BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

Seeing the latest News re the wheels donation, I am impressed at the speed of action to produce the patterns!
Though I have a recollection that these patterns are available through the BSLOG?
Perhaps I am wrong. Anyway, at least these patterns will be to current standards.
Excellent news all round.
By the way, I have an idea that Ashington No5 at Stephenson Steam Railway is having manganese liners fitted to axleboxes/guides during the current overhaul.I may be mistaken on this, not being directly involved in its overhaul.

 

Dont recall any Standard 5,7, or 8 needing a new wheel and therefore a pattern - could it be an original ?

 

Patterns for the bogie and pony truck wheels are owned by BRSLOG members. No one has patterns for the driving wheels of any Standard classes other than those for 82045.

 

No doubt BR produced a completely new work up for the wheels based on LMS practice rather than ask for some drawings from Doncaster to re work...

 

There do seem to have been some instances of failure to standardise parts that very well could have been the same across more classes.

 

Maybe more to do with other aspects of the BR mismanagement. If there had been a date, 1970 say, when every pre nationalisation class was withdrawn, but steam traction was still universal then there would have been hundreds of each standard class and so each class would have had critical mass without having parts common with another class. For example although the GWR had numerous standard parts right across their 2 cylinder classes, there were only about 1,300 of them. The number series, plus what they had to replace, suggests that in that scenario there would have been getting on for 2,000 BR Standard 5s alone, so one can see they might have seen little point in too much commonality. Of course you can argue that was a scenario that had no chance of happening, and TBH I agree with you. It also suggests they weren't thinking enough about the intervening 20 years before this utopia came to pass.

 

Critical to the misunderstanding of the Standards is actually calling them ' standards' in the first place. Had they decided to Call them Unlimiteds ,Universals, General or Common then that might have given a better idea.

 

I stand corrected then, thank you.

 

Is this simply a case of Us having a different concept of the word 'Standard' 70 years later?

 

Possibly not so much a concept as which order you put things. If you order wheels from facility A that uses LMS practice, they will work to standard x, but a former GWR plant will work to standard y.

If you are building 1000 engine's worth of wheels, you might as well carry on using existing practice in each locatio

 

So 'standardised across the different regions' rather than standardised parts?

One wonders whether they could have had one std. 4 boiler with just a little more work tho... instead of three!

 

That would explain why 76xxx and 82xxx driving wheels have differing number of spokes despite having the same wheel diameter.

Regarding boilers, could the same boiler have been made to fit an 80xxx and a 76xxx? And was there really any need for 75xxx? A little bit bigger than 76xxx which generally seem more than capable. Likewise 77xxx, was there anything they were needed for that 76xxx or 78xxx couldn't do? It seems to be a particularly British thing to design locos and rolling stock tailored to a specific need, rather than making do with what's available, even if it means locos are over-powered for some duties.

 

They might have the same wheel diameter, but the axle diameters on a 76xxx are bigger than the axle diameters on a 77xxx/82xxx.

 

A difference in axle size does not require a different casting or pattern, the centre hole in the casting just needs to be bored out a little more for the larger axle.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

I agree that 2 classes using 1 boiler design could have covered nearly all the duties of the 5 classes actually produced but I wonder how much money would have been saved.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

Some of discussion could perhaps be spun off into a new thread: Why so many BR Standard classes?
The Class 4 4-6-0 makes some sense as a BR Standard equivalent of a Manor, but why three sizes of Mogul?

 

I agree, but the 76xxxs were designed at Doncaster and the 77xxxs and 82xxxs were designed at Swindon.

 

Its a question I've asked myself too. Weight restrictions were a lot of it, and I bet if you tabulated boiler dimensions and grate area then you could make guesses about coal consumption. But, again, I think they were hoping to condense over 200 pre nationalisation classes down to 10, with thousands built of each type, so considerations of interchangeability between classes probably didn't seem that important. I also suspect we don't think enough about which components were important to standardise. I suspect a running shed wouldn't care how many spokes a driving wheel had so long as the same brake blocks fitted. Presumably a wheel with more spokes is heavier but stronger and one assumes that weight was always a consideration.

 

78xxx,76xxx & 77xxx all seemed to be useful on the stainmore route, as had the ivatt 2mt and 4mt moguls before them.

 

I understand what you are meaning but would suggest it better to take the largest wheel centre and bore it out less for the smaller axle rather than the other way around
It seems that when people talk about standardisation they always look to introducing a new range rather than standardising on existing designs. The reality then becomes the fact that you then have even more different designs to hold spares for.
When the coal mines were nationalised in 1947 each area adopted its own standard gauge for new construction works underground. When the Barnsley Area was formed in 1967 by the amalgamation of No. 5 and No.6 areas, one had standardised on 2’-0” gauge and the other on 2’-6” so there was a mix between the two in the new area. Those in charge then decided to compromise and go half way between the two and standardise on 2’-3” for new works. And, yes, that was the reason for the decision to do so.