Differing Stanier 8F reversing rods.

Evening everyone,

Was there a particular reason as to why the 8Fs were fitted with one of two kinds of reversing rods, and what benefits each version had over the other?.

Thank you.

 

Have to admit that's a new one on me. Do you have any photos to illustrate the differences?

 

There you go, Steve!





Photos by Andrew Biwandi C/O Stanier 8F Locomotive Society Archive.

I suspect that the later, straight reach rod was easier and cheaper to make. It would also be less flexible so giving a more constant cut-off.

 

It seems the design changed in about 1942. 48773 has the earlier, curved type (built 1940), and 48151 the later, straight version (built 1942). I thought it might be down to the individual manufacturers which they used but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Don't depend on the engine number as a guide to build order: 8773 (as WD 307, then LMS 8233) was built in June 1940 at North British Loco, Hyde Park Works; 8151 was LMS Crewe Built September 1942

 

Lower than 48100 had the curved version, 48100 had the straight version, whereas 48101 had the curved version, 48149 onwards seem to have the straight version. I'm deep-delving into Flickr now...

 

No idea but the curved rod is easier to adjust if you need to alter the reach of it. Just a bit of heat and a strong man. I had to shorten a reach rod on HL 3860 by 5/8" last year and it took about 15 minutes. The longest job was allowing it to cool down so it could be properly measured and checked afterwards. Don't ask why it was necessary. At some point in its life the rod had been cut and welded with the straight part being welded back on upside down so the oil hole was at the bottom. The die block was hitting the top of the expansion link in full forward gear and the clevis on the valve rod was hitting the motion plate. APCM Swanscombe did some strange things with their locos. They probably got away with it because there was that much slop in everything.

 

48773 (as it’s currently known!) has had multiple identities!

 

Could it be an access thing, wash out plugs, or something else ?

 

are the weigh bar shafts different - it looks like a longer arm on the curved rod? easier to use?

 

From LMS Locomotive Profiles No 8 The 8Fs.
It was a design change in 1942. The first LMS built loco with the new design was 8146, in June 1942. However WD orders for 8264-8285 built after February 1942 had the new design.

 

Thank you .

 

Hope I’m not hijacking the thread by asking this, as it applies not to the reversing rod, but to an 8F modification.

I know some members of the class had specially weighted motion, denoted by a star on the side of the cab and I believe this allowed them to have a higher permitted speed than their brethren.

I would be interested to know what the purpose of this was, as in the film footage I’ve seen as well as photos these locomotives don’t appear to be doing any different types of work to the normal class members and I’m intrigued to know more, it’s not something I’m particularly knowledgeable about.

 

The improved balancing was to allow them to run (officially!) at 50 mph and so work Class C and class D fitted goods. In practice, they were also diagrammed to e.c.s., excursions and even local passenger turns over the Manchester - Buxton and Central Wales routes.

 

Hopefully the passenger turns only occured in summer time as they did not have train heat capabilities. The exception was two rostered to work a Royal Train that was stabled overnight on the Central Wales line in 1955 and this was removed shortly after during their next works visit.

Peter

 

Actually, it wasn't. Photos prove that the CWA was retained on 8309 and 8707 to withdrawal. HCH Burgess at Swansea comments that it was useful for the locals over the Central Wales lines as it gave them an extra large engine in winter. 8330 was the stand-by engine but we've no photos to show whether or not it was given CWA.

It is reported that 8409 and 8709 were CWA fitted to work the Royal ecs around Nottingham in 1955 and a fireman there at the time has assured us that they were so fitted.

 

I'd be interested to see the photos of the CWA fittings in the cabs. Certainly both locos retained the buffer beam fittings but I understand that the cab fittings were removed. I believe that a fitter mistakenly fitted bags to 48707 one winter not realising that the CWA was inoperative. Certainly 48309 survived on the S&D until March '66 and was occasionally used on passenger turns but never heated the trains concerned.

Peter

 

Sorry, can't help there. No such photos. But the buffer beam fittings would have been removed if out of use as these interfered with coupling up. The attached photo from Neil Dimmer of this parish shows 8309 in May 1965 with steam coming from what would appear to be the CWA apparatus; there's nothing else there to cause it, although why the valve would be opened in May I can't explain.



Again, I refer to HCH Burgess.

 

Regarding the white stars, it would appear that only 48431 of the surviving locos (along with the former 48518) did not carry them.

 

I can’t comment on the facts but a couple of observations. There is a better photo of the loco on the same railtour (4/4/65) which clearly shows the shut off valve (without hose) below the front buffer beam.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotorus/52072243842/in/photostream/lightbox/
There is definitely a whisp of steam apparently coming from the valve. However, in this view it appears to be coming from the back of the valve, possibly from the joint between the valve and the pipe. This tends to indicate that the cab calves were still in situ and there was a slight leak through it. The front valve fitting also appears to be in place in this 1965 photo but it is not 100% clear. Whether it lasted until, withdrawal in 1966, In can't say as I haven't found a later photo.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10229501402385951&set=gm.1282896002182115
The only other possibility is exhaust from a drain pipe behind th vaalve but I can't think of what it could be.