Pannier Tanks

The thing is, though, they were for shunting primarily and the 08s were already entering service at the same time. The LMS built no more steam shunters after the last Jinties, the Southern never built any, apart from the Z class 0-8-0Ts, which were more specialised, and also bought the USA tanks, again, for a specific duty. Another odd one was why the LNER and BR chose to build another batch of J72s. Any ideas anyone?

Also, why were Panniers a GWR peculiarity? as far as I know, no one else ever had any. The LNWR had some which looked a bit like panniers but they were actually saddle tanks, but the tank was square, rather than shaped like the boiler

 

Well, no, they cannot have been intended primarily for shunting. The first batch of 94s were superheated, definitely not appropriate for a shunting engine. They also had screw reverse, not lever reverse, which again is a feature for a traffic locomotive, not a shunter.

Pannier tanks were used because they were a better match for a belpaire firebox.

 

as has been said before, the 94xx were built to replace worn out pre grouping locos primarily ex Welsh company locos on coal trains from the Valleys.. They and the 57xx were not primarily shunters, they did all sorts of work most of which wasn't shunting.

 

Thought the 56xx 0-6-2 tanks were intended for this job?

 

the 56xx operated alongside the absorbed locos right into the 1950s, so no, that wasn't the case. Manu of the absorbed locos were rebuilt with GWR boilers etc

I think there were around 800 locos absorbed which will give you an idea of the scale of the problem the GWR faced and why the 56xx were urgently needed

 

The 5600s were the 1924 answer to replace the large number of older South Wales 0-6-2T (such as TVR 28/GWR 450). Basically a Rhymney 0-6-2T with a standard boiler and a new design of motion.

23 years later the more modern absorbed 0-6-2Ts (such as the TVR A class) were due for replacement and experience with the 5700s suggested that an 0-6-0 was up to the job, hence the 9400s.

I suspect that the water capacity requirement was less than in the peak period up to the First World War when the 0-6-2Ts were introduced (as successors to tender locos) , apparently it was then not uncommon for a loco to spend a complete shift stationary on a relief line when bad weather caused a backlog at the docks, changeover crews having to walk from the nearest station to their appointed charges. By 1940s (and indeed the 1920s) with less coal and more modern ships that situation was history.

 

Yep, seems to have been basically a cheaper alternative to more 56s.

 

I was intrigued to read Reading General's comments that the 94XX was to replace old locos in the South Wales Valleys.

I would be interested in a source for this information.

All that happened in the late 1940s and 1950s when the remaining old Rhymney Railway 0-6-2T locos (and those of other pre grouping companies in The Valleys) were withdrawn was that more 56XX tanks were transferred to South Wales - though this was offset by a gradual contraction in the South Wales Coalfield from mid 1950s to mid 1960s. In the mid 1950s there were something like 175 coal mines, and by mid 1960s there were approx 75. Cardiff ceased to export coal in 1963.

No 94XX tanks were (to the best of my knowledge) ever used on the traditional Valley diagrams. Very few were ever based in South Wales, and never replaced the 0-6-2T type on the coal trains up and down The Valleys, or any passenger services in The Valleys.

Churchward decided early on that saddle tanks should be replaced with Pannier tanks when old locos received new belpaire boilers.

Apart from the 1361 0-6-0Ts built in 1910 (and re-designed by Holcroft) to replace the old CMR locos, Churchward built no 0-6-0 tank locos, and these 1361s were saddle tanks and had a raised and curved firebox - no belpaire firebox.

The numerous pannier tanks that emerged during the Churchward period were the result of reboilering old locos with belpaire boilers.

It is often quoted that the 57XX class of Collett date back to the 2021 class of 0-6-0T locos of 1897 vintage. This is not correct. The 57XX was based on the earlier 1882 1813 class design. The 2021 class had the rear of the boiler sloping and over the rear axlebox and horncheeks.

The 1813 class had a deep non sloping firebox same as the famous Dean Goods of similar vintage. Both used the same cylinders and valvegear, though the Dean Goods had a larger wheel diameter.

The 57XX was a sort of updated 1813 class, and the Collett Goods 2251 class a Dean Goods with tapered boiler etc also internally the same as the 1813 class re valve gear and cylinders.

The first truely new pannier tank design and tank engine design was the Collett 56XX for the South Wales Valleys as this loco had piston valves inclined (something Churchward never would allow). To suggest it was a copy of the Rhymney Railway 0-6-2 tanks is not true. None of the Rhymney Railway tanks had piston valves.

Cheers,
Julian

 

RCTS part 5, Six coupled locomotives* is one, perhaps the most obvious, source of that information. It states that Newport used them (the 9400s) extensively on branch passenger work and Cardiff valleys on coal trains. RCTS also states that those two districts had the biggest allocations.

[* RCTS page E82, Allocation and Work section]

 

Indeed.

The 1957 allocation shows 104 of the 9400s in South Wales, 32 in the London division, 7 in the London Midland Region and 67 elsewhere on the Western Region. I agree that most photos show 5600s continuing to be on most main line work although Part 5 does specifically mention their use on coal trains in the Cardiff Valleys division.

The RCTS book actually suggests 5600s were transferred to Wolverhampton and London divisions (in exchange for 2-6-2Ts) later in their life.

