LMS 8Fs built during World War Two?

[OnTheBranchline]

Hello all,

 

I was just curious about the 8Fs. Was it a political choice rather than a strictly technical one to choose the 8F as the primary freight locomotive to be built during World War Two? I'm not suggesting that the 8F isn't without technical merit. I am just speculating on whether politics did come into the decision or not (because even in wartime, a government does not make decisions above politics).

 

Also, would the ones built at Swindon have had the LMS livery put on them or would they have just been painted black?

[Londontram]

It was a good chance that R A Riddles being an LMS man under Stanier that when he became director of transportation at the ministry of supply in WW2 that he would look at engines he knew best first, time were desperate he had to make choices quick so why make the job harder than it needed to be. The 8F was an in production model so no major re-tooling was needed its a good general purpose engine with a good loading gauge so fitted the bill realy

[Bernard Lamb]

The War Department decide that this would be the heavy freight loco in November 1939.

A technical decision it would seem as Londontram points out.

It did become political later as the other three big companies were reluctant to become involved in any costs after the machines were no longer required by the government.

Bernard

[bike2steam]

As Londontram sez, it was also the most modern design available at the time, reliable, and easier to maintain than any other, even so some corners were cut to make it cheaper, ending up with even more fabricated parts instead of cast, revamped as the WD. The LNER O2 had been considered but too expensive to build, almost twice the price of the 8F, plus the third cylinder was considered a weak point where limited maintenance was available in remote locations.

Being a Stanier fan, I regard the 8F, along with the Black 5, as being one of the best loco designs to grace the railways of not just this country, but the world.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Riddles actually looked wider than only at the current Crewe product. The extremely good reputation the Robinson 2-8-0 had obtained in the previous conflict suggested this as suitable, buty was stymied by the non-standard nature of the fleet by the time of WWII. Having run into problems getting the Stanier design built economically - an unnecessarily expensive loco with its fancy Belpaire boiler - and having assessed this loco and the O2 as costing roughly twice as much as the loco he wanted to build, which was of course the WD 'Austerity' 2-8-0, he had the trouble of working up this lowest cost possible design under wartime conditions. Succeeded mightily, an object lesson in focus on the essentials.

 

Critique of the Stanier design by post war users of the type, left behind in the middle-east. Systematically rebuilt with round top boilers by at least two government railways if I recall correctly.

[Edge]

The 8f was an excellent design (evidenced by the fact that they were still around until the last day of steam) that did the job well.

 

I think Riddles being an LMS man didn't hurt his decision to construct 8fs, but there had to be practical reasons for it as well.

 

The fact that the design was also kept running in a great many of the countries that it was exported to points to its usefulness and suitability for its task

[Bernard Lamb]

But it was a Doncaster machine that survived to the end.

Stanier design coupled with LNER trained workers takes a bit of beating.

Hallo

Any body there in Swindon?

Bernard

[The Stationmaster]

But it was a Doncaster machine that survived to the end.

Stanier design coupled with LNER trained workers takes a bit of beating.

Hallo

Any body there in Swindon?

Bernard

But of course - always good to hear about the exploits of the later versions of GW designs as found under the Stanier regime on the LMS.  Swindon of course wanted to build more 28Xx but their request was turned down due to the engines being out-of-gauge on many lesser railways, hence the LMS version of the design was chosen instead pending development of the Riddles 'austerity' design.

[asmay2002]

Critique of the Stanier design by post war users of the type, left behind in the middle-east. Systematically rebuilt with round top boilers by at least two government railways if I recall correctly.

 

Hardly.  Without the correct press blocks to produce the Belpaire end plates in their primitive workshops you can only build the inherently more dangerous round top boiler. (An experience with a bulging K3 boiler put Bulleid off round tops completely).

 

Those well trained LNER workers produced parts to tolerences that other companies scrapped at.

[EddieB]

Of the locomotives that passed into the hands of national railways post-war, it has been noted that the Egyptians preferred the ancient RODs to the new fangled 8Fs.  While the 8Fs lingered on many of those systems, they tended to be restricted to shunting and light duties (as indeed did the USATC 2-8-0s) whilst on British Railways their longevity was thanks to their production volume and standardisation at least as much as any technical superiority over their rivals.

