Wright writes.....

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, Headstock said:

 

It's not like railway modelers to be specific, It's a fair point though. I'm happy to go with the 8K for all time champ.

 

Is that why even the LNER rebuilt them and all other railways that had them scrapped them pretty quickly? Even the GWR used them for lesser duties than the vastly superior 28XXs.

 

I like the GCR 2-8-0s, but the best? Far from it.

 

 

The correct answer is the LMS 8F BTW. Which to all intents and purposes is an improved GWR 28XX.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Denbridge]

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Is that why even the LNER rebuilt them and all other railways that had them scrapped them pretty quickly? Even the GWR used them for lesser duties than the vastly superior 28XXs.

 

I like the GCR 2-8-0s, but the best? Far from it.

 

 

The correct answer is the LMS 8F BTW. Which to all intents and purposes is an improved GWR 28XX.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Even Stanier, when congratulated on the work 8f's were doing during the war, said "The credit belongs with Churchward and the Great Western"

[Headstock]

47 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Is that why even the LNER rebuilt them and all other railways that had them scrapped them pretty quickly? Even the GWR used them for lesser duties than the vastly superior 28XXs.

 

I like the GCR 2-8-0s, but the best? Far from it.

 

 

The correct answer is the LMS 8F BTW. Which to all intents and purposes is an improved GWR 28XX.

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

I stand by my claim, one example of many you could turn around and service a Robinson so fast compared to the 28XX that you could get twice as many trips out of the engine in a day.

[t-b-g]

I love it when people state that something is "the best".

 

All locos have their good points and not so good ones. If they are strong, well built and reliable, they may have high initial build costs. Or require more high quality workshop care.

 

The ROD to the GCR design was built on the cheap and designed to last a few years. Put a loco like that on the GWR and expect GWR crews and fitters to work with them and it is no wonder they were relegated to secondary duties. Offer a GCR crew taking a coal train over Woodhead a choice of a 28XX or a GCR Robinson 2-8-0 and I wonder which they would choose and which hey would get better results with. A crew will always get better performances from the locos they know well and have lots of experience of. Inflict a "foreigner" on them and it is rare that they really like them and adopt them as part of their own fleet.

 

There is no "best". It is like playing the card game "Top Trumps". Each loco will score highly in some things and less highly in others.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Denbridge said:

The 28s gave an extremely good account of themselves in the 48 locomotive exchanges. A good case if 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. 

A good engine with a supreme artist of a Driver in the shape of 'Billy' Wells of Old Oak Common whom I was lucky enough to a have a long chat with during his retirement almost 40 years after the 1948 exchanges.  Although a comparatively junior Driver at the time he was specially selected to take the 28XX because even then his skill as a Driver was well known and highly respected.  Among other things I asked him if he had been given any special instructions about how to handle the engine to achieve its best performance, particularly in economical use of coal and water, and his answer was a very firm 'no';  followed by a comment that it was however made clear to him that it was up to him to show just how good a Western engine could be.

 

And according to those I've known who fired for him in later years on top link passenger work he was always known for being considerate of his Fireman's workload so was never heavy on the regulator and always made best use of the steam being provided for him, but still running on time with the heaviest of loads - a real gent among enginemen.

[MJI]

5 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I love it when people state that something is "the best".

 

All locos have their good points and not so good ones. If they are strong, well built and reliable, they may have high initial build costs. Or require more high quality workshop care.

 

The ROD to the GCR design was built on the cheap and designed to last a few years. Put a loco like that on the GWR and expect GWR crews and fitters to work with them and it is no wonder they were relegated to secondary duties. Offer a GCR crew taking a coal train over Woodhead a choice of a 28XX or a GCR Robinson 2-8-0 and I wonder which they would choose and which hey would get better results with. A crew will always get better performances from the locos they know well and have lots of experience of. Inflict a "foreigner" on them and it is rare that they really like them and adopt them as part of their own fleet.

 

There is no "best". It is like playing the card game "Top Trumps". Each loco will score highly in some things and less highly in others.

 

 

Unless only one of type. Hence my assertion about 28xx as there were no other 2-8-0s at the time

[Headstock]

30 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I love it when people state that something is "the best".

 

All locos have their good points and not so good ones. If they are strong, well built and reliable, they may have high initial build costs. Or require more high quality workshop care.

 

The ROD to the GCR design was built on the cheap and designed to last a few years. Put a loco like that on the GWR and expect GWR crews and fitters to work with them and it is no wonder they were relegated to secondary duties. Offer a GCR crew taking a coal train over Woodhead a choice of a 28XX or a GCR Robinson 2-8-0 and I wonder which they would choose and which hey would get better results with. A crew will always get better performances from the locos they know well and have lots of experience of. Inflict a "foreigner" on them and it is rare that they really like them and adopt them as part of their own fleet.

