Why are the J94/WD austerity 0-6-0's Unloved?

[ParkeNd]

Wilbert on the DFR is cute but the increasing popularity of the line means his limited haulage capacity is a disadvantage in the summer - so he gets sidelined for a slope tanked prairie.

 

[Gordon A]

ParkeNd,

Why does Wilbert have a limited haulage capacity?

Earl David (Ex Wemyss Colliery) could handle six Mk 1's with ease.

 

Gordon A

[peach james]

 

 

What can you good folks tell me about the history of Sapper?

Am I right in thinking that the non standard chimney indicates that Sapper was once fitted with an underfeed stoker?

What was the circular flap in the top half of the smokebox door for?

 

I will try to get some better pictures in due course.

 

Gordon A

 

 

http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/austerity/portaausterity.htm

 

Goes into detail about the modifications made to some of the engines, involving the gas producer firing system, underfeed stokers, chimney's, drafting arrangements, and lack of care...

[Gordon A]

http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/austerity/portaausterity.htm

 

Goes into detail about the modifications made to some of the engines, involving the gas producer firing system, underfeed stokers, chimney's, drafting arrangements, and lack of care...

 

Peach James,

 

Thank you very much for the information.

 

Gordon A

[ParkeNd]

ParkeNd,

Why does Wilbert have a limited haulage capacity?

Earl David (Ex Wemyss Colliery) could handle six Mk 1's with ease.

 

Gordon A

 

See technical responses below.

 

From a purely observers position, when 6 or 7 coaches are used and these are totally full of people, the uphill nature of DFR track makes Wilbert really struggle to pull away from a standstill.

[gandydancer]

Check out austerities tanks being thrashed at Astley Green Colliery in my films:

 

 

 

 

•  

 

[ben racey]

Great videos there gandy dancer!

 

Richard

[Torn-on-the-platform]

ParkeNd,

Why does Wilbert have a limited haulage capacity?

Earl David (Ex Wemyss Colliery) could handle six Mk 1's with ease.

 

Gordon A

 

I'm surprised that a small prairie would have any greater haulage capacity than an Austerity too (wikipedia says Austerities have a higher tractive effort - if that's how it works?).

 

I overheard at Blazing Saddles that Wilbert had been the worst performer of the 4 locos on the main duties (Royal Pioneer had been on Brakevan rides within the station limits prior to its withdrawal), but I don't remember the specifics. Perhaps it is just that Wilbert is restricted due to some kind of mechanical wear and tear.

[coachmann]

I'm a latecomer to this thread, so all this jabber of mine might already have been said : The J94's had no pedigree on BR in that they couldn't be said to be Fowler, Collett, Maunsell or whoever and they had no characteristic features from any Big Four designers. Plus they looked industrial and flippin' ugly..........Well, that's how I viewed them at the time when the railway had so many interesting locos to see. I mean, let's face it, the LMS Black Five and Austerity 2-8-0 were boring enough amongst LMR linesiders in the steam-era.  I quite like the J94's and Austerity 2-8-0's now! 

Edited August 8, 2016 by coachmann

[ParkeNd]

I'm surprised that a small prairie would have any greater haulage capacity than an Austerity too (wikipedia says Austerities have a higher tractive effort - if that's how it works?).

 

I overheard at Blazing Saddles that Wilbert had been the worst performer of the 4 locos on the main duties (Royal Pioneer had been on Brakevan rides within the station limits prior to its withdrawal), but I don't remember the specifics. Perhaps it is just that Wilbert is restricted due to some kind of mechanical wear and tear.

 

This is the prairie in comparison - it is relatively huge compared with Wilbert.

 

[Torn-on-the-platform]

I appreciate that it is bigger, and a fine machine! I assume most enthusiasts would prefer to see the prairie in steam (hence the topic of this thread), but does bigger necessarily mean stronger in this case?

[ParkeNd]

I must admit - I am stunned - you appear to be right. Hunslett 0-6-0 tractive effort 23870 lb ft, Class 5575 Prairie tractive effort 21250 lb ft. But Wilbert does struggle for some reason.

[LMS2968]

Tractive Effort is only part of it, and Nominal Tractive Effort, which is what you're quoting, has little practical application. Shunters had a high TE to get the load on the move - for a short distance. Then the regulator would be closed while the wagons or whatever went into wherever they were going, giving the boiler a chance to recuperate before it was opened again for the next short movement. Shunters were not designed to move their loads over long distances, which is what they are being asked to do now. The Prairie was designed to do that. It's the ability of the boiler to make and maintain steam pressure that's the issue. Nominal TE is of no relevance without the steam pressure to apply it.

[avonside1563]

A good austerity can supply plenty of steam to keep things moving well, the main difference between an austerity and a prairie is the smaller bearing surfaces of the austerity which means it will wear so much quicker. If you compare the size of the crank pin bearings on a prairie to those on an austerity you'll see a marked difference. However, like all classes of locos there are good ones and poor ones. Mech Navvies on the P&BR is certainly one of the better ones and will happily be seen to blow off if slightly over fired even with the main valve well open.

[jcredfer]

I have only just come across this site.

 

A recent question elsewhere has led me here on a search.  The original search was to find if there was ever one of these with an Army No 98.  I know about the 198, Royal Engineer, at IOW.  I can't find any reference to the same loco type numbered just 98.  {It seems the type were numberedstarting with 1**}  I did get on an Army Railway Operating course, but that was in 1962 and the memory for such detail is not there.

 

Thank you for reading.

