Standards - a Gigantic Waste ?

Ouch! Sorry about that. That will teach me to post in a rush.

However it still isn't all that good. The wear figures I quoted were for locomotives with a driving wheel diameter of 34" and cylinders of 17.375" stroke hauling trains heavier than the new A1 will be required to haul in it's life time. The work on these engines was carried out in the late 50s and early 60s so far as I can tell - they are two cylinder simple expansion types with modest maximum working pressure.

Sorry you did so badly with your Moggie (blame the oil?) but a Volvo B18 or B20 engine is regarded as perfectly run-in at that kind of mileage by some enthusiasts.

It is of great interest to me that it appears that nothing could be learnt from other fields of engineering and applied to improve the steam locomotive. Those who tried it (or even thought about it) must have been totally deceived.

Tornado is undoubtably divided drive. I can understand a degree of confusion since dividing drive is not regarded as the best solution when designing a three cylinder locomotive by some in the field. Porta's alternative A1 proposal was unified drive. I would like to read the full proposal paper on that one.

So back to the standards. Largely a waste in my view even if you take the state of the country and the people into account in the difficult post war years. Hundreds of engines built that were not as good as they should have been and were looked after in facilities that all too often were extremely dated. The politics of the modernisation program did the railways no favours.

 

Not remotely comparable. The lubrication environment for an four stroke internal combustion engine, being single acting, is entirely different and in many ways much easier.

 

Given your vast engineering knowledge, what changes would you have made to the designs?

 

What I don't understand why build 71000 Duke of Gloucester for? I understand it was built because of the Harrow and Wealdstone rail disaster in 1952. But just to build a loco on the back of a rail disaster seems over the top unless they were think of building a fleet of locos?

 

Or possibly not?

:: View topic - The Life and Death of 6202 - Part I
:: View topic - The Life and Death of 6202 - Part II
:: View topic - The Life and Death of 6202 - Part III
:: View topic - The life and Death of 6202 - Part IV
:: View topic - The Life and Death of 6202 - Bibliography

 

With respect, your suggestion seems nothing more than a set of coincidences. I think you need something stronger than withdrawal dates, loco record cards and a retrospective build order (which could have been issued at any time) to change minds.

 

Yes, it's a point I make myself: the 'evidence' is all circumstantial. But it's still there!

 

When was the first metal for the frames, boiler etc for 71000 first cut ?

 

Design drawings for parts of 71000 are dated from June 1953 to early 1954.

 

A superb piece of work, well put together and very readable.

May I add a couple of observations. firstly, Robin Riddles retired from his railway post in 1953 upon the abolition of the Railway Executive, therefore, he would have had little, if any input as to the fate of 6202. I think that by this time, Riddles could see what was coming from the politicians and the effects that it would have on the railways.

As for condemning 6202 and the building of 71000, I refer you to pages 154 to 158 of volume 2, "Under 10 CMEs", by E.A Langridge. Langridge states that the insurance money recovered from scrapping 6202 funded the construction of the new Pacific; how much money, he doesn't say. He also states that it was J.F. Harrison, the then Chief, who instructed him to draw up the new engine (71000) on Gresley principles for the engine parts, that is, 3 cylinders, but without the conjugated valve gear. He also describes the various compromises that had to be accepted in the design of the boiler for 71000.

Slightly off topic, but relevant to the foregoing discussions on this thread, Langridge's 2 volumes describing his time as a draughtsman for various railways over a 40 year period is a must read and the insight into design and building of locomotives is an education and spotlight on a long vanished World. If you are still there at the end of the platform in shorts with duffel bag and Combined Volume, plus obligatory copy of "Steam Beano/Patroniser", these books could be your passage into a greater understanding of what really happened at the locomotive works.

Thanks again LMS2968, I hope that the foregoing is of interest and thank you for the links to your splendid articles.

Cheers

Alan

 

or course, there is always the arguement that the standards were such good locos because they incorporated the best practice (in theory) of all the regions, and were built to suit any of those regions loading guages. While some of those classes LOOK like the classes they suceeded, if you look a little deeper, they are not as simular as they appear. Remember, the pre 1948 locos were also built with the parent companies operating conditions in mind, with no regard for those of other companies.

 

Another thing to consider regarding the Standards is that the railways were on their knees after the war and many locos which would have been scrapped and replaced by more modern designs had soldiered on and were beyond the end of their economical working lives. These needed replacing and the choice was between perpetuating pre nationalisation designs or building the Standards. I would argue that there was merit in both approaches but from a political point of view it was no doubt considered best to go for a corporate design rather than be seen to give preference to one of the pre nationalisation companies.

 

ragl. you have a pm!

 

Another mystery to me is why build BR Std class 6 locos for? Surely Brits or BR class 5s would have been able to cover for any work considered for a Clan. There was also going to be another batch of Clans to be built. With five of them going to the Southern Region. But why would the Southern need any more pacifics locos for when they already had 140 Bulleid Pacifics?

 

Bizarrely the Clan Pacific was originally to be the new BR Class 5 with 100's to be built. It was successfully argued by Roland Bond that whilst this might offer some advantages over a 4-6-0 in terms of boiler capacity/economy the extent Class 5's ( Black 5's , B1'S, Halls, etc) were more than capable of handling their usual duties - a new design must bring something else to the table. Br class 5 took the form of a Black 5 boiler mounted on Brit wheels with (very similar) Brit cylinders (lined up) with a standard Cab and fittings.
With the case for the 6MT a little uncertain the outlay was minimised by mounting a slimmer lighter boiler on a Brittania chassis and lining up the cylinders. The need for and subsequent success of the Brits on the Eastern region is well trumpeted, but again was a Class 7 really neccessary or was it a case of getting the more impressive Loco built first. Had the Clans come out first, been found wanting at the testing station and immediatley ' Corrected' theres no reason why they wouldnt have been equally as well received (though they would have been worked a little harder). An attempt to replace Brits with Clans at a later date lead to the judgement ' no better than a good B1' but if you wanted to keep your class 7's thats exactly what you would say...
The Southern Clans we're (I speculate) destined to be tested against the West countries and King Arthurs to see what they were capable of - with a view to replace the latter and either replace or justify the rebuilding of the former as more conventional locos, bearing in mind that the Clans had a good loading guage and light axle loading with the lot 242 clans being potentially lighter and with very little modification 'smaller' than the first batch as well... who knows.