The Ugliest Loco? Ex-SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

What actually is that thing between the chimney and dome on the GWR 4-6-0 ?.

Wasn't there a King Arthur or S15 with some mad exhaust arrangement ?, looked like there had been an explosion in the smokebox area.

 

783 "Sir Gillimere" was fitted with three chimneys in an attempt (during World War II) to reduce the visibility from the air. It didn't work and in due course it was returned to a conventional configuration.

Photo here (scroll down about 2/3 of the page):

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/chimney/chimney.htm

Tom

 

Out of interest, according to A. C. (Dusty) Durrant, the firebox assembly of one of these survived at Swindon Works at least until the early 1960s

 

The 15XX of 1949. The time when Swindon finally realised that something a bit more modern than a long obsolete William Dean period 0-6-0 might be a good idea.

 

Sandbox?

 

Quite likely I'd have thought - looks like it has steps leading up to it (which would be necessary for filling) and a thin pipe leading down to about where the front sand pipe is.

Wikipedia is quite entertaining in its description, saying the Krugers was "a series of exceptionally imposing-looking (some might say ungainly) steam locomotives" - I should say so! It goes on to say that their replacements, the Aberdares, were "more elegant", though I guess that phrase has to be interpreted as starting from a very low baseline - almost anything could be described as "more elegant" than a Kruger ...

Tom

 

Just goes to show ho elegant City of Truro and the Dukedog are for outside framers

 

Wasn't it also this allegedly better and newer boiler that turned the yellow route 57XX class into the red route restricted 94XX ?, nothing against the latter but on pure route availability, they were worse than their predecessors.

 

Dont know where to start....

A T9, Black Motor, Schools class, S-15, Lord Nelson.... all pretty hideous. Wainwright stuff aint as gorgeous as a NER bit of kit either. Unrebuilt Merchants? A spam can just too big?

Eastern region isnt exempt. Gresleys K1 and K2 look awful as do some J classes, mainly GN stuff, etc, Sterling Q10 is another. Perhaps even Hush hush in original form? NER doesnt quite escape, the J27 looks rugged but bruitish, the Atlantics were not as nice as others...

Midland..? Fowler 3F, the Crab, Big Bertha and original Royal Scot? - Fowlers tank, 4F and compound are ok. Thank God Stanier turned up... but that S&DJR 7F is one of the worst. Not to mention people think its S&D and a 7F up here is a Q6, a machine that knock that heap down a league or two.

Western region.... very little. Im a fan of the uniform look and standardised appearance. Castles look gorgeous, Kings too, Counties are nice, not to mention lovely liccle tank engines 14xx, 15xx, 45xx, 57xx. Even cities and dukedogs have a look that suits. Maybe a Star, Taff tank or perhaps that massive 72xx with the extended bunker, just making it look too big.

Its all in the eye of the beholder, but then given the gorgeous looks of designs like B16, D17 18, G5, J21, J25, Q6, Q7, and seeing that practice continue with D49, J39 B1, L1, K1 its no wonder Im fussy.... or a closet Western fan either....

 

It seems likely they were primarily intended to replace absorbed Welsh 0-6-2T on traffic work, so for controlling hand braked coal trains down the valleys the weight would have brought extra braking power which would have done nothing but good.

Yes.

Whole boilers, and at least two, in the wagon section. Maybe the wide grate and combustion chamber was an asset in a stationary boiler.

 

The Dean panniers from which the 57xx is a derivation may be a basically old design but a very good one. In 2014 it is no accident that the only 0-6-0 tank engines which run on NR metals are of this type.

I can't think of another companies loco of similar size which comes anywhere near to the usefulness and versatility of these.

 

A T9 is a classic British 4-4-0, as is the S15 a classic British 4-6-0. Whilst arguably not having the fine lines of some, they are far from ugly. For ugly you need to look at a GWR Kruger.

 

Eh? The 56s were already in traffic.

I really ought to try and do a full count of locos in service 1935, 1945 and 1955, but the 56s were built to replace the worst of the absorbed locos with so many being condemned, while, AUIU, the 57s turned out to be better than expected and were able to take out some more.

But in 1945 there were still a whole lot of absorbed locos in service, Barry B class, Rhymney M, R, P, P1 AP A and A1, Taff Vale O4 and A 0-6-2s for example, I think over 100. Plus there were also a lot of various sized 0-6-0 tanks and some other oddments. There were enough 8750s on order to replace the last of the larger pre group Pannier tanks, and the 16s and 74s covered the stock of smaller tank engines, but that still left a lot of larger tank engines going out of service over the next 10 or 15 years. And then we should also consider the Swindon built 94s were superheated and with screw reverse, which means suggests they cannot have been intended for shunting. The 1500s, which were intended for shunting and Paddington ECS work, had no superheater and lever reverse.

So the 94s must have been originally intended to take over the work of the Welsh 0-6-2s and the heavier 5700 traffic work. There was nothing else for them to have been designed for. In the end, of course, everything changed.

 

You make it sound as if they just built locos at random! I know we enthusiasts tend to talk like that, but its nonsense. Any half competently run business will look at its upcoming stock requirements and decide how best to fill them. A 57 would really struggle to do all the work of say the Taff Vale A, but the 9400 could manage a lot more, and be built for a lot less money than a new batch of 56s, which of course were red route with much the same braking power as the 94s. 18-17: 18-17: 17-18 for the 56s, , 17-2, 19-0, 19-5 for the 94s.

I know Cook tells that great story about directors and steam domes, but honestly, it must have been a casual aside not a policy decision simply because they were building 16s and 74s with domes concurrently with the 94s. But why would you not include an anecdote like that to brighten up your book? Clearly Cook didn't approve of the 94s and would rather have built 57s, but he wasn't the one running the services Its a shame that we don't seem to have the traffic department's side of the story with decisions like that (and the Counties). We very rarely hear in Cook about the traffic department's requirements - I think there's just the one piece about them wanting more 47s and getting Castles, and the other one about wanting "more like 3265" IIRC.

 

Classic in so much that they are ugly and frankly bloody rubbish....

 

Clearly someone who has zero operational experience or historical knowledge of railways then ...

Tom

 

Spoken by a man with a wealth of inexperience. The S15 was an excellent mixed traffic loco. Built like a battleship and as strong as an ox. The T9s were not called "Greyhounds" for nothing.