Standards - a Gigantic Waste ?

Oh dear. Now where in this thread have I advocated Bulleids? But if you must bring them in to the argument, the oil bath was designed to obviate the need to oil up between the frames. A mate of mine does main line support duties and compared the number of oiling points on 34067 with those on 5029. Let's just say that if you were counting them on the fingers of your hands, you'd need more arms than an octopus to count those on the Castle. :tongue:

 

Worth remembering that the Bulleid pacifics were a superb forward-looking design let down by poor materials technology of the era and a pig-headed choice of Eastleigh (rather than Ashford) reverser. Whereas the Collett 4 cylinder engines were a concious effort to remind the Great Western's staff and shareholders of that railway's heyday in the 19th century. :smile:

Tom

 

Just so i dont disappoint my Fan club ( hiya tony).....
The only engines you would ever have need of would be a 2-8-2 ..version of the..... wait for it ... Bulleid Pacific (HA HA HA) perhaps with 5 ft 8 inch drivers and caprotti gear
plus a 2 -6 - 2 tank with 5ft drivers each chassis with a Larger boilered 3 cylinder or a smaller boilered 2 cylinder variant....

These would all be built at swindon of course because that was the best works, but they would be available in whatever colour you like with a choice of trims/ chimneys etc.

 

Not wrong there although, fingers crossed, 34081's reverser has been fairly well behaved.

 

To be fair how superb is a design if it cannot be constructed under existing mechanical and material constraints, some could argue that it was the pig-headedness of the designer to design someting that could not be constructed?

Interesting you raise the point regarding the castles, such a poor antiquated design that they continued to be built under BR auspices to a little changed design nearly 30 years after the original was built. Whereas the Bulleid pacfic's were rebuilt little more that 10 years after construction - seems a strange argument to make, if they were so fantastic I cannot see why BR would waste all that cash.

Just for the record I think that that the Bulleids are interesting and I like them, but the constant attempts to make out that they were the best loco ever and that the rebuilds is some sort of vendetta is a little tiresome and dogmatic. They should be better than a castle, the design was around 20 years newer!

 

No. I don't think that they were a waste, but I'm not so sure that they all needed to be built and I can't help but wonder if the complete range was built because of a certain vanity on Riddles part. I am totally convinced that if BR wasn't a nationalised industry but had to answer to shareholders then not all of them would have been built. So what would I have done? Well ...

9F a definite, an absolute necessity.
8P I'd probably go for the Peppercorn A1 but with changes for a divided drive (but not with equal length connecting rods) and a Kylchap streamlined exhaust system. All other 8P designs in construction would be stopped. I'd redesign the Bulleid 8P pretty well as was done in the late fifties but include inside admission for the outside cylinders and again divided drive with unequal connecting rods. I would also delete the thermic syphons.
8F no more needed to be built, but I would continue with the rebuild programme to convert the 04 into the 01. I would also consider re-building many of the ROD Stanier design to 2-8-4T to implement a pre-war concept that wasn't built due to the war.
7 modify the Bulleid as per the 8P: build the Britannias: re-build all Scots, Patriots and Jubilees.
6 the Clans come in for a lot of stick from enthusiasts, but they did the job required of them and probably better than the Jubilees, but I don't see that they were needed unless axle load was an issue in Scotland. Concept should be replaced by more Britannias.
5 concentrate on the Stanier design, stop production of Halls (inside valve gear a big no-no, and limited loading gauge) but continue with B1 for ER/NER.
4 (4-6-0) definitely needed to replace ageing 4-4-0s. Stop production of Manor re valve gear and loading gauge.
4 (2-6-4T) if I were to build the 4-6-0 then the 2-6-4T version is a must. Stop production of Fairburn 2-6-4T and GW 2-6-2T.
4 (2-6-0) continue production of Ivatt, no need for Riddles.
3 (2-6-0 and 2-6-2T) Stuart Cox says that these were made because of axle loading issues on ER/NER branch lines. I would imagine that production of these would go ahead.
2 (2-6-0 and 2-6-2T) continue production of Ivatt designs.
Shunter. Use LMS standard diesel shunter, which with a few changes became Class 08, all steam shunting and 0-6-0 mixed traffic engines to be discontinued (no more Pannier tanks!)

I think it has to be borne in mind that a major driver behind the production of the standards was anxiety about how regional standard engines would be received on other regions. AFAIK the only regional standard engine to be poorly received was the Fairburn on the SR although the Britannias had a few issues on WR.

