• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What were Old Oak Common's allocation of Standard Class 80000 tanks used for?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tallpaul70

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2018
Messages
26
Hi All,

In Summer 1962 six or so Standard 2-6-4 Tank Locos in the 80000 number series were allocated to Old Oak Common.

What were these used for?

Were they regarded as, and used as, equivalents to the GWR 61xx tanks, or did they have a specific use?
Many thanks
Best regards
Paul
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Hmm. Interesting that G Freeman Allen's overview of 'The Riddles Standard Types in Traffic', published by George Allen & Unwin in 1982, doesn't even mention this allocation. (Yes, I know that isn't the most scholarly or detailed work.)
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
My first reaction is along the lines of 30907's.

One thought was that these were ex LTSR locos freed up by electrification and some BRB type thought it would be a good idea to send them to 81A. Possibly, I suppose, to replace older 61XX.

Only someone on the ground was a) proud GWR, and didn't want these LMS-style tanks and/or b) knew damned well that there would be no work for them anyway.

In view of the fact that both the PAddington & Marylebone suburban services were fully dieselised by 62 (except for the peak loco-hauled trains, perhaps, but these needed more power than a standard tank), I do wonder what kind of work was left for the 61xx that remained there. Cross-London goods traffic, perhaps?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Are you sure 81A is not a typo for 89A? Like the others, I have no recollection of these locos going to Old Oak. But they did go to Shrewsbury and Swansea/Llanelli at exactly this time, ex-LT&S, and were used on the Central Wales, and later Cambrian sections.
 

Tallpaul70

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2018
Messages
26
Are you sure 81A is not a typo for 89A? Like the others, I have no recollection of these locos going to Old Oak. But they did go to Shrewsbury and Swansea/Llanelli at exactly this time, ex-LT&S, and were used on the Central Wales, and later Cambrian sections.
All things are possible when dealing with data almost 60 years old!
However, it came from a book called "BR Motive Power Allocations 1959-1968 Volume 1 BR Standards and Austerities" by Paul Teal published by Ian Allan in 1985.
I have found other data in this book to be accurate but of course it most likely did not all come from the same source, so who knows?

It does however seems likely that these were "paper transfers" or that 81A, as the first large MPD in WR was a holding point after they trundled round the north London Line etc. from the LT&S.
They had all left for points west by December 1962.

Many thanks to all who replied.

Best regards
Paul
 

33017

Member
Joined
9 Sep 2017
Messages
273
Google picked up this link which shows allocated 9Fs and 8Fs (the latter surprised me) but no sign of the Standard tanks.
http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2018/07/old-oak-common-1957-1964.html
I wonder if they ever actually made it there? For comparison (not exact), a vast number of SR locos were reallocated from the Kent Coast lines to Nine Elms in summer 1959, but most of them never got there.

All things are possible when dealing with data almost 60 years old!
However, it came from a book called "BR Motive Power Allocations 1959-1968 Volume 1 BR Standards and Austerities" by Paul Teal published by Ian Allan in 1985.
I have found other data in this book to be accurate but of course it most likely did not all come from the same source, so who knows?

It does however seems likely that these were "paper transfers" or that 81A, as the first large MPD in WR was a holding point after they trundled round the north London Line etc. from the LT&S.
They had all left for points west by December 1962.

Many thanks to all who replied.

