The one they never built.

[KeithMacdonald]

On 29/03/2024 at 18:32, The Johnster said:

I doubt a Cathederal  would have done any better.

 

Do you know why GWR never built more of the Churchward 47XX Class 2-8-0? Was it just the route restrictions?

 

This site suggests they were useful. https://www.4709.org.uk/

 

Quote

Churchward’s nine 47XX locomotives were principally intended to haul overnight food trains into 1920s London from the West, South West and Midlands, but quickly found use on freight duties across the Great Western network. Latterly, their reliability, power and route availability saw them hauling holiday passenger services with great success.

 

And https://www.4709.org.uk/4709history

 

 

[JimC]

On 27/05/2024 at 18:35, phil-b259 said:

I believe the evidence is the GWR rejected that option in favour of a totally new build Dawlish by-pass

 Worth noting that the GWR produced a publicity book on future plans,"Next Station" in 1946. It says: 

"Plans were accordingly prepared before the war for a new line... passing under Haldon Down... The scheme, however, is one of those where the very great amount of work involved, and the rising trend of post-war construction costs, have caused a review to be made of possible alternatives." and then goes on to talk about quadrupling track at Teignmouth station to allow through trains to pass unhindered, saying, effectively, that whilst there would be a much smaller gain it would probably be more cost effective,

Edited May 28 by JimC

[JimC]

12 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Do you know why GWR never built more of the Churchward 47XX Class 2-8-0? Was it just the route restrictions?

Cook says (Swindon Steam p 32) that the running department asked for more, but Collett decided to build more Castles instead, as being more versatile although more expensive.

[KeithMacdonald]

5 hours ago, JimC said:

 Worth noting that the GWR produced a publicity book on future plans,"Next Station" in 1946. It says: 

"Plans were accordingly prepared before the war for a new line... passing under Haldon Down... The scheme, however, is one of those where the very great amount of work involved, and the rising trend of post-war construction costs, have caused a review to be made of possible alternatives." and then goes on to talk about quadrupling track at Teignmouth station to allow through trains to past unhindered, saying, effectively, that whilst there would be a much smaller gain it would probably be more cost effective,

 

Plans, reviews, enquiries, rising costs ... does it all sound depressingly familiar?

Has anyone ever seen the plan for quadrupled track at Teignmouth?

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, JimC said:

Cook says (Swindon Steam p 32) that the running department asked for more, but Collett decided to build more Castles instead, as being more versatile although more expensive.

 

Which could be interpreted in several ways, depending on the time that the running department asked for more 47xx.  'More' Castles suggests that the timing was after the first batch of Castles had been ordered and possibly after they had been delivered; the mid 20s.  More Castles were pending anyway, and by 1924 the rebuilt Saint Martin was proving itself capable of pretty much any work that a 47xx could undertake (and, at a push, just about any job on the GWR).  There were plenty of 43xx to take up the slack on less demanding jobs, and within a few years these would be joined by the Grange class. 

 

So, there was not much work left that was specifically suited to the 47xx, and the conclusion has to be that an adequate number of them already existed.  AIUI, the use of these engines on heavy express passenger jobs, especially the Bank Holiday reliefs, is a feature of BR days or at least the post WW2 period, and there was very little change of more of them being built by that time.  The situation was in fact pretty good; a small but capable class designed and used for heavy fast overnight fitted depot-to-depot general merchandise freight that could be used for heavy passenger trains at the exact times the overnight fitteds were not running.  The Halls could do the rest, with some of the fish and milk traffic being handled by Castles, and of course the Stars had plenty life left in them until around the mid 50s.

 

Being rare, the 47xx were an enthusiasts' favourite, and often heralded as a 'might have been', but I doubt that they ever really were.  The massive boiler must have been coal-hungry (this was the GW, remember, not the LNW) and I would imagine the ride was nowhere near as good as a Castle's or a Hall's, and pretty tiring after a long run even by steam standards.  More of them would have increased the per.way and Civil Engineers' work noticeably, long coupled wheelbase and only a leading pony.

 

Unlike the US, where fast and powerful express freight locos were needed to maximise loads and minimise occupation on long, mountainous, single track sections, there was little call for locos designes specifically for this role in the UK.  They did exist, and the 47xx were an example; one might include the LSWR S15. GN K3, the NER B16 and the GC's 'Immingham'.  All noted as very capable engines that could be used for fast passenger work, but not ideally suited to it.

[JimC]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Which could be interpreted in several ways, depending on the time that the running department asked for more 47xx. 

Cook says some years after the General Strike, whatever that means, but presumably (early?) 1930s. He specifically mentions passenger train duplications at peak traffic periods
He states that they "tended to nose about a bit" above 60mph, and Durrant, in his book based on his time at Swindon in the 50s, states they were limited to 60mph). Would the boiler have been much more coal hungry than a Castle? Pretty much the same firebox with a slightly larger diameter barrel than the Castle.

[rodent279]

Guessing that the logic behind Collets thinking was build more Castles to release some Halls from secondary express passenger work, that can then be used to fulfill the role that the extra 47xx's would have done?

[The Johnster]

If you work to the principle that a Castle firebox heating a Castle boiler and a 47xx firebox heating a 47xx boilee are more or less the same thing (they weren’t but there wasn’t much in it), then any disparity in coal consumption between the two classes on similar work has to be down to the differences.   These were the cylinders and the driving wheel size.  
 

