A good 'un from a bad 'un

Following up from a comment in the "highly regarded ex Barry" locos thread...about which ones were good ones and which weren't.
It seems worthy of its own topic....


Which locos were known to crews as being a good 'un... Which ones did crews not want to be rostered with..
what factors made one loco a better one than another in a supposedly identical build, any examples of the overhaul making things better or worse..

 

It was usually down to maintenance, and things like blastpipe alignment which would affect steaming.

Most Southern Locomen were solidly of the opinion that there were no bad Merchant Navy's. But the same couldn't be said of the lightweights. People have mentioned Sir Useless Missenden many times over the years. And I remember 34009 was another lemon in it's latter days. Funny how those engines seemed to last so long. One that didn't was 34043, which had a fearsome reputation for poor steaming when it was at Bournemouth, although it was actually a very strong engine. They did something to some of the originals, and I was interested to read a while back that the three noted bad ones 34011, 34043 and 34065 were all the subject of a special test which applied to only those three. It is on record at the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in a tribute to Bulleid that 21C143 as it was then, was the best engine they ever had at Exmouth Junction. Gave no trouble and went like a rocket. How the mighty are fallen. The good ones that everyone remembers from the latter years are 34086, and of course 34064. Which like 35004 got it's rods bent near Fleet at high speed. Some of the best engines got wrecked on that stretch on hard hitting runs, like also 35010 which burst a cylinder.

Turning to the Duchesses, 46251 is one that often got mentioned as a poor example. Which was a pity because it was the only red one which had the full footplate, and was used quite a bit on railtours. 46229 was a good engine until it's last few months, but the best of the lot was 46245, which was the pet engine at Camden and got the best treatment even when it moved to Willesden. Somebody once told me that you could always tell which were the rough Duchesses because they were sent to Edge Hill. 46229 ended up there, but we later found out that the main steam pipe had collapsed and that's why it wouldn't go. The last two, 56 and 57 were hard riding engines and not too popular for that reason, but they were both good locomotives and racked up a huge mileage.

 

Quickly back to Bulleids, 34053 wasn't held in high regard IIRC. Hopefully we'll see if that's true or not when she enters service in the not too distant future.

 

I believe 73156 wasn't held in high regard by the drivers of Bolton shed when it was there.

 

I remember in 1960/61 seeing 46245 working the 'Royal Scot' more often than any of the others, so she must have been a good 'un. 46244 was held in high regard at Camden also.

 

Ah, 46245. I went on a railtour behind this loco on the 9th of June 1963 from KX to Doncaster & back, which involved a tour of the works & shed. On the way back didn't it fly down the banks (Essendine or Stoke?). I understand it wasn't far off the ton.

Edit, if you look at six Bells Junction, a figure more than a ton is quoted.

 

That's true. I hesitated to mention it though. The man it was named after was the greatest of all the wartime figures the BoB's were named after. Some of them didn't do very much at all actually. It's rather nice that it's survived and now people are beginning to catch on to what an amazing fellow Keith Park was.

 

What I'd like to know is whether 34090 was as bad after rebuilding as before? So Tavistock, Combe Martin and Hurricane were pretty bad, too... In fairness, some of the ex-Barry Bulleid withdrawals can be attributed to the transfer of the Exeter Sub-Division of the Western Section to the Western Region in 1963, with 257 Squadron being one of those; it hardly turned a wheel in the months before its withdrawal in June 1964. It was effectively stranded at Exmouth Junction, as there was no work for it on the rest of the Southern, and the Western Region didn't want them ruining their dieselisation plans; as mentioned before, it was one of the last four to retain the high-sided tender with late BR crest. I suppose Sir Keith Park's 1965 withdrawal may indicate that all was not well with the locomotive.

One MN you don't really hear much about performance-wise is 35013 Blue Funnel Certum Pete Finem; I presume it was one of the plodders of the pack.

 

I only know of it's reputation after rebuilding. Maybe it always was rather poor. For quite a few years it was the joke engine of the class.

