’s probably a Brit.  

 

Slight correction it was the LMR Britannias that didn't get the revised smoke deflectors as they drove on the correct side!

 

Any that did get them were as a result of swaps during overhauls. Something to watch if you are modelling one.

 

 

 

The Clans got almost everywhere. Recorded in Bristol, South Wales, Holyhead, London, common in the Midlands and one was even allocated to Stratford and used on trials on the GE Mainline where it was put up against B1s, B2s and B17s.

 

Unfortunately they were a bit too late as the 1955 Modernisation Plan killed them off. There was going to be a lot of them. At least 15 more confirmed.

 

 

Jason

[Wickham Green too]

10 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Slight correction it was the LMR Britannias that didn't get the revised smoke deflectors as they drove on the correct side! ...

There were two distinct types of handrail-less deflectors : one with brass-bound hand holes and one with grab holes more akin to an LMS sandbox lid - the latter is often attributed to the LMR and Brian Haresnape comments that they were "a rather neater form than that applied by Swindon" ( Perhaps they were WR locos but modified at Crewe ? ).

[Steamport Southport]

13 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

There were two distinct types of handrail-less deflectors : one with brass-bound hand holes and one with grab holes more akin to an LMS sandbox lid - the latter is often attributed to the LMR and Brian Haresnape comments that they were "a rather neater form than that applied by Swindon" ( Perhaps they were WR locos but modified at Crewe ? ).

 

Without digging through the books I think that they were replacements for the smoke deflectors on other regions that drove on the right hand side, WR and parts of the ER.

 

LMR locomotives didn't need them. Manchester Victoria possibly 1965.

 

Copyright Phil Sangwell Wiki 

 

 

Jason

[RFS]

43 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Unfortunately they were a bit too late as the 1955 Modernisation Plan killed them off. There was going to be a lot of them. At least 15 more confirmed.

 

 

Believe these 15 were intended for the Southern Region. Not sure why they were needed with 140 newish Bulleid Pacifics already, but the Modernisation Plan of 1955, which included the Kent Coast Electrfication schemes, would certainly have killed off the requirement. 

[Matt37268]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Slight correction it was the LMR Britannias that didn't get the revised smoke deflectors as they drove on the correct side!

 

Any that did get them were as a result of swaps during overhauls. Something to watch if you are modelling one.

 

 

 

The Clans got almost everywhere. Recorded in Bristol, South Wales, Holyhead, London, common in the Midlands and one was even allocated to Stratford and used on trials on the GE Mainline where it was put up against B1s, B2s and B17s.

 

Unfortunately they were a bit too late as the 1955 Modernisation Plan killed them off. There was going to be a lot of them. At least 15 more confirmed.

 

 

Jason

Didn’t one of the Birmingham-Glasgow jobs regularly produce a Clan? 
What was the one that made it to Fort William? 72001 was it? 

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

There were two distinct types of handrail-less deflectors : one with brass-bound hand holes and one with grab holes more akin to an LMS sandbox lid - the latter is often attributed to the LMR and Brian Haresnape comments that they were "a rather neater form than that applied by Swindon" ( Perhaps they were WR locos but modified at Crewe ? ).

I think it was the original ER allocated locos which had the two hand hold without handrail, version of the smoke deflector retro fitted. These appear to have been based on the previous designs of hand hold used on Royal Scot and Coronation class smoke deflectors. 
 

The reasoning behind Swindon’s ‘redesign of the wheel’ for hand holds on WR allocated Britannias, in what appears to be a rather extravagant way (especially with the version with brass edged hand holds), was discussed in another thread and a theory put forward it may have been an apprentice project or similar. 
 

The ScR based Clans and Brits retained the standard smoke deflectors with hand rails (as did all 9Fs, even WR and ER allocated ones). 

[Dava]

The Clans were the only uniquely Scottish class of Pacifics, by dint of their names and route allocations, though not actually built there. If the Southern Chiefs had been built, they wouldn’t have kept this distinction.

Some sported blue smoke box number and shed plates, unofficially.

 

Dava

[Wheatley]

13 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

 

The reasoning behind Swindon’s ‘redesign of the wheel’ for hand holds on WR allocated Britannias, in what appears to be a rather extravagant way (especially with the version with brass edged hand holds), was discussed in another thread and a theory put forward it may have been an apprentice project or similar.

