Which was the worst 0-6-0 produced by the Big 4, 2251, J38, J39, 4F, Q or Q1

[DCB]

The railways of Britain relied heavily on the humble 0-6-0 locomotive, some were much loved and respected, Deeley 3F, Dean Goods, J11, J36, and many many more, so how come the Big 4 made so many six coupled turkeys?    I know the 4F was pre LMS but they built them for 17 years and made 500 or so of them post 1923,

I suppose as built the Midland 4Fs were maybe not too bad pre Stanier before they lost the cylinder bypass valves and had to make do with poorer lube oil, 

The J38s seem to have crawled around on Scottish coal trains inoffensively enough, the Q1s seemed OK even if their brakes rather than power were a limiting factor, the Q seemed to be relatively useless but were never thrashed enough to fail, the 2251 wore their axleboxes, and were effectively detuned as their boilers were designed for 225 lbs and yet run at 200 lbs and some had Stroudley phasing with outside rods in phase with inside con rods to reduce axlebox wear which leaves the J39 with an evil reputation to inside motion failure in later years.   Was it Ivatt lineage which caused this?  N2s suffered the same.

Thompson preferred the Robinson J11 as the post war 0-6-0  over the J39.

I can't decide which was worst.  The 2251 with a 57XX boiler would probably have been a better engine, The 3F was clearly  better in almost all respects than the 4F, the K2 with a J39 boiler would surely have been a better tool than the J39 and there probably wasn't any real need for the SR 0-6-0 s at all.

So which was worst?

Anybody got any thoughts?

[pH]

The J38s were the last ex-LNER class to remain intact, and the last 2 locomotives of the class were the last locomotives built under Gresley to remain in BR service, so I don’t think the J38s could be considered failures at all.

[LMS2968]

In what way 'Worst?' Longevity? reliability? Crew amenities? Coal and water consumption? Steaming abilities? Capability on the road? I suspect that they could all do the job, but all had their strengths and weaknesses, and the latter tend to come down to history.

 

The 4Fs were introduced in 1911 and the last of the 575 was not withdrawn until 1966; a life of 55 years does not suggest 'turkey'. The J38s came out in 1926 and survived for a mere 41 years. The 2251s came out in 1930 and survived for a short time - only 35 years due to dieselisation. The Qis had similar problems but with added electrification.

 

They all did their job, and were the most useful types for the work they did, e.g. short range goods and trips, they were happy working into and out of goods yards (unlike some bigger engines) and many were suitable for low-speed passenger trains.

 

Don't believe everything you read in railwaymen's reminiscences!

[micklner]

History of the LNER Locos , both lasted virtually till the end of steam, the  J38's was the last Gresley Locos so did very well as already said.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j38.php

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j39.php

 

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, DCB said:

Deeley 3F

 

A what?

[t-b-g]

I don't think that any of the classes listed were that bad.

 

They all came into traffic and worked without any major modifications until the end of steam.

 

That tells me that they were all capable of doing what was asked of them.

[New Haven Neil]

Any second now someone's going to say 4F Axleboxes.......and @Dave Hunt will have a thromby at them! 

 

None of the designs above were poor - all had good and bad points, as has been mentioned, they were of their time, designed to do a job cheaply as possible.  Wear and tear maintenance never really gets brought into these discussions, as there is no real data to support it now.  It's not all about heroic feats of haulage, or pounds-per-mile fuel consumption on test as these locos spent a lot of time stationary.  Cost of wear to motion, valves and piston rings etc was a large factor in day to day costs.

 

How about P3/J27's then - pre group design that ran until 1967, the end of steam on the north-east. And boy were they thrashed.

[Wickham Green too]

.......... and before anyone raises the old chestnut about the Q1s being worst aesthetically - just think how your own perception is prejudiced to what we railway enthusiasts expect a locomotive "SHOULD" look like !  Anyone else would not consider a round boiler and square cab plonked on six wheels particularly pretty - whatever shiny brass bits and fancy paintwork it carried !

[spamcan61]

To me 'worst' would be some combination of manufacturing cost, running costs, maintenance costs and availability (to do the work they were designed for), a bit tricky to establish now, never mind back in the day.

[Lacathedrale]

Maybe 'worst' as 'most unneccesary replacement' ?

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Maybe 'worst' as 'most unneccesary replacement' ?

 Clearly you have the 2251 in mind!

[Poor Old Bruce]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

A what?

 

H Boiler?

[John M]

Not just the Big Four Ireland's Great Southern Railways (GSR) struggled to design a  replacement for the Great Southern and Western Railway "Standard Goods" 0-6-0  101 Class or J15 introduced by Alexander McDonald during the 1860s.

 

The first (1929) attempt the 700 Class or J15a 'modern' in appearance with canopy cab, raised running board and large (saturated) belpair boiler. Although similar mechanically with identical motion and running gear were heavy on water and coal did not compare with the older locos in terms of performance. 

The second (1934) attempt the 710 Class or J15b similar in appearance to the J15a (with a longer cab) incorporated a superheated boiler and piston valves and were unpopular with the crews considered sluggish and poor steamers and because of the longer than normal distance for the fireman between the coal space and firehole door.

 

The GSR resumed large scale superheating of the original 101 or J15 class retaining the original motion (with slide valves) from 1934 onwards ultimately superheating 67 members of the Class by 1953.

