Talk:BR Standard Class 6/Archive 2

Background: 5MT Pacifics

In the Background section we are plunged in at the deep end as though there were already an ongoing discussion - unfortunately not the case.... I know very little about this side of the story, so I cannot help much here. What I understand from Brian Haresnape's "Profile" is that there was an initial Pacific programme in four power groups - 8, 7, 6, and 5. The only Cass 8 built was the "Duke", considered as a replacement for for the destroyed "Princess Anne", and the 5 was dropped because it was felt that a 4-6-0 answered all needs - so that made two production models wiith one not perpetuated beyond the first batch. All this needs to be expanded upon. Perhaps there is room for an article on the thinking behind the whole BR standandisation programme of the late 40s, culminating in all these new designs. Anybody fancy taking it on?--John of Paris 08:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the latest edit. - So, have I understood correctly? - Was the 5MT Pacific idea to produce a locomotive with greater route availability than the "Venerable 4-6-0"? Certainly the weight would have been spread over more axles, also the weight per foot run may have been lower. Is this what you are getting at? Surely such would have made for a very slippery engine.--John of Paris 06:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the information I have to hand (the Clarke book), what you have suggested is correct, but I think that they may have wished to create a locomotive with a greater route availability in terms of distance than the 4-6-0, though the problem you have highlighted was more than likely one of the key considerations in precluding the construction of a class of such locomotives, as the power-weight ratio would have been on the high side. Another was the fact that there was no real need for a 'Pacific' of 5MT power classification, due to the fact that the 4-6-0 was seen to be good enough for BR's needs, a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (as you rightly mention above). However, they believed that there was still a need for a slightly higher power classification for use on routes that were otherwise barred to 7MTs, hence the decision to go ahead with the Std. Class 6 (which was a fairly obvious outcome).--Bulleid Pacific 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Distance! They only had to fit a bigger tender. Anyway, what do you think of the idea for a new article on the first standardisation programme? — if there's not one already - amazing how I keep turning up at the moment articles I didn't know about). It came to me just like that, but I have not given it further consideration since.--John of Paris 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

May help to clear up some issues. There also needs to be an article on the Railway Executive, one step below the BTC.--Bulleid Pacific 12:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)