Without going looking for the other thread, it always struck me that the 'sandbox lid' type were fitted where a draughtsman thought they looked useful (or nice), and the WR brass edged type were fitted where someone climbing around the smoke defector would actually find them useful. 

[The Johnster]

6MT is an odd sort of power band to find work for, and apart from the very successful Gresley V2s and the Hawkworth Counties I can't off-hand think of any other locos that filled that particular gap.  The 7MT Britannias were successful overall (we certainly liked them at Canton), and the 5MTs, which were about the equivalent of a Hall or Black 5 but a bit faster, were mostly capable of the next step down in work.  The Clans sort of have the feel of a loco built to provide a 6MT whether one was actually needed or not (not saying that that is true, just how it looks a bit to me).  They obviously weren't bad locos, but needed a niche, which they found out of Carlisle on the difficult Port Road jobs.  They did good work on the Settle-Carlisle as well. 

 

On that basis, one wonders what they'd have been like in Cornwall on the WR, or the S&DJ, or the North to West, or Alton-Portsmouth.  But in the event they were too little too late, the 1954 management coup saw Riddles off and the 1955 plan saw his engines off.  Performance-wise, they were arguably about the equal of the 1955 plan's first attempts at Type 4s, the 40 and early Warships, which were intended to replace Class 7 steam power but found themselves a little out of their depth (even Sir Brian Roberston, riding on D200's inaugural run out of Liverpool St., reckoned it wasn't as good as a Brit, which suggests it might have been as good as a Clan). 

 

The root cause of this was the compromised data generated by Rugby Testing Station, which seems to have undervalued steam power by about 20%, leading to a demand for more powerful Type 4s in a hurry in the early 60s, the result of which were the '2nd generation' locos such as the Peaks, Westerns, and 47s; these really could equal Class 7 steam power, and resulted in timetable improvements with limited load set-rake trains.  You needed at least 3khp to get close to Class 8 steam performances...

 

None of which was the fault of, or anything to do with, the Clans!

[Wheatley]

9 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

6MT is an odd sort of power band to find work for, and apart from the very successful Gresley V2s and the Hawkworth Counties I can't off-hand think of any other locos that filled that particular gap.

Jubilees, once they'd sorted the steaming out. Kingmoor got good work out of them too, on the same routes as the Clans. At least one contemporary writer attributed that to Kingmoor not trying to roster Clans on Class 7 turns. 

[MidlandRed]

45 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

Without going looking for the other thread, it always struck me that the 'sandbox lid' type were fitted where a draughtsman thought they looked useful (or nice), and the WR brass edged type were fitted where someone climbing around the smoke defector would actually find them useful. 

Without wishing to get into a WR v the rest type of argument, the LMR’s considerable period of experience with locos fitted with smoke deflectors, which were of the sandbox type and positioned in a certain way, seems to have been used on the ER Brits. In contrast, apart from the 9Fs, the WR had no experience of smoke deflectors - one would have thought in a unified national railway system, there would have been rather more cross fertilisation of experience and ideas than sometimes seemed to occur. The WR hand holds to me look somewhat ‘Heath Robinson’, and the brass adornments make them look even more so!! 
 

Great that we have the variations to debate though.

 

Ive always been interested in the plan for more Clans, and particularly the Southern ones - presumably the rebuilding of the Bullied Light Pacifics in the shorter term, along with the ongoing electrification and Modernisation Plan elements removed the need for these. The route availability was surely the advantage of the Clans, which no doubt, if built would have appeared on the West of Exeter SR (until 1963) routes. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by MidlandRed

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, RFS said:

 

Believe these 15 were intended for the Southern Region. Not sure why they were needed with 140 newish Bulleid Pacifics already, but the Modernisation Plan of 1955, which included the Kent Coast Electrfication schemes, would certainly have killed off the requirement. 

 

Loads of old 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s were due for retirement on the SR in the 1950s and early 1960s. Same as in Scotland and the North East where the rest of the 6MTs would have been sent.

 

It was those that would have been the casualties. The LMS and GWR had mostly eliminated the older "non standard" classes.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

40 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

The WR hand holds to me look somewhat ‘Heath Robinson’, and the brass adornments make them look even more so!! 
 

 

Water your soap out with wash and mouth, sir, how dare you, the crowning glory of one of Canton's finest glinting in the late morning sun as the loco backed down onto the Red Dragon on Platform two at Cardiff (General), the finest sight offered by any Riddles standard engine, Heath Robinson!!!

