GWR 94xx Pannier Tanks, ex-Edward Thompson Thread.

My understanding is that a major factor in the demise of the hydraulics was the requirement to close Swindon Works. The pay scales were high compared to other BR workshops due to pressures from other industries in the area.

 

Swindon closed in 1985, a long time after the last hydraulics has been withdrawn, which was 1977.

 

What work (beyond being BRUTE Central) was Swindon performing during it's final years?

 

I think it was mainly electrics.

 

I would think the reverse is the case; with the withdrawal of hydraulic classes there was no justification for the retention of Swindon Works as the maintenance f diesel electric classes could be undertaken elsewhere. Swindon Works closed because there was no work NOT that the hydraulics were withdrawn because of the closure of Swindon Works. Whilst Swindon pay scales were high, the major cost factor was the daily trains running between the works and the major depots where unit replacement took place in order to maintain both spares supply and repaired items.

 

There is a difference between multiple units (each transmission having to propel <100t even in a failure mode, and locomotives (incidentally, this is why the Fell locomotive was a dead end). I’d therefore hesitate to draw the conclusion you have done.

As DB have proved, hydraulic transmission is technically viable for locomotive use. But the experiment can also be considered to have “failed” on economic grounds. BR did find that the hydraulics were more expensive to operate, for a variety of reasons, while the DEMU is making something of a renaissance on inter city duties - anyone who’s endured a trip in a class 180 Adelante or 22x Voyager/Meridian will note that the performance on those bears no resemblance to their Hastings, Sussex and Hampshire forebears.

So, reverting to the main topic, it’s a question of what traffics they’re intended for and different design approaches having different values in different scenarios.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In other words - it's a simple choice between standardisation as in Bulleid principle of Pacifics for a range of traffics or the Gresley principle of a design for specific traffics. Within that there is then the standardisation of both concepts and parts; Gresley tried to adopt 3-cylinders with his insistence of conjugated valve gears offset by different boilers but Bulleid adopted the principle of chain drive which - possibly good in theory - proved inconsistent in practice and a nightmare for maintenance.

 

A comparable argument to the diametrically opposed approaches of Craven and Stroudley. To an extent, confining discussion to pacifics overlooks a general trend going back to the earliest days of the railways ..... except the GNRI's Fintona branch!

By the 20th century, you have to suppose bringing more power to bear on several secondary lines could only be accomplished by spreading the load across more axles. The West Highland went from D34s to moguls in LNER days and even the Cambrian Coast enjoyed 6-coupled (passenger) locos during steam's final years.

Here, I can't help but think of 34004's impact on BR thinking ... and we'll just have to await 72010's debut to form any value judgement on what the 6MTs might have achieved.

 

I do apologise for bringing up a dead thread but I was watching a DVD recently and saw a feature on the Lickey Incline which 9400's were infamous for banking up trains.

That must have been some doing for the LMS enginemen, considering all their machines were left-hand drive, while the 9400's were right-hand drive.

 

Jintys were right hand drive.....

 

Huh, well you learn something new everyday.

 

Not being an LMS type, that sent me scuttling for a look at the 'Jinties'. I never knew BR had five more by the end of 1948 than the LMS had handed over!

 

Only know because I got to drive one once up and down a siding....

 

they were ones which the WD requisitioned in 1940 and were sent to France. They were left there after the fall of France and reacquired after D Day in 1944. The SNCF gave them an 030 class number

 

Well, a lot of Dean Goods ended up beyond these shores.

 

Dang it.

 

One of the Jinties which didn't come back, 7613, ended up on the Reichsbahn in East Germany after the war, there is a photo of it sonewhere. Would love to know what the Germans thought of it.

 

From memory wasnt it Cottbus?

Perhaps contacting a local paper might get some memories of it?

 

Yes it was Cottbus, I think it was withdrawn in 1953