Stanier tenders - coal capacity

[The Crab]

I was surprised to read that the tender attached to Black 5s had coal capacity of 9 tons. This seems remarkably large for a medium power locomotive. If this accurate, hy such a large capacity?

 

[Rescars]

That's the capacity I have found listed in a couple of sources. Presumably this increased availability by reducing the frequency of visits to coaling plants.

 

[Andy873]

I have a copy of the engine record for 8f 48218, it clearly states the coal capacity was 9 tons, water, 4,000 gallons if that helps at all?

 

[Harvester]

The Stanier tenders with 9 or 10 ton coal capacity only had 4000 gallon tanks. One of the reasons the deal to transfer surviving Duchesses to the SR in early 1964 fell through!

 

[The Crab]

I have a copy of the engine record for 8f 48218, it clearly states the coal capacity was 9 tons, water, 4,000 gallons if that helps at all?

Nice to have confirmation, thank you.

 

[Rescars]

The Stanier tenders with 9 or 10 ton coal capacity only had 4000 gallon tanks. One of the reasons the deal to transfer surviving Duchesses to the SR in early 1964 fell through!

Alas, no water troughs on the Southern.

 

[Taunton]

I have a copy of the engine record for 8f 48218, it clearly states the coal capacity was 9 tons, water, 4,000 gallons if that helps at all?

I have wondered why tenders measured coal in tons, but not water, the more significant load and which all other vehicle loads on the railway are measured in. 4,000 gallons of water is 18 tons.

I suspect the tenders on the Duchesses had slightly less coal capacity than the rest, as they also had steam pushers fitted to push the remaining coal forward as the journey progressed.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I have wondered why tenders measured coal in tons, but not water, the more significant load and which all other vehicle loads on the railway are measured in. 4,000 gallons of water is 18 tons.

I've only seen reference to locomotives' water consumption in volume not by weight; and I've only seen reference to loco coal consumption by weight per mile.

Refilling a tender water tank, I presume, was easier to gauge by volume?

As a coal load is influenced by a) size of the lumps (if finely crushed = smaller air gaps, so in theory more will fit into the tender-hopper) and b) how high coal's piled above the tender hopper / coal rails, I presume "by weight" is more meaningful than "by volume".

Just my tuppenceworth.

 

[matchmaker]

I have wondered why tenders measured coal in tons, but not water, the more significant load and which all other vehicle loads on the railway are measured in. 4,000 gallons of water is 18 tons.

I suspect the tenders on the Duchesses had slightly less coal capacity than the rest, as they also had steam pushers fitted to push the remaining coal forward as the journey progressed.

Coal capacity for both Princess Royals and Princess Coronations given as 10 tons in my 1961 "Observers".

 

[Fleetwood Boy]

I've only seen reference to locomotives' water consumption in volume not by weight; and I've only seen reference to loco coal consumption by weight per mile.

Refilling a tender water tank, I presume, was easier to gauge by volume?

As a coal load is influenced by a) size of the lumps (if finely crushed = smaller air gaps, so in theory more will fit into the tender-hopper) and b) how high coal's piled above the tender hopper / coal rails, I presume "by weight" is more meaningful than "by volume".

Just my tuppenceworth.

Interestingly - aircraft load aviation fuel in kilos (or pounds) not by volume. I guess the weight matters more in terms of safety. Although not sure whether all the calcs are done by weight or whether its converted at some point.

 

[matchmaker]

Interestingly - aircraft load aviation fuel in kilos (or pounds) not by volume. I guess the weight matters more in terms of safety. Although not sure whether all the calcs are done by weight or whether its converted at some point.

The reason for that is that the volume depends on the temperature - it expands with heat. The mass will remain constant.

 

[Bevan Price]

I was surprised to read that the tender attached to Black 5s had coal capacity of 9 tons. This seems remarkably large for a medium power locomotive. If this accurate, hy such a large capacity?

Some Black 5 diagrams covered very long distances, sometimes with quite heavy loads.

 

[Rescars]

IIRC a handful of Black 5s were equipped with self-weighing tenders - as a means to monitor coal consumption more accurately. Didn't these have slightly reduced coal capacity - presumably to make room for the weighing mechanism? Anyone know more details?

 

[hexagon789]

IIRC a handful of Black 5s were equipped with self-weighing tenders - as a means to monitor coal consumