LMS tenders

It’s an ex-Jubilee tank on an older chassis (Fowler or possibly older), mated together in preservation.

(I’m only half reading this thread so I’ve no idea if this information is of any use to whatever it is you are discussing!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I said it was complex! There were three Stanier tenders of 4000 gallon / 8 tons coal built and to be fitted in order to the first three Pacifics 6200/01/02 as 9000/01/02. In practice, 9002 was attached to 6100 (Nee 6152) for its American tour. They looked like the Fowler version on steroids. All were later rebuilt with in-curved tops like the normal Stanier tenders.

The tender attached to 936 is a pure Fowler type: 3500 gallons / 5 tons coal, but with the sides extended upwards and, unusually, curved inwards. On most of the extended tenders, the sides remained vertical.

 

While I agree with you about the looks of the LNER eight wheeled tenders attached to their Pacifics the LMS were unable to follow suit. Their Pacifics were that much longer than their LNER counterparts and consequently had to have shorter tenders in order to fit onto existing turntables. Yet another example of the compromise needed in all locomotive design and asthetics.

Peter

 

Also, extra water cost weight: 2000gallons comes out at about 8.9 tons to be dragged around, which was 8.9 tons less payload.

The LMS about 1932 decided that the optimum tender water capacity was 3500 gallons, hence the Stanier tenders of that size. But the Pacifics were a bit thirstier so 4000 were needed for them, and this then became the standard amount.

By this time, engineers were lass concerned about aesthetics than those of the 19th Century. Sad but true! But 6236 on the Southern during the Exchanges and matched with an eight-wheeled WD tender did look the part!

 

Leaving aside Garratts, the longest overall wheelbases in Britain appear to have been the LNER W1 4-6-4 at 64ft 3in and P2 2-8-2 at 64ft 0in. That was with LNER 5000-gallon 8-wheel tenders, whose wheelbase was 16ft. Now if those engines had been paired with Southern Urie/Maunsell bogie tenders, whose wheelbase was 19ft, the result would have been a tight fit on a 70ft turntable!

A feature of British Grouping-era locomotive design was that similar tenders were often paired with engines of very different sizes. Thus on the LMS in the 1920s, the Fowler 3500-gallon type, of about 42 tons, was standard for new builds ranging from the 49-ton 4F to the 84-ton Royal Scot. A factor would have been that the Royal Scot was expected to be used only on routes well provided with troughs, but the large engine/small tender combination just did not look right!

 

Never mind the looks of it nor the weak brakes or the way they were prone to derail, 6236 turned in one of the remarkable really fast and sustained runs - into London up the South Western main line with that tender behind her.

 

We are trying to identify the tender that left Barry with our loco, 45163. We know it is not the tender that was attached when it went into Barry. That was a part welded, part rivetted tender, we have a fully welded tender. We believe our original tender was sold to the steel industry as an ingot carrier.

The tender that was purchased with the loco was one built at Swindon, it has the western lamp brackets and GWR marked on the casting for the water scoop gearbox. It was therefore originally paired with one of the 8Fs produced at Swindon during WW2. From 8F and Black 5 records we cannot see that any of the Barry locos were paired with a tender carrying one of the numbers from the Swindon built batch of tenders. This leaves us with a mystery trying to identify it. Does anyone know if the tender number was stamped or recorded anywhere on the tender chassis and if so where we would need to look to find it, or was the tender number only recorded on the plate that was carried on the back of the tender tanks?

 

To the best of my knowledge, the plate was the only identification.

 

I was of the belief that the tender that arrived at Woodhams with 8f 48173 is the tender purchased for use with 45163. I have no firm evidence to that however.

 

Fancy asking that question when you have just gas-axed the tender tank into little bits.

 

1. It was beyond repair - what would you suggest they did with it?
2. The tender number would not be stamped or painted on the tender tank, so why does it matter if the tank has been scrapped?

 

8173 was given tender 9900 (21/6/43); 10377 (31/7/65); 10190 (20/8/ 65 [withdrawn 31/7/65]). 10190 was attached new to 8463, built 2/1/45 at Swindon.

 

We also believed this, but from the records we have been able to find, the tender that arrived at Woodhams with 48173 was not from the batch that was built at Swindon?

 

We have salvaged all the parts that we can sensibly re-use to build a new tender tank, beading, handrails, rear steps water valves, vent pipes etc, the rest is not re-usable and is being cut up for scrap to recover as much cost as possible towards a new tank.

As has already been said, there would not have been a number stamped anywhere on the tank plate work.

 

See my reply above, No. 72.

 

Many thanks for that, we hadn't picked up that it was paired with another tender after it was withdrawn.

 

The WR lamp irons that were fitted to that tender are a give-away!. Incidentally, no Black 5s ever had a tender fitted with WR lamp irons.

 

As an aside I heard that a fully loaded 4000 gallon tender attached to a Black 5 had a higher individual axle loading than the loco drivers, perhaps someone can verify?

 

Depended on the Black Five; their weights increased quite a lot during production.

The leading axle load on a riveted tender was 18T 6cwt while the first Fives' maximum had 18T 4cwt on the intermediate axle. This later increased to 19T 9cwt. It was the 8Fs which had this problem with a maximum load of 16T 0cwt. When the 8F first went to the Severn Valley Railway it was restricted to its tender carrying five tons of coal and 2,500 gallons of water.

 

Apparently so, on at least some, according to this weight diagram I found, but bear in mind LMS2968's post about variations.