BR Standard locos

Despite the use of the term standard, apart from the cab layout these engines were not that standard as there seems to be many variations not just between classes, but often from batch to batch of the same type, and that's without starting on the tenders.

 

Not all the cab layouts were the same. The Std 4 2-6-4 tanks had the "bacon slicer" reverser and the Std 2 2-6-0s and 2-6-2 tanks had the modified Ivatt style reversers. Then there are firehole doors, GWR or LMS styles. One could go on. The drain cocks were all the same, though.
I found out something very interesting, recently. In the RCTS Standards Book Vol 1 there is a photo of Brit 70004 taken in 1966, whilst allocated to 9B Stockport. It was fitted with a fluted rear coupling rod. Now all the Brits were supposed to have been modified with rectangular section coupling rods by 1955, instead of the original fluted coupling rods. I found another photo of 70004, taken approx the same time. Low and behold, it was, indeed, fitted with a fluted rear coupling rod AND a rectangular section front coupling rod. Looking through photos of the Class taken during the 1960s, I found that 70004, 70014, 70016, 70017, 70019, 70020, 70022, 70023, 70024 and 70031 were all similar. I am surprised that this has never been picked up previously. A few people with the relevant 5" gauge Britannia Class locos might be a bit upset that their loco is wrong.

 

I had the impression that they were called "standard" in the sense that there would be one 'standard' design, BR-wide, for each role (e.g. class 6 freight engine), as opposed to the plethora of different designs BR inherited. It might also have applied to the desire to use (where possible) parts in common between different designs, a la GWR practise.

Noel

 

Indeed the philsophy was always a class x (insert power here) that would go wherever any pre nationalisation loco of the same power class could go and ideally further...

 

It seems to me that Riddles team were working on the theory that there would eventually be hundreds of each class as all the pre group and big four classes were withdrawn, so there was no point in compromising the design of each class too much for standardisation between classes. The numbering scheme envisages over 1,000 of three of the classes.

Of course, like so much else, they were comprehensively mistaken...

 

Is it possible they may have had both at different times, in the same way that GW locos could return to older specifications according to what was available in the pool when they were shopped?

 

As far as I am aware, all the motion on Standard locos was stamped with the particular loco number, but I will investigate further.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean they always went back on their original engine, though they would usually have done so. In England anyway; Scotland was a different matter altogether if any went to St Rollox.

 

Long forgotten ,but the class 5 73s,73000 to 73065? had chime whistles when built. They were replaced in a about 1957/8 with the GWR sounding whistle ,still in the same place behind the chimney. Engines built after 73065? had whistle just in front of the top off the cab as normal. It was said at the time in Trains Illustrated that they were changed because plate- layers working near docklands in South Wales,were confusing the sound with boat hooters.Yes I know 86C Cardiff Canton had a number of Britannia's at the time with chime whistles. I've questioned marked 73065 ,any one know for sure what number the new 73s where altered. See photo' attached taken 01/06/1958 ,of 73026 with chime whistle, at 84A Wolverhampton Stafford Road one of the last to be altered I think.

 

Just to clarify- Chime whistles were fitted to Standard 5s up to 73089. Not all were replaced. The reason for replacement appears to be whistle valves sticking open due to problems with the operating cable, which ran along the outside of the boiler between the cab and the valve on the smokebox. Surely, though, the same problem would still be there with the smaller whistles fitted, just a bit quieter.

 

Yes I should have known with 73082 on the Bluebell. A bit quieter ?.Not so sure about that.

 

I remember inspecting 3cyl Stanier tank 2500 at Bressingham in the 1970s,one of the wheel axes was stamped a different number ,not even in the 3cyl series ,no doubt still the same.

 

Since it had been disqussed about BR standards equipped with roller bearings, was it considered or maybe tried to fit roller bearings also to the coupling- and connecting rods to some of the standard locomotives? (See photo for illustration)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/124446949@N06/39823431211/in/album-72157653567446432/

Knut

 

Not as far as I know. Some of the LMS rebuilt Royal Scot Class were fitted with roller bearings on the big end of the inside connecting rod, during the 1950s.

 

Was crank or bearing split and is there something on the web about it?
The swedes had some inside cylinder 2-8-0 in war emergency storage where crank was built up with oil pressure(SKF method) I think.
https://www.national-preservation.com/attachments/e2-1329-rullagervev-morrgan-jpg.27787/
The Germans tried on one Baureihe 10 and failed.Not easy.

 

Interesting. 70004 at Kingmoor in June 1967, not long before the end of its days and only a few days after being reallocated there from 9B. It was withdrawn 6 months later.

 

The bearings were not split and this did cause problems in assembling the built up parts of the axle. The female parts were heated to give expansion, and a system of blowing air through the bearing was needed to prevent its overheating.