Why weren't the Standards standard?

The LNER streamliners were speeding around many years before the 9F appeared on the scene and in any case, IMO the answer to your question is "no."

 

Precisely!

Which, allowing for acceleration, speed restrictions, slowing to drop slip coaches etc. would required 80 mph running.

The Bristolian which was timetabled 105 mins for 118 miles, average 67 mph needed to run up to around 90 on a much more straightforward route.

 

Due to flangeless drivers we will never know.

 

Now you're being silly.

 

OK I stop.It is not that important.

 

I wasn't actually aware that I'd proposed anything

 

Arent Trolls From Norway/Sweeden, not Denmark.

 

1940? I wasn't around at the time but I seem to remember being told that there was a war happening then and timetables were, shall we say, "relaxed".

 

Indeed, and a 75 mph speed limit imposed.

 

Thought it was 60mph?

 

You could be right. I think t was raised later, but started at 60.

 

Well that's at least two of us that hav'nt got a clue what it is you are trying to say!

 

And train weights increased quite markedly.

 

That was my first posting on this thread, IF and it's a big IF we believe the effectiveness of Swindon's standardisation policy, and IF we believe that St. Martin was rebuilt as the first of the Hall class, then the 'rebuilding' of Maindy Hall/Lady of Legend (which was described in Steam Railway as 'The sort of thing that Swindon was doing every day') 'should' have taken little longer the restoration of any other Barry Island Hall class, however that has not been the case, Whereas Tornado, a true new build was commenced with NO preconceived ideas about standards or using any components from existing locomotives has been around a few years now

 

The BR Standards were a sensible approach, IMHO. They looked at all the various components and generally took the best ideas for design,service and reliability and used them. Thus, they had GW style injectors, LMS & GWR boiler principles, LMS thinking on accessibility and prep and disposal, a fairly standard cab layout, etc, etc. Any idea that the majority of the bits on a Britannia and a Cl.2 tank are going to be the same is not realistic. Size is a major factor in that. The design may be similar but they are not going to be interchangeable. Yes, a lot of LMS latest practice found its was into them but hadn't a good bit of that come from the GWR with Stanier. At least, the bits he thought were good, such as the basic Churchward/Player Belpaire taper boiler. A lot of other GWR bits were either ignored altogether or discarded in a short time.
Any idea that simply building more of one class would have been a better approach would not have been good if you want to move forward as a unified business. Take a class 5 4-6-0, for example. It may do the job, but any idea that a Hall was a convenient, well engineered piece of kit goes out of the window when you look at maintenance and ergonomics. A later design Black 5 is better in that respect but forget those LMS injectors and other details, large and small. Similarly with the B1 and the only advantage of the round topped parallel boiler was cost. The Southern didn't really have an equivalent design and, superb though they are, the Maunsell 4-6-0's were well out of date.
I've worked on a lot of locos and, as a footplateman, I know which I'd prefer for day in, day out service.

 

This thread has drifted a long way: from how standard the standards were to Swindon standardisation and thence to how much the latter has or hasn't helped some rebuild projects. Maybe it should be split off, but meanwhile .....

The rebuilding of Maindy Hall into Lady of Legend has involved much more than straighforward restoration of a Hall from scrapyard condition. Not just new driving wheels but a lot of other parts that are different from those on a Hall or anything else from Barry. The standardisation of parts between Swindon classes is really not very relevant to that particular project; more relevant to some other projects, notably the new Grange, though that again has required some major completely new parts.

There are several reasons why the Saint project has taken longer than Tornado, not least that when the project was first conceived it was judged to be too difficult with the resources and expertise available at that time, so it was put on ice. The speed since it became an active project has still been a lot slower than some of us would have wished, but only because of the limited availability of manpower and money. Tornado was quicker because of the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust's unique management team and funding model.

 

Maybe the A1 made better progress because a NEW build loco instead of a Frankenstein's monster loco attracts more attention plus the all important manpower and £££.

 

Well, now some people are making some sense!

 

This largely proves my original point WRT Swindon's standardisation policy, which was what heralded in the Saint project in the first place and which was the sort of thing that Swindon was doing everyday, and which, if I'm polite about it, was largely an inaccurate statement.

 

Strictly speaking it wasn't the only advantage. It was standard across a number of different classes (B1, O4/8, O1). This level of standardisation did not apply to the Stanier Black Fives - at least three boiler types married to different frame designs which produced extremely similar (but not identical) locomotives.

Oooh, do tell?