Maunsell W Tanks

Yes, I was thinking more about all the possible variations of cylinders, wheels and tank / tender; rather than all the various locos that had Maunsell mogul standard parts: you'd have to add the Z class 0-8-0Ts and even the Stroudley E1R rebuilds into that list!

From the nominally 100 locos built at Woolwich, I believe the parts ended up disposed as follows:

• Southern Railway - 50 as N class
• Irish MGWR - 12, though 11 ended up being completed under the ownership of the GSR.
• Irish GSR - 15, split between two classes (5'6" and 6'0" wheels) with one kit kept for spares. They also took 4 spare boilers (i.e. 19 in all).
• Metropolitan Railway - 6 as 2-6-4 tanks
• Southern Railway - the nominal remaining 17 were bought as miscellaneous parts and incorporated into new Ashford-built U and K class locos; the W class 2-6-4s; E1R 0-6-2T rebuilds (the trailing truck) or absorbed into the pool of spares. It appears that those parts consisted of 11 boilers, 37 sets of cylinders, 5 sets of frames, 38 pairs of coupled wheels, 17 Bissell trucks, 7 sets of tender parts and wheels, 31 chimneys and large amounts of miscellaneous plating, brake shoes, coupling rods, pistons, sand containers and piping.

(Didn't we have a thread about Southern standardisation somewhere?

Tom

 

It's good to get the alternate view, and the Black Five is (rightly) held in much esteem. My comments were relating more to the design than the engineman's full view: there's no doubt the standard 5MT was designed to be more ergonomic for driver/maintainer.

Whether that was entirely the case is different, but I'd imagine the ergonomics of the cab seat, for example, was designed principally for running forwards; the class in question was meant to be turned where turntables existed, so good ergonomics for forward running (which was preferred) seems logical.

I do confess mine is a personal viewpoint from my office work chair!

 

I think the Standards were not popular on the Western for similar reasons. Could probably find chapter and verse if necessary.

But, again from memory, the Standard 5 was well liked on the S and D. Maybe it all depends what they are compared with!

 

(PS - once agains proof of @Jamessquared's third law of NatPres: all threads eventually discuss The Leader).

Tom

 

It's even more of a discussion point than the LNER garratt

 

I came across an account some years ago of a W being used on a passenger working in an Australian magazine ( Australian Railway Enthusiast, Vol 16 No 1, March 1978) of all unlikely places. The event occured on 23 May 1963 and the writer was travelling home from Victoria to East Croydon on an electric "stopper". After passing a series of stationary trains on the down main he arrived at Streatham Common to find the 4.48pm Victoria to Tunbridge Wells West standing there with a failed Crompton, D6565 at its head. In the yard beyond the station was the daily pick up goods with W No.31921. With its blower hard on, it was clearly raising steam to take over the stricken train. Our correspondent immediately left his train and watched as the W came across from the yard and coupled onto the failed diesel loco and its eight coach train. He then joined this train and was treated to the rare (? unique) opertunity to travel behind a W as it took the entire train on to East Croydon, running bunker first and reaching a maximum of 45 mph through Thornton Heath. The W came off the train with the failed diesel at East Croydon, where U Class No. 31619 took over for the rest of the journey.

I know of no other instances of a W being called on to work a passenger service and thought this account may be of interest.

Peter

 

didn't Terry Essery like Derby fours, which no one else did?

 

The 4Fs were a much maligned class, and the criticism is only partly justified. The main criticism is the axleboxes which, according to rumour, ran hot as they went off shed. They were marginal on the Fours, but not bad (it was the Austin 7s and Garratts where they gave trouble); a shed foreman seeing a Four go off shed in the morning could expect it to return at the end of its day's work, none the worse for its experience. They did a lot of good work, goods and passenger, in the 55 years they were in service. They were uncomfortable, their footplates being too short to fit in a driver's seat except above the reverser - with a slot cut in it so he could see the index scale.

They were said to be shy for steam, but fresh off shed they were alright, but the fireboxes and ashpans were inadequate and they were overwhelmed after a few hours, so the rest of the shift was fighting to maintain pressure and water level.

I don't think Terry actually said he LIKED the fours, but from memory he did give them a fair hearing, which was more than many did.

Back the W tanks, anyone?

 

I'll hazard a guess at 1963, but I spent a summer 2 week holiday at Axminster, not realising the line was 100% steam, and lost no time in 'doing' most of the branch lines and had several trips to Exeter. There were several W class locos used for banking duties from St Davids up the 1 in 39 to Central, and they had taken over from Z class locos, which had presumably been withdrawn. I knew nothing about the Ws but was impressed by the sheer power and spectacle of them pushing up the bank from a standing start. I can't forget the memory of an N class and Bulleid 4-6-2 double heading a freight with a 2-6-4 on the rear!

 

Well I'll be damned!

 

Could also be the fact that while the other three regions happily took the standards, the Western basically had them forced onto them with the old "Your not building anymore of your own engines" speal.

 

How happy were the Eastern region crews? The LMS lads presumably had few problems, and I can imagine the SR boys looking at the Leader and the redundancies that came with electrification and being grateful things weren't worse.

 

I was wondering that. If you put the twenty Brits on the GE to one side, did the standards actually have much impact on the eastern?

 

Well consider this, I have watched many DVD's, read many books and listened to alot of people that used to work on the railways, I heard constantly how much the GWR hated Standardisation, to the point of Collett not shaking Riddles hand (Random fact I know).

I just assumed that the GWR was the only company who weren't happy with them, while others gladly excepted them.

Of course, I could have assumed wrong.

 

Probably not, unless you count the numerous amount of Std 7's, Std 4 Variants, Std 5's, 9F's and Dub Dees (In one book I had, they classed Dub Dee's as Standards).

I think they had more of an impact in Scotland, Eastern wise than England.

 

When researching at the NRM I found 2 different bissel truck drawings for the moguls/Rivers. I have just realised that the earlier (SECR) one had coil spings for the axle boxes and the later (SR) one leaf springs. Does anyone know when the change took place? Did the Rivers have coil springs at the time of the derailments? Was the change made to improve the riding?

 

Additional to the 'Brits' Eastern (and North Eastern) regions had a fair allocation of Class 3&4 moguls. The ex-LTSR lines to Southend, transferred to BR(ER) to from BR(LMR) in Feb 1949, were a regular stamping ground of the Class 4 2-6-4T.

 

From the accident report - it had leaf springs at the time of the accident (see below for history):



Bradley mentions just about every spring possible in the engine as built, except the Bissel truck axle box springs ... as built they must have had coil springs, because he later mentions:

"As a result of various complaints of poor riding on Race specials from Tattenham Corner, No. A790 River Avon was given the following modifications in the autumn of 1925 [i.e. before Sevenoaks - TJ]:

(1) Flat, instead of spherical, centres of the bogie and Bissel truck
(2) Laminated, in place of helical, bearing springs to the bogie and Bissell truck
(3) Centres of the Bissell truck steadying springs widened from 2ft 10½in to 3ft 6in

The modifications came too late for incorporation in Nos. A791 - A799 and A890, but were applied to Brighton built A800 to A809. In regular express service opinions differed as to their effect on the running, probably the best indication being the lack of urgency shown in modifying A791 to A799."
​

So the answers to your questions are Autumn 1925; no, leaf springs; and yes.

Tom

​

 

Thank you