What is a "Standard Goods" Locomotive?

M636C · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:51 am

This post caused me to think:

rumbleman · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:48 pm

It's an interesting point you make...

Am I correct in thinking that there were longer smokebox versions of the "standard goods" boilers built to accomodate the superheater elements?

While I can't tell te difference someone in the know may be able to answer that.

M636C · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:47 pm

The boiler and smokebox are separate elements, and some 53 class which had been stored as saturated locomotives appeared during WW II as superheated locomotives retaining their drumhead smokeboxes.

A "Drumhead" smokebox has the short base associated with a staturated steam locomotive but a cylindrical extension forward of this providing additional volume. All TF class (53) were built with this smokebox, and it was particularly suited to the original smokebox superheater fitted to the first order of these locomotives built by Clyde. In this design, the superheater was formed by replacing the steam pipes from the regulator to the cylinders by a tube bank with three banks of tubes in a compressed "S" formation that heated and dried the steam as it passed through the smokebox. The smokebox superheater suffered badly from corrosion from contact with hot ash in the lower smokebox, and this item was discarded, at least partly because while it improved fuel consumption, it didn't increase the power of the locomotive.

The conventional Schmidt superheater, in combination with larger cylinders, gave a ten percent power increase and a similar increase in allowable loads.

No TF class were built as saturated steam locomotives except for ten built during WW I which retained the drumhead smokebox and cylinders suitable for superheated operation.

All T class (50) locomotives were built with short smokeboxes as saturated locomotives until 1911 when a single prototype superheated T class was obtained from Beyer Peacock (along with a superheated P class).

The later T class, all built by North British, arrived with longer smokeboxes as superheated locomotives.

All the 55 class (K) were built as superheated locomotives, fitted with the Lucy superheater based on an American design.

The T and K class locomotives built with superheaters had conventional long smokeboxes with a long base, not the drumhead design.

A diagram exists showing a TF (53) as a saturated locomotive with short smokebox but I've never seen a photo of such a locomotive.

Some saturated 50 class locomotives had a long smokebox. The funnel remained in the same location as on the short smokebox, while most (if not all) superheated locomotives had the blast pipe and funnel moved forward to provide clearance for the superheater header in the rear of the smokebox.

Interestingly, most of the 30T class tender engines rebuilt with superheaters during WW II, maybe all of them, were fitted with drumhead smokeboxes, while those rebuilt after WW II had conventional long base smokeboxes.

It could be that the drumhead design was thought to be more economical in material use and was adopted during the war for that reason.

But the length of smokebox would not be any indication of the use of a saturated "Standard Goods" boiler.

M636C

4426_No_2_end · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:25 pm

Sorry if I confused anyone but I have always been told any locomotive from the D50 TF53 or a K 55 is grouped under the general term "Standard Goods" so I placed it under the picture.

2008 BOGIE AWARD WINNER - BEST CONTRIBUTION TO PRESERVATION

SUPPORT YOUR RAIL PRESERVATION VOLUNTEERS!

ALL COMMENTS MADE ARE THAT OF MY OWN AND NO GROUPS THAT I AM AFFILIATED WITH PREVIOUSLY OR CURRENTLY!

M636C · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:12 pm

rumbleman · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:18 pm

There you go, lots to learn in the world of NSWGR steam.

Thanks for the informative post mate, It's fantastic reading the history of NSW steam. Which at the end of the day is my bread and butter when it comes to my interest in the railways.

Those big blue diseaseals are just work from my point of view.

While on the subject of the standard goods engines, was there any particular reason for the choice of southern valve gear on the K Class as opposed to Walschaerts style gear? I'm guessing the move away from Stephenson gear was for ease of maintenance. Or would I be thinking that Walschaerts gear was not introduced as a common practice till the Piglets entered service?

M636C · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:19 pm

It isn't completely clear to me why "Southern" valve gear was so popular, given that it was patented and fees had to paid on using it, and Walschearts could be used for free.

The design of Southern valve gear, however, reduced the number of sliding surfaces and the need for precision fitting since much of the motion was carried by pivoted levers and bell cranks which lasted a long time between maintenance compared to the sliding die blocks in Walschearts and Stephenson valve gear with their curved expansion links.

Southern was similar in this respect to Baker valve gear but because the Southern moving parts were larger the rotational wear may have been less. However the long vertical arms could pick up a worrying side to side swaying movement which caused some concern, particularly in passenger service. This was a concern with the QR 2-6-2 fitted with Southern gear.

On the other hand, the Southern gear was very reliable in service to the extent that it tended to be ignored until a major failure occurred, in the case of the 55 class the gear sometimes fell off the locomotive on the road.

With Baker (and Southern) gear, longer valve travel could be obtained in comparison with Walschearts gear but this opportunity was not used in the 55 class.

Southern valve gear fell from favour in the USA by the 1920s, although the more compact Baker gear stayed in favour until the end of steam. Walschearts was more successful overall, of course, so the wear and machining difficulties can't have been that great.

The NSWGR had crane tanks fitted with Walschearts gear fairly early, and the first main line locomotives so fitted were the Hunslet built G class 2-6-0s, later 27 class which were built for the PWD in 1913.

M636C

Rivets · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:30 pm

Were all the 55 class fitted with a copper firebox..?

a6et · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:15 pm

There is a lot of ways that confusion can come in but, the general term of Standard goods engine was to define a group of locomotive initially deemed as the the 50, 53 & 55 class types that:

a: could haul the same basic loads, under the same load & length conditions.
b: had a large proportion of "Standard parts" for ease of interchange between locomotives. This was very evidant in the locomotives.

Later the 59 class were included in the same load & length conditions.

The problem is/was that whilst the engines in a general, were the same, the issue of saturated types, & later oil burners crept in. Saturated engines with lighter loads, & the oild burners with a heavier load.

Again in general, it was easy on the traffic branch when assigning loads to have a "standard goods type load" for the composition of trains. When the used of 36cl engines was increased the 75% load conditions became popular.

What this mean was that in those areas of the state that a 36cl hauled a lighter load than a standard goods engine (superheated) which was in fact 75% of the full standard load could be hauled. On the western division this became the usual load rostered for on trains.

Whilst in some ways it could be deemed uneconomical owing to the smaller loads, it did retain the conformed type of load but they ran at a faster timetable, & gave better engine returns.

A standard goods engine was usuall set at a full load speed of app 8mph, whilst the 36cl was at app 16mph. The standard goods engine on the lighter load was able to maintain the same running times up the grades as that of the 36cl.

If anyone has a copy of the Southern working t/t from 1965, you will note that the 36, 38, super 50, 53, 55, & 59 all had the same load, (the only place I know of where a 36cl had the same full load as the standards & 38's), the prime difference was in the length loads, the 59 & 36 had the same running times.

Most crews, actually reffered to the standard goods engines, as "freighters". or some called them "standards"