Talk:BR Standard Class 9F

Trains: in UK / in Scotland / Locomotives Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 10, 2011

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Naming ceremony

I've added some details about Evening Star's naming ceremony including a part of the speech - this is transcribed from a BBC audio recording made at the ceremony, but, as I'm relatively new to all this, I'm not sure how to cite it - can anyone help? Andywebby 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

How fast was it designed to run?--No qwach macken (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The speed at which fast freight trains were run- roughly 880 ips. Ning-ning (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. It was designed (as a locomotive) to run as slowly as a fast freight train. However its detail design, in engineering terms, including far better bearings and seals than had ever been employed on a British locomotive before. They also had a leading pony truck with a very well considered suspension, which gave them good "road manners" and a stable ride. They were also (for as long as the fireman could cope) obviously very powerful. So pretty soon the 9F developed a reputation not only as an excellent heavy freight locomotive, and also (hardly surprisingly) as an expectedly good locomotive for heavy passenger trains, but it also turned out that they were one of the fastest steam locomotives of British Rail in the 1960s. They were certainly faster than the A4 Pacifics (which by this time were pretty worn-out, whilst the 9Fs were brand new) and with a heavy train they were faster than the less-powerful Britannias too. It's possible (although now we're into the realms of railwayman's hyperbole) that they were the fastest class ever run on British rails, including the Stanier Pacifics (compare timings over Shap). They were recognised as faster in service than the LNER Pacifics, which whilst remarkably fast downhill with a light train (hence Mallard's one-off record) could never sustain this on a long or heavy run, could only achieve any sort of speed if the valvegear was relatively fresh from the shops, and often broke if pushed too hard. Really no-one knows just how fast a 9F could have been, despite the small driving wheels, as they just never got the chance to show it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British steam locomotives, other than those designed for express trains, tended not to have a design maximum speed. Until the 1960s/1970s, British freight trains included a proportion of wagons having no continuous brake, which limited the speed of the train to 40 mph. The 9Fs were intended for heavy freight, not fast freight, so it was the power output, not the speed capability, which was the designer's priority. That they were later shown to be capable of 90 mph on express passenger trains was a bonus, not a design achievement. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "intended for use on fast, heavy freight trains"- should the "fast" be removed? Ning-ning (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were intended for fast freight, not just heavy freight. Although fast freights pre-war had been fairly light, being really just either fish or bananas carried in fully-fitted (vacuum braked) stock, the 9F was designed after the modernisation plans had recognised that heavy freight was also going to have to be fully fitted, so as to allow it to be worked faster and without disrupting passenger services on the same lines. This was part of the plans to (amongst other things) remove wooden-bodied private owner wagons with the new steel-bodied vacuum braked mineral wagons, thus allowing the previous heavy coal trains to be worked with vacuum brakes. Other mineral cargoes, notably ironstone (from mines in the East Midlands, and also from ports in South Wales), would be carried in trains of new high-capacity hopper wagons with rapid unloading. The 9F was always part of this, so was designed for speeds in excess of the previous "freight" speeds. This was one reason why, despite being ten-coupled and already an unusually long wheelbase, it had drivers bigger than the preceding 8F.

The notion of heavy freight being fully-fitted was also part of the dieselisation plans of '55. It was recognised that these new lightweight, high-power diesels would suffer from a lack of braking force, such that they'd be able to start unfitted trains they were incapable of braking. As it still took some time to replace the unfitted trains, we saw aberration in the 1960s like brake tenders ahead of diesel locos. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot in the RCTS book on the 9Fs:

Walford, John; Harrison, Paul (2008). A Detailed History of British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives - Volume Four: The 9F 2-10-0 Class. Bristol: RCTS. ISBN 0 901115 95 9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

including much where the relative merits of a 5'3" 2-8-2 versus a 5'0" 2-10-0 were considered, including the idea that the former is more suited to high speed work than the latter. We have these phrases in particular: "less emphasis was now being placed on the fast fitted-freight concept originally put forward and more on providing power for the heavy and slower-moving 1,000 ton mineral trains"; "Riddles ... had already become convinced that available resources for the plan to fit all freight wagons with continuous brakes could be a long time coming"; "there was the general limit ... of a 40 mph maximum speed for unfitted mineral trains. Thus the need now was for a more powerful locomotive with the ability to reduce transit times by climbing banks faster, rather than achieving the higher running speeds originally envisaged for the fast freight services" (Walford & Harrison 2008, p. 11). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Two people on WP, and they both have the right reference to hand?!

