BR Standard class - practice and performance

It is indeed interesting that there were actually a couple of 5MTs that were considered class 6 power, they would be Black Fives 44686 and 44687. Allocated from new to Longsight Shed, these two Black Fives were considered as equivalent to 6P and were used accordingly, on express trains to London, Birmingham and Bournemouth. Built in 1951, these two locomotives were a development of an earlier series of Black Fives equipped with Caprotti valve gear. As conceived, 44686 and 44687 were the forerunners of the 30 Standard Class 5 locomotives constructed with the same Caprotti equipment.

Although good locomotives, with a fair turn of speed, the Standard Caprottis never did quite equal their Black Five progenitors, which could probably be because they lacked the improved draughting that the two Black Fives enjoyed, that is a double blast-pipe and chimney. It is somewhat surprising that a double chimney wasn't specified for the Standard locos, but, by the time that they were constructed in 1956/7, the railways management had other traction imperatives in mind.

Thankfully, one of the Standard Caprottis is still with us, 73129 at Butterley - oh to see (and hear!!) that working on the main line, with a double chimney, or, even better a double Kylchap.

Cheerz,

Alan

 

How much of the dislike was "not invented here"? Plenty of transferred engines were disliked even when they worked well on home turf
(Also for the GW, they were wrong-sided)
And/or conservatism
GW enginemen were apparently disliking of the side-window when introduced, compared to the hutch provided by early churchward designs.

 

I think that is an interesting perspective.

In Pete Smith’s books on the S&D he is unstinting in his praise of the Standard 5s - and that would be in comparison to a Black 5, with which he was also familiar. He also praised the 9Fs, but that was in the context of passenger duties, not exactly what they were designed for!

By contrast, I recall Clive Groome not particularly liking the Standard 5s, reckoning that they rode harshly and were therefore tiring to work on - I think he thought much more highly of the S15s for mixed traffic 4-6-0s.

I guess what that reveals is that while the views of those who used them day-in, day-out back in the day have to be respected, they can also be very much the subjective view of individuals - just based on different levels of experience and usage patterns.

Tom

 

V2 standards would probably have wide fireboxes to deal with poorer coal. Also, assuming the world carries on on roughly the same trajectory, then there'd be very little need for smaller engines.

A larger-wheel 9F (9MT?) would be interesting.
8P in squadron service?

 

You couldn’t build a larger-wheeled 9F, the firebox wouldn’t fit. It is already very shallow, which leads to definite firing considerations about the depth of fire you can build.

Tom

 

In 1958 Doncaster Works drawings office produced a set of drawings for a double chimney Standard 5. Unfortunately, nothing came of it.

 

At the end of the day, it is all going to boil down to personal opinion. You've mentioned dirty cabs and say that todays steam locos don't have dirty cabs but that is relative and, just as you would get relatively clean cabs back in the day, you get relatively dirty cabs today. It's the same with defects; you still tend to get the same ones. As regards screw reversers, if I was on a pick-up goods with lots of shunting to do the last thing I'd want would be a Standard and, with regard to this aspect, a Super D or a 4F would be preferred. Not for anything else, though! In fact, a Super D would be about the worst thing to give a crew, IMHO, but there were people who liked them.
I would agree that, as mentioned by others, in terms of operational ability there would be little to choose between a Black 5 and a BR Standard 5 but I don't think there was any intention for them to be operationally different. There were significant differences in the detail, though, largely around the ergonomics of their operation. For a disposal crew, the difference between an early Black 5 with paddle out box and a Standard 5 with rocking grate and hopper ashpan is like chalk and cheese.

 

It would have been even longer fixed wheelbase demanding more flangeless drivers.
Two cylindered normal steam locomotives get uncomfortable and self destructing over 5 rev per second ( 24m per second for 9F)
If three cylindered , 7 rps is OK, and Mallard did more than 8.
A three cylindered 9F can have three 16.5 inch dia cylinders and this will allow more horizontal outside cylinders and allow mariage of pony and first driver in a Zara truck.
No need for flangeless drivers at all.
Three simple cylinders are sligthly less efficient than two unless we acknowledge that Webb (my Hero) was right all the time and we make it with two outside 15 inch high pressure cylinders and one inside low-pressure of 30 inch with slip eccentric max cut-of all the time

 

As did a 9F (90mph=8.33 revs/second) on more than one occasion without self-destructing.

 

It was normal practice to design one and two cylinder reciprocating steam engines for mills etc around a working speed of 360 rpm (6 rps). A steam locomotive should be no different, though.

 

From my experience of 44767 I'd put that loco in the same category. I believe it is one reason it lasted almost to the end of steam

 

Sorry, I know it wasn't just push-pull, but I wasn't sure how else to distinguish its orientation from the conventional one which has left-right and up-down.
To work the typical paddle gear at a canal lock you could stand so that the axis of rotation of the windlass is pointing towards you (analogous to a conventional reverser) or transverse (like a Riddles reverser). I think most people prefer the latter position; hence my suspicion that enginemen's dislike of the Riddles orientation was probably down to some detail of the design rather than to the orientation per se.

 

A lad on a footplate experience on a 9F: 92212. He makes an interesting comment at about 18.36!