 

There is no "best". It is like playing the card game "Top Trumps". Each loco will score highly in some things and less highly in others.

 

What are you on about, top trumps is great fun and I've got a Robinson!

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, MJI said:

 

 

When first built the 28xx was the best freight engine in the country.

 

However it never really changed.

It was good enough for the GW and WR right up to 1965, but I'd say it was equalled within a decade of introduction by the Gresley GNR 01 (LNER 03) and 02, and later by the Stanier 8F.  But the 'ain't broke so don't fix it' philosophy was prevalent as Swindon in later years, and was a millstone around the neck of progress.  To build more 4 cylinder 7P Castles as late as 1950 was very much against the grain and while the engines worked ok, they took an unacceptably long time to prepare for traffic.  To want more of the same in late '51 when the WR was resisting Britannias as hard as it could and suggesting more Castles for the same work was just plain unrealistic...

 

Attitudes persisted nonetheless and the Brits were unpopular everywhere they went on the WR except Canton, where the value of a free steaming hard slogging 2 cylinder pacific for heavy 14 coach trains on banks that had the ability to run 'em up to 80mph+ on Brunel's billiard table run in to Paddington from Swindon was appreciated.  

 

The GCR 04/ROD was a good engine for one particular type of work, unfitted mineral trains, but not much cop as a general freight hauler.  No vacuum brake and poor riding made it unsuitable for anything other than what Robinson designed if for, the unfitted minerals.  It might have taken half the time to prepare that a 28xx did, but the 28xx would do twice the mileage in a day's work.  

[The Johnster]

You trump me in terms of prep time, reliability, sexy oval buffers, and for unfitted mineral work, and the ability to burn any coal shovelled into it.  My 28xx trumps your loco in terms of speed, ride, ability to work part-fitted and even passenger trains, looks, power, and steaming.

Edited October 24, 2019 by The Johnster

[queensquare]

Substitute favourite for best and there really is no competition - the &D 7F.

 

To echo what t.b.g said, the S&D 7Fs were found to have far superior brake power to anything else that was tested over the Mendip banks - hence their very long life for such a small, non-standard class. Many were tried and even the likes of WDs, 8Fs and 9Fs were found wanting in the brake dept. It was only really the decreasing amount of freight traffic over the line, and hence shorter trains, that finally saw the last of them retired in 1964 after fifty years of service to the line.

 

Jerry

[Clive Mortimore]

42 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I love it when people state that something is "the best".

 

All locos have their good points and not so good ones. If they are strong, well built and reliable, they may have high initial build costs. Or require more high quality workshop care.

 

The ROD to the GCR design was built on the cheap and designed to last a few years. Put a loco like that on the GWR and expect GWR crews and fitters to work with them and it is no wonder they were relegated to secondary duties. Offer a GCR crew taking a coal train over Woodhead a choice of a 28XX or a GCR Robinson 2-8-0 and I wonder which they would choose and which hey would get better results with. A crew will always get better performances from the locos they know well and have lots of experience of. Inflict a "foreigner" on them and it is rare that they really like them and adopt them as part of their own fleet.

 

There is no "best". It is like playing the card game "Top Trumps". Each loco will score highly in some things and less highly in others.

Hi Tony

 

While agreeing with you about everyone will have their own view on what is the best loco in a certain category, but in the case of heavy freight trains especially unfitted coal trains surely everyone knows that a Peak with a brake tender outclasses even the best steam locos.  

[Steamport Southport]

40 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I love it when people state that something is "the best".

 

All locos have their good points and not so good ones. If they are strong, well built and reliable, they may have high initial build costs. Or require more high quality workshop care.

 

The ROD to the GCR design was built on the cheap and designed to last a few years. Put a loco like that on the GWR and expect GWR crews and fitters to work with them and it is no wonder they were relegated to secondary duties. Offer a GCR crew taking a coal train over Woodhead a choice of a 28XX or a GCR Robinson 2-8-0 and I wonder which they would choose and which hey would get better results with. A crew will always get better performances from the locos they know well and have lots of experience of. Inflict a "foreigner" on them and it is rare that they really like them and adopt them as part of their own fleet.

 

There is no "best". It is like playing the card game "Top Trumps". Each loco will score highly in some things and less highly in others.

 

That's easy. An 8F or Class 76. 

 

 

Before anyone accuses me of petty "regionalism" I've just bought the last of the discount 02/3s from Hattons (which is what started this discussion I believe). Which will end up as 63957 as I've already got the numberplate and the numbers/lettering look a bit rubbish anyway. New chimney as well. 

