Model Rail Masterclass question...

i think its in this months

In message , kim may have written...

Nope. Can't see much market for one either. Not sure if you'd be able to carve one out of a Hornby Brit as there were a fair few differences, with the wheels being the most obvious. A kit would be your best bet.

Jackson Evans do a conversion kit.

I think Crownline used to do one, too, based on the old Hornby Brit.

I take it they share a common boiler then?

"James Christie" wrote

I thought the Clan's boiler was similar to the Standard 5MT rather than the Britannia.

John.

In message , John Turner may have written...

That's what I originally thought, they were only 6P/5F, so why the need for the big boiler. Just checked my ABC, and it tells me the wheels were the same size, 6'

2", difference being the Clans boiler was 25lb per inch squared less than a Brit, and the cylinders were a half inch smaller in diameter.?

The message from James Christie contains these words:

...and they weren't up to the job. Whether it was the lower pressure or the smaller cylinder size which was blamed, I can't remember, but they were regularly reported as "struggling". I'll have to dig out my 1950s Railway Magazines and check up.

In message , David Jackson may have written...

Still, they followed in the fine tradition of the ScR locos having fine names. Just a pity the successors didn't follow the same example.

Not really, John. The Clan boiler was 17' over tubeplates, tapered from

6'1" to 5'4" in diameter, and had a wide firebox, 6'9" long by 7' wide giving a 36 sq.ft grate. Clan boilers had a front-end regulator.

The 5MT boiler was 13'2" over tubeplates, tapered from 5'8" to 4'11" in diameter, and had a deep firebox, 9'2" long by 3'11" wide giving a 28.7 sq.ft grate. The 5MT's regulator was in the dome.

"David Jackson" wrote

It depends upon whose reports you read. Some suggest they were utterly useless, whilst others say they were pretty much ideal for the job. Don't ask me to quote references because I can't remember where I read what.

John.

"mark_newton" wrote

I bow to your infinitely superior knowledge, but one thing is for sure and that is the Clan boiler appears to be visually smaller in photographs than those of the Britannias.

John.

Yes, they are smaller, I forgot to mention that bit! Sorry! :-)

Years ago I knew an old bloke who fired the things, out of Polmadie(?) IIRC. He alway spoke very highly of them, reckoning they were "strong engines".

John,

Most of the standard classes seemed to suffer that kind of variation in praise/criticism. I remember a feature on the Standard Class 4 4-6-0 in the old (Roy Dock) Model Railways where Bernard Wright would have comments from railway staff on the locomotive. When you read the comments on the Class 4, you really wondered if the contributors were talking about the same loco :-)

Jim.

Most of the sources I've read claim that none of Riddles' designs was an unqualified success except for the 9F.

(kim)

His austerity 2-8-0s and 2-10-0s were.

Also the Britannias and the Duke of Gloucester even though they only got the Duke right in preservation - it was Crewe that got the ashpan wrong not Riddles.

The only other pure Riddles designs were the class 3 moguls and tank engines.

Kim,

If you read E.S.Cox's book on the standard locos, he is quite realistic about the successes and the failures. But he says a lot of the criticism was down to railwaymen so steeped in pre-Nationalisation (and even pre-Grouping) ties, that anything new was viewed with suspicion or downright disgust. and no matter how good a standard loco was, it was never going to be a success in these peoples' hands I believe the Britannias did not go down well on most of the regions since they could be compared directly with the express locomotive classes which still existed - Stanier, Gresley and Bulleid pacifics, and Western region kings and castles. But put them in an area where these other top link locos never strayed, and the Britannias were welcomed with open arms and did extremely good service - like the old GE region

And the standards were built for a purpose to be easier machines to maintain, with high running boards and no inside cylinders (bar one example), to suit a less qualified servicing and maintenance workforce. Some designs were virtual copies of earlier Grouping designs, but with modified loading gauge profiles to give a much better route availability.

Jim

I meant to say "none of Riddles' BR standard designs".

I read the Britannias were seriously flawed but that the Duke of Gloucester was highly promising.

IMHO none of Riddles' updates were as good as the Stanier or Ivatt originals. Standard Class 4's were a complete waste of time, too big for branch lines and too small for mainlines. (Queue reply from angry Class 4 driver).

kim

The Britannias were actually pretty good engines - there were early problems with the wheels shifting on the hollow driving axles but other engines by different designers also had this problem.

The perceived problems were when eg Great Western drivers used to Castles got them. They were completely different - wide firebox that needed a different firing technique, bad driving position for crews used to sighting signals on a left hand drive engine, etc..

But when they were used on sections that had never had that kind of power they were popular - eg Liverpool Street to Norwich.

The class 4s were meant for specific duties where a class 5 was too heavy. Eg the Cambrian main line. They were actually based on the class 4 2-6-4 tank with a leading bogie instead of a pony truck.

If a Class 5 driver was upset it would be for the same reason a Hall driver would be upset if he got given a Manor for the same job.