The 9F 2-10-0

In discussing whether or not the Standards were necessary in view of the likely ending of steam in the not too distant future, perhaps it is worth looking at what some European countries did. France and West Germany continued to use steam for quite a few years longer than Britain did, I think both were running them until 1977.

I don't know much about foreign railways, but as far as I know, West Germany built a new class of 2-6-2 tender engines and France a new class of 2-8-2s. Apart from this they seemed to focus on diesel and electric traction and phase steam out more gradually than we did.

 

They also didn't run it into the ground like we did . I went to W Germany a lot 1969 to 1972 and the steam locos were all kept in good condition with modern depots. The latter was of course as a result of the very efficient demolition job by the RAF and USAF.

 

Are you sure ? Wakefield had the 2-8-0 version; the 25 2-10-0 versions were based in Scotland (No series 90750 - 774) presumably for the local mineral (oil & coal) services based at Grangemouth.

 

I was talking generally when I said WD , it was indeed a 2_8_0

 

The wheels for the Standard 3s were designed at Swindon, with the drawing dated 2.1.50.. The drawing for the wheels for the Standard 4 2-6-0s was dated 19.2.51. What you are not aware of is that the axles on the Class 4s are a bigger diameter than those on the Class 3s. The centres of the wheels on the Class 4s were made larger to maintain the strength of the wheels. So, there is no way that the wheel sets could be interchangeable between the Classes..

 

While probably not an exhaustive list, post war France continued building 2-8-2s and 2-10-0s, introduced a new class of 4-8-2s, built a one-off 4-6-4 and 4-8-4, and bought the small matter of 1300+ 2-8-2s to a different design from various North American manufacturers. They were all gone by 1975, but also all in service by the end of 1952. You'd have to think SNCF probably got better value from them than BR did from the standards.

I should have known you'd have the answer. I still maintain that with slightly more focus on standardisation at the planning stage, it would have made sense to design the wheel casting around the requirements of the Class 4, even if it was to be used with smaller axles in the Class 3; the weight penalty would have been minor. Having said that, I suspect everyone who's ever worked in design has backed themselves into a similar corner at some point; I know I have. The moment of realisation is normally about one day after the point of no return is passed...

 

As pointed out earlier, other than boiler tooling, using common major components wasnt really in the design philosophy of the BR standards. Consumables, fittings and construction methods perhaps.
The 'Standard' referred to a network wide loading gauge.
The argument for the standards against perpetuating regional designs is illustrated as follows;

A Southern region shed (Say) wants to replace some of its older locos. we send them two standard 5's and two standard 3 tanks. We send someone along to discuss with the shed master how the controls work, how they have been put together,what tools are needed and its pretty similar for each of them. Later on they get a 9f to trial but they only need to make a telephone call about this one. the Standard 3's aren't upto the job so we send them some Standard 4's - no problem
or
A Southern region shed (Say) wants to replace some of its older locos. we send them two modified modified halls and two V3 tanks. We send someone along to discuss with the shed master how the controls work, how they have been put together ,what tools are needed for the modified halls, two days later someone else from Eastern has to come down to show them how the V3 works, tools parts lists etc. We send them an 8f on trial but it needs someone else to explain how it works and its another set of tools/drawings....
They drivers are funny about the modified halls so they get sent some B1's which aren't quite the same animal as V3's etc etc

 

Actually, that isn't how it worked in practice. Many enginemen found themselves taking over a 'foreign' engine on the road, for example, many a GWR set of men in South Wales found themselves with a LNWR Super D from an adjacent shed. The previous crew MIGHT pass on some advice, more likely on the lines of 'She's a bit shy for steam' or 'There's a bad knock in the trailing boxes if you try to notch her up,' but as to the controls, it was usually up to the relieving crew to figure it all out. And turning a few valves generally told them what each one did. When the S160s first appeared, this applied just as much: men didn't go on a familiarisation course first and, on seeing one of these for the first time, usually did get a - very - quick run-down of the peculiarities of its controls from the crew just leaving it.

H.C.H. Burgess (Working with LMS Steam (1983) Bradford Barton Ltd, ISBN 0 85153 450 3) was a fitter at Swansea and covers well the situation when LMS locos were sent to a GWR shed for repair.

But basically, a steam loco is a steam loco and all very similar from a crew's point of view. In steam days there was no requirement for a driver to be passed out for a certain class before he worked it; he just drove whatever he was given. Similarly at works, where foreign engines often came in for attention, 8Fs at Darlington, Stanier Crabs at Swindon, to name but two.

 

Weren't there a couple of boiler explosions with the S160s because of the odd US water gauges

 

Yes, three here in the UK plus several more later in Italy eventually tracked down to a design fault with the firebox stays. More on this in 'Locomotives At War' by P. M. Kalla-Bishop published by D. Bradford-Barton Ltd ISBN 0 85153 373 6.

 

With this result.



The Southern was arguably a special case since with, firstly their emphasis on electrification and secondly the 'interesting' population of locos left to them by Bulleid they arguably did not have much of a standard population. Introducing a sprinkling of standards with wrong side drive etc to the Western sheds was not a sensible idea. With hindsight It would in general have made more sense for Swindon to carry on independently, and the LNER works too to an extent, and built Stanier/Ivatt types for the Southern.

 

The Southern did get some Ivatt class 2 tanks, and some Fairbairn class 4s as well. The idea seemed to be that the Standards would replace pre group types, which did not entirely happen, probably due to the rush for diesels and some ended up being withdrawn at the same time as some pre group types they supposedly replaced. All that really resulted was to add 12 additional types to the mix