Black 5 44901

Whilst individuals are free to do with their money as they wish, I wonder what the merit is of building a Caprotti Black 5? The available literature from before 1968 tends to say that crews didn't like the Caprotti 5's in that they were weak when it came to a hard slog, such as over the Settle & Carlisle. Now whether this was a design issue or crews being unfamiliar with how to drive such a loco compared to a Walschaerts 5 is open to debate. Also the Caprotti 5's mods appeared to spoil the looks of the loco. Maybe it was the raised running plate and the large fairings from the cylinders to the smokebox? Strangely a Caprotti Standard 5 doesn't really suffer in this respect.

Anyway, each to their own, if it floats their boat, good luck to them

46118

 

I always rather liked them! Although I only ever saw 44687. As you say each to his own.

This is their website http://www.britishcaprottiblack5.org.uk/

Dave

 

There were in effect two Types of Caprotti Black 5, the earlier ones had the original splashers and running plate chopped out and the oversize steam pipe fairings and the valve gear drive between the Frames
The Last two which were considered a reasonable success had the Flying Pig style high running plate, outside valve gear and double chimneys.
The Performance of these two gave BR the impetus to use the Gear on 71000 and the Caprotti Standard 5's ( why didn't the Caprotti Std 5's have double Chimneys ? probably because they wouldn't have sounded loud enough ? ask Mr Ell, )
Hoping Santas going to bring me the RCTS Black 5 Bible Part 2 so I can read up a bit more...

 

The Caprotti Fives did indeed gain a poor reputation among crews for their inability to climb, but the last two were very different and performed much better. Whether or not they would out-perform a standard Black 'un is a different matter, and with so many of these preserved I'm not sure of the justification of adding to their numbers, even with thw Caprotti modifications.

 

Was any benefit observed from the double chimney locos 4765/6, relatively unmodified in other respects? 4767 if course started out with a double too. Digressing!

 

According to the latest Irwell Press Book not enough to justify the modification for the remainder of the class. A similar situation with the Jubilees, I think, one was fitted pre war with a Kylchap and we had Two post war, one still with us but it was not worth converting any more it seems.

 

Im sure the likes of Mr Koopmans will point out that the ability to prescribe the correct dimensions for double chimneys, Kyllchap or otherwise was a little lacking at the time and therefore they didn't always work as well as they might.

 

The last two black fives - 44686/44687 - were indeed successful. When new, they were allocated to Longsight Depot and were considered a Class 6 and allocated duties accordingly, being rostered for Express Passenger duties.

These two locos may well have been seen as the way ahead, but they arrived at the same time as the Britannias - 1951 - and not long after, railway motive power policy changed dramatically.

As for the Standard Five Caprottis, if ever there was a need for at least a double chimney it was on these engines, the transformation of 71000 demonstrates what the Standard Caprottis could have delivered. One wonders if 73129 would benefit from a once over in the smokebox........

As for financial comparisons, the above mentioned Britannia came in at £17,520, 44686/44687 were £20,642 - each. The Standard Caprottis were also expensive, costing over £6000 more that a Walschaerts Standard Five. Worth it? probably not, but wonderful locomotives; a pity that only 2 Caprotti locos survived.

Cheers,

Alan

 

In this country, yes. But in Italy, a 2-6-0 no 625.308 with Caprotti valve gear is (slowly!) being overhauled in Pistoia, and they also have a 2-8-0, 744.118, which may get overhauled in the next few years. There are a couple of others in museums as well.

 

Brief deviation on the Italian locos. There is also a narrow gauge version as well which is quite a sight.

 

The key word in that sentence is transformation, the Standard Caprottis had a far from optimal exhaust system.

The Black Five Caprottis - both types - and probably the Standards were a feature of the North Western Lines in North Wales, would loved to have had the opportunity....

Cheers,

Alan

 

I meant to ask Martin, Which locos was the driver referring to? The first batch of Black Five Caprottis, or 44686/44687?

Cheers,

Alan

 

deleted

 

If you have a copy of "The Power of the Black Fives" to hand, have a look at the introduction, written by a chap who was involved with valve and motion repairs on the Caprotti 5's at Crewe works. He says the general opinion of crews was " fast but weak". He also cites an apparent difficult relationship with Caprotti in respect of the supply of spare parts. He also felt the Caprotti people would have preferred the valve and motion work to be contracted out to them, rather than undertaken in-house.
Quite a difference, when an outside supplier is involved, compared to creating your own traditional loco parts in your own foundry/forge/machine shop?

46118

 

What, let the new fangled valve gears designers help service it ? outrageous....
Perhaps if this had been allowed to happen the 'fast and weak' impression would have been put to bed...

 

Interesting points nonetheless. However, is the reference "fast but weak" aimed at the first batch of Caprotti fives or the last two - 44686/44687? These two locomotives, as mentioned upthread, were particularly well rated as operational units.

As for ALE wanting to conduct maintenance work on the Caprotti motion element of the locos, at this distance in time, it's difficult to know the foundation for this policy, perhaps they knew something about Crewe quality, or maybe they were looking for a commercial advantage; ALE spent a lot of time and money lobbying various offices of British Railways during the 40s - 50s, indeed, the 4-6-0 County class on the GWR/Western Region came very close to being fitted with Caprotti gear. Anyway, nothing new about outside contractors working on behalf of the main line railways, count all of those unwanted pannier tanks built in the 1950s by Yorkshire Engine. Also, reputedly, the best of the Black Fives were built by Armstrong Whitworth. Anyway, by the end of the 50s, all of those German and Swiss diesels were flooding our railways, change indeed.

There is no doubting the soundness of any argument that ALE had with fitting their British Caprotti gear, witness the efficiency records set by 71000; however, the cost was eye watering by 1950s standards; it does make you wonder if ALE got the order for the Standard Fives just to keep them quiet!!

ALE did have another superb piece of equipment in their portfolio - the Kylchap Exhaust - only £200 compared to £5 - £6000 for a 2-cylinder set of of Caprotti gear, perhaps they should have worked harder flogging that piece of kit.

All interesting conjecture, but you can't help but look at the "if only" of all of those Caprotti fitted locomotives keeping steam on BR long enough for me to buy an SLR camera to record them!!

Cheers

Alan

 

Rotary cam valve gear was very successful in other countries when properly maintained - Malaysia, India, Argentina - but with poor maintenance (traditional railway workshop fitter rather than specially trained mechanic) became very difficult to keep reliable.