As far as I recall 35013 was an average engine. It certainly wasn't a flyer like 35003. You'd have to ask one of the real devotees to find out more. As I mentioned before, there weren't really any bad MN's. Just average ones and exceptional ones. 35023 had the nickname "The Pram". I have no idea how this came about, and neither does anyone else I know, but that's what it was widely known as. One would assume it was something to do with it being a bit sluggish, which apparently it was inclined to be. But also it was involved in several quite exciting runs in the last few years, so maybe some engines needed to be given a bit of a hiding to show their best.

 

An ex-SR driver told my Father and I some years ago that 35005 was always very popular with crews. She was at one time fitted with a Berkeley mechanical stoker and he had memories of driving her with this in operation.

 

I think ten wheeler has a good point, as first restored 5164 was not a popular engine on the SVR 4566 was much preferred.
The next overhaul found a few things that were not quite right and were subsequently rectified no complaints now, I think a misaligned blastpipe was mentioned.
Engines can be out a bit but still run well. Years ago when SVR first got it's Zeiss optical kit 46443 had its axleboxes refettled and was set up square, it was reassembled and on it's first run it's motion ran hot, the valve gear was sorted no more trouble.
This would tend to show that if an engine was slightly out and the clearances were OK the engine would run well but, the opposite and you have got a dog.
71000 is probably the best example of this an engine nobody wanted to work on in BR days, but now after investigation and restoration what an engine.

Cheers Dave

 

Tangmere was one of the first ten Spam Cans selected for withdrawal in 1963, which hardly suggests she was an outstanding engine in BR days, but in preservation, it's been a different story. Hopefully 34053 will prove a similarly improved engine. As Dave has mentioend above, 71000 is the best example of how preservation has transformed a throughly indifferent performer into a truly impressive machine. There has been a lot of work done to this engine to correct the design weaknesses, and the owning group have publcised these changes, whereas the modifications to, say 5164 (and doubtless other engines too) have been less extensive, less widely reported but nonetheless beneficial.

 

34004 is one of the more obvious 'good 'uns' during the early years.

 

By all accounts 45379 wasn't a sparkling performer towards the end of its BR days. I'm sure now though having had the attentions of the good folk of Ropley it will be a fine example of its type.

 

I have seen it asserted that the abilities of an engine were fairly immaterial as to when it was withdrawn in relation to others of its class. In Adrian Vaughan's works he records a journey he made on, I believe, the Pembroke Coast Express and how the driver was complaining that the Castle they had was a bit of a dog when others nearly new were going to the scrapyards.

 

Because you had to push to get anything out of it?

 

Hmm. Obvious really I suppose. But I've heard from different people that it had been involved in some epic runs. Maybe it was just a lazy nag and had to be woken up.

I've just found an interesting site based on Nine Elms, following a discussion on another thread. It seems to confirm that 35022 was a favourite MN in the mid-60's. Look for Nine Elms and a discussion by Alan Newman who was one of the firemen there.

 

Reading that site, 35011 managed quite a feat in 1965 on the rising 1/250 gradient at Waller's Ash. Went to the rescue of a failed Class 33 with 60 empties and a brake van. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary about that, until you consider that 35011 was still coupled to 12 carriages (404 tons) that formed the Bournemouth Central-Waterloo 'Royal Wessex'! Its one of those things that one hopes is true...

 

It doesn't necessarily follow. Engines were withdrawn when either they were surplus, or required repairs which exceeded the allowed budget. Breakages came into the latter category. For example 34016 had a cylinder defect, but the boiler had a long time to run. So it was put on safety valve testing duties for some months. In many cases they were withdrawn when the boiler was due for major repairs. 35002 was due a general, but didn't get it because 35028 got in first. 35015 developed a serious defect - I don't know what exactly. Most of the other early MN withdrawals came about when the boiler was due repairs. The most obvious exceptions were the ones that were rendered surplus by the WR - e.g. 35009, 35025, and weren't able to be transferred elsewhere like e.g. 35022. Probably a similar senario existed for the lightweights. 34055 developed a serious defect, but most of the other early withdrawals were proposed for shops and rejected.