LMS 2-8-0 tank ?

[cypherman]

Hi all,

I was wondering if Folwer or Stanier every designed or built a 2-8-0 tank engine.

[Steamport Southport]

I don't know about designed as in "never built".

 

The nearest they actually built were the Beames LNWR designed 0-8-4Ts. Built in 1923 under the LMS. Virtually a tank version of the LNWR Super D /G2 as made by Bachmann.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_380_Class

 

 

 

 

Jason

[DCB]

I don't think either gentleman designed anything, they had minions for that task, but no thank heaven neither seemed to have had a 2-8-0 T design considered under their CME ships.  Even Churchwards GWR 2-8-0T seems to have evoluted out of  3150 Prairie Tank and  28XX 2-8-0 Tender loco parts, while the Bowen Cook 0-8-4T surely must have started as a joke or a solution to a chronic shortage of tenders.  

[Steamport Southport]

?   

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[kevinlms]

I don't think either gentleman designed anything, they had minions for that task, but no thank heaven neither seemed to have had a 2-8-0 T design considered under their CME ships. Even Churchwards GWR 2-8-0T seems to have evoluted out of 3150 Prairie Tank and 28XX 2-8-0 Tender loco parts, while the Bowen Cook 0-8-4T surely must have started as a joke or a solution to a chronic shortage of tenders.

The 0-8-4T was actually a very good loco, used for heavy duty shunting. Banned from GWR tracks as damaged the chairs!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I was wondering if Fowler or Stanier every designed or built a 2-8-0 tank engine.

 Even though neither caused such a machine to be constructed, the Stanier 2-6-4T body sits very nicely on Stanier 8F 2-8-0 running gear, and with the bogie added under the bunker a very handsome and entirely plausible looking 2-8-4T is produced.  At least a couple of modellers have done this over the years.

 

(For a Fowler version, using the S&D 7F 2-8-0 running gear might be good, though I have never seen such a thing done.)

[PenrithBeacon]

A 2-8-4T variant of the 8F was planned pre-war and was one of the standard Stanier designs

[The Johnster]

The Beames 0-8-4T was a failure on the Abergavenny (as it was spelled then)-Merthyr route, where it's immense power would have been very useful, being too long for the curves and having a reputation for spreading track underneath it; I was unaware of the issue with GWR chairs!  The 'Super D' 0-8-0s never caused a problem with GW track in South Wales, and were used for excursions to Barry Island from Tredegar in the 1950s.

 

The GW's own 8-coupled tanks were provided with lateral play in the coupling rods to cope with the sharp curvature of the Ebbw Valley, but despite this the frames flexed enough to strain the tanks, causing problems with leakage; this may be the reason that a proposed 2-10-2T for iron ore trains to Ebbw Vale never progressed beyond a GA drawing.  It would have had the water retention properties of a sieve.

 

An 8-coupled tank engine is a bit of a niche machine, and one assumes that the LMS never found the need for one.  The GC, NER, and Southern used them for hump shunting, and the GW for short haul heavy mineral work in South Wales and Cornwall, and in that light it is perhaps understandable that the LMS, which did not have such workings to the same extent and found that tender engines were more suitable for most of it's work, did not bother with them.  

 

But it is certainly an interesting idea.  The LMS was fond of, and good at, 2-6-4 tanks and a 2-8-0 version of these almost makes itself out of the existing standard bits, like the 42xx/5205s did at Swindon.  

[cypherman]

Hi all,

Well I have a spare HD 2-6-4 body. So I will see what price I can get a 2-8-0 chassis for. If it is not too expensive I will give it a go. I noticed that Ebay had a couple for sale early last month.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The only fly in the ointment that had better be mentioned is if the H-D body is significantly short compared to the prototype. My gut feeling based on how good the H-D 4MT looked is that all should be well, but out with measuring stick is advisable, should be 176mm over bufferbeams If shorter by more than 4mm that would risk a driving axle right where the ashpan should be deepest, and lack of space for the bogie under the bunker: although a pony truck (thus a 2-8-2T) would solve that aspect and probably look well enough.

 

Edited to add that this was all wrong, my careless confusion of the Stanier 2-6-4T with the related but significantly shorter BR standard 2-6-4T. If putting an eight coupled mechanism in the H-D body, it probably would be better as a 2-8-2T.

Edited May 4, 2018 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[asmay2002]

Hi all,

Well I have a spare HD 2-6-4 body. So I will see what price I can get a 2-8-0 chassis for. If it is not too expensive I will give it a go. I noticed that Ebay had a couple for sale early last month.

That  would give you a BR 2-8-4T.

[FoxUnpopuli]

On 04/05/2018 at 09:16, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 Even though neither caused such a machine to be constructed, the Stanier 2-6-4T body sits very nicely on Stanier 8F 2-8-0 running gear, and with the bogie added under the bunker a very handsome and entirely plausible looking 2-8-4T is produced.  At least a couple of modellers have done this over the years.

