Standard 8MT 2-8-2 New Build

So had an anti standard/ new design stand point been arrived at, the building of regional designs would i think still have been checked. with only selected (no doubt LMS Classes for the most part) being built perhaps as follows
No more class 8's as none we're required
All the scots and patriots reboilered as Class 7's, castles and bulleid pacific building stopped.
Some Bulleid light pacifics would have gone to and stayed at the eastern region and probably all been rebuilt a lot sooner
No more halls and b1's would have been sanctioned , and more Black 5's ( caprotti ones?) built
More Ivatt 4's and 2;s as happened anyway.....more FAIRBURN tanks ?
More 8f's and v2's ?) or perhaps a 9f developed from the austerity 2-10-0 ?

 

So where's your suburban tank engine? Effectively there's not a lot of difference between a Fairburn and a Standard 4 tank, but given smaller cylinders and a higher pressure to compensate gives better route availability: that looks like a pretty sound design decision to me. And where is the Western Region in the above: they may have been conservative, but without impending electrification, are you suggesting that they soldiered on with gradually aging the narrow-firebox, inside-motion machines in a time of deteriorating coal supplies and increased labour costs?

Tom

 

Sorry Tom, post corrected regarding suburban tanks, and judging by the prevailing attitudes / undoubted build quality of the western region that would have been the option they themselves would choose. The Problem would be easily solved by letting Swindon build the classes they we're most in need of.

 

But then loco building by BR was for National needs - not local / regional needs - hence the decision to continue regional designs had to be restricted although the GWR Castle and Pannier, LMS Stanier 5, LNER A1 / A2 and NER J72 designs were perpetuated by BR in the short term until the Standard designs began to appear. In terms of Swindon costs these appeared higher when compared with other BR workshops; for example both works built the Class 52 locomotives but Swindon's examples cost £131,230 per loco compared with Crewe's price of £119,104 per loco despite the smaller number built. At these prices - especially in times of financial shortages that influenced BR traction policies - it is little wonder that Swindon had less construction but more repair work.

 

Isn't that argument somewhat weakened by the number of standard classes that had purely regional distribution?

when it comes to the WR I am reminded of this cartoon. No doubt that the BR standards led to a big decrease in standardisation. Another criticism might be that at the grouping the GWR had a big program of wherever possible converting absorbed locos to use standard fittings and components, but introduced few new classes. I wonder if such an approach might have been better for BR?

 

• Extend SR electrification to all the London suburban lines.
• Prioritise electrification for other city suburban services.

 

As mentioned previously BR had no money to afford the initial costs of infrastructures required for electrification. You only have to consider the progress of the Manchester - Sheffield via Woodhead scheme after World War II to see this where the scheme was completed in 1954 (AFTER the appearance of the first Standards in 1951) despite the fact that plans had been prepared by 1939 and only the war had stopped the schemes completion.
Electrification was the main hope of Riddles but the economic situation and the "flawed" Government policies in regard to railways led to the short term decisions that saw the chaotic traction policies which we are now discussing and - in hindsight - we know were wrongly made.

 

You moved the goal posts. Whilst the discussion may be about the standards and a "what if" 2-8-2, you stated quite clearly that what Riddles and his team did had NEVER be done. I simply pointed out the the DR Einheitslok programme could be considered a case where it had been done.

 

I think you are all giving insufficient regard to the political change that ocurred in 1951. The return of the Tories, with less votes than Labour, reversed the moves that had been made towards a planned economy. The developing integrated transport system was an early casualty. Controls on the road haulage industry were removed and competition for railway business intensified. Intensive lobbying and the Tory belief in private enterprise and competition then led to the 1955 modernisation programme. It would take a book to examine the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

 

What kind of controls were on the road haulage industry at the time?

 

Didn't it fall flat, because of the cost of oil ?

With wartime production levels of several classes in several thousands of construction, it'd be safe to argue standardisation in Germany was somewhat still very prevalent in the 1940s!

 

Big difference between the overheads (sorry!) and initial costs of a mass move to electrification and those of a slow line by line incremental expansion of the electric services. And bearing in mind the traffic increases SR saw on electrification it would surely have paid. Am I right in thinking some London suburban services are still not electrified? Crazy. But there's a certain type of executive who is only interested in grand projects and won't support steady unspectacular incremental progress.

 

Gospel Oak to Barking and the commuter routes out to Uckfield and Oxted are still diesel. GW suburban diesel services will be electric ere long.

 

Long distance road haulage was nationalised along with the railways; the docks and inland waterways; bus companies and London Transport. After the 1951 general election, the new Conservative Government privatised and de-regulated the road haulage industry, but kept the railways nationalised and more heavily regulated.

Tom

 

Well that's that sorted then.

 

France had 700 141 class 2-8-2's from the US and Canada..
Poland had many standard steam classes introduced in the late 40's pt47 (180), tkt48 (191), ol49 (116) , ty51 (208) (the clue is in the numbers of the class letter, denotes year of design, introduction was around 2 years later).
Hungary was building the 424 class in large numbers..
CSD was building large 2-8-2s

post war, everyone's loco's were knackered.
Everyone needed some new steam locomotives, the difference was Eastern Europe progressed to electrification slower than the west and got more use from their locos.
It was probably the Dutch who progressed to electrification the fastest (ignoring the Swisss as non-combatants), who knows that 2-10-0 in their museum may never had had a boiler lift since construction in the war

 

When you merge competing companies together, there is always conflict and adversaries are now forced to be friends, but compete for position within the new hierarchy.
Merging the big four wouldn't be any different..

Had standards not been introduced.. there would not be a standard and anarchy in some form of inter regional bun fighting would have continued.. indeed it did until the standards were introduced and I'd suggest the way that different companies products and even the standard designs, were dispersed to other companies workshops was by no measure a way of introducing / enforcing that.. such as Fairburns at Brighton etc.

It's not coincidence the LMS predominated.. they were the most modern builder at that time..
LNER history was the 1920's, GWR history was 1900s !, SR was a mixed/vague bag miscellany glued together by an eccentric designer during the war.
Stanier's designs were somewhat informal standard to a modern design.

Had Collett had the chance after the war, he could well have learned from Stanier and produced his own standard designs to modernise the GWR (whilst the LNER would probably have trended towards DC overhead, the Southern to 3rd rail and the LMS to diesel).