 

Julian

[Marshall5]

The WD 'Austerities' were originally numbered 1437 - 1536 and 5000 - 5331 later having 70000 added to their numbers, so 5000 became 75000 etc.  The post war batches were numbered WD 190 - 203.  There was a WD loco numbered 98 but that was ex GWR 2415 a 'Dean Goods' not an 'Austerity'.  Hope this helps.

Ray.

[jcredfer]

The WD 'Austerities' were originally numbered 1437 - 1536 and 5000 - 5331 later having 70000 added to their numbers, so 5000 became 75000 etc.  The post war batches were numbered WD 190 - 203.  There was a WD loco numbered 98 but that was ex GWR 2415 a 'Dean Goods' not an 'Austerity'.  Hope this helps.

Ray.

 

 

Thank you Ray, that makes a lot of things very much clearer. 

 

Since posting I did manage to find 2 references, I hadn't seen before, which indicate that WD198 got sent to Long Marston as 98 {I believe, as renumbered around 1968 time, although why the renumbering I am not sure}

http://www.wimrail.org.uk/mag/Corkscrew064.pdf about halfway down page 9.

and the other was a single picture that turned up in a search, of the 2 Long Marston locos, with Royal Engineer numbered clearly as 98.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/22455491@N02/9861757194 

I assume that it was painted back as WD198 when it went to the IoW, around 1991??.  

http://www.iwsteamrailway.co.uk/RoyalEngineer.aspx 

 

They all had lively and varied lives in their time and probably deserve more credit than is evident.  {They were certainly good fun to drive.}

 

Thank you again for the clear information you posted, it is much appreciated.

Edited August 26, 2016 by jcredfer

[hank]

Hi folks,

after my lifelong concentration on the railway history of Austro-Hungaria, Czechoslovakia, Germany and generally on what we usually call Central Europe I am now in my mature age discovering the same of UK. Naturally, the Hunslet's Austerity can be hardly overlooked even from my distant post. I must nevertheless admit that however the internet sources are rich they do not provide me with all the answers searched for. Thus, I hope that for you - the professionals and knowledgeable railway fans - it is not difficult to let me learn what I am seeking.

 

1. The very first question coming to my mind is this one: What was the reason of using such design elements like the Stephenson valve gear, cylinders inside the underframe and slide valves as late as in the 1940s? The German, Austrian and Czech engineering design schools left this concept no later than before WWI. 

 

2. I could not find anywhere what was the Austerity's design speed... Here in this region of the Continent the maximum allowed speed is always a required part of any engine technical specifications - even of the humblest industrial shunters.

 

I hope my questions are not off-topic. I look forward to your answers. And please - apologize my English, my language practice is poor...

 

Greetings from Czechia,

hank

[Marshall5]

Hank, no need to apologize - your English is very good.  The WD had a need for a shunting loco that could be built cheaply, was simple to maintain, and could be produced quickly in preparation for the invasion of Europe. First thoughts were to build more LMS 'Jinties' but in the end the Hunslet 50550 was chosen as the basis for the Austerity 0-6-0ST. Whilst inside cylinders and Stephenson valve gear were old fashioned it was simple reliable,technology for maintenance 'in the field'.  As shunting locos I doubt the design speed was much above 25mph.

Ray.

[John_Hughes]

Hank, no need to apologize - your English is very good.  The WD had a need for a shunting loco that could be built cheaply, was simple to maintain, and could be produced quickly in preparation for the invasion of Europe. First thoughts were to build more LMS 'Jinties' but in the end the Hunslet 50550 was chosen as the basis for the Austerity 0-6-0ST. Whilst inside cylinders and Stephenson valve gear were old fashioned it was simple reliable,technology for maintenance 'in the field'.  As shunting locos I doubt the design speed was much above 25mph.

Ray.

 

In UK circles there was apparently a view - expressed most forcefully by the GWR - that it was important to have the big end of the connecting rod where it could be easily maintained, which inevitably implied inside valve gear.

[DLPG]

 

 

 

The A4s, Kings and Britainias often seen (and loved) on preserved railways aren't branchline locos either and so are just as inaccurate as a J94/Austerity. How often did Bridgenorth see Kings? How often Rawtenstall a Princess?

 

True, industrial/freight 0-6-0s wouldn't have had much to do with passenger work but then I'm guessing many of the larger "freight only" locos didn't spend much time on carriages in pre BR and BR days but do now in preservation.

 

What's more fun, a 4-6-2 barely making any effort with 6 Mk1 coaches trundling along at 20mph or a J94 actually putting some hard work in on the same load?

 

Give me the smaller locos any day!

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

 

Completely agree Steven. Give me a workhorse any day.

[avonside1563]

Wimblebury is nearing the end of an extensive overhaul at Foxfield which has included major firebox repairs and work on the motion to cure loose eccentric sheaves that appear to date back to pre-preservation. She should be back in service for the Gala over the 14th-16th July in an older unlined livery from her early days with the NCB.

[Killian keane]

If I'm right in saying that there are no less than 75 or so preserved examples, thats as many as the LNER had! For the most numerous class in preservation, I certainly find them far more interesting than the countless black fives, maybe thats just my predilection for industrial steam

[avonside1563]

I think the number preserved is 56 although that includes some that have been used to make Thomas characters and the one that was butchered for the broad gauge replica.

[Killian keane]

I think the number preserved is 56 although that includes some that have been used to make Thomas characters and the one that was butchered for the broad gauge replica.

Is that both the austerities and the j94s?