 

On 04/05/2018 at 10:47, The Johnster said:

But it is certainly an interesting idea.  The LMS was fond of, and good at, 2-6-4 tanks and a 2-8-0 version of these almost makes itself out of the existing standard bits, like the 42xx/5205s did at Swindon.  

 

On 04/05/2018 at 10:18, PenrithBeacon said:

A 2-8-4T variant of the 8F was planned pre-war and was one of the standard Stanier designs

 

Yes, and here's a drawing of it.  It is indeed an 8F 3C boiler, valves, cylinders and front truck, with enlarged tanks and bunker similar to the 2-6-4T.

 

I want one.  Plenty of numbers left over in the 7000 region...  drawing suggests almost exactly the same hauling power as the 8F. 

 

I can also see why they didn't fly - that's a long old tail to wag, both side-to-side and up and down.

 

Onto further fantasy, with the drivers only being that big, I can also imagine a 2-10-2 version of this...  a possible true LMS successor to Big Bertha, especially if it had 3 or four cylinders?..

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by FoxUnpopuli
Big Bertha theory.

[FoxUnpopuli]

Fake Stanier 2-10-2T.

 

 

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, FoxUnpopuli said:

 

 

 

Yes, and here's a drawing of it.  It is indeed an 8F 3C boiler, valves, cylinders and front truck, with enlarged tanks and bunker similar to the 2-6-4T.

 

I want one.  Plenty of numbers left over in the 7000 region...  drawing suggests almost exactly the same hauling power as the 8F. 

 

I can also see why they didn't fly - that's a long old tail to wag, both side-to-side and up and down.

 

Onto further fantasy, with the drivers only being that big, I can also imagine a 2-10-2 version of this...  a possible true LMS successor to Big Bertha, especially if it had 3 or four cylinders?..

 

Then again, the 2-6-4T locos already successfully running on the LMS had about the same amount of tail to wag.  The length is similar and the rear driven axle is presumably a couple of inches further back on this loco.  It’ll need oval buffers, though, despite the drawing office giving it round ones. 

 

The boiler is off the Stanier 2-6-4T, and smaller than an 8F’s.  The loco could prolly have managed 8F loadings, especially as full water tanks would have assisted adhesion, but a different firing technique would have been needed to keep the loco from running out of steam over any sort of continual slogging; she won’t go as far on a wheel revolution as a 2-6-4T, so needs a higher firing rate.  

 

This sort of mitigates against a 2-10-2T version to replace Big Bertha, and may go some way to explaining why that loco was built with a tender. 

 

 

[FoxUnpopuli]

Well... I scaled two drawings together, roughly.  It's a Fairburn in this view which was shorter in wheelbase, but the Fairburn and Stanier 4P did share boilers - the 4C pattern at 200psi.  The blue lines are on the cab front, roughly the front of the 2-8-4 firebox, and the front and back of the 2-8-4 smokebox.

Don't disagree with you on the driving practices, but it's logical to assume you'd drive this proposed loco just like an 8F: the big firebox, boiler diameters, boiler pressure, cylinder sizes, driven wheelbase & spacing*, driven wheel diameter, front pony truck, boiler centreline and detailing all seem to match the 8F...

 

Also you can see the distances from the rear driven axle to the tail.  As the Fairburn was shorter I did quickly dig up a drawing of the Stanier and do some sums, give or take an inch:

 

Fairburn - 17'2"
Stanier - 17'5"
2-8-4T - 18'6"

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by FoxUnpopuli
Correction: Last pair of driven wheels are equispaced - those on an 8F are not.

[DCB]

I bet the operators were falling over themselves to find reasons why they didn't need them, aided and abetted by the civil engineer worried that the beast would follow the Midland Flat irons and Beames 0-8-4s by murdering the track. With a more restricted R.A than the 2-8-0 its hard to see where they would have been any use.   Bankers replacing the McIntosh 0-4-4Ts on Beattock?  Miles Platting Bankers?  Lickey?     Less use than the GWR 72XX which was just a lash up not a clean sheet design.    Make a nice model though, something Bachmann isn't likely to produce any time soon and that has to be worth something inn these days when everyone seems to run bog stock RTR.

[The Johnster]

This lack of suitable work seems to crop up every time somebody draws attention to putative large British tank engine with small wheels; the thing is holed below the waterline by weight and small fireboxes, or as in the case of the GW 2-10-2T with the King boiler, lack of water capacity.  I've already postulated that a banker needs to be a tender loco like Big Bertha to have as decent firebox for the size of boiler needed to feed the massive cylinders it needs.  

 

Banking, hump yard shunting, and the Ebbw Vale or Tyne Dock-Consett iron ore traffic crop up again and again in these discussions, but the Ebbw Vale route is too sharply curved for rigid framed locos of such length fixed wheelbase.  The GW's 8-coupled tank engines used on this traffic suffered from excessive leakage from the tanks, which had been strained by the frame flexing.  There's more to this game than just seeing what body fits on which chassis, you know...

