BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

For details of the modifications I can do no better than to refer you to the Hengist website and project prospectus.
The whole story is explained on there and makes good reading.
In the years since this project started there has been an incredible amount of research and investigation into the product, to my eyes anyway!
Even now care is taken to ensure that any mods are agreed with the relevant parties. (As you would expect!)

 

Agreed its a cracking read(if your a BR Standard saddo like me), though i think youve got your finger on the significant ones Sheff, Blast pipe, frame stretcher/spring hanger castings (to reinforce the frames where the brits had shown a tendency to crack) the trailing truck is a 71000 style, additional tender footplate (as per 9f) and just about any improvement to fixtures and fittings that arose through service on the Standards - a real thorough job.
i think because the order was cancelled, and not just pending, the exec never got round to crossing out 'Walshaerts' and scribbling on 'Caprotti' which i think is the only significant modification you could make to a BR Standard that wouldnt be erm, non standard. A longer wheelbase 6,000 Gal tender was proposed for a batch of 9f's which like Hengist, was destined for the southern region but it would be purely conjecture as to whether this idea would have been realised with the southern Clans

 

The BR4 tender was actually designed and drawings produced.

 

Indeed, and if you were needing a new tender for a mainline standard then this design would be the one to build. Doesn't look like Hengist is intended for mainline work so this idea, like caprotti valve gear, geisl ejectors, etc is all a little surplus to requirements. Im sure Hengist will be a popular addition to the fleet wherever it ends up based / visiting, an ideal 'Big' engine for the longer Preserved lines SVR, MHR, NYMR. and one or two others which are steadily getting longer... oo er missus.

 

Indeed, and if you were needing a new tender for a mainline standard then this design would be the one to build.
I can't argue with that comment. The way I understand it from the website, Hengist will receive the 1B type with 4,725 gallons of water and 7 tons of coal. This was proposed by BR for the Southern area because of lack of water troughs. It would seem sensible to do this since we haven't got any water troughs anywhere now, (or do you know better??) Did I see somewhere that GCR might build some?
Also from the website, the tenders for these 5 72XXX were re allocated to 9Fs which were not completed

 

A few people think they should but i cant see it happening for a whole host of reasons - im not even sure they have a suitable length of track anyway.

Chris

 

Seriously, did somebody look at the southern region and think 'I know what we don't have enough of, light pacifics'?

 

How long do they need to be, it's not as if we're actually looking to fill the tender... just demonstrate how it was done.

They would only really be used at gala's so neednt all the infrstructure such as water supply & heating..

I'd imagine with creativity it could be quite a cheap thing to do.. could they even be plastic drain pipes, or pieces of corrugated roofing ? used as troughs filled from a hosepipe which could be lifted afterwards ?

It'd make a bit of a splash at a gala (pun intended).

 

The major drawback to all this is the lack of locos still fitted with a scoop.

 

Yes its bizarre isnt it, maybe the idea was to introduce and test them under the working conditions that wc/ bb had and evaluate them against the Locomotive concept that no doubt inspired them. This done it would be a case of new build versus rebuild. But given the excellent Bulleid boiler and the tidy 'standard' look of the rebuilds its no wonder that the order never proceeded.

As for tenders with scoops, i thinkone or two of the NRM's Museum Pieces have them ...

 

How fast would you need to be running to actually get water into the tender? I can't see 25mph being enough, to be honest.

 

if its a demo train (ie no passengers) they can run a but quicker on the GCR ?

 

Sticking my neck out here....

I think that you can work out what speed is required to scoop water up to a certain height like this: Assume that the water needs to reach a height of 12 feet above the trough in order to get into the tank. If you dropped an item from 12 feet, how fast would it be going when it hit the ground? Equation of motion V^2 = 2AS. A = 32 (ft/sec/sec) S = 12. V^2 = 768, so V = 27 (ft/sec), which is about 18 miles/hr. The train is going at 25 miles/hr, which is greater than 18, so it would work at that speed. Any improvements on that?

 

From what I gather, BR may have been intent on gradually replacing the unrebuilt light pacifics with 6MTs until further constuction was stopped in 1955. In the event, the rebuilding/modification programme was implemented in 1956 on the MNs, and the light pacifics followed suit in 1957, thus negating the need for further pacifics on the Southern. However, I stand to be corrected on this, as I'm not entirely sure what BR's motives were for allocating 6MTs to the Southern. However, if true, it would be interesting to know if BR would have rebuilt the Bulleids had they gone ahead with the planned second batch of 6MTs?

 

unfitted freights used troughs didn't they?

 

You'll pick up water at 25mph. Troughs weren't the sole preserve of expresses.

 

It is my understanding that the 72xxx engines would have been welcome on S&D route as that route had similar curves and gradients to the scottish routes. It is also said that the rebuilt Southern locos gained weight so they were not so suitable for some of the routes, + the work cost quite a bit of cash which could buy the new engines.
Anyway, if anyone is in doubt as to the progress on this project check out the website. Sponsorship of the pattern for the cast steel frame stretcher and steam brake support has been achieved. This is the last vertical frame stretcher and is one of the re-designs that were to be carried out on the lot 242 clans. The patterns for the foot for trailing frame keeps are now at the foundry and the castings should be ready in 6-7 weeks time. These are a steel casting and are also a modification for the lot 242 clans; the original clans had separate spring hangers that were riveted on to the frames.
Yes, I know patterns have to be cast and always require machining, but a pattern is often the most expensive part, + once you have one you can make as many parts as you need, for other engines as well.
I am not really sure as to the viability of a 'temporary demonstration only' water trough installation. The forces involved on the track/trough fixings when scooping up water at any reasonable speed could be interesting.

 

There we're a number of Rebuilding ideas looked at, some of the wc/bb's as two cylinder machines (considered) would have also solved this problem. makes you wonder at what stage the cut off point between rebuild/ recycle would have been. (no need to scrap althose perfectly good boxpock wheels ... !)

 

There were a few Bulleids allegedly withdrawn with cracked inside cylinders, so perhaps the opportunity is still there to try out one or more of the renbuilts as a two cylinder engine - it would also free up a spare crank axle and help to reduce the shortage of these! It isn't often that the full power of the three cylinder engine is needed on heritage lines.

 

Still a helluva boiler/ grate area to keep upto ...