Your top ten steam classes

I don't tend to do favourites as I pretty much like all steam. If I had to this would be my list of 10 classes that I have had a personal connection with or I particularly like to whatever reason.

In no particular order:

• Greenly pacifics (I know they aren't a class).
• LNER A4
• LNER A3
• Merchant Navy
• West Country/Battle of Britain
• S15
• Lord Nelson
• Standard 4MT Tanks
• Britannias
• 9F

 

Oh go on then:

My top 10 in order are:

1. LNER/BR K1
2. NER-BR Q6
3. NER-BR J21
4. LNER-BR A2
5. LNER-BR A4
6. BR 4MT 2-6-0
7. BR 7MT Britannia
8. GWR-BR Castle
9. LMS-BR Black 5
10. LMS-BR Rebuilt Royal Scot

Also rans:

J72
Fairburn tank
J94
BR 2MT
8F
Hall

Back from the dead: (one extinct class I'd return to life)

LNER-BR L1 Tank.

 

That on a practical level would be good idea, might be an ideal engine for some ex. LNER railways. Especially as its the equivalent of a BR Standard 4MT and we know how useful they are...

But considering the design has been ridiculed (unfairly from what I can read about them), plus the strong fixation of most enthusiasts to only build express engines for the most part, I suspect it might be a long shot...

 

The L1 has a ludicrous tractive effort figure for a 2-6-4T - 32,080 lbf! For comparison, a BR 4MT tank boasts 25,515 lbf and a Stanier 8F has 32,440 lbf.

Its driving wheels were awfully undersized for passenger workings, which I recall to be one of the biggest complaints about those engines, but would be quite useful for 25mph running on a heritage line.

 

5' 2'' doesn't seem that bad. Other engines a similar size wheel but seemed ok on passenger work, the GWR 2251's, the GWR 81xx, the 'Brighton' E4's and Ivatt 2MT's, for example.

I was going to say Fowler 3P's as well but they weren't considered good locos but that was down to the boiler I think...

 

Well, the extraordinary wear to axleboxes, crosshead slides and crank bearings is commonly attributed to the small driving wheels and the RPM required to match the V3s (which had 5' 8" drivers) that they were intended to supersede.

 

I have read about that, I have been led to believe (at least concerning the axleboxes) that they should been cast rather then fabricated rather then cast as most of the LNER's casting ability had been taken up by the war effort.

Also in 'Locomotives of the LNER Park 9A' (Not the best reference for this as the writers seem bias towards it designer) writes that they fitted manganese steel liners to some, thus "stopped heated bearings and the connecting and coupling rods had longer lives." However they only seemed to fitted this arrangement to 10 engines, so all the others I guess still suffered issues up to their withdrawal.

Also a another article (can't remember which magazine... 'Steam World'?) blamed the way they were driven for their supposed rough riding.

So I'm not convinced its completely down to wheel diameter...

 

Perhaps, but it didn't mean that they could pull much. My usual spotting place in the late 50s was Wood Green station and I remember a few occasions when an L1 couldn't get ECS over the flyover. Used to get shoved up by a Hornsey J50.

 

My favourite Steam Classes...
King, Castle, Hall, Grange, Pannier, Prarie, 14XX, County, Manor and Duchess

 

Tractive effort, schmactive effort!
Why all the writers, PR types, et al, went for it is, I suppose, because it can be calculated (so it must be right). What practical use is it, particularly on our heritage railways?
Pat

 

Here is mine:
10. BR Std 9.
9. BR Std 7.
8. BR Std 5.
7. BR Std 4 Tank.
6. SDJR 7F.
5. LMS 8F.
4. GWR 2251.
3. GWR 56xx.
2. GWR 14xx.
1. GWR 57xx.