if the 350bhp diesel shunter had not been invented....

....what might a BR Standard 0-6-0t shunter have looked like?

 

a jinty with outside cylinders rocking grate and self cleaning smokebox

 

an austerity!

 

I guess they'd be looking for a modern design, as they did with the Ivatt "copies". The only 'modern' 0-6-0 I can think of was the GWR outside cylindered panniers? Or maybe the USA tanks even? Then again, BR built J72's too, so who knows!

 

Like the Bagnall outside cylindered 0-6-0STs? (Victor and Vulcan - the industrial 15xxs!)

 

I wouldn't have thought the 15xx would be the candidate, as it has too high an axle loading. More likely to be a 57/8750 pannier.The method of lubrication would need improving, possibly with mechanical lubricators, and rocking grate, as mentioned earlier.

Regards,
Ian.

 

Can't see any inside cylindered engine finding favour in the post-war era, sorry to you GW diehards! An 0-6-0T version of the Ivatt class 2 would be a more logical choice.

 

Yeah that's the one I meant. Hadn't noticed the similarity to the USA tanks before though!

 

Well British Railways built (or had built for them) 200 94xx between 1950 and 1956, so surely that *was* the BR Standard shunter?

 

no, that was the GWR management ordering lots of them before nationalisation because they didn't want anything foreign locos on their patch. That is notwithstanding the fact that their man had gone to the LMS and continued steam locomotive development while GWR development stagnated in the same period because they thought they had got it perfect and couldn't improve any more.

Anyway, how would a modern 0-6-0 class 2 engine be better than the standard 2 2-6-2T design? Couldn't a std 2 be used for shunting?

 

a GWR pannier.

Heck, even when the 350hp shunter had been invented, Western still carried on with the things

 

in the same vein, once the hydraulic transmission had been dismissed as part of the drive chain the Western ( Region ) insisted on producing the Class 14. Teddy bears they may have been but to staff they weren't all that cuddly hence their rapid demise.

In terms of steam shunter I think that had steam been continued BR would have bought more of the Austerities from the War Department and built further variants - especially given their power for use on both shunting and local freight duties.

 

Might the longer wheelbase of a Z cause problems in tight yards?

 

Why have a class 2 0-6-0T version of the Ivatt tank when the standard 2-6-2T would do the same job without any departure from the standard? The only reason for building a different 0-6-0T would be if there was a requirement for more power and I've never been convinced of the need for that.

As for the 1940s GWR designs, I've always thought of them as a perversion. Post-war the idea of inside cylinders and Stephenson's valve gear is just plain wrong. Marylebone should have been stronger and insisted that the WR build the standard diesel shunter.

Sorry if this offends the GW community!

Regards

 

My view is it would have to be outside cylindered with all the modern gadgets on the other standards and would have to look like part of the family. The 2-6-2t would not do as all the adhesion weight would be needed on the drivers.Probably the boiler is too small too. I don't think the 15xx would do as it was too short a wheel base but a modified version, maybe,might have fitted the bill, however I dont think a GWR derivative would have been permitted by those in charge.Anyone good with photoshop?

 

why not a modified Mardy Monster?

 

or what about a Q1 tank? (though I hate to think what the axle loading might be!). .... Scrap that - forgot about the inside Stephenson's :-(