 

Not sure of the effectivenes of the WR design from an ergonomic pov, after all, nobody cared much about the firemen and cleaners who had to clamber around up there, but the LMS 'dimple' holds and the Southern's clever design which used the edge beading of the smoke deflector as the handrail seem to have worked and been well established so there couldn't have been much wrong with them (exactly the attitude that hampered British industrial innovation in those days...). 

 

OTOH, the LNER never thought it needed such measures with it's various Thompson and Peppercorn pacifics, and neither did either the WR or ER with their numerous 9Fs, many built after the Milton report when Brits were recieving modifed deflectors.  Admittedly the 9Fs had a shorter boiler, but not by much and it couldn't have made much difference to the signal siting.

[spamcan61]

To quote E.S.Cox (who would've known) from his very interesting book on the development of the Standards*, with regard to the rationale behind the Clans:-

 

"(2) The proposed smaller "Pacific" in the 18-ton axle load Class 5 range became the subject of particular heart searching because it was a border line case. On the one hand, truly Class 5 duties were already carried out with great competence by the numerous 4-6-o mixed traffic locomotives already existing, having total weights some 11 tons less than that of the proposed 4-6-2. At this point Bond took an active hand in the deliberations, pointing out that the lower combustion rates which would result from the larger grate at the average rate of working on such duties would give savings almost exactly equated by the capital charges on the increased cost of the Pacific over the 4-6-0, whilst the higher standby losses and the maintenance cost of the trailing truck would remain as debits. On the other hand, if the main idea behind the new engine was some increase in potential capacity beyond that of the existing 4-6-os, as indeed it was, then it would be more appropriate to develop it as a Class 6 from the first. The performance of the S.R. West Country of this power category in the recent trials had been very impressive, and although its design was not acceptable due to its poor efficiency and mechanical complexities, it was clear that there was scope for an 18.5 ton axle load locomotive of this kind"

 

*British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives: pub. Ian Allan, 1966

[Poor Old Bruce]

2 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

What was the one that made it to Fort William? 72001 was it? 

 

IIRC it was 'Clan Cameron' which took a special train for  a gathering of said clan. It was even crewed by Camerons.

[LMS2968]

Strangely, I've just been reading about that in John Thomas's book, although not for the first time. The guard was a Cameron too, which might be what you meant.

[Steamport Southport]

59 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

Water your soap out with wash and mouth, sir, how dare you, the crowning glory of one of Canton's finest glinting in the late morning sun as the loco backed down onto the Red Dragon on Platform two at Cardiff (General), the finest sight offered by any Riddles standard engine, Heath Robinson!!!

 

Not sure of the effectivenes of the WR design from an ergonomic pov, after all, nobody cared much about the firemen and cleaners who had to clamber around up there, but the LMS 'dimple' holds and the Southern's clever design which used the edge beading of the smoke deflector as the handrail seem to have worked and been well established so there couldn't have been much wrong with them (exactly the attitude that hampered British industrial innovation in those days...). 

 

OTOH, the LNER never thought it needed such measures with it's various Thompson and Peppercorn pacifics, and neither did either the WR or ER with their numerous 9Fs, many built after the Milton report when Brits were recieving modifed deflectors.  Admittedly the 9Fs had a shorter boiler, but not by much and it couldn't have made much difference to the signal siting.

 

It was all to do with sighting signals. The Britannias on the ex GWR and LNER (GE section) had the driving position on the wrong side to see the signals on such a large locomotive. As did the MR, but the MR wasn't really a Pacific route.

 

The LNER Pacifics were all LHD by the 1950s. I think it was actually 60103 that was the last one converted from RHD.

 

As for the 9Fs, not many of those would have been running at express speeds. ISTR one managed 90 MPH on the ECML when deputising on an express, but that would have been LHD anyway.

 

 

Jason

[pH]

43 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

The Britannias on the ex GWR and LNER (GE section) had the driving position on the wrong side to see the signals on such a large locomotive. As did the MR, but the MR wasn't really a Pacific route.

But, relevant to that point, the MR route from London to Manchester did have Britannias for a few years, allocated to Trafford Park. One of them was timed at 99mph at Flitwick (‘British Pacific Locomotives’ by CJ Allen) - as far as I know, the fastest speed recorded for a Brit.