Regards

 

Having read through this thread there are 3 important points that have been overlooked - much as happenned in the day when decisions were made.

1) Riddles was looking to produce locomotive types that could work ANYWHERE on the network. The much vaunted Castles may have been OK on the Western Region but that design didn't suit the experience of drivers and maintenance staff on other regions where other local favourites were being touted. To quote a phrase but if the new locomotives were to be national then it be best that ALL staff be subject to re-training rather than build more of existing designs. Granted the LMS 2-6-0, 2-6-2T, 2-6-4T and 4-6-0 became standards in Classes 78xxx + 76xxx; 84xxx; 80xxx and 73xxx respectively but these had been well spread by virtue of the LMS network and proved capable of meeting the "Standard" specification once the necessary re-design work had been undertaken.

2) No-one had realised the drastic changes that would arise from the growth of personal transport (i.e. the car) funded by the spending of income earned during the war but unable to be spent and the major growth in road haulage supported by a Ministry that saw road transport as the way forward, a Minister of Transport whose family firm built roads and motorways and a Prime Minister who considered future transport needs could be met by road haulage for goods, cars for personal transport and air transport for long distance travel.

3) The demand for shunting engines had been clearly shown to be met by the English Electric diesel shunter design; although each region had its own variant the many designs evolved over time into the Class 08 diesel shunter. Whilst that was a strong reason not to build too many more shunting locomotives it has to be said that even Ed Burkhardt was impressed with the simplicity and usefulness of them when he became involved with them as owner of EWS in 1994 some near 50 years later

I note that many posters have drawn attention to the shortage of materials to build locomotives and the shortage of money to build Riddles first choice of electrification where the up-front cost was politically unacceptable at a time when the Government was trying to repay the debts incurred by the War but, given the politics within the railways about who would get which post and whose designs would be perpetuated and the politics outside the railways about what role - if any - existed for railways in future years, then the fact that 999 Standard locomotives were built at all is a miracle in itself.

 

Thought provoking though the title is i for one dont dispute that the standards we're built for all the right reasons which appear less valid only in hindsight.

Its interesting that many posters dont volunteer any GW designs because of loading guage issues but in terms of proven design and stardardisation of components
the GW were very strongly placed, it might have been interesting if Hawksworth had got the job instead of Riddles

It has always struck me as odd that right from the outset the Bulleid pacifics werent looked at and rebuilt / redesigned as more conventional machines. In which case there never would have been a Clan, or a Brittania or a Duke.

 

Going back to the OP's post - ie NO BR stds to be built, then I'd make a few stipulations, and assume a few relativlely minor mods could be made to the exisiting loco designs

To aid servicability : NO inside motion, fitting rocking grates and hopper ash-pans where not currently featured

Wide fireboxes for passenger Class 6 upward to allow for poorer quality coal, plus Kylchap exhausts (or similar)

Roller bearings on all driven axles.

So my fleet would be :

8P LMS Duchess - later Ivatt version (but would prefer modified LNER A1 with conjugated gear or Caprotti)
8F LMS 8F
7P LNER A2 (but again valve gear modified - conjugated or Caprotti)
6P V2 (also for fast freight).
5MT LMS 5 - later Ivatt version
4MT LMS Ivatt (with draughting sorted)
4MTT LMS Fairburn (modified to BR 4MTT boiler presure/cyl dia spec where gauging an issue)
2MT/2MTT Ivatt

 

I've read that the decision to replace steam with diesels was because although a diesle was four times the price of a steam loco of similar tractive effort, it burned oil not coal. At the time oil was cheap and came from countries who were all friendly towards Britain.
As for the Standards; the thinking was to have a fleet using best practice of the Big 4 and newer technology. As a result the outside cylinders, rocking grates and self cleaning smoke boxes eyc meant a Standard didn't need to spend so much time on shed and was available for more revenue earning service. Unfortunately the schedulers did not take those factors into consideration.
In another book Paul Beevor argues there was no need for the Standards at all. Instead of the BR Regions operating locos of their previous compnaies, we should have taken a look at the fleet as a whole and moved locos round. He suggested merchantNavies for such services as Liverpool - Glasgow and West Countries on the Leeds - Carlisle service. To replace them Black 5s and V2s should have been sent to the Southern Region.
In closing I'd say the Standards were a waste simply because they were scrapped so early in their lives. The country never had the 30 years use of them that they were designed to give. For example, the 9Fs were expected to last to the mid 1980's. Fictitious Liveries shows what might have been;
Fictitious Liveries
Fictitious Liveries
Fictitious Liveries

