Pannier Tanks

After Nationalisation, the Southern Region got a proportion of available L.M.S. pattern Class 2 and 4 tank locomotives which IMHO were of a sort that Bulleid should have provided. At what point does innovation degenerate into W.I.B.N?

PH

 

Can I just re-iterate here that so far as the South Wales Valleys were concerned the 94XX did not replace old 0-6-2T locos on The Valley Lines diagrams. The 56xx and Prairie tanks reigned supreme with a few 64XX added into the fold on local passenger workings. Even the 57XX was rarely seen up The Valleys.

No 94xxs (to the best of my knowledge) were ever allocated to Cae Harris, Merthyr, Rhymney, Treherbert, or Abercynon.

The old Rhymney Railway 0-6-2Ts were built by outside firms. The idea that Swindon unrolled drawings of a Rhymney and copied it but with taper standard boiler is ridigulous and there is not a shred of primary source documentation to support this proposition. The chassis of the 56XX was quite different. The valve gear was quite different. The cylinder design was quite different (and new for Swindon) and with piston valves inclined above the cylinders. The first steaming of the 56XX is described by the Rev John Gibson but he wasnt present and I personally dont agree with him. The valve rod girder stay is clearly shown in Jim Russell's book with the relevant Swindon drawing. The 56XX was a highly successful design. The allocation to South Wales was more than enough to deal with the decreasing diagrams as the South Wales Coal field contracted post WW2.

This contraction was inevitable many years earlier when Naval ships were built without steam. South Wales steam coal was always more expensive. This was a factor of deep mining and geological faults in the seams.

The contraction of the South Wales coal industry during the 1950s and 1960s under Lord Robens was very significant.

It is also relevant tomorrow morning at 9.15am on the 50th anniversary of the terrible Aberfan disaster when I hope all will reflect.

Cheers,
Julian

Cheers,
Julian

 

A few 94xxs were allocated to Abercynon and Merthyr in the early 1950s. Treherbert had some until mid 1958. Radyr had a quite a few well into the 1960s, including, at one stage, all the 34xxs.

 

a difference of opinion there then. Bear in mind it was a gradual process, not happening overnight. I don't doubt it was the 94xx which replaced the old 0-6-2t on paper but in practice, with the contraction of the coal industry there were sufficient 56xx to cover most diagrams with the 94xx being utilised elsewhere.
Don't forget the 74xx which I think were largely South Wales based.

 

The difference in Europe was that it was so badly damaged that many countries had to virtually start from scratch. In that scenario go for electric traction but build diesel (locos or units) for non-electrified routes as a long-term policy and operate steam traction supplied by victorious allies including the WD and USA locos funded through the post-war Marshall Plan as a stop-gap measure.

The situation in the UK was a 2-stage process.
Stage 1 to continue until nationalisation confirmed therefore either replace life expired assets with new (e.g. the 94xx) or continue building replacement locomotives as planned pre-war or simply wait until nationalisation and see what policy the new body will follow.
Stage 2 is to consider electrification but rejected on grounds of up front cost; consider diesel but only as interim measure until electrification can be undertaken; forced to build steam traction to (a) ensure employment in major engineering industry and (b) it's the cheapest option in a period of continuing austerity.

The problem is that going "cheap" in the short term cost in the long term because had Riddles desired electrification taken place GB / UK would now be the world leader rather than French and German companies who now claim that title. Yet another Government policy that acts against the railway and prevents the railway from proving its expertise. Even in modern times the unwillingness of the Government to invest in rail tilt engineering but happy to sell it to an Italian company which then develops it and re-sells it to the UK for the Pendelino / Voyager trainsets and continues to sell tilting trains throughout Europe,

But I digress - the Pannier Tanks were the progressive move of a company that understood the need for shunting locomotives but failed to appreciate the threat from the humble Class 08 diesel shunter (for freight) and DMU (for passenger) or the change in railway operations that nationalisation would bring.

 

Again the 94xx was not a shunting loco.
The 08 wasn't a freight loco, it was a shunting loco.
The 94xx was a multi purpose loco, and , although it lost a lot of shunting turns to the 08, it probably was the dmu that did it (and other medium size steam locos) more damage, I agree.
As for freight work, I think it was the later mainline diesels that took that, particularly the Class 37 in Wales.

 

The SNCF did gain many USATC locos after WW2 and of course there was the 1300+ 141R class Mikado locos built by three North American companies.

 

As a trivial coincidence to the dreadful event 50 years ago being commemorated today, 9600 was a Merthyr Vale Colliery shunter before saved by Tyseley and returned to present day main line running.

 

I think that the fact the first ten were superheated is indicative that they were designed as replacements of older locos for mineral trafic, GWR policy was by then firmly established not to superheat shunters. However as the remainder weren't superheated that does indeed suggest that there may well have been a change in their anticipated use as even the absorbed 0-6-2Ts which remained had been fitted with superheated boilers by the Great Western.

 

i always thought that the first ten had superheaters so a direct comparison with the 15xx could be made.....probably someone will now tell me the 15xx weren't superheated!

 

9400 was at Swindon for a few years before transfer to Old Oak. The rest of the first ten, except for 9408, went straight to Old Oak, presumably for ECS workings. None of the first 200 went to a shed in the Cardiff valleys when new, unless you include Cathays/Radyr as valleys sheds.