 

While reasonably successful with large express passenger 4-6-0s it almost appears that Inchacore forgot how to build a successful inside cylinder steam loco during the 1920s and 30s, John Kennedy a prominent Irish railway photographer described some of the locos built by the GSR during the 1920s and 30s as 'hot water locomotives"

 

 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

H Boiler?

 

I had assumed the OP meant the G7-boilered engines of 1916 onwards - a good six years after Deeley's resignation - these being very much better-known than the H-boilered engines, which in fact originated with new-built engines in the last year of Johnson's tenure as Locomotive Superintendent. So not much Deeley about either! I don't think any H-boilered engine was ever a 3F but simply in power class 3, the P and F suffixes being an innovation of early LMS days - though originating on the S&DJR, which used P and G.

 

The 3Fs should I suppose be considered Fowler locomotives but I think it's best to view them as a design produced by the Derby Locomotive Drawing Office staff. As rebuilds of 19th-century 0-6-0s, I think they're a good deal handsomer than the rebuilt Dean Goods, which to my mind is rather ugly.

[Michael Hodgson]

I would think the main thing wrong with all those was that inside motion was more difficult for crews to get at than outside would have been.  But at least it makes modelling a lot easier if you don't have make all that fiddly Walshaerts gubbins.

[kevinlms]

An alternative way of looking at the issue of 'poor' 0-6-0s, is perhaps the answer is all of them!

 

Railways such as the LNWR had in fact given up building 0-6-0s and were building 0-8-0s instead!

[LMS2968]

20 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

An alternative way of looking at the issue of 'poor' 0-6-0s, is perhaps the answer is all of them!

 

Railways such as the LNWR had in fact given up building 0-6-0s and were building 0-8-0s instead!

Yes, but they then had 857 DX goods, 499 Coal Engines and 310 18 Inch Goods engines. You can have too much of a good thing!

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 Clearly you have the 2251 in mind!

 

Nothing wrong with them. Another one that lasted until the end of steam in their area. I reckon a few of the heritage railways wished some had got to Barry as they would be ideal small tender locos.

 

The main criticism I've seen over the years is from those that don't like the modern boiler....

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

The main criticism I've seen over the years is from those that don't like the modern boiler....

 

Just giving vent to personal taste! As to the boiler, I don't really see why it was necessary to build entirely new locomotives - surely it would have been more economical to have done a 3F and put a modern boiler on existing the Dean Goods engine; maybe with new frames and cylinders?

[Steamport Southport]

8 hours ago, DCB said:

 

Thompson preferred the Robinson J11 as the post war 0-6-0  over the J39.

 

 

Debatable, as his plan was to rebuild them all as J11/3s to bring them into line with the J38 and J39s.

 

Whether rebuilding something equates to preferring them is a debating point in itself.

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just giving vent to personal taste! As to the boiler, I don't really see why it was necessary to build entirely new locomotives - surely it would have been more economical to have done a 3F and put a modern boiler on existing the Dean Goods engine; maybe with new frames and cylinders?

 

How much would be left though? Some wheels and a bit of motion.

 

May as well start from new. 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

How much would be left though? Some wheels and a bit of motion.

 

Footplate, splashers, valences, and other odds and ends, plus the tender - as much as survived of a Johnson 0-6-0 in a 3F!

 

The motion would be well worth recycling.

 

Maybe there were different accounting procedures on the GWR in the 1930s as on the MR/LMS in the 1920s?

Edited November 7, 2022 by Compound2632

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I had assumed the OP meant the G7-boilered engines of 1916 onwards - a good six years after Deeley's resignation - these being very much better-known than the H-boilered engines, which in fact originated with new-built engines in the last year of Johnson's tenure as Locomotive Superintendent. So not much Deeley about either! I don't think any H-boilered engine was ever a 3F but simply in power class 3, the P and F suffixes being an innovation of early LMS days - though originating on the S&DJR, which used P and G.

 

The 3Fs should I suppose be considered Fowler locomotives but I think it's best to view them as a design produced by the Derby Locomotive Drawing Office staff. As rebuilds of 19th-century 0-6-0s, I think they're a good deal handsomer than the rebuilt Dean Goods, which to my mind is rather ugly.

Yes I assumed the 3F as modelled by Triang was a Deeley rebuild,  anyway I meant the 3F as modelled by Triang about which I have read nothing derogatory in many many books of engineman's and fitters/ shedmaster's reminiscences..   The theme seems to be they had the same boiler as the 4F but unsuperheated,   slide valves not Piston valves so less prone to steam leakage past the valves  and although lacking the absolute power of the 4F were a lot livelier on short runs as the 4F needed a few miles to warm up.

Perhaps I'm being unfair as the 4F was designed around the same time  as the K1/K2 , 43XX, and LNWR 19" goods 4-6-0 when fast long distance vacuum fitted freight was all the rage and something more powerful was needed for the Midlands to Brent long distance coal drags  had to fit a 45ft Turntable and use as many existing parts and jigs as possible..
 

[KeithMacdonald]

Surely the GWR 1500 Class deserves a mention?

 

Quote

Coming from a railway company with a well-developed standardisation policy, the 15xx was a strange design finale. Unlike almost all their forebears, they had outside cylinders, Walschaerts valve gear, and a very short wheelbase ... Although a sound design, the class had limited usefulness as they were route-restricted by their high weight and were unsuitable for fast running because of their short wheelbase.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_1500_Class

 

And don't call me Shirley.

[Mallard60022]

Weird thread this. None of those named were particularly bad. I am sure most can think of others that were absolute crap.

There you go. 

P