 

Fair point, it was an earlier poster or two mentioning Bulleids for 8P's, Nunney Castle might have more oiling point, but I doubt 5029's lubrication has ever caught fire

 

There's a huge question mark over whether GWR designs could have survived the "different" maintenance regimes on other lines: its well known that quite a number of GWR engineering techniques didn't travel well. However that's no excuse for the big increase in costs caused by abandoning standardisation on the WR.

 

Fred Kerr makes some very valid points. This debate should perhaps be 'What types of loco should have been built if the network was frozen in time? Should the planners at the time have foreseen the changes in transport useage that made most of the smaller Standards redundant before they had earned their keep?

It is interesting to compare the UK experience with that of other European countries, although such comparisons have limited use due to geographical and political factors. If electrification was seen as the ultimate aim for the busiest main and suburban lines but that was prohibited by financial constraints then, with hindsight, it would arguably have been better to have extended the life of some existing types rather than build new designs, or, as happened, to perpetuate recent designs as happened with the Ivatt types. What actually happened was [and not wishing to start another 'old chestnut' debate] was a fairly disastrous experiment in dieselization that produced too many not very successful types that were short lived or were prematurely withdrawn due to major changes in direction, ie the switch from diesel hydraulic power on the Western Region.

In the two Germanys, East and West, the focus in the 50's and 60's was on rebuilding existing types to a more modern specification [for example the 50, 52 and 58 2-10-0s and some of the pacifics] plus some additions in terms of new builds. Some of these soldiered on well into the 1980s. This could lead to some odd uses of motive power, for example a 2-10-0 pottering round on a two coach branch train and I'm not sure how the economics of this would pan out - is that cheaper than building a new diesel and scrapping a steam loco with 10 or 15 year of life left in it?

This could have been a strategy in the UK with continued use of existing types of steam locos, with some inexpensive modifications as suggested by Sheff, until electrification. This was debated at the time in the railway press in terms of some of the newer pacifics. The A1 and A2s, Bulleids and maybe the Duchesses, or even the newer Castles, might have been retained on the major routes [OK I accept that the major ex GWR routes are still not electrified]. These classes could have been retained on their 'home' territory thus avoiding the need for mass retraining and familiarization. The same might be applied to freight types although I'm not sure the WD designed 2-10-0s would have the capacity that the 9Fs had and there might have been a need for the latter. Whether the WDs of both varieties could or should have had their lives extended is debatable and existing designs from the pre-nationalization companies might have been a better option.

 

Based on what criteria? Based on what criteria? Based on what criteria? Based on the fact that it's the NICEST engine ever! Anyone can see the engineering perfection! I'm so obsessed that I'd build a 5 inch gauge version to use as a conversation piece to show off to people and tell them how great it is. And go on Internet forums and every flippin thread on any other type of engine, but especially those on the 9fs, mention how good and noble and useful such a a 2-8-2 would be and how rubbish the 9Fs were by comparison. I hope if I go on and on and on about it I reckon everyone will come in line eventually! they must do!

 

It's that level of objective and rational argument, thrust and counter thrust, strike and parry, that I feel gives NP it's distinct flavour! :smile:

Tom

 

People mention if you were going to build a standard 060 tender loco that the Q1 would have been the only choice as much performace as could be got from a loco of that type and keep in loading gauge and cheep to produce always which goes down well.

 

I did briefly include the Q1 for short range heavy haul freight, until I remembered it contravened one of my criteria - no inside motion.

 

The 9Fs were much more versatile than the DubDees. The Standard 2-10-0 was quite at home on fast fitted freights and even passenger trains when the need arose, the DubDees being quite unsuitable for such workings.

 

Standards a waste? well yes, but only from the point of view that they didn't build enough. A glance at the numbering system shows this was planned to allow very many examples of most classes to be built but circumstances changed and the where-with-all was found for diesels and some electrics. I've seeen it said thta once this course was embarked on, the only sensible thing to do economically was to dump steam asap to minimise duplicated facilities.

Just to add, the Standards weren't a waste as such, more wasteD, but due to changing circumstances this might have been unavoidable.