 

Now, do I want an 02/4 as well? Maybe in the next few weeks if there are any left.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Headstock]

3 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

You trump me in terms of prep time, reliability, sexy oval buffers, and for unfitted mineral work, and the ability to burn any coal shovelled into it.  My 28xx trumps your loco in terms of speed, ride, ability to work part-fitted and even passenger trains, looks, power, and steaming.

 

Evening  Johnster,

I've heard that argument before, the problem is the LNER had most of the fast freight in the country and they had specialist locomotives to run it. Their fully fitted freight stock outnumbered that owned by the other big four  companies combined, by almost three to one. The 28xx may have had a good turn of speed but the GWR didn't really have much to utilise it on. Indeed the LNER freight business was gigantic compared to that of the GWR. 28xx was a great engine but a big fish in a small pond. The Robinson locomotive was out ridding the seven seas.

[APOLLO]

THIS loco Trumps everything !!

 

 

One just overhauled and returned to service within the last few months also. Well done Union Pacific.

 

Brit15

 

[The Johnster]

8 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening  Johnster,

I've heard that argument before, the problem is the LNER had most of the fast freight in the country and they had specialist locomotives to run it. Their fully fitted freight stock outnumbered that owned by the other big four  companies combined, by almost three to one. The 28xx may have had a good turn of speed but the GWR didn't really have much to utilise it on. Indeed the LNER freight business was gigantic compared to that of the GWR. 28xx was a great engine but a big fish in a small pond. The Robinson locomotive was out ridding the seven seas.

Given their mineral proclivities and reputation, it is not surprising that Pontypool Road had an allocation of ROD 30xx.  PRD men were used to working with LNW and LMS locos, and were perhaps less partisan than some other GW sheds.  They loathed the RODs, while admitting that they could pull, and reckoned that the 28xx was superior in every respect, but that was with Welsh coal of course.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Is that why even the LNER rebuilt them and all other railways that had them scrapped them pretty quickly? Even the GWR used them for lesser duties than the vastly superior 28XXs.

 

I like the GCR 2-8-0s, but the best? Far from it.

 

 

The correct answer is the LMS 8F BTW. Which to all intents and purposes is an improved GWR 28XX.

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

Evening Jason,

 

The LNER didn't rebuild them, they attempted to reboiler them in several forms. This had nothing to do with the abilities of the locomotives. It was purely the CME, first Gresley and then Thompson, discovering that another CME's locomotive had become a default standard type in preference to their own design. The reboilering was solely about realizing this and providing a standard boiler along the lines of what the incumbent CME wanted. That became various modifications of the O2 boiler from Gresley and the B1 boiler from Thompson. The latter was probably the more successful as ninety nine 04's of various original and Gresley boiler types eventually became O4/8 and another fifty eight became class O1 with the B1 boiler. Interestingly, there seems to have been little to chose performance wise between the original and the LNER boilers.

I have to say that the 8F's were not happy beasties on the Annesly Woodford runners, the class O1 outperformed them across the board. Much to the locomotive men's dismay, as they thought they were getting a good deal, thinking that the 8F that arrived in the sixties was a more modern locomotive.

[t-b-g]

The ex ROD 2-8-0s to the GCR design were built quickly, from second rate materials and expected to be worked very hard for their anticipated short working lives. They were sold off second hand, at very low prices and the railways that got them did just that. Many were bought just for the tenders because the price of a loco and tender was less than hat of building a new tender. If the railway could get a year or two of work out of the loco that was a bonus.

 

It is no surprise that they didn't last long and were not well loved.

 

It was astonishing that some lasted until the 1970s working in Australia.

 

The GCR variety was built to a better quality and lasted much longer in this country. Several attempts were made to improve on the design but locos in original condition lasted just as well as the rebuilds. The LNER only had so many good quality GCR pattern boilers which is why so many were reboilered as the ROD ones conked out.

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Tony,

 

I have just come across this on the RCTS site ......

 

Cl 4 No. 43060 on bridge over the ECML at Little Bytham 28/2/59 - Copyright RCTS

 

..... no doubt you've seen it, but it may be of interest to other members.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I have a copy John, thank you.

 

And it's been most useful in detailing this part of the model. When the model bridge is completed and installed, I'll try and take a similar picture. 

 

The date was the last day of through workings on the M&GNR. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Allegheny1600]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

THIS loco Trumps everything !!

 

 

One just overhauled and returned to service within the last few months also. Well done Union Pacific.

 

Brit15

 

Why? Is it a DM&IR 2-8-8-4??

 

Just kidding and pulling your leg somewhat, I know you have pictured a 'Big Boy'! Despite the name, however, they were not the biggest, other locos were longer &/ heavier &/ more tractive effort.

Pedant mode off now!

