Pannier Tanks

They couldn't do the same work. Just about all GWR locomotives ran traffic services. The diesel shunters were and are very speed limited.

There's no mention in RCTS of new 94s spending much time in store. They were delivered in a steady stream over nearly 6 years, its not as if all 200 arrived at once:

 

Is it true that the 94xx share the same chassis arrangement as the class 14's or is this just an urban myth?

 

I know almost exactly nothing about BR Diesel shunters, but if you mean the class 14 I think you do, then doesn't that have jackshaft drive and 4ft diameter wheels, not to mention completely different wheel spacing? The major components must be very different. It wouldn't be at all surprising if some of the minor parts were the same, as Swindon was never keen on designing a new component if a perfectly good one was available off the shelf. Looking at a photo parts like the coupling rods look to be similar to standard GWR design, but I see nothing that looks as if it might be interchangeable with a 9400.

 

I'm going to be looking at the 14's at Wansford a bit closely tomorrow! I think it must be a myth, but in this hobby the never let the facts get in the way of a good story rule can apply!

 

it's a myth but some of the technology on a Class 14 would be steam age , the lubrication system for instance.

Class 14 of course was also overtaken by the changing railway, just like the 94xx s. Don't forget there was a lot of work done by the 94s from 1947, nearly two decades. The Hydraulics didn't last that long

 

When I spoke to Chris Bailey regarding his rebuilding of Class 14 D9531 he noted that the loco was a 94xx frame with a diesel engine and hydraulic transmission. Since Swindon was renowned for its standardisation "policy" the design of the Class 14 for purely WR duties would presumably adopt existing WR standards - including the latest Pannier frame (the class was designed to replace steam Pannier locomotives) and the hydraulic transmission for which the Region was renowned.

 

if this is true, who'll be the first to rebuild one as a 94xx?

I take it with a pinch of salt myself.

 

Sounds like a good project to me, rebuild 'em all, I say. Cometh the hour, cometh the man - Step forward Mr. Reeder!

 

No No not all off them. keep D9526 which I saw at APCM Westbury and have a soft spot for. Also saw lots on a school trip to South Wales for a week....got the numbers of some but lots were too far away. Not sure quite where, near the steelworks I'd say...around 1968 0r 9

 

He must have meant components, axleboxes, bearings and the like, maybe some frame components, but certainly not the main plates. I've just overlaid a scale GA drawing of a 9400 and a scale GA drawing of a Class 14 DH and there really is almost nothing in common. Frame depth is quite quite different for example, so is wheel spacing, so none of the rods are the same. Even the brake assemblies look different, although these are less than reliable in most general arrangement type drawings.

 

At least one 'Sentinel' type locomotive that worked in a Mendip quarry was rebuilt from a petrol locomotive in the 1920's by that well known locomotive builders Charles Hill of Bristol - better known as shipbuilders

 

Don't push it!

 

Id heard that about the 94xx panniers once before, that the GWR placed the order with RSH too, as it would be more difficult for BR to cancel the order. The GWR didnt want the amalgamation and lumbered BR with something that they would not have ordered.

A bit off topic, but Stockport Corporation did something very similar just before its bus operation was merged into Selnec PTE, they placed an order for Bristol VRTs, knowing that there were none in the combined fleets, rather than Leyland Atlanteans or Daimler Fleetlines

 

Maybe, but there are examples of locos and stock which make you wonder why they built them. One I can think of, off the top of my head, is the BR Mark 1 suburban non corridors. They were introduced in 1954, the same year as the first Derby Lightweight DMUs, and it must have been known that the type of work they were intended for would be handed over to Multiple units fairly quickly. If there was a short term shortage of non corridors, them why not give some old ones a life extension overhaul to get another 5 years out of them, before the DMUs/EMUs could take over?

 

Surely the issue with much railway procurement of the period was that it was politically driven. The brave new post war world of nationalised industries grappled with the need to keep workshops busy against problems of material supplies and a political desire to be seen to make progress. The fact that history and things like the Beeching report cast considerable doubt on the decisions of the 1950's would not have been known at the time the decisions were taken. A perhaps more interesting debate is what might have happened without government intervention (meddling) in railways from the grouping onwards would we have seen an international Great Western Transport company running everything from container ships to airlines and airports but possibly few railways?

 

Also have to think about lead times. Getting on for half the 94s had been delivered by the time the first BR tank engines were delivered. Then also I don't know what lead times and building slots were like with the manufacturers they were ordered from. Was it desirable to place orders well in advance to get the deliveries when you wanted them? They were ordered from 5 different builders at different prices, which makes me wonder about capacity.

Interesting to note that the BR standard tank that would be the closest to the 94s braking and train starting ability would have been the standard 4 2-6-4T. Does anyone have a figure for how much they cost to build? The 94s were around £10,000 each.

 

A ladle full of salt might be better!! - about the daftest think heard this year so far.