The context of all of this is the question between the 2-8-2 design and the first 2-10-0 drafts (where the boiler forced the wheels to be smaller) and the eventual 2-10-0. Also the debate between Bond and Riddles, as to the future availability of fitted freight stock. Now this is really just from memory, as I'd have to re-read the RCTS book (good book - buy my spare copy when I get round to eBaying it!) to get the details, but I think the key points are:

In hindsight, Bond was wrong. Unfitted freight persisted into the 1970s, and we needed those diesel brake tenders.
The eventual 9F design might have been a compromise between the unfitted (slow) freight role that they worked so well in service and Bond's earlier optimistic hopes for a fast freight locomotive along German lines. However it still showed the influences of the original fast freight concept. It never got the expensive roller main bearings that would have made it even better, but yet it still kept many of the detail design features that allowed a useful turn of speed.
The 2-8-2 influence remained in that the wheel diameter stayed relatively large for a freight loco, compared to the 2-8-0 (and 2-10-0) types. 5' is less than 5'3", but it's still bigger than 4'8".
The boiler design that permitted 5' wheels under the firebox was crucial to allowing higher speeds, even though this had cost commonality with the Britannia boiler.

The eventual 9F wasn't intended for the freight speeds that had earlier been considered, and perhaps it wasn't as suited for higher speeds as it might have been. Yet the design was in no way limited to the slower speeds, as it regularly demonstrated on passenger workings. When it came to overall journey times with heavy trains, particularly over a route like Shap, then there was little else in BR steam service to touch it. Only the Big Lizzies were even close. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that one exceeded 90mph when hauling a passenger express. So I suppose that answers the question. Although they weren't really designed for high speed. They would have been much slower than that when hauling freight, probably in the 25-50mph range I would think. G-13114 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Route Availability

The RA of 9 and axle load of 15.5 Long tons does not seem correct - particulary with the BR (WR) Blue designation. I have seen a note that the RA classification on the Eastern region ER was different - so was RA region dependent? Clarification and additional information would be very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GWR colour code was based on static axle load (i.e. it takes no account of rotating and reciprocating masses which cause hammer blow); and it also ignores wheelbase, etc. The RA system is the same for all BR regions, and the determination is based on dynamic load, and also takes other factors such as wheelbase into account. There is thus no direct conversion between the two systems. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. The article on RA system could be expanded to include this as it primarily diesel/electric biased, no steam. The information about rotating and reciprocating masses above is interesting, but the implication for this loco is that these forces were large. This may due to the small driving wheel diameter for the 9F? Wouldn't this result is poor ride and/or increased wear to the bearings, springs and other load bearing items? Is there anywhere I can read more on this subject? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try hammer blow. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really the Last Steam Locomotives Built in the United Kingdom?

Although it says that the BR Standard Class 9F Locomotive were the last class of steam locomotives built in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia also says that the last Hunslet Austerity Tank Engine was built in 1964, four years after the last 9F Evening Star was built in 1960. Could someone explain this to me to clear up this confusion? --75.68.122.13 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian[reply]

The article says that Evening Star was the last locomotive built by British Railways. The later Austerities were built by Hunslett (mainly for the NCB). Robevans123 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says they're the last to be built by British Railways, although "last mainline locos" would work too (I'm not going to split hairs over Tornado). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It doesn't say "the last class of steam locomotives built in the United Kingdom": it says "the Class 9F was the last in a series of standardised locomotive classes designed for British Railways during the 1950s", "the last of the class, 92220 Evening Star, was the final steam locomotive to be built by British Railways", 'the last member of the class was constructed at Swindon in 1960, the 999th "BR Standard" to be constructed, and the last steam locomotive to be built by British Railways', and "the last steam locomotive constructed at Swindon". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing out the confusion. Although the artical should say there were more steam locomotives built in the UK after Evening Star in 1960. --75.68.122.13 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BR Standard Class 9F. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the most powerful steam locos built in Britain

I changed "one of the most powerful built in Britain" to "one of the most powerful built for British Railways" as Beyer Garratts built in Manchester for South African, East African and Australian railways were far more powerful. 9Fs were quite weedy in comparison.

For example, 9F tractive effort = 39,667 lbf EAR 59 class = 83,350 lbf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.246.243 (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tractive effort is not a measure of power, but of the theoretical force applied when starting from rest. Power is proportional to force multiplied by velocity; hence a locomotive at rest develops nil power; and as velocity increases, so does power. But at the same time, the flow of steam through the system will increase with velocity (notwithstanding the effects of varying the cutoff), and above a certain flow rate, the ability of the boiler to generate steam will reach a limit and the boiler pressure will drop with a consequent drop in tractive effort. See Tractive force. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question

so since its been a year or so since 92212's boiler ticket expired, does that mean its awaiting overhaul? 73.250.53.193 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]