Standard 8MT 2-8-2 New Build

One 2 8 2 Bullied loco

 

And the one actually built.....;-) http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/44541-bullied-2-8-2/

 

Anything with a pony truck and more than 3 driving axles should have one of these (Krauß-Helmholz). I can't understand why the 9F's didn't, when Riddles was so impressed by the German 2-10-0's of Class 50, 52 and 44), all of which were so fitted:

The first is from PKP Pt47 65, undergoing restoration at Chabowka; the other pair are at Luzna.

​

 

lets assume for one minute that 2 protypes had been built, put into service then rebuilt along simular lines to the MN class, how would they had performed on the tracks, would 8 drivers would have made then better machines than the MN , assuming that the cylinders would have been as on the plan, and a boiler same outline and size to the MN had been used,

 

perhaps because his own WD 2-10-0 s worked so well without? Why add complications for what was a heavy freight loco in times of austerity?

 

I don't think that the WD 2-10-0 design has any bearing on a projected Std 8 2-8-2. Typical reaction of a UK enthusiast to anything different. Or remotely complicated.

How many WD 2-10-0s were built? How many Class 50, 52, 44, 141p, PKP Pt 47 etc? If the 9F had been designed by a team that did not put simplicity at the top of their design requirements then the question of the class not currently being permitted on the mainline would not have arisen. Locomotives go along track that has curves and so are designed with this in mind. Or they are not and you get all the restrictions, wear, fatigue, derailments and embarrassment that you deserve.

The Std 8 would not be an austerity design either. So you would design to build fewer and better, not the SOS. Why build two locomotives when a single one of superior design will do a better job?

 

It may come as a total surprise to you but the BR team were not designing a heavy freight loco to run on a high speed late 20th/early 21st Century network. The 9F worked quite well on the network of the time and it subsequent banning from the 1990s(?) onwards is of no relevance to the original design requirement.

 

Unfortunately there just isn't the room with the UK load gauge profile to make use of the Krauss-Helmholz truck. The maximum allowable width over cylinders is something less than 9' here, while in Germany they can go to 10' - 4-1/2" (3150 mm). This means that they can have bigger cylinders, spread out the piston rod centres, and have longer coupling rod bearings besides having the additional side play for the leading coupled axle which the Krauss-Helmholz system requires. The German Class 52 in contrast to British locos has a side play of 25 mm either side of centre (i.e. 50 mm in total) for the 1st and 5th coupled axles. Load gauge restrictions here mean that unfortunately this system is a non-starter here in the UK.

 

But it wasn't designed by Chapelon so couldn't possibly be any use.
You're absolutely right though. The projected life of the DubDees was around 5 years IIRC so the design was kept as simple and as inexpensive as possible.

 

Rubbish!

 

To be fair to Lplus, I think that he is only reflecting the design and operating requirements as seen at the time with the creation of the WD 2-10-0. Lets face it, it is a typical , uncomplicated lumbering British freight engine, much the same as many thousands of then running in the UK at the time, only bigger. Flangeless centre drivers are a whole lot cheaper than a Helmholz Truck.

If anything, the drawing offices and the operating departments of the Big-Four were very conservative places - apart from perhaps when Bulleid moved to the Southern, but even he created the oh so simple Q1. Even with the Standards this conservative approach was still very prevalent. A contemporary locomotive of the Britannias built in the UK was the 25NC for South Africa, which is technically light years ahead of a Brit.

So much of what we see in British main-line steam locomotive design, with a few exceptions, was a compromise to suit various entrenched positions, whether in the workshops, loco sheds or drawing office, a great pity as these attitudes had a great deal to do with the non-development of BR steam and it's ultimate early demise.

Cheers

Alan

 

I would argue that the "early" demise of UK steam was as much if not more to do with politics than any conservatism of design. As interesting as all the work of Porta, Wardale etc.is, the fact remains surely that even wholesale adoption would not have seem steam delay the onset of dieselisation and electrification for much longer. I can't see even the most advanced Porta design begin adopted for the LGV in France and the Neubaustrecke in Germany.

 

Indeed, politics were a big factor, along with others, such as a much choosier workforce. But, it would have been a harder argument for the likes of Marples to shrink the traffic of the railways if they had been more efficient all round and that certainly includes the loco fleet.

No doubting that steam was doomed by the 1950's, however, a more up to date design philosophy would have kept steam going in some way until at least the mid 1970's. A great pity, as I would have had an SLR by then!!

Cheers

Alan

 

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was thought in 1955 that steam would be phased out over 20 years but if true, that idea went right out of the window. As for more efficient designs keeping the likes of Marples at bay, I'm not so sure. The road lobby had a big hold over government and I suspect the story would have been much the same whatever steam locos we had. It would have been nice to have seen what steam was really capable of but I think its fate had been decided in the corridors of power no matter what.

 

Alas 2-4-2 A1 is only too right. A somewhat less reactionary approach to (successful) innovation would still not have saved steam though.

PH

 

It wasn't just the road lobby that killed off steam, it was the lack of people willing to work on steam locos. As enthusiasts we tend to forget that many of the railway staff were only too happy to see the back of steam.

 

So true.

 

Aye, the words of 45110's fireman at Liverpool Lime Street on 11th August 1968 "No more dirty hands"

 

The question of steam survival and the waste that was the Standards needs to bear in mind the situation at the time of their conception. Whilst Riddles was in favour of electrification the newly created BR couldn't / wouldn't get the funding necessary to build the expensive infrastructure [despite the lower operating costs]; the state of diesel traction was still best described as "experimental" and there was an urgent need for locomotives to replace war-damaged / life-expired locomotives hence the decision to build more steam locomotives - quickly.

Whilst other factors were at play the main factor was the willingness of Governments to fund BR and much was ordered as funds became available. This led to short term decisions which went against long-term planning - of which the dieselisation of BR was but one gigantic example of waste. Had the monies spent been invested in electrification there would have been fewer diesel locomotives and a better network of main lines with train frequency / passenger levels that even Beeching would have found difficult to reduce by closure.

 

I was replying to the question of why Riddles didn't use the helmholz truck on the 9F, not the std 8 which had been consigned to history by then. There is no doubt that his WD 2-10-0 was well regarded in use during the war, and even when a few were bought for use in the uk, they were surprisingly flexible. As I said, why would he use a complicated system never used before in the UK on what he knew would be a heavy freight loco designed with simplicity and cheapness in mind.

Since the WD 2-10-0 locos were built for use during war specifically for a lighter axle loading, it is hardly surprising less were made than those you quote made by the continentals for use before, during and after the war. As you say, the 9F was designed with simplicity in mind, not whether the locos would have to negotiate an unknown type of crossing years after the locos' design lives were over. As pointed out above there isn't even the room within the structure guage for that type of complex bogie system.

The simplest reason why it wouldn't have had a complex bogie if it had been developed is the lack of room within the structure guage. There are also - simplicity, lack of familiarity, cost, the fact that the previous standard designs worked fine without one.... I think your love of large complex foreign locos is blinding you to the realities of design for the post war UK railways.