If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

BR(W) 16xx pannier tank

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Reading General, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. Reading General

    Reading General Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,081
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    I know these are more or less to replace turn of the century very similar locos worn out at this stage but I wonder why ,if a lighter than 57xx pannier was needed, they didn't build more 74xx....are these even smaller /too small?

    Was it the case that the "new"locos included parts of the older ones perhaps?
     
    Reading General, Jan 31, 2013
    #1
  2. marshall5

    marshall5 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    4,426
    Location:
    i.o.m
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Was it the case that the "new"locos included parts of the older ones perhaps?[/QUOTE]

    The 16xx were totally new engines and didn't incorporate a significant number of parts from the locos they replaced. IIRC the 16xx were smaller and lighter than the 74xx. Ray.
     
    marshall5, Jan 31, 2013
    #2
  3. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Yep, the 74s, although they were of the "small" Pannier tank line, were actually reasonably powerful - more powerful than the earlier pre grouping large Pannier tanks in fact, and also had 4'7.5 wheels like the 57s. The 16s had 4'1 wheels, were shorter with a rather smaller and lighter boiler, and were built to a very restricted loading gauge. I believe there were a lot of motion parts and so on in common between the 16s, the 54s, 64s and 74s and the 1400 0-4-2Ts.

    Shame more 16s didn't survive: should have thought they'd be good for many preserved lines.
     
    Jimc, Jan 31, 2013
    #3
  4. Reading General

    Reading General Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,081
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    GWR panniers are quite complicated, but I thought that broadly there were two groups...4'7" wheels and 4'1"....the 27xx series would have been the predescors of the 57xx I guess , am i right in thinking that some of the 4'1" variety would have been similar to the 16xx ?
     
    Reading General, Jan 31, 2013
    #4
  5. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    My take on it from a year or so ago is here:-
    A Beginner's Guide to Pannier Tanks
    I've learned more since then but yes, I think its fair to say there was a fundamental division between large and small types but what I call small types had 4'7.5 and 5'2 wheels in the 20thC.
    The large classes went (inter alia) 1813->1854->2721->5700->8750->9400 and the small classes 850-2021-2101-[5400,6400,7400]->1600.
    The Collett classes were roughly speaking at the sort of spec the pregrouping ones had been upgraded to at that time, but with all the latest advances in precision manufacture and the like.
     
    Jimc, Jan 31, 2013
    #5
  6. Reading General

    Reading General Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,081
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    that'll keep me busy for a while! Thanks!
     
    Reading General, Jan 31, 2013
    #6

Share This Page