Premise: class 08 never built...

I've always had a soft spot for Fowler's 2F dock shunters. Pity no-one with the requisite funds did when the last one went in 1964. (Image credited to Wikipedia)

 

It seems that this class of tank engines has sink into oblivion?

 

Unfortunately so. I suspect many lines would find one of these locos rather useful for off peak traffic these days.

"Awww .... just look at those cute oval buffers!"

 

Of course there's always 2 cyl good, 4 cyl better ......

 

Didn't that one get rebuilt as a tender loco, with both incarnations being pretty short lived?

 

Whilst agreeing with many of the comments above about the 15xx, in service they had limitations - high axle loadings and the short wheelbase (and outside cylinders?) making them "lively" at speed. I suspect that if the 08s hadn't appeared when they did then BR would have simply built (or have built for them) more of what they had and knew - Panniers, J72s, Jintys, Austerities, etc - if they actually needed to - probably the existing ones would have just not been scrapped as quickly. In the event, modernisation was going to happen, the 08s did what was necessary, and more conveniently/efficiently than steam, etc. If it hadn't been the 08, it would have soon been another sort of diesel shunter, and in similar quantities.

Steve B

 

The 'jinty'. I remember David L Smith's description the GSWR men's reaction to them - 'something George Stephenson designed'. And it's hardly as if the GSWR was blessed with state of the art equipment in the 1920's.

 

Maybe, Steve. But the same argument could be said for the class 5. Why build a standard 5 when the LMS design does everything you want of a class 5?
For that matter, why build the standard 8 when the last Duchess rolled off the production line circa 5 years earlier?
For the same reason as the others, BR wanted a new set of modern locomotives of their own.

 

71000 is very much the exception amongst the 999 locos built, as it's three cylinder but I suspect it was a bit if a vanity project built with the 46202 excuse. The LMS black 5 didn't do everything asked of it, it didn't have the Standard layout and fittings. I suppose the Ivatt black 5s could be regarded as a step towards the |Standard class 5

 

Weyhey! Not sure about shunting ability, I think the main idea behind it was supposed to be faster accelerating stop-start services. All good fun though!

 

You do have to love wikipedia statements like that. After all outside cylinders and short wheelbase on an 0-6-0 pannier tank were such alien concepts to the GWR.

 

I'm afraid that statement on Wikipedia is one of those enthusiast myths that seems to become true by repetition but without much in the way of documentary evidence. (FWIW, the author of that Wikipedia page simply asserts that to be the case, and offers no evidence).

Think about it seriously - Swindon decides it needs a new shunting engine, and a bit of thought is put into all the ideal characteristics that such a loco should have. Do you think it might just be more likely that a short wheelbase, outside cylinder loco might present itself as an obvious solution quite independent of the existence of the USA tanks? There's only so many permutations of wheels, cylinders and valve gear that it is possible to come up with.

Tom

 

That's exactly what I mean, saying 'they would just have built more Jintys (Jinties? Jintii?)' is the same as saying 'they would just have built more black 5s' which we know they did not, they redesigned everything to have a similar appearance, sets of fittings, layout etc.

 

Re leaving diesels running. Agree with the comment thatthere were problems regarding battery capacity and starting.DMUs seemed to be significantly vulnerable. The other factor is that s diesel were not as turn the key and go as people think. On an 08 the day fuel tank is located above the engine and is gravity feed. The problem is that fuel needs to be pumped up into the day tank by hand pump. Also needing a hand pump is initial oil pressure. Before starting an 08 you have to manually pump up the oil pressure before engaging the starter

 

If not for diesels there would have been a need for 1000+ shunters, probably 1500 or more. A standard loco for shunting purposes would be needed but also maybe a 1F loco for transfers etc, maybe in the role later filled (very nearly) by the class 14, what might that have looked like? Has to be light for places like the Forest of Dean and of course Standard

 

Ok, I had another stab at it and based this one around the 15xx rather than the S100. The length, height, wheelsize/wheelbase etc is exactly the same. The cylinders are more inclined, though.

EDIT. Stupid rookie mistake, I used a Std. 3 as a donor image which is far too big!

 

Another interesting loco from you, thanks a lot! The very inclined cylinders is this regarding the narrow british loading gauge?

Knut

 

Prehaps the front of the tanks would've sloped, like the J50 or Urie's hump shunters to improve driver's forward vision? Would an electric headlight each end make life easier for crews at night? Or, for flexibility, dual braked and/or steam heating connections (for banana traffic or ECS heating)? Might duplicate controls be provided to permit LH or RH drive? .... and can I put in a plug for oval buffers? Jolly useful when shunting round corners.

..... and (being very picky, sorry) is that in mixed traffic lined black? Surely one would have had difficulty making out the crest and number through the inevitable grime, let alone lining! Maybe one lucky class member might even have received full lined passenger livery, due to being selected to haul a royal train on the last stretch to somewhere like Weymouth Quay? And if it was, you can bet that would be the one bagged for RCTS specials. Now there's a thought ....

.... and here's another one .....

Concerning Ivatt's class 4, I had a slight nightmare imagining a possible LMS predecessor of this beastie ..... and now, coz one may not unthink something, you're going to have nightmares about it too. Why should I suffer alone!

 

Inside cylinder or not, for shunting work an Austerity in reality would knock the spots off anything else suggested on this thread - the coal board didn't standardize on a fleet of them for no reason.

They are tough, powerful, free steaming, simple, and easy on the crew. Also eminently single single-man-able unless being used very intensively, (or put another way, I've done "reorganize the entire known universe" days of shunting as one of a crew of two, and had no problem keeping it in steam with one or other of us on the ground as shunter)

 

One other thought - most of the mock-ups in this thread have wheels that are way too big for a shunting loco.