British Railways Power Classification

Hi all.

Can anyone direct me to either a website or book that contains the proper list of power classifications used by British Railways? I'm thinking of the

4P, 4MT, 7F things, not the Type 1, Type 2, stuff.

I've found a wiki that covers what the LMS did that the BR ones are based on. It mentions changes that BR made, but doesn't list, explain or provide a link to a source for what those changes were.

Reply to
Ian J.
Loading thread data ...

"Ian J." wrote

All of the Ian Allan ABC spotters books (excluding the Locoshed books) identifies the power classification for all types of BR steam locos.

The 'Type 1', 'Type 2' etc classifications refer to diesel locos.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. I'm actually looking for a list of the classifications themselves, not the locos that have the classifications.

The wiki that has the LMS list is at:

formatting link

Reply to
Ian J.

Depends what you want to know. it was basically as per LMS, with single digit 0-9 followed by F, P or MT. Dont think all had locos in them eg no 9P or 9MT. Rumour has it there was a

9F at one time.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Dont know about traction figures but BR used same numbers except LMS was

0...4, 5, 5X, 6, 7, 8 and BR removed 5X to give 0..4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Trouble is the LMS didn't use 9, as far as I can find out, and so I don't know what British Railways changed to put 9 in. Did they adjust other tractive effort figures while they were at it?

Also, were there any proposals for powers beyond 9, ie a 10, 11, 12??

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

I dont think they changed anything to add a Class 9- it was just that the LMS hadn't built anything quite that powerful- or, if they had, hadn't bothered to give it a higher number.( What was the power classification of the Beyer-Garretts and the Lickey Banker?) The 'X' is part of the letter part of the code, referring to 'Express', I believe, rather than part of the numerical bit. Brian

Reply to
BH Williams

Having nothing better to do on a gray day I had a look at the classifications of locos and apart from wheel size and bunker capacity which would determine top speed and range the actual ratings appear to be rather random . Several 7P locos were more powerful than those rated 8P so it must be assumed that actual steaming ability coupled with the skills of the footplatemen could upgrade a loco type from where it may have been based solely on theoretical data. This is more evident in the 4MT group where more than one loco type could expect to be at least one group lower.

So, to answer your question -- dunno!

Regards

Peter A

Reply to
Peter Abraham

Yes, but BR used 9, so they must have given 8 a top tractive effort threshold to put 9 in, and the LMS had no top to 8...

I suppose there must be documents somewhere, maybe at Kew at the PRO or at the NRM that hold the definitions in greater detail that BR used... Those would be ideal.

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

There's oddly no mention of the subject in "Locomotives in Detail" but it's possible one of the other 9F manuals mentions it?

(kim)

Reply to
kim

The best source I have found is that which is contained in P. Ransome-Wallis book "The Last Steam Locomotives of British Railways" (Ian Allan) from 1968. It is pre ISBN.

There are 5 pages on the various power classification schemes of the 4 Groups plus BR. While the BR scheme was based on the old LMS scheme, it was extensively changed and was *not* just a matter of renumbering from

0-8 including 5XP, to 1-9.

Sorry I don't have time to scan right now.

Kevin Martin

Reply to
Kevin Martin

Seems I didnt didnt explain the change of 5X to 6 properly. Where locos placed depended on their tractive effort, not real power.

According to Cox, passenger classifications changed as follows :-

LMS BR

4 4 5 5 5X 6 6 7 7 8

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Kevin,

Many thanks, I will try and see if I can find either a copy of the book or the material it references, though it sounds like getting the book itself might be a tad difficult.

Does the book cite references for where the info might come from?

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

No worries! :-) found a store selling the 1987 reprint on eBay, so have ordered that.

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

Well in that case had better have words with Mr E.S.Cox*. In Loco Panarama Vol 2 theres only one modest paragraph saying passenger classification went from 4-7 (inc 5X) to 4-8. Perhaps he was asleep when that was decided and just read the summary in the minutes.

*Yes I know hes no longer with us.

CHeers, Simon

Reply to
simon

A quick browse through the ratings indicates that T.E. was not the only criteria. Wheel size determined top speed or more correctly opêrating speed, boiler capacity the duration of full output and bunkers ( wet & dry) determined range. I suspect that actual steaming ability due to design ,coupled with footplate skill, also played a part in the ratings. There were some inexplicable ratings in the BR set up . The 9F was not as high in TE as the Kings or LM pacifics.

Sorry if this appears twice but my first post seems to be off to nowhere land for a visit to its rels!

Regards

Reply to
Peter Abraham

In message , simon writes

Does this mean that the late Mr Cox decided that there weren't any locos classified 0P, 1P, 2P and 3P? Because, looking through an old Ian Allan combined volume, it would seem that there were.

Reply to
Jane Sullivan

Was very careful to only include the classes he mentioned just in case... However perhaps he chose to describe only that range as it shewed the changed classes. Obviously he couldnt have written with you erudite and knowledgable usenet contributors in mind.

cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Sorry, but no. Essery and Jenkinson - LMS Locos Vol 1 state it was just TE and point out the anomolies this can and did cause. Frieght and Passenger classses were seperate. 5P wasnt the same class as 5F. Wonderfully demonstrated by the Crab with its designation of 5P4F. BR introduced the seperate classification of MT.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

"simon" wrote

That would explain why the Fowler 4F was less capable of hauling a train than a 3F. The latter was always better regarded (possibly it was a better steamer) than the 4F.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.