Best regards
Paul
BR Database has 80070/098/102/104/131 & 132 all transferring to Old Oak 21/07/62. 80098 & 131 are shown transferring to Salop 08/09/62, followed by the other four on 15/12/62 (80104 to Croes Newydd). The shedbash link above has a report of a visit to Old Oak on 07/10/62 with 80102/104 & 132 all present and all quoted as allocated there.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
BR Database has 80070/098/102/104/131 & 132 all transferring to Old Oak 21/07/62. 80098 & 131 are shown transferring to Salop 08/09/62, followed by the other four on 15/12/62 (80104 to Croes Newydd). The shedbash link above has a report of a visit to Old Oak on 07/10/62 with 80102/104 & 132 all present and all quoted as allocated there.
Sorry, missed that completely. But the effect is the same - 81A was a staging post.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
In view of the fact that both the Paddington & Marylebone suburban services were fully dieselised by 62 (except for the peak loco-hauled trains, perhaps, but these needed more power than a standard tank), I do wonder what kind of work was left for the 61xx that remained there. Cross-London goods traffic, perhaps?
Although they were deemed dieselised, the units were notably unreliable in their first couple of years, and steam substitution was common. In retrospect, it was realised that they were not as bad mechanically as this might imply, but the fitters were still getting into them and taking time to understand how to fix straightforward things, plus the stocking of spares etc had not been adequately sorted out. Traditions like fitters going out by passenger train only with spanners, then having to return for parts, ate up much of their shift, and when providing them with road vans was looked at it was found a good number did not even have driving licences. Straightforward issues like flat batteries or even running out of fuel prevailed. Meanwhile steam locos on dmu diagrams did not work well, running times were fine (the 61xx were powerful locos and accelerated well) but tight turnrounds meant turnover locos had to be provided, for example to release the loco at Paddington. It all took a long time beyond the units' delivery to get to grips with things.

I also recall that by 1962 the 61xx had taken over many of the ECS workings at Paddington from Pannier Tanks.

I wonder whose idea it was to send the 80xxx to the WR, where they had never been before. The 82xxx at Taunton were universally despised by the drivers, as I have related before. The ones in North Wales seem to have taken over from 43xx tender locos, and Black 5s on the Central Wales line.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
The RCTS History of BR Standard Tank locos says that the six 80xxx tanks sent to Old Oak Common went immediately into store. However three of them (80070/098/131) then saw limited use on Paddington e.c.s movements before all six were sent north to Croes Newydd (80079/80) or Shrewsbury (the other four).

(Referring to Taunton's post - there were still some Pannier tanks on Paddington e.c.s. duties when I moved to London in July 1963, a mixture of 15xx, 94xx & 57xx classes)
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
There were a range of locos on the Paddington ECS of course. It had long been common for light engines heading up from the shed to Paddington for outward trains to be used if an empty stock movement was around - this accounts for the notable number of photographs of the Paddington buffer line with main line locos up against the stops strangely tender first, with a train in front of them. The same applied in reverse (in all senses) when inward locos went back to shed.

I think the Croes Newydd 80xxx were used in the last years of the Ruabon-Barmouth line. This line, and the Shrewsbury-based Cambrian services, were transferred to the LMR within weeks of the dates quoted above, I wonder if they were actually behind transferring the locos in, being a type previously unknown on the Western.

Several of the 61xx were sent to Taunton after the Paddington dieselisation, they were used on the Minehead trains and as Wellington bankers. They were particularly well received, all were in good condition and more powerful than what had done these jobs before. Once they came the 82xxx were notably pushed to the back siding.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
Although they were deemed dieselised, the units were notably unreliable in their first couple of years, and steam substitution was common. In retrospect, it was realised that they were not as bad mechanically as this might imply, but the fitters were still getting into them and taking time to understand how to fix straightforward things, plus the stocking of spares etc had not been adequately sorted out. Traditions like fitters going out by passenger train only with spanners, then having to return for parts, ate up much of their shift, and when providing them with road vans was looked at it was found a good number did not even have driving licences. Straightforward issues like flat batteries or even running out of fuel prevailed. Meanwhile steam locos on dmu diagrams did not work well, running times were fine (the 61xx were powerful locos and accelerated well) but tight turnrounds meant turnover locos had to be provided, for example to release the loco at Paddington. It all took a long time beyond the units' delivery to get to grips with things. ...

Interesting, but were they not sorted out by 1962? I began trainspotting on the WR in this year, mainly at Goring. I never noted a single local train steam-hauled, except for one Banbury-Reading SuO train, which seemed diagrammed for a 41xx. These were non-peak times, I think the two(?) loco-hauled trains in the peaks to/from PAD were usually steam, but I didn't normally see those.

I wonder whose idea it was to send the 80xxx to the WR, where they had never been before. The 82xxx at Taunton were universally despised by the drivers, as I have related before.... .

Interesting, given that the 82xxx used Swindon-style boilers, didn't they? (Or perhaps that was exaclty what got their goat!)
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Interesting, given that the 82xxx used Swindon-style boilers, didn't they? (Or perhaps that was exaclty what got their goat!)
The 82xxx at Taunton, in comparison to their predecessors :

- Rode badly, especially in winter over frozen ground (they were there in winter 62/63)
- Developed knocks in motion especially when shut off ("bonk-clonk-bonk-clonk" noise)
- Very noisy and draughty cab
- Had reversers which were stiff
- Regulator likewise, could be difficult to shut off if it slipped
- Bunker hole and firehole didn't align with the fireman's natural swing
- Tanks leaked
- Couldn't hear the ATC siren
- Ran out of steam too easily when worked hard (useless on Wellington banker)
- Set fire to adjacent cornfields in summer (self-cleaning smokebox?) especially on climb from Bishops Lydeard to Crowcombe or coming back from Williton.

That's how I remember it.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
The 82xxx at Taunton, in comparison to their predecessors :

- Rode badly, especially in winter over frozen ground (they were there in winter 62/63)
- Developed knocks in motion especially when shut off ("bonk-clonk-bonk-clonk" noise)
- Very noisy and draughty cab
- Had reversers which were stiff
- Regulator likewise, could be difficult to shut off if it slipped
- Bunker hole and firehole didn't align with the fireman's natural swing
- Tanks leaked
- Couldn't hear the ATC siren
- Ran out of steam too easily when worked hard (useless on Wellington banker)
- Set fire to adjacent cornfields in summer (self-cleaning smokebox?) especially on climb from Bishops Lydeard to Crowcombe or coming back from Williton.

That's how I remember it.

But weren't they designed at Swindon?
And isn't a new one being built?
I suppose standards were slipping.
 

tiptoptaff

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2013
Messages
2,983
Western men in general didn't like anything that wasn't to a GWR design, with a few exceptions. I think Canton liked their Brits
 

14C to 83B

New Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
4
Hi All,

In Summer 1962 six or so Standard 2-6-4 Tank Locos in the 80000 number series were allocated to Old Oak Common.

What were these used for?

Were they regarded as, and used as, equivalents to the GWR 61xx tanks, or did they have a specific use?
Many thanks
Best regards
Paul

I used to be a regular visitor to Old Oak in the early 1960’s (via the hole in the wall by the canal) and recall seeing many of the Standard 2-6-4 tanks stored there. I don’t recall ever seeing any of them in steam I think that most of them were stored in the carriage sheds. As I understand they were grabbed by the Western Region when made redundant on the Fenchurch Street, Tilbury and Shoeburness services but never intended for use from Old Oak but to be distributed to wherever required which turned out mainly to be over the LNWR and Midland routes in the Swansea district and the Cambrian section of mid-Wales. Trust that the above helps to answer your question.
 

neilmc

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2011
Messages
1,028
There's something I've never considered - in the 1960s, if a region was dispensing with a batch of standard locos, did they get offered "first dibs" to other regions with steam, who might perhaps examine their condition and time since last overhaul and consider taking some, or could the region simply consign them to the scrapyard? And did this also apply to non-standard classes allocated across regions, such as ex-LMS Black Fives or ex-LNER B1s?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Locos from elsewhere were generally not welcome! There were doubtless exceptions, but they were commonly felt to be the most run down and non-maintained ones of their type. Which you can sort of understand.

Dick Hardy, in one of his loco shed management books, wrote that he had two shockers (at Woodford Halse I think), but not due for main works, which needed some sleight of hand to get just these two returned to HQ as surplus, finally achieved. He then got transferred to a shed in East Anglia and, on first walking in to its office, found that the two had just been allocated there, and were on their way over!

LT&S former locos were commonly unwelcome anywhere, the water quality along the lower Thames estuary was the worst on BR (somewhere had to be) and despite very frequent washing out the boilers took a pasting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top