It is however stated that 9400s were extensively employed on heavy shunting, particular mention being made of Margam and Llanelly steelworks. Also that the London allocation was used for shunting and Paddington empty stock working.

 

Thank you JimC and LesterBrown. I have RCTS part 5 but dont recall this mention, so will have a look.

What is abundantly clear is that the 94xx did not replace the old pre-grouping 0-6-2Ts on Valleys Line work. Very few were shedded up The Valleys. Margam and Llanelli are not 'up The Valleys'! I have all the shed allocations somewhere of the different classes allocated to South Wales.

Cheers,
Julian

 

i'm not the font of all knowledge so I'll enjoy reading further on this thread. However it was my understanding that the 94xx were to replace pre-group locos but this may of course have been an accounting exercise rather than a one for one swap.
It is complicated by the contraction in freight work at this period of course and it could be that most of the 0-6-2ts were actually replaced by 56xx surplus elsewhere.
There were of course quite a lot of pre57xx panniers still about in 1948 in need of replacement.

 

You've got me puzzled there. As far as I was aware the 5600s were the only six-coupled tanks with the firebox over the rear coupled axle.

The 5700s were successors to the 2721 class (not the small 2021 class which was replaced by the 1600s) with however the suspension arrangement of the 1854 and even earlier 1813 class.

The ancestor of the whole lot, including the Dean Goods was the Armstrong 633 side tank class of 1871. Dean seemed to have taken this inside framed design to Swindon, adding his own domeless design of boiler.

 

it's not clear to me here if you refer to the 94xx or 56xx.

 

I assumed 94xx, that's what Part 5 says about them. I've edited my succeeding post to make it clear I was certainly referring to 9400s.

 

Mmm, but there were also more 5700s being built, as well as some 7400s, which were a lighter weight general purpose 0-6-0T, both of which had lever reverse. I'm pretty sure I did the sums a while back and the numbers balanced. The 200 94s roughly balance out the number of Welsh pre group locomotives that remained. Unfortunately while the locomotive committee minutes tell us that the 9400s were ordered "in anticipation of future condemnations" they don't tell us what those condemnations were to be, unlike pre war locomotive committee minutes which are more specific about what's to be withdrawn and what was being ordered to replace them.

We enthusiasts have a bad habit of talking as if we think locomotives were just ordered because the CME fancied building a batch of whatevers, but of course that's nonsense. New locomotives were built to replace older ones coming out of service, with some juggling for changed traffic needs and the like. And the only locomotives to be withdrawn in the 1951-1956 period that the 9400s could have been built to replace were the pre group Welsh classes, and vice versa, so realistically the only sound argument is that the 9400s were ordered for that purpose. The 94s did have rather less boiler capacity than the 56s, (std 10 against Std 2) even though they had much the same grip and braking capability, so one may guess that allocations would have been juggled so that the 56s were concentrated where the extra capacity was useful, and 94s placed where they were adequate for the work required.

Incidentally, as far as the pre group types are concerned, we should remember that by the time they were withdrawn the vast majority of the later pre group large pannier tank types had been rebuilt with P class (Dean Goods etc) boilers. The various Swindon built inside frame large pannier tank classes from the 1813 on (1813, 1854, 1701, 2721) were tending to merge into something approaching a less sophisticated 5700. The Wolverhampton built smaller pannier tanks, (850, 1901, 2021), were a quite separate line of development with smaller wheels, boilers and quite different motion arrangements, and their replacements were the 54s, 64s, 74s and 16s.

 

Hi LesterBrown,

A large number of the old (pre-Churchward) and later Collett 're-designed' 0-6-0 T/PTs had the firebox sloping and over the rear axle. In 'recent' times only the 57XX had a deep firebox not over the rear axle. The 64XX and 15XX all had sloping fireboxes over the rear axle.

Cheers,
Julian

 

There is a very interesting book in Newport Library analysing the lead up to the GWR to nationalisation. Alone amongst the 'Big Four' the GWR was still paying a dividend. The accountants had set aside sufficient moneys for replacement of ageing locos. Had this money not been utilised it might have affected the sum paid by the Labour Government inter alia va the GWR to it's shareholders to buy out the GWR.

I havent gone into this in any detail, and others have examined in far more detail the reasons why so many 94XXs were ordered just before nationalisation, but like the 15XX both were in any reasonable analysis unnecessary and a waste of money.

There also appears to be agreement with hindsight that if more locos were required of this type more 57XXs would have been a better option.

All pannier tanks of course!

Cheers,
Julian

 

Very interesting background re the money set aside for replacements. The GWR had already ordered a few diesel electric shunters just before nationalisation. That should surely have continued.

I stand corrected on the 6400 etc fireboxes, however the Swindon diagrams don't show sloping grates for either 2021s or 2721s, also only a single height dimension is given.

 

At the end of 1946 there were still 288 old 0-6-0 PT which were nearly all ex ST about and a few ones still about from the Welsh Railways, so the number of the PT built after this date is more or less the same an the 94XX and the 16XX with the last few 8750 to be built been about the same as the Welsh Railways ones. Yes in most cases more 8750 engines could have done the same job with a few 94XX built for a few places where needed.