 

Worldwide, the 2-8-0 ("Consolidation") was probably the most numerous steam locomotive type.  The 8Fs were significant, but had their peers in the 140Cs in France, the RODs, the USATC/UNRRA and the Riddles Austerity designs (other 2-8-0s are available),

[simon47603]

Forget the rivalry between the Big Four and who had the best engine. You have to look at it from the War Department's and the Army's point of view. The 8F was the only modern freight loco in major production in 1939. So ordering large numbers of 8F's would have been quicker and easier than restarting major 28XX production. As a supply chain is already in place for long term orders for the LMS, so ramping up production would be far easier. So the 8F is the only real choice for the WD in 1939.

 

However, the UK's Wartime situation between 1940/42, is grim. And here lies the reasons production was swapped from the 8F to the Riddles WD Design.

 

The 8F was expensive, it took too long to build. It required a lot of precious metals. It was a complicated machine to maintain. Now that's ok, if you are the LMS and you have Crewe works or major MPD's every 50 miles or so. But if you are a Royal Engineer Loco fitter in the North African Western Desert with a basic Railway Workshop to hand, Crewe Works is an awfully long way away! The LMS 8F was designed as an express freight engine with a long lifespan and also required major facilities to maintain them!

 

But what the Army required was a simple locomotive, easy to maintain, capable of pulling a 1000 ton Ammo Train through the Western Desert at 30 miles an hour without fuss. The loco only needed to last the duration of the war, not the Forty or so years the 8F was designed to do. The WD's were designed to be simple and were cheap and cheerful. They had a planned Severn year lifespan and more importantly, could be built more quickly in greater numbers. That is what the Army needed and that is what Mr Riddles delivered.

[bluebottle]

But of course - always good to hear about the exploits of the later versions of GW designs as found under the Stanier regime on the LMS.  Swindon of course wanted to build more 28Xx but their request was turned down due to the engines being out-of-gauge on many lesser railways, hence the LMS version of the design was chosen instead pending development of the Riddles 'austerity' design.

 

 

And very good Stanier's locos were, Mike, once his LMS backup team helped him to build ones that would run on Yorkshire coal. Reminds me a little of the banquet scene in the film "The Seven Little Foys". Host George M. Cohan (James Cagney) invites Eddie Foy (Bob Hope) to join him in a dance display on the table -

"You know my routines?" asks Cohan.

"I should do, I did them first."

"And I did them right!"

[EddieB]

The 8Fs built at Swindon for the Railway Executive Committee were numbered in the LMS sequence (8400-79).  An illustration of 8400 in Russell's "A Pictorial Record of Great Western Absorbed Engines" shows that it also carried LMS lettering on the tender.  These locomotives were regarded as LMS stock, on loan to the Great Western (the GWR having previously taken loan of twenty-five 8Fs from the LMS between November 1940 and September 1941), all but four joining the LMS fleet (proper) in 1946.

 

I find it rather ironic that Swindon should end up building eighty of these locomotives, which incorporated many Swindon features as a product of Stanier's earlier career there.  One notable feature that did improve the Swindon legacy was the adoption of outside Walschaert's valve gear.  That the route restrictions of the GWR 2-8-0s largely disqualified their adoption by the Ministry of Supply has been noted already, but I suggest the inaccessibility of inside valve gear would have been a significant hindrance to their military use and even the 8Fs built for the War Department had modifications to enable piston rings to be changed more easily.

[bike2steam]

Tourret's book on 'Allied Military Locomotives Of The Second World War' (0-905878-06-X) makes very interesting reading, and may blow away many of the myths some, with particular railway bias,may possess, especially concerning the ROD's.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=allied+military+locomotives+of+the+second+world+war

 

edit - may(1st) for my (oopps)

[EddieB]

Yes, the Tourret book has the advantage of being an update and merging together of his two earlier works and therefore represents the mature results of prolonged study.

 

I'd also recommend Rowledge's "Heavy Goods Engines of the War Department", published in three volumes (1 = RODs, 2 = 8Fs, 3 = Austerities).  Long out of print and slightly uncommon, used copies are generally available from the usual suspects.