The Castle’s total volume cylinder capacity spread over four cylinders is greater than that of the 47xx over two, which woud suggest that the 47xx would be more economical on coal then the 47xx.  But the driving wheels of the Castle are over a foot larger in diameter than those of the 47xx, meaning that the Castle goes further per chuff, or driving wheel revolution; it is ‘geared’ for higher speed by the larger driving wheels.  So it will use less coal over a given distance. 
 

Cook’s comment regarding nosing about a bit above 60mph and the restriction to that speed in BR days suggests that Castles and Halls had a distinct edge over the 47xx, and so did the Granges by virtue of a four-wheeled leasing bogie.  I suspect this is the core of the reason no more 47xx were needed or built.  If you wanted a heavy freight loco, a 28xx could run up to 60mph. 

[Miss Prism]

The tractive efforts of a 47xx and a Castle were rougly the same, so the smaller wheel of the 47xx probably had the edge when it came to accelerating a given train weight.

 

[The Johnster]

Yes, and plugging up banks, but the Castle comes into it’s own at higher speeds and a loco with a leading 4-wheel bogie is going to be happier and kinder to the track above 60mph on any sort of curved track than one with a 2-wheel pony.  

[The Stationmaster]

On 28/05/2024 at 19:37, JimC said:

Cook says some years after the General Strike, whatever that means, but presumably (early?) 1930s. He specifically mentions passenger train duplications at peak traffic periods
He states that they "tended to nose about a bit" above 60mph, and Durrant, in his book based on his time at Swindon in the 50s, states they were limited to 60mph). Would the boiler have been much more coal hungry than a Castle? Pretty much the same firebox with a slightly larger diameter barrel than the Castle.

What really did for increased numbers of 47XX was the arrival of the 'Halls' which were a far more effective mixed traffic engine than the 47XX with no load penalty as both were Power Group D and of the course the later DX classification of some 'Halls' allowed them to take an even heavier freight load.  The 47XX weren't ideally suited to passenger work as they only had lever reverse and most Drivers were averse to notching them up which meant the Fireman had to work harder. which in turn obviously also meant that they were using more coal.   I understand from men who worked on them that they weren't a comfortable riding engine at passenger train speeds - even the sort of speeds that occurred on congested Summer Saturdays.

 

The smaller wheels no doubt gave them an advantage when getting freights underway and on banks but of course that also applied to the 'Granges' which many Enginemen considered superior to a 'Hall' (in the same Power Group) on long, steep, rising gradients. 

 

Interestingly the 47XX had a more powerful rating under the BR system than the other Group D engines no doubt as a consequence of their boiler capacity but on the Western they were  still treated no differently for freight loading purposes.  In later years (I have limited pre-war information) they were allowed a bit more than 'Halls' and 'Granges' (as much as = 1 coach on some sections of route) on passenger work but at the same time they were officially limited to 60 mph and supposedly only allowed to work 'local services'.   Interestingly in the first, 1927, issue of the GWR's Passenger Milk, and Fish etc Trains Load Book there were no loads quoted for 47XX so they clearly were not considered at that time as suitable for working passenger trains.

[mozzer models]

for anyone needing plates 247's ebay shop

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_dkr=1&iconV2Request=true&_blrs=recall_filtering&_ssn=247developments&store_cat=0&store_name=247developments&_oac=1&_nkw=cathedral%3B

[The Johnster]

On 01/06/2024 at 11:24, The Stationmaster said:

 

Interestingly the 47XX had a more powerful rating under the BR system than the other Group D engines no doubt as a consequence of their boiler capacity but on the Western they were  still treated no differently for freight loading purposes

 

I suspect that the WR mostly ignored the BR power ratings and simply continued with the GWR method in practice.  BR standard designs on the WR were given GW power ratings, as were Stanier 8Fs and WD 2-8-0s allocated to the region.  The BR power ratings were based on the LMS system, itself inherited from the Midland, anathema on the WR!

 

This despite the fact that BR power classifications appeared to flatter some ex-GW locos when they were compared to those from other railways.  For example, the 4MT applied to the large and small prairies; the large prairies were physically much smaller than the equivalent LMS and Riddles 2-6-4Ts, but just as powerful according to the ratings.  The small prairies were about the same size as the Ivatt/Riddles 2MT prairies, but nominally ‘twice’ as powerful, (yes, I know).  The 56xx were rated at 5MT by BR, proper little pocket rockets; I don’t think any other main line loco of comparable size had such a power rating! 

Steam loco power classification is fairly imprecise in day-to-day running anyway, and the Midland/LMS/BR system is as good as any.  The GW classifications are perhaps a bit general (if a 94xx is equivalent to a Castle or a 28xx), but the Southern’s is arguably too confusingly complex.  Not sure whst the LNER did, but it’s engines pulled the trains well enough.  In practice, drivers and running shed foremen had an intimate working knowledge of which engines could time which jobs on an individual loco basis, which gave drivers something to grumble about when a poor engine had to be used on their particular turn.  As we both know, Mike, drivers are never happy unless they have something to moan about, and bad engines are useful for diverting their dissatisfaction from the guard…