[TheSignalEngineer]

Lickey makes interesting reading with regard to big engine design. Bertha was reputed in some sources as having originally being a design to cut double heading of coal trains on the Midland Main Line, the job eventually done by the Garratts. It was slow and heavy, and the crossover piston valve design from the outside valves to the inside cylinders would not give a good steam flow. It also had to go through most points at walking pace as it was too rigid. 

Lickey was found to be ideal for it as it was a ten to fifteen minute low speed slog on straight track usually twice per hour, so plenty of recovery time for steam raising. 

Interestingly when the WR took over the line in the mid 1950s they tried their 2-8-0T on the bank but it was not as good as a pair of Jintys.

 

[Invicta]

From very vague memory, have I read somewhere (Cox?) that Bertha was actually trialled on the Midland Main Line coal workings at some point? -or am I invoking 'Rule 1' excessively, based on the S&DJR 2-8-0s being trialled on the Midland at one stage of the thought process that eventually led to the LMS Garratts?

[TheSignalEngineer]

O S Nock wrote about Bertha in one of his books. He rode on the footplate in 1949 when in his words

 

"although handled by a a tough and resolute pair of youngsters.............the boiler could not produce enough steam to sustain an all-out effort for the eight minutes of ascent, banking a passenger train."

 

He reported that the boiler pressure had dropped from 180lb at Bromsgrove to 135lb at Blackwell which is the equivalent of the Tractive Effort dropping from 43,312lbf to about 33,000lbf or nearly 25%. No wonder the main line express drivers were happy to have a pair of Jintys starting with a combined TE of 41,670lbf instead of Bertha alone. 

Comparing other locos used the 9F had a TE just shy of 40,000lbf and the GWR 2-8-0T was just over 33,000lbf.  By comparison the LMS Garratt was about 45,600lbf, while the LNER U1 was a massive 72,900lbf

Edited November 2, 2019 by TheSignalEngineer

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

O S Nock wrote about Bertha in one of his books. He rode on the footplate in 1949 when in his words

 

"although handled by a a tough and resolute pair of youngsters.............the boiler could not produce enough steam to sustain an all-out effort for the eight minutes of ascent, banking a passenger train."

 

He reported that the boiler pressure had dropped from 180lb at Bromsgrove to 135lb at Blackwell which is the equivalent of the Tractive Effort dropping from 43,312lbf to about 33,000lbf or nearly 25%. No wonder the main line express drivers were happy to have a pair of Jintys starting with a combined TE of 41,670lbf instead of Bertha alone. 

Comparing other locos used the 9F had a TE just shy of 40,000lbf and the GWR 2-8-0T was just over 33,000lbf.  By comparison the LMS Garratt was about 45,600lbf, while the LNER U1 was a massive 72,900lbf

Sounds to me that the 'youngsters' didn't know how to drive or fire the 0-10-0.

 

Tractive effort is by no means the indicator of how much power a steam engine can produce. All other things being equal, that lies on the amount of energy the boiler can store. The GW 2-8-0T, for example, had a very much smaller boiler its 2-8-0 tender engine proginator and so would be much less suitable for high sustained power outputs. Two Jinties or two Panniers would have a combined boiler capacity that was much higher than this locomotive.

 

Regards

[kevinlms]

4 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Sounds to me that the 'youngsters' didn't know how to drive or fire the 0-10-0.

 

Tractive effort is by no means the indicator of how much power a steam engine can produce. All other things being equal, that lies on the amount of energy the boiler can store. The GW 2-8-0T, for example, had a very much smaller boiler its 2-8-0 tender engine proginator and so would be much less suitable for high sustained power outputs. Two Jinties or two Panniers would have a combined boiler capacity that was much higher than this locomotive.

 

Regards

The fact Big Bertha was in use from 1919 to 1956, suggests that it must have been considered as better than useless. Given the LMS policy of scrapping many small classes of locomotives and plenty of 0-6-0Ts around, indicates that it was useful enough to keep in service.

Never a brilliant loco but good enough, until it needed a major rebuild. IIRC there was a spare boiler to reduce repair times in the workshops at Derby.

[TheSignalEngineer]

3 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

but good enough, until it needed a major rebuild.

and by 1956 Bromsgrove was on the WR, they had 9Fs so they could replace it without major expenditure. At the time they also had the new 94xx panniers which were good on the bank, 4F and plenty of weight.

[kevinlms]

9 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

and by 1956 Bromsgrove was on the WR, they had 9Fs so they could replace it without major expenditure. At the time they also had the new 94xx panniers which were good on the bank, 4F and plenty of weight.

True, but I'm sure the LMS/LMR could have used an 8F too.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Although classed as 8f by BR the Stanier 2-8-0 would only have rated 1.5 as a Lickey Banker where a Jinty = 1. Bertha and the 9f were rated 2.