The description for USA practice is accurate, with the last PRR-LIRR Ten Wheelers built specifically for suburban service and excellent performers in that service. But in Great Britain, 4-6-0s continued to be built even after WWII and were considered useful dual-service locomotives, probably out numbering any other wheel arrangemen, sort of equivialent to both the Pacific and the Mikado together in the USA and Canada. Indeed, although three of the four major post-grouping railroads had Pacifics for their top passenger runs, the Great Western never had any, and their Castle class Ten Wheelers were their top passenger power, with the Manor class the general dual service type.
daveklepperIndeed, although three of the four major post-grouping railroads had Pacifics for their top passenger runs, the Great Western never had any, and their Castle class Ten Wheelers were their top passenger power ...
I would humbly submit that the King class was the 'top' passenger locomotive there. Not to take away anything from your point. I think I'd also mention the Stanier 'Black Five' by name, which was thought a good enough design that the 5AT people based their high-speed locomotive on it.
I think that the 0-6-0 outnumbered everything else in Britain, in both tank and tender variants. Many were remarkably versatile, and Fowler 4Fs were used on everything from coal drags to express passenger trains where they were double headed.
the Stainer Black 5 was the most numverous 4-6-0, and the postwar British Raiklways standard 4-6-0 was based on that design. The King class were also 4-6-0's, so my point remains. Northwest, you meant 4-6-0, not 0-6-0, right?
Back to the USA, the PRR, really revived the type when they chose it for steam suburban service. Other railraods used hand-me-downs, like the huge fleet of 2-6-0's on the B&M, and the IC and NYC used tank engines. The 4-6-0 tanks ih Great Britian were for suburban service.
I did mean 0-6-0s as I do believe they outnumbered any other wheel arangement in Britain, but your point does stand. Britain simply did not have the loading gauge for anything much larger than a Pacific, and 4-6-0s lasted as the most common express passenger power because of the lighter loads. While GWR did have one Pacific, 111, it only lasted a few years before it was outperformed by the Castles and was rebuilt as one. SR under Maunsell also avoided Pacifics, instead building the wonderful Lord Nelson class. The first SR Pacific was constructed under Bullied in the 1940s. The only passenger locomotive larger than a Pacific was the LNER P2, which had a wheelbase that was a bit too long. B17 4-6-0s far outnumbered other LNER passenger power.
daveklepper The King class were also 4-6-0's, so my point remains.
Yes, but MY point was that the King class, not the Castle class, was the 'top' Great Western passenger power.
Wizlish daveklepper The King class were also 4-6-0's, so my point remains. Yes, but MY point was that the King class, not the Castle class, was the 'top' Great Western passenger power.
M636CThe "Castle" was used in preference on the faster schedules where the loads were within their capability, including the "Cheltenham Flyer" which had the shortest point to point timing of any train in the UK ... it could be argued that the "Castle" was the top GWR passenger locomotive since it was used on the fastest trains.
I stand instructed.
Pendenus Castle was preserved by Lord John Greton, whom I met on the Kleibolt Chicago RR Club Colorado narrow gauge trip Summer 1962, and then served as host for him for a tour of New England including Mt. Washington cog, Steamtown-Bellows Falls (with him doing the throttle honors on a regular trip), and concerts at Tanglewood (Boston Symphony summer home) and DArtmouth's Hopkins-Center-Spaulding Auditorium. I believe his widow, Lady Jane Gretton still owns it, but Iwill be glad to updated by British readers. She manages the Ravensglas and Ecksdale mineature but common-carrier steam narrow gauge railroad (a scenic ride) off the Cambrian Coast.
Pendennis Castle was purchased by Hamersley Iron and transferred to Dampier, Western Australia in 1977-78.
I actually helped clean it for a photograph on a Saturday afternoon in mid 1978.
My understanding was that it was sold to Hamersley by Sir William McAlpine but that might not be correct.
It remained in Australia until 1999, and was purchased and returned to the UK by the "Great Western Society" who are restoring it in their depot at Didcot.
While in Australia, it was moved thousands of miles by road to Perth Western Australia and worked doubled headed tours with "Flying Scotsman" during 1989.
M636C
Thanks for the info. More likely for me to meet the locomotive in its new home, possibly.
Black Fives were used beyond the borders of England, finding useful service n the Middle East and possibly other areas.
I've always thought it strange that the Mikado was an almost nonexistent type in England and Scotland. There was a small batch of passenger 2-8-2's on the LNER, later rebuilt to Pacifics; and I believe there was one line that had 2-8-2T's for coal service. Otherwise, freight designs jumped from 2-8-0 to 2-10-0 without hesitation. Except for the big Pacifics, it was rare to find a trailing truck on anything but a tank engine.
I don't know the numbers, but it's true that 0-6-0's were astoundingly numerous, being found in switching, branchline and mainline freight, and branchline and mainline passenger service all over the Isle.
Tom
ACYOtherwise, freight designs jumped from 2-8-0 to 2-10-0 without hesitation.
In my opinion it pays to look at this in conjunction with Chapelon's 4-8-0s, such as the 240P class. If you can get the required firing rate out of a narrow firebox (which for a number of reasons is more efficient than a shallow wide firebox under most conditions) you can use a trailing coupled axle instead of a 'bearing' axle and get the advantage of the additional power with no need for a complex booster. (Note that boosters were tried carefully and with reasonable technical success in Britain, but weren't adopted mainly due to cost for the benefit received.)
With a little care in the design of how the tender attaches to the locomotive, it is possible to get reasonable lateral control of the chassis (at least comparable to that provided by the usual sort of trailing truck centering devices acting as far back and outboard on the chassis as can be arranged), and in the case of the Chapelon engines (which worked under an only-slightly-relaxed version of the strict French top speed limit) that was fully adequate. Whether the British ever had express trains that would fit their platforms and still benefit from the sustained power of an eight-coupled passenger locomotive is still in doubt; there certainly wasn't enough such opportunity to make the P2s worth keeping -- although there is CERTAINLY use for the replica now being built!
Meanwhile, if I remember correctly, Riddles started the 9F design with the assumption it would be a 2-8-2, but found that a 2-10-0 had benefits including a lower peak axle load. So there's no great mystery about 'where the 2-8-2 went'.
In my opinion it is important to reflect on the speeds that apparently could be reached with the 'last' British 2-10-0s, and why the design was capable of those speeds. I have been looking for articles on how the 9Fs were balanced; let me know if you find technical details.
You might be interested that British 9F 2-10-0's were sometimes assigned to passenger duties in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter