BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

There is absolutely no point in comparing and contrasting 72010 with those machines that were built in 1951/52. Ten Pacifics were always going to get somewhat swamped by the hundreds of 'near equal' machines that crews had been working with for years. The machine being produced by the Clan Project will include a number of improvements, after all there is a substantial range of options available.

The locomotives weighed 88.5 tons. 72010 will not be able to maintain 3450ihp which would be the equivalent of what has been achieved globally in the past (40ihp per ton of locomotive weight) but it will offer a substantial improvement over the originals. And if you did decide to throw everything into the mix the engine would not get built, not because it couldn't be done but rather because it would be so very different to the machines that people remember, know and understand.

 

There are just as many anecdotes that the 'Clans' were good in the right hands and with the right loadings, and if they were designed to give a better timing margin than that achieved by a Class 5, then they were probably quite successful when used in those circumstances. In my view, they appear no worse than the 'Lord Nelson' or N15X classes, which were both accused of being 'difficult' locomotives in terms of handling and operational characteristics.

The reason for the Southern batch is open to speculation, but my interpretation of the situation is that they might have eventually replaced the remaining unrebuilt 'light pacifics' on routes that could not readily accommodate the rebuilts due to their increased weight. Considering the reason for rebuilding the Bulleids was ostensibly to improve maintenance and hence availability, this might also suggest that the interpretation is not completely beyond the bounds of reality.

 

The only major design differences for a chassis carrying a BR1F tender tank rather than a BR1B are a different hind cross brace and heavier springing for a BR1F. I cannot see any design alterations to a BR1B tender tank increasing the water capacity by 900 gallons, so one will have to be very careful with the springing used. Me, I wouldn't mess about, just build a BR1F tank.

 

Just been looking at the various tender drawings. 10 of the lot 242 Clans would have been fitted with BR1C tender tanks, carrying 9 tons of coal. The other 5 would have been fitted with BR1B tenders, carrying 7 tons of coal. I know it is only the position of the partition plate, but I wonder why there was a variation?

 

Good question... of the fifteen ten were to be allocated Clan names ( ie non southern region) and five non Clan names Hengist, Horsa etc.... for the southern region. I'm with you on the BR1F, but only a slight modification and it would look like a BR1 E, allocate a bit of space for Gizmos and you still have 6.5 Tonnes coal/5500 gallons

 

I would have thought that in the modern network it is easier to refuel with water than coal therefore it should be the coal volume which is critical. Perhaps the coal consumption figure of 31 Lbs per mile (IIRC) will be a deciding factor.
Actually, I have faith in the project engineering team to do what is best for the project so my opinion is not important.
Well done lads, keep going.

 

I always understood that the Southern Region "Clans" were intended for the Somerset and Dorset line where the Bulleid Pacifics were found to be far from ideal. In the end however some of the new Class 5s were delivered instead and they lasted until the line closed.

Peter

 

That was certainly one reason cited for the decision, but another thing that confuses where they were intended to run on the Southern was their names, two of which (72010 'Hengist' and 72011 'Horsa') have strong associations with Kent. If named after HMS Wildfire, Gillingham then 72013 would have been another Kentish subject. 72012 'Canute' might have been a candidate for the S&D due to its broad geographical proximity to his Winchester burial place and the fact that he created the Earldom (the Kingdom of Wessex included Somerset and Dorset), whilst 72014 'Firebrand' is anyone's guess... However, experience with the allocations of the WC/BB pacifics suggests that there would not necessarily have been a regional allocation, and that they could have conceivably been sent to Dorset. I still speculate that despite being nominally less powerful, they might have eventually replaced the unrebuilts on the heavier services to Cornwall and North Devon.

 

The names chosen for the five Southern Region Clans were all repeats of very early locomotive names in use in Southern England - I don't know if that went as far as a particular desire that e.g. Hengist and Horsa would run in Kent, or just more generally choosing names that had a historical railway connection to the south. I'm sure that as a minimum that connection would have been known to those in BR who chose the names: it is too much of a coincidence to me for the names to have been thus chosen otherwise.

For the record, "Hengist", "Horsa" and "Canute" were Nos. 1, 2 and 9 respectively in the SER / London & Brighton / London & Croydon Joint Locomotive Committee list. When that committee disbanded and the locomotives were distributed between the respective companies, they became SER Nos. 9, 10 and 17 respectively.

"Firebrand" and "Wildfire" were originally LSWR Nos. 74 and 77.

Tom

 

Interesting. With the naming policy encompassing SER and LSWR subjects, it looks as though the batch might have been put to use just about anywhere on the Southern Region, with a further batch presumably taking names from former LB&SCR locomotives if the need was there.

 

Careful! there are one or two people on this forum who start foaming at the mouth and steam starts coming out of their ears if they see this word!

 

I will start by diverging but will come back to the point. This small class on 10 locomotives with a mixed reputation reminds me of the Midland "999s" built by Richard Deeley in 1907-08. They were closely related to the compounds; indeed only by an absence of outside cylinders and a running plate that didn't have to rise over the coupling rods could they be easily recognised apart. Deeley quite intentionally built them as simples to compare in original and maintenance cost and performance with the compounds. Both types were saturated and, in that form there was little to choose. When one of the 999s was superheated it immediately showed itself to be much superior to the compounds in respect of coal and water consumption but when the compounds began to be rebuilt with superheaters they moved ahead. The 999s had one very individualistic feature, the Deeley scissors gear that obviated the use of eccentrics. Their weakness was that it was combined with the usual short-travel valves. Had long-travel, long-lap, valves been used it would have been highly likely that a further improvement in performance would have resulted putting them ahead of the compounds and at least equal to the LNWR George V class. This modification was never done. Deeley departed in unhappy circumstances in 1909, the locomotives were capable of the work required of them between Leeds and Carlisle and they soldiered on until the end of the Midland Railway. Under the LMS standardisation policy it made more sense to build a few more compounds than to rebuild a class of only 10 with a unique gear system and they all disappeared by 1928.

The Clans too were a class of only 10. They worked well enough, their shortcomings were hard to determine and by the time that ideas had formed as to what was not quite right the end of steam was in sight and there was no enthusiasm or, as we say today, business case, for what would have been semi-experimental modification work. I have every confidence that the Hengist team will design-out the faults of the original series just as those who rebuilt the Duke solved its problems and as the A1ST improved on the original. If Hengist turns out to be the equal of a Britannia that would be fun!

 

Clark Gable once had a pretty good line that accurately describes my attitude on the matter of whether to use the term 'unrebuilt' or 'unmodified'... I've stated previously when this subject was debated a couple of months ago that I'm not changing my habits just to please others in this regard. As far as I'm concerned, the term has been in long-term usage, so why people should get het-up about its existence now is beyond me, and taking it upon themselves to change 60 years of convention is going to be like pushing water uphill. Back to the Clans...

 

An excellent post. Delighted to see the 999s name-checked too, very underrated and sadly, mostly forgotten locos.

Cheers,

Alan

 

As stated some pages back in this thread; two were earmarked for the S&D and the other three simply "the Southern Region".
I thought they might have been used perhaps, on the Atlantic Coast Express, but then I read Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_6
Prior to the publishing of the Modernisation Plan advocating the change-over to diesel traction, there was a proposal to construct a second batch of the Clan Class, which was accepted as Crewe Works Order Lot 242. This authorised the construction of a further batch of fifteen Clans that included modifications to the original design. Originally scheduled for 1952 with frames constructed for 72010 Hengist, acute steel shortages meant that the order was continually rescheduled until the publication of the British Railways Modernisation Plan finally halted the project. The initial name allocations for the new batch would seem to suggest several operating the Kent coast trains, hauling the Golden Arrow and other expresses, so that some of this batch would have been allocated to the Southern Region.
I then found another link; http://www.theclanproject.org/history
British Railways planned to build a total of 118 Class 6 Clans to work alongside 91 Class 7 Britannias. The first 5 of the next batch of 15, lot 242 were destined for the Southern Region, the remaining 10 for the Scottish Region which was scheduled to receive a total allocation of 40. The Southern Region had one hundred and forty modern Bullied Pacifics and extensive electrification, the need for a further 5 small Pacifics is odd, however there is evidence that the cost of re-building the remaining West Country Class Bullieds* was being weighed up against the cost of turning out new machines, also the rebuilding increased the weight which reduced the Bullied route availability.

 

The operating departments do not look at the name of a locomotive when allocating it ( there were Wet Countries in Kent and BBs in Devon ). The heavy Golden Arrow and some of the heavy boat train workings would have probably been beyond the capacity of a Clan which is why Stewart's Lane always had a couple of Merchant Navies

 

Light Pacifics used to work the 'Arrer too.

 

Yes after the Brits and Merchants went and the tally of Pullmans was reduced, but you more than anyone should know that a Light Pacific was much superior to a Clan.

 

For working the Atlantis Coast Express?