A good 'un from a bad 'un

Yes, funny how they're limited to sixty now. A rule that was brought in, I am assured, by someone from the Eastern who doesn't like LMS engines. He managed to find a way to include 6' 2" driving wheels in the group of 75 mph allowed engines, but exclude anything below. Which neatly allowed the B1's, and BR standards, but excluded LMS class Fives. Anyone who knows anything about them knows perfectly well that in reasonable shape they'll do 80 easily and safely. One of the preserved examples has actually done a lot more than that, but we'll leave it at that. I've actually heard it said that a class five is not even capable of 75, so there's no point in allowing them over 60 anyway.

 

It is possible. But would be surprising. I've not heard of any class five that had a complete new frameset made, apart from the first one that had an exchange set. Mind you it's been said that no Stanier boilers got a new firebox, apart from the steel firebox class fives, but one has since been discovered which dates from the time those were done.

Somebody measure it please. Don't forget to allow for the paint thickness, but it's quite easy to tell if they are 1" or not.

 

The only Class 5 in existance today with the Ivatt frame arrangement to drawing D46-17338 is 44767. You are probably refering to the later Stanier frame arrangement to drawing D43-16660. 44871 and 44932 have this frame arrangement.
It has to be noted, however, that Ivatt started fitting Class 5s with manganese steel axlebox and horn block liners.
There might of been 842 of them, but, at the end of the day, it is possible that everyone of them was different in some way.

 

From the late 1940's up until about 1962, the early engines were modified as they came into works with broken frames. By the early ones I mean up to about I think it was 5451. Maybe later, but as mentioned above from a certain point the frames were made to a later drawing - the arrangement as described earlier. By the time this was stopped about half of the fleet, maybe a little more, had been completed. The budget for overhauls was progressively reduced and any engine that came in with bad frame fractures was condemned. I think I'm correct in saying that the first class five victim of this policy was 45265. Most of the works withdrawals of the class up to late 1965 were due to what would nowadays be referred to as frame issues. Not many of the unmodified engines survived for long, but three seem to have survived into preservation, one of which was still working on the last day.

 

They obviously didn't ride the Birkenhead - Paddingtons in their latter years.

 

Interesting, a difference of 20 rpm at 75mph.
Derek Cross wrote somewhere that B1's were rough riders compared to black 5's.
Smacks of the same reasoning and the kneejerk reaction when the 9F's were found to be running up to 90 mph.
Realistically how fast would black 5's run if de-regulated especially with 11-12 coach trains?
I have always thought that timing class 5's of all types at 60mph average then, allow them to run freely as the track allows, you might get periods of fast running with favourable grades but maybe not as much as some people think, and it would help recovery on tight sections.
With smaller trains 5's will fly, I remember a run over the Central Wales route with 45110 with 7 0n, at Pantyffynon the hydrant refused to play and eventually we were put into the back road at Port Talbot to get water.
A path was difficult to obtain in fact the only path available meant our driver had to run it as best he could and run it he did as we had a HST up our a***e we ran that well that approaching Cardiff we were getting back boards, never heard any speeds mentioned but we were not hanging about.

Cheers Dave

 

Only 90?

Whilst we're on that subject I've heard a few stories about nines doing high speeds. There was an article written in the fifties about this, but some people seem to think they were isolated cases. Not so.

I got talking to a Western driver many years ago who earlier the same evening had wound 92220 up to 84 mph in double quick time from a standing start, and who was complaining that it wasn't steaming too well. He said that he knew several blokes who'd had a ton out of a nine on a passenger train in the sixties - "But unfortunately they won't let us do it now".

The revs/min of a 6'2" engine doing a hundred is the same as a 5' engine doing 81. 9F wheels aren't as small as people make out. It's less than 20% smaller than a 6'2" wheel.

 

A bit of a thread resurrection here.......

There is a lot of talk about the preserved black fives in this thread, are there any experiences of any of the other preserved classes ( the hall thread made me think on but though it wasn't appropriate to put such a general question there?)

We have quite a number of classes with multiple locos- has anyone driven/fired/been on a train with more than one example of the same class to compare? I would be really interested to get a better undertanding of the variations between apparently identical or similar locos.