[The Stationmaster]

The 8Fs built at Swindon for the Railway Executive Committee were numbered in the LMS sequence (8400-79).  An illustration of 8400 in Russell's "A Pictorial Record of Great Western Absorbed Engines" shows that it also carried LMS lettering on the tender.  These locomotives were regarded as LMS stock, on loan to the Great Western (the GWR having previously taken loan of twenty-five 8Fs from the LMS between November 1940 and September 1941), all but four joining the LMS fleet (proper) in 1946.

 

I find it rather ironic that Swindon should end up building eighty of these locomotives, which incorporated many Swindon features as a product of Stanier's earlier career there.  One notable feature that did improve the Swindon legacy was the adoption of outside Walschaert's valve gear.  That the route restrictions of the GWR 2-8-0s largely disqualified their adoption by the Ministry of Supply has been noted already, but I suggest the inaccessibility of inside valve gear would have been a significant hindrance to their military use and even the 8Fs built for the War Department had modifications to enable piston rings to be changed more easily

 

It has always been presented as a loading gauge issue in respect of teh 28XX but I think in reality the main reason that Swindon proposed them was because it meant they could immediately build some more for the GWR instead of potentially (and in the event, actually) having to build someone else's design.

 

 

As far as the inside valvegear is concerned the big drawback was that it meant the need for a pit when oiling or taking down motion and that would require more puissant servicing & maintenance facilities - not that it stopped the War Department from taking a reasonable sized fleet of Dean Goods engines for the second tile and sending some of them off with the BEF.  In everyday working Churchward's original choice of inside valvegear because it offered larger bearing surfaces was probably borne out by experience - Western inside valvegear suffered a massive amount of mistreatment/non-treatment during the war but there has never been any reference to an increased number of failures in traffic as a result.

[bluebottle]

Tourret's book on 'Allied Military Locomotives Of The Second World War' (0-905878-06-X) makes very interesting reading, and may blow away many of the myths some, with particular railway bias,may possess, especially concerning the ROD's.

....

 

Always worth having at least one really authoritative work on any subject you have an interest in, and Tourret's sounds like a name you could swear by ......... !

 

Edit: Clumsy typing

[OnTheBranchline]

I say no government decision is above politics by evidence of Riddles choosing the old LNWR livery for the normal engines in British Railways.

[Dava]

I've never seen a photo of a 8F rebuilt with roundtopped firebox so would be interested in which 2 govt ralways apparently systematically rebuilt them thus?

 

Dava

[br2975]

 

Being a Stanier fan, I regard the 8F, along with the Black 5, as being one of the best loco designs to grace the railways of not just this country, but the world.

 

Yes, designed on the back of Stanier's forty or so years experioence gained at Swindon.

 

Brian R

[Bomag]

Yes, designed on the back of Stanier's forty or so years experioence gained at Swindon.

 

Brian R

 

Probably 40 years of learning that progress should be continuous and that there is merit in developing designs even when the original was good 'for its time'. The first castle may have been better than an A10 (A1 as first constructed) but it had been eclipsed in terms of design when the last castle was delivered in 1950. 

[The Stationmaster]

So if it was a case of inside valvegear the reason the GWR 2884 class not used, why did the MOS use inside cylinder engines for the 0-6-0 T shunting/trip work engines as there will be less chance of pits etc where these engines worked.

 

A very good point, and of course as I'd said the military were taking Dean Goods (and Robinson 2-8-0s) so clearly they didn't consider it impossible to deal with inside valvegear even if others might have.

[br2975]

Probably 40 years of learning that progress should be continuous and that there is merit in developing designs even when the original was good 'for its time'. The first castle may have been better than an A10 (A1 as first constructed) but it had been eclipsed in terms of design when the last castle was delivered in 1950. 

 

As I said in my orginal post, designed on the back of his 40yrs experience gained at Swindon.

 

Brian R

[bike2steam]

As I said in my orginal post, designed on the back of his 40yrs experience gained at Swindon.

 

Brian R

 

 

Yes a well known fact, and Stanier had to move on to be able to expand his ideas, as a capable man in Collett, hampered by tradition, and stagnation, stood in his way at the GWR. 

[OnTheBranchline]

Yes a well known fact, and Stanier had to move on to be able to expand his ideas, as a capable man in Collett, hampered by tradition, and stagnation, stood in his way at the GWR. 

 

Collett had one more year of seniority than Stanier, and that's why he got the job.

 

When you have perfection, why mess with it?