Cheers,

John.

[Allegheny1600]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi John

My experience from when I was modelling N. American railways- albeit just a terminus/switching layout- in the 1970s early 1980s was that most H0 stock was simply far more free running. I may have used separately bought trucks (bogies) that were actually fully sprung for some of it but ISTR even the trucks that came with shake-the-box kits being pretty good in that regard. I also suspect that they benefitted from the almost universal use of a single set of standards with NMRA RP25 wheel sets running on compatible track (Shinohara plus some handmade using NMRA gauges) so a better rail/wheel interface than the compromises needed to handle the dfferences between manufacturers here. I'm certainly aware of differences between the running of older Jouef carriages and wagons (Ugh!) and those from Roco that I strongly suspect are to RP25 or very very close. I don't know enough about current British OO products to know how far they've come in that regard.

Hi David,

Thanks for your response, I wonder if it would be good to open a separate topic about these matters?

Cheers,

John.

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

Once again, I cannot start a new post without it opening as a previous response. Heh Ho! 

 

In all this talk of 'best' (steam) loco for freight work, I'm surprised the 9F has not been mentioned. They could do anything which any of the other types cited could do (more easily) and they could also do something that none of the others could do; take an express at over 90 mph down Stoke Bank! Or take 'The Red Dragon' from South Wales to Paddington on a 'Castle' or 'Britannia' timing. Can anyone imagine a 28XX doing that?

 

Is it fair to say that they were the 'best' locos to work the Annesley-Woodford 'windcutters'? Certainly they were superior to the various O4s, O1s and the 8Fs.

 

Is it also fair to say that they were the 'best' locos ever to work over the S&D? 

 

They were also able to take one more bogie hopper in the trains on the Tyne Dock-Consett run than the O1s and Q7s could. 

 

On the long slog down the ECML from New England to Ferme Park, no Gresley 'Tango' could equal them. 

 

When I get a minute tomorrow, I'll take some pictures of the 'dry side' contenders for 'best'. 

 

I'll have to dig deep to find pictures of model 28XXs or 8Fs. How about the 'Super Ds'?

Edited October 24, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

How are these for starters?

 

 

Though I've built a few Stanier 8Fs (from Hornby/Comet conversions and DJH), they were for other people. The only other one I've done is this. It started out as a Hornby weathered 8F (for weathering, read a squirt of dirty brown thinners over its lower regions!) and all I've done is to detail it and weather it further. Having no use for it, I gave it away! 

 

 

 

These were the first 'proving' samples of Hornby's new 28XX, taken a decade ago in Margate. Was the original Hornby 28XX tender-drive?

 

More tomorrow...................................

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

THIS loco Trumps everything !!

 

 

One just overhauled and returned to service within the last few months also. Well done Union Pacific.

 

Brit15

 

Well it's big but it's not exactly elegant and, if you've got that much loading gauge to play with, designing a very large loco is comparatively easier.

 

Anyway it wasn't built in Britain.

 

Personally, I think the best goods engines built in Britain were these .

preserved 140-C-231 at Nogent sur Seine on 24th May 1987 : Creative Commons by Didier Duforest

 

From a total class of 340 locos designed by the Etat railway just 70 were built in France in 1913. All the rest were built in Britain between 1916 and 1920; 20 by Naysmith Wilson, 35 by Vulcan Foundry  and 215 by North British in Glasgow.

 

These also ended up being the the last class of main line steam locos in commercial service in France and 140C 287, one of the final North British batch delivered in 1917, hauled the country's last commercial steam train in September 1975. Being the last class in service allowed eight of these locos, all British built,  to avoid the scrapper's torch, one from Vulcan foundry and seven from North British including 140 C 287.

 

Preserved locos may be beautifully polished but these were hardworking goods locos 

140C188 at Sommesous (Marne) between  Troyes et Chalons-sur-Marne 23rd September 1958: CC by Ben Brooksbank

 

That may be a bit OT but it's interesting how many people's favourite heavy goods locos are 2-8-0s

Wherever they're working and whether built by Baldwin or the GWR,  I do find the  most aesthetically pleasing goods locos to be Consolidations. They just seem right in the role with an extra pair of generally smaller driving wheels to show they're built for heavy goods not speed but not going over the top with ten or more drivers.

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Pacific231G

[APOLLO]

2-8-0's ? - Black 8's for me - Here's one struggling up Boars Head bank on the WCML at Wigan in the last days of steam. One of Dad's photos. Another atmospheric shot.

 

I would have preferred a Big Boy here !!

 

 

Brit15

[Chamby]

In terms of ‘the best’, I’m surprised nobody has mentioned this variation on the 2-8-0 theme...

 

 

Top trumps on several counts, including coal consumption According to some!