What Ifs, and Locos that never were.

But oil was an issue in those early post-war years - hence the rapid re-conversion back to coal of the locos that had been set up for oil firing.

 

Bear in mind that by the mid 1940s, the O2s were mostly 50-60 years old; the M7s and Brighton radial tanks 40 - 50; the H class mostly 30 - 40 years old - so presumably a reasonable difference in condition. The O2s were probably a special case, being largely (though not entirely) confined to the IoW by that time, and there were economies in maintenance in having what was effectively a very standardised loco fleet. Of the other classes, age alone would suggest the M7s and Brighton tanks were higher priority than the H class at that time.

That's still not the entire picture though - when someone mentions "Southern Railway passenger tank engine" the natural assumption is to think O2 / M7 / E4 / H because those are the locos that have survived. But there were still examples of Stirling Q1 and Kirtley R class locos in traffic at the end of the war, of comparable design vintage to the Adams tanks, and a few Stroudley D tanks that were even older - by contrast the H class was a mere stripling.

Tom

 

I think the Portsmouth Floating Crane may have had something to say about loading 150 tons of Leader beneath its jib ...

Tom

 

Tom, did you know that one of the Kirtley R Class was sold to the NCB and ended up working at Haydock Colliery in Lancashire? talking of odd disposals of Southern locos, the last Stroudley D tank was sold to Lancashire County Council for the Whittingham Hospital Railway near Preston, where it ran until 1956, when the boiler needed a lot of work so it was scrapped.

Deep in LMS territory so why didn't they buy something off the LMS instead, why go all the way to the SR?

 

I'm tempted to say, isn't it obvious?

But I suspect the more prosaic reason was, it probably came down simply to what was on the disposal list at that time for the right price. Which more local locos were being scrapped at that time? (genuine question - I don't know the answer).

Tom

 

Not sure myself, presumably some ex L & Y saddletanks or LNWR stuff would have been available. The loco that the D (2357 Riddlesdown) replaced was a Barclay industrial, and when it packed up in 1956 it was replaced by an 0-4-0 Sentinel from Bolton Gas Works.

Update edit - the Haydock Colliery loco was an LCDR T class, no 1600

 

Firstly, the conversion of the locos you mention was very much an experiment - and one that was soon halted due to rises in the price of oil. Secondly, lorries, buses, aircraft and to a lesser extent ships don't tend to work too well as coal fired machines so if the price of oil (all of which had to be imported) is high, domestically produced coal looks a lot more appealing as a source of fuel for trains.

As to the Leader, I believe that the original concept did look at oil firing - but that does sort of rather defeat the point of making it a steam locomotive. If you are intending to burn oil permanently (rather than as a stopgap) then a diesel locomotive is by far the most sensible and efficient way of doing it. Bulleid agreed - hence he designed the Leader as a coal burning machine, which could potentially be converted to oil firing if the situation regarding oil prices rendered it favourable.

 

I imagine that this was very much in everyones minds - while the M7s were deemed as the most pressing class to require replacement, there were no doubt other classes whose retirement was overdue.

 

Bulleid himself saw the Leader design as primarily a coal powered machine - that it had the potential to be oil fired is something of a side issue and no different to any other steam loco. After the first trail run however the conditions in the fireman's compartment were such that oil firing would have been pretty much inevitable - and that is where oil firing comes into play.

As for the diesel traction you mention, other than the GWR railcars, they were all pretty much 'experimental' in nature with no firm plans to order them in significant numbers. As such the cost of fuel wouldn't have figured strongly when deciding to build them. A 50 strong feet of Ivatt or Bulleid diesels might have been a different matter in the late 40s / early 50s though.

 

Yes, but the capital costs of a diesel was probably five times that of a steam loco. On the face of it, if Bulleid went to the Board with a proposal to build 25 double bogied and double ended steam locos to replace the class H and other locos, with significant improvements in power, it would sound an attractive proposition. Boards don't usually get too involved with detail and bogie (articulated) steam locos weren't exactly a new idea, as any Ffestiniog person will tell you.

 

I can't answer that (does anyone know?) but the estimated cost of the Leader was probably not expected to be much different from a light pacific on a projected cost/ton basis.

 

In a letter to Missenden written in mid 1946, Bulleid estimated that a batch of 25 Leaders could be built for £17,000 each - a single loco (losing any economies of scale) "might reach £25,000".

To put that in context:

• The prototype Merchant Navy cost £23,840, and another £11,368 was debited to "design and allied expenses". 21C2 cost £20,146; by 21C3 - 21C10 the cost was down to £18,470 - £19,144. Those are at 1941 prices.
• Ashford batch of Q1s averaged £9,245 per loco and the Brighton batch £9,115, built in 1942.
• 1st batch of WC/BoB were £17,060 in 1945/46
• 2nd batch WC/BoB were £19,145 in 1946
• 3rd batch of WC/BoB were £20,220 in 1946/47
• 4th batch of WC/BoB were £22,108 in 1948/49
• The final batch of Merchant Navies cost on average £31,348 in 1948/49.
• 5th batch of WC/BoB were £24,784 in 1949-51

Pick the bones out of that. Obviously, there was considerable price inflation over the time in question, so best to compare the projected costs of the Leader with the later batches of pacifics.

The Leader cost of £17,000 was an estimate. Historically, Bulleid's locos came in somewhat above the estimates, but not by a huge amount, maybe 10 - 20% (and some of that may have been down to simple inflation, being built a year or more after the estimate for capital allocation). Against that, the estimate of the Leader may have been more prone to error on account of the greater novelty of the design.

Even so, if you believe Bulleid's estimate, it would seem to suggest that the capital cost of the Leader was broadly comparable with other locos built by the Southern Railway / BR(S) at the same period.

Tom

 

As would the tunnel at Ryde...

 

However David Wardale managed to (re)build an existing loco to produce a machine that maintained about 15% thermal efficiency right across its power range and was nothing more technically complex than a standard Stevensonian steam locomotive with proper attention to detail in the design.

I am not sure exactly what was available to Bulleid or anyone else from say 1935 onwards but I am sure that using the best available technology you could have built a very good efficient locomotive that would have worked properly and efficiently with a significant saving in cost. Look at the Norfolk & Western.

 

The LMS under Stamp started to analyse the costs of running the railway, and this highlighted the costs of shunting. The justification for building Diesel Shunters was that there were a large number of locations where shunting went on 24/7 and the higher availability of the diesel - no need to refuel, water or clean the fire meant the higher initial cost was more than justified

 

Lot 376 at Swindon - Hall Class - 7920-7929 were £11,107 for each engine with tender - that was in 1950. Same year final batch of Castles were £11,646 each.