Many thanks

Chris

 

I can only go on limited experience in preservation, but I can certainly say that 80078 and 80104 were completely different in character; '104 always steamed a lot freer while '78 always seemed to require a thicker fire to do the same work. I suppose when you think of the amount of variation that can be in the various parts of a steam loco (cylinder bores, tyre thickness etc) it would be more surprising if they were all the same!

 

Pete Smith wrote in one of his books that 73050 did not appear to be as powerful as the other Standard 5s. Then one day it was found the indicator had ben fitted falsely so when seemingly in neutral, the reversing lever was actually 5% in reverse.

 

WD192 Waggoner always seems to have a notable edge on 198 Royal Engineer. It steams more freely and seems to be more powerful to boot! Not sure why, though 192 was less intensively used during its working life, perhaps this accounts for it. They are 95% identical as far as I know, only differing in the braking arrangements.

 

I've had experience with six Black 5's in my time, (perhaps soon to be seven). By far the best has been 44767 and the worst 45110. Placing the others is a bit harder. 45212 is definitely a good 'un. I'd put 44871 above 45407 and 45428 on a par with the latter. It can all be very subjective, though, and the difference ban be down to the firemen and the coal. In more practical terms, cylinder and whel size are important players and these can vary quite a bit from the design spec.
one thing I do know, though, is that there's no such thing as identical Black 5's. Every one is different.

 

Presumably they also vary as work is carried out on them and chimney alignments, valve settings etc get tinkered with. It's interesting that the two you favour are later engines - anything to do with them having later, higher superheat boilers perhaps? If so, that bodes well for 44806 on the NYMR although I was told at the weekend that it was not well thought of in BR days.

 

DR 01 0509-8 was unloved at Saalfeld, and spent most of its time lurking in the shed, just visible from the road bridge ("Die Affenfelsen" - "the ape rocks", due to the number of gricers hanging around). It is now owned by the Pressnitztalbahn and is a regular, reliable performer on the main line.

 

This is all very interesting, many thanks to those who have contributed!

Chris

 

I've fired both the Bluebell's currently operational P class locos, and I reckon 323 is a bit better than 178; however, I suspect that has much more to do with which way round they face than any inherent difference. (323 faces south; 178 faces north. IMHO, on the Bluebell, south facing locos -especially small ones - are easier to fire than north facing ones because of the relative disposition of the predominant hills).

Of the Terriers, Fenchurch is defintely better than Stepney, but that is entirely down to the fact that one has 14" cylinders and one has 12" ones!

Tom

 

I believe of the two preserved SDJR 7F locos, one is great and one is a bit of a pig, especially during BR days. Can't remember where I read that though.

 

34016 is the best of the Bulleids I've been on, personally I preferred her to 34027. 34081 was I think better than 34007, but the difference wasn't huge.

Only managed a couple of Black 5s, but 45231 pulls better than 45379 did when first outshopped. I'd be interested to compare them again now though as 45379 has loosened up somewhat. Neither is a patch though on 73096, which is simply magnificent (or was), I realize that isn't an entirely fair comparison.

80078 was much better steamer than 79, and I think it was 104 that was better than either.

Bluebell was somehow more fun than either of the other two Terriers (one of which was Fenchurch, and the other I can't remember now).

41312 is better than 41241, but only because 12 has a self cleaning smokebox (!) otherwise there was nothing in it....

I could always get Countess to steam better for me than The Earl, though the gap was small and probably my psychology rather than the engine.

OK not steam, but 37905 loads much faster than 901, but 901's governor runs back faster which makes it much better for shunting (much).

 

Small correction - Bluebell isn't a Terrier, it's a P class!

My opinion of the two is that a good Terrier has a bit more power, but a P class is lot more user-friendly, both to drive and fire. Not immensely surprising, as there is the best part of forty years difference in design refinement between them, even though supposedly a P was a Terrier copy.

Tom

 

Ah, that explains it! I am no expert on the entomology of pre-grouping southern locomotives. It looked like a Terrier when I was pointed at it, and I was working on the ignorant basis that if it looks like a duck and etc..... Lovely engine.