Austerity 2-8-0 query

A question for those who are more familiar than I am on such matters:

In a couple of places online (e.g. https://www.lner.info/locos/O/o7.php, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD_Austerity_2-8-0) it is asserted that the Austerity 2-8-0 is "based on" the Stanier 8F. LNER.info goes so far as to say there were "many interchangeable parts".

Can anyone who knows the history verify the truthfulness or otherwise of those statements? Beyond similarity in wheel arrangement and driving wheel diameter, they look fundamentally different to me. So is there any shared design lineage that would back up such a statement?

Tom

 

I wouldn’t put much stock in LNER.info Tom. It was very good in its heyday about fifteen years ago but looks very outdated now. It is based largely on a mixture of RCTS and secondary sources.

I don’t believe there are any interchangeable parts between the LNER O6 and O7 classes. The O6 as you know was the full Stanier design from the LMS built under license as part of the war effort.

However, Thompson’s O1 did indeed copy the pony truck design, almost verbatim, from the Stanier engine, and that design was then applied to virtually everything with a pony truck including the L1 and then most of the V2s later on.

It is however recorded that Tom Coleman from the LMS assisted Robin Riddles with the production of this design, and if you look at the frames/wheel arrangement and spacing there are too many coincidences for it to not have had, realistically, some LMS 8F influence. Look at the front of the frames in particular.

The whole locomotive was very much “austerity” and this is seen in the choice of boiler (round topped, easy to build), materials choicies (steel all round, no copper firebox) and the design of cab and tender.

So in short - no, it’s not standard with the O6 and you can’t swap parts between them. Yes, it is derived from the Stanier 8F.

 

Playing Devil's advocate though - if you start out with a blank sheet of paper and aim to design a loco to fill a similar requirement (heavy freight) within a given set of constraints (i.e. loading gauge), isn't it likely that you'll end up with something that is superficially similar in dimensions? And the dimensions in any case aren't identical, just broadly similar - for example, the Austerity has a loco wheelbase that is 14" shorter than a Stanier 8F. Similarly, although the coupled wheels are the same diameter, the pony truck wheels differ (which must in turn have led to design differences there).

Hence my question about "derived" from the Stanier 8F. Yes, they are both 2-8-0s but how much more is similar, beyond what will inevitably be similar if you are aiming to hit the same target? It feels to me a bit like saying that a Maunsell Lord Nelson is "derived from" a Collett Castle - yes, they are both 4 cylinder 4-6-0s, and I'm sure Maunsell had had an opportunity to look at a Castle in some depth and maybe even discuss the design informally within the network of CMEs, but no-one would assert that one derives from the other. I'd quite happily accept that a Riddles 5MT is "based on" a Black 5; and a 2MT is "based on" an Ivatt 2MT, but I'm struggling with the notion that there is much in common between a Stanier 2-8-0 and an Austerity 2-8-0.

(The context of the question, incidentally, is a photo of an Austerity 2-8-0 planned for the next edition of The Bluebell Times, and the caption writers have gone with the same "The WD 2-8-0s were based on the LMS Stanier Class 8F design" formulation, and it made me wonder to what extent).

Tom

 

Hi Tom, you’re right to question it - but they would have had the Stanier 8F drawings to work from. Yes the wheelbase is 14’’ shorter but all the major dimensions are substantially closer to the 8F footprint, than, say, your Nelson to Castle comparison.

“Derived” is a bit of a catch all term, I agree, but I would challenge you to put the O7 drawings over the Stanier 8F and you will realise the lineage becomes clearer.

 

What about the relationship between the DR class 50 & 52?

 

Different scenario entirely, a simplified and cheaper derivative from the same source.

 

But being equally provocative in the opposite direction, why would you start with a clean sheet of paper when you've got a complete set of drawings in the drawers across the office? Obviously just about every major component was redesigned, but I suggest that its much more like the LMS locomotive than it is the GW, LNER or GER equivalents.

Loosely based might be an appropriate form of words. It might be an interesting feature for the mag piece if you could source weight diagrams for WD, 28xx, 8F, O4/30xx, O1 and O2 so your readers can make the comparison.

 

I am not sure a simple (based on", "derived from" etc) is answerable as those are subjective terms. The obvious differences are (referring to the WD 2-8-0):

• round top, parallel boiler
• driving wheel spacing different
• swing link front truck
• Laird type crosshead and slide bars
• hydrostatic lubricator
• two live steam injectors
• four axle tender
• cast iron coupled wheels (apart from driving wheel set)
• no balancing of reciprocating parts
• truck wheels and tender wheels had integral tyres

and no doubt a few others. Various fabrications were introduced for parts previously made of forgings or castings.

As to interchangeability of parts (other than the whistle!), I doubt much was interchangeable. 48169 had a set of what looked like Austerity wheels but that seems to have been a one-off, and WD tenders were occasionally seen with some 8Fs.

A couple of official / non-enthusiast sources: the BR Test Report on the WD simply says the loco was designed to "supersede the 8F as a WD standard loco". The Railway Gazette article of September 1943 says "In general appearance and proportions, the design conforms closely to the standards usually adopted in this country for the 2-8-0 type.."

Edited to add driving wheel spacing different.

 

With regard to pony trucks- Stanier 2-8-0s had 3'-3 1/2" dia wheels, O1 & O4 had 3'-6" dia, L1 had 3'-2" dia and WD 2-8-0s had 3'-2" dia.

 

Drawings from the 1948 Interchange Trials report.

 

Accepting the fact that "based on", "derived from" are indeed subjective terms, that does feel like pretty much an entirely different locomotive. Given Riddles' background, it would hardly be surprising if in details they erred towards LMS design practice, but it feels like a leap to say the two types are closely related.

(Looking at your diagrams, the cylinders look different as well, as does the detailed arrangement of the valve gear - notably the relationship between lifting link and radius rod).

Tom

 

Presumably given the number of 8F's in service there would be an opportunity to improve things based on experience and of course simplify construction

 

Here from the WR diagram book are the ROD and 2884 against the Austerity. I think one may fairly say they are all very different types from each other. I don't have drawings of the other LNER types.

 

I would not disagree.

 

True, but its the side bearing truck itself that was copied. To be clear!

 

？The WD had a swing link truck.

 

Yes, but I am talking about the 8F to O1.

 

A much closer relationship than between the 8F and WD. All the main dimensions were common - engine wheel size and spacing, boiler length and diameter, grate size, cylinder size, etc. The tender designs were different, with the Br52 "bathtub" being very distinctive.

After WW2, the West German Bundesbahn had so many 2-10-0s that it was able to withdraw its Austerity Class 52s quite early but re-used some of their boilers on Class 50s, and re-used some of the bathtub tenders behuind other loco types.

http://dlok.dgeg.de/97.htm
http://dlok.dgeg.de/98.htm

 

I think Jim’s post sums it up neatly.

 

This is a really interesting discussion and and draws attention to the terms 'inspired by' as opposed to 'derived from'. The 8F / WD scenario was far from the first case to bring this up.

Harold Holcroft's move from the GWR to the SECR took Churchward / GWR ideas to that railway; James Clayton's move from Derby did similar providing a Midland influence, even down to physical appearance, but realistically it ended there. Stanier's move from Swindon to the LMS imported many GWR ideas to that railway and led to the theory that his 2-6-0 was derived from the 43xx; the 8F came from the 28xx and the Black Fives from the Halls. Apart from the wheel arrangement and boiler / firebox shapes, there is almost nothing common between any of these classes. The nearest similarities were actually the bottom ends of the GWR Kings and LMS Princesses, despite the latter having four valve gears, but since their appearances were very different, this tends to be overlooked.

Riddles' intention when building the WD 2-8-0 was to produce an engine to do the same work as the 8F but cheaper and easier to build. So the taper boiler was replaced by a parallel one; the Belpaire firebox by a round topped one; frame details became fabrications rather than forgings or castings, wheels were cast iron rather than steel I don't know the situation on axleboxes but almost all parts were slimmed down or the materials changed, and this extended throughout the whole engine so little interchangeability existed. Had it existed, the whole design process would have been a waste of time.