Maunsell W Tanks

Would anyone remember what these were used for in Southern/BR (S) days?
Smart bit of kit, I must say.

 

My 1958 Observers book says "Used entirely on transfer freight traffic between North and South London, from Willesden via the West London line to Hither Green, Norwood Junction etc."

 

Nice.
Thank you.

 

Also oil tanker trains to/from Fawley in later years

 

See also https://sremg.org.uk/steam/wclass.shtml

 

Sweet!

 

A real shame none of the Southern's heavy freight tanks survived, though one 'Z' came frustratingly close. A while back, I expressed my opinion that a G16 (the eight coupled bruiser) would be a good choice for the notoriously weighty NYMR dining train, but reckon a W wouldn't do too badly. Ho-hum!

 

Of course the Southern big tanks, had something of a reputation after the Sevenoaks crash. When one of the River tanks came off the line and collided with a bridge. As it turn out the issue was mainly due to track issues accentuating minor issues with the loco [water surging in the tanks.Issues with the front pony truck....].

 

Sevenoaks was, of course, the reason no tank loco with a leading pony truck featured again on the Southern passenger services. You correctly identify track issues, as (in the aftermath of the crash) a test on the LNER saw a 'River' run up to 80mph with no problems.

I've often wondered about the reaction of dyed-in-the-wool Southern railwaymen to the BR era introduction of Mickey Mouses, Fairburns and 80xxx 82xxx and 84xxx 'standards'.

 

Be quite a sight and sound!
Also would visit The Moors a little more often or bug the Watercress Line, Bluebell or Swanage to book it for an event.

Shame the quirky locos were never really thought of being preserved (The Z being the exception), it's always the Standard Southern designs that were picked.

 

Well to be honest, what other choices did they have?
Rely on Southern/Pre-23 designs, that were being replaced.
Use the Standard tanks, which were bought in to replace them.
OR
Use Pannier tanks from the Western Region like they did in Kent and Templecombe.

Be a bit of a slap in the face if the Southern were littered with the enemy engines.
I personally wouldn't mind BUT the true Southern fans might have a thing to say about it.

 

Were baffles never used in water tanks? I seem to recall the LBSCR L class had their enormous original side tanks reduced in size and well tanks fitted instead in order to reduce their instability, surely an effective baffle set up would have mitigated this, or would they have impacted the amount of time to take on water and thus not be operationally suitable?
Incidentally, the L's would be my WIBN of southern region tanks just for their sheer presence in photographs alone.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

Most of the (modified) side tank of the Billinton L class was for show. The mods included adding a well tank amidships. Of the 'biggies', my own preference is for the second of the preceeding J class 4-6-2Ts .... mainly because of a slight, possibly misplaced sympathy for maintenance staff, but for contribution to steam loco design, it's sad no I3 made it into preservation.

Twist my arm to nominate just one LBSC design to return from extinction and it's a toss up between a Billinton K and a Marsh C2x (single dome!) .... heart says one thing, head says another!

Re: baffles ..... I wondered the same. No clue tho', I'm afraid.

 

Am I right that I could have read somewhere that George Ellson, the Southern CE had a nervous breakdown after Sevenoaks. Also that he would hide in a darkened room if there was ever talk of running 2-6-4T on passenger trains. Very sad, if so. His retirement (in 1943, I believe) would probably have changed the prospects for CE approval of passenger use of such engines.
Pat

 

I think it is Holcroft that relates that after the well tanks were fitted, they never stayed properly sealed and as a result the L class spent a lot of time on shed getting minor attention to keep them from leaking.

On the subject of the W tanks (and à propos another conversation about Southern standardisation): there are essentially 8 possible variants of Maunsell Mogul, and in one form or another, all 8 were built:

Large wheel,
2 cylinder tank - SECR K class
3 cylinder tank - SR K1 class
2 cylinder tender - SR U class
3 cylinder tender - SR U1 class

Small wheel
2 cylinder tank - Metropolitan Railway K class
3 cylinder tank - SR W class
2 cylinder tender - SECR N class
3 cylinder tender - SECR N1 class

Now, about that new build thread ...

Tom

 

Bradley states that a W was tried on a passenger train but the riding was so lively that the idea was abandoned.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

Yes I've heard that one was tried, think it may have been ECS, and it was unstable so the experiment was not repeated

 

It was also Ellson that, in rather subtle fashion, put the kibosh on the the Merchant Navy appearing as a 2-8-2. He distrusted locos without a leading bogie being used on express passenger duties.

Tom

 

Be fair Tom. He was OK with a 2-8-2, provided it came with a leading K-H truck. Uncertain why Bulleid wasn't keen, I'm always tempted to ask what difference would one more innovation have made to the MNs?

 

There was a lot of back-and-forth, but Ellson, (remembering the Sevenoaks accident) was averse to pony trucks on large engines. In 1938, the drawing office got out a design with a Helmholtz leading truck. With that modification, the Civil Engineer said "yes" to having two locos built for trial; and on that basis, Bulleid said "no", not wanting to just build a trial loco. "[Bulleid foresaw] a future filled with more arguments about engines", in the words of HAV Bulleid, "and regretfully reverted to a Pacific".

So in essence Ellson said "yes" to a 2-8-2 provided it was just a trial, and Bulleid said "no" to a trial. Of course, Ellson may just have been smart in finding a way to block something he didn't want without actually being the one doing the blocking! (That is supposition on my part).

Tom