 

Correct, they weren't. Mind you they didn't go into service until June '49, when the first 94s had been in service two years, so it doesn't prove very much. By then they probably knew what they needed to know about superheating the new tanks. It was, after all, only about 15 years since the large scale introduction of superheating of pre group 0-6-0Ts had been reversed.

Early proposals for what became the 1500 are dated Feb 1944 according to the NRM drawings list, and those for the 9400 June 1945. The 9400 presumably needed much less new design and used many more existing standard parts than the 1500 though, but its still interesting it was that way round.

 

74s are a special case though, being so much lighter than the 57s, let alone the 94s. They were surely ordered to work where the others could not go.

As far as I am aware noone is suggesting it was a straight copy. Its clearly a 100% Swindon design. Nevertheless its interesting that the wheel spacing is the same as the Rhymney/Stephensons layout of several of their classes, and we know from Cook and other sources that the Rhymney was the best regarded of the Welsh lines at Swindon. We also know from the surviving drawings at the NRM Swindon kept GA drawings from all sorts of sources (1908 Stephensons drawings for the R Class survive), so it would seem very foolish for a draughtsman, asked for a better version of a welsh style 0-6-2T, not to take a very good look at the drawings *that would already be at his office* for the alterations to absorbed classes.

I share your doubts about Gibson's conspiracy theory. To my mind it has the hallmarks of a story that has grown in the telling over the years . For those that don't know Gibson tells a tale that the initial 5600 was designed and built without any support for the ends of the valve spindles, and on first steaming they bent under load and it failed. This, he supposes, was followed by Collett organising a big cover up, including predating revised drawings and destroying the originals . Gibson has a big thing about Collett's supposed incompetence as a locomotive designer, which to me just sounds like the classics enthusiast's vision of this senior executive spending his days bent over his personal drawing board...

BTW, as Julian will I imagine agree, the 5600 valve gear is clearly a brand new design, with launch links rather than locomotive links, much more akin to the layout on the outside cylinder classes than that on the 0-6-0Ts or the Dean era inside cylinder classes.

I'm sure you're correct. Nevertheless the 9400s can only have been ordered as renewals for the old 0-6-2Ts. The only other option is to imagine that 150 locomotives were ordered at random with no task in mind to spite the incoming BR executive, which I submit is a little far fetched. That the running people then reshuffled their locomotive fleet so the the reduced fleet of 0-6-2Ts (with, we shouldn't forget, larger boilers than the 94s and many withdrawn locos) were allocated where their capabilities were most useful is surely unsurprising.

 

Why should that be ? Surely it's equally logical that Swindon looked for a reshuffle of locos in the Welsh Valleys by concentrating the 56xx on Welsh Valley services to replace the older 0-6-2T then building a new 0-6-0PT capable of the many mixed traffic / freight duties to both fill the gaps (created by war damage and transfers of 56xx to Wales) and provide a pool of new locomotives to allow the withdrawal of older 0-6-0PT classes. As I noted earlier that plan was scuppered by BR's introduction of Class 08 shunters for shunting and light trip work covering the freight duties and the mass introduction of DMU trainsets that did for the passenger work.

It seems to me that much of the arguments centres on classes replacing classes but ignoring the effect of the diesel shunter and DMU trainsets during the changeover years between 1955 - 1965 and the secondary thrust of of the Beeching era on passenger services releasing a larger number of locomotives - steam for scrap and diesel for re-allocation. Sadly Swindon was not the only railway centre which failed to see the massive steam withdrawal between 1955 - 1965 and the change of plans that would incur - given that steam locomotives were built for at least a 20-year lifespan.

 

I had an interesting conversation today with an ex-fireman in the 1950's and 60's at 85A Worcester shed.

More than once I have read that the 94xx class were no advantage over the 57xx class, having the same tractive effort. This according to the loco fireman was simply not true. He held the 94xx class in high regard and said they were definitely stronger engines than the 57xx class. Once again, this proves that tractive effort is not a reliable measure of a locomotive's true power.

 

Without going into too much detail, and going too far OT, both parts of Germany initiated a new-build programme based on standard designs in development before WW2, and before the division of the country; with slight construction differences either side of the border. Additionally, and particularly in the case of East Germany, both countries undertook an extensive reconstruction programme, significantly altering the selected locos in comparison with their remaining classmates. Both parts of Germany built their last steam loco in 1959 (Class 23 2-6-2 DB (West) 105, and DR (East) 113 examples), and both sides also built Class 65 (2-8-4T). The last DR "Reko" (Class 52.8), rebuilt from a Class 52 ("Kriegslok") emerged from Meiningen in 1968, just as we were finishing with steam! And all this in a country/countries which had seen significant pre-war electrification!

Back on topic, or subject of a new thread?

 

And indeed when it comes to industrial steam, there are Fireless locos in Germany which were built as recently as the 1980s.

 

Personally I think this calls for a new thread...!

 

As a child living on Barry Island I well remember the entire 3400 series being stored alongside Barry shed in approx 1957. They were located in two rows alongside the curve to Barry Island complete with sacks over the chimneys. As an 8 or 9 year old I did not realise that they were virtually brand new.

In subsequent years I recall seeing a published photo possibly by Sid Rickard showing the scene and wonder if anyone here can point me to the book concerned.

 

Although nearlybrand new, I imagine they were due a Heavy General . Quite a few didn't get that I should think.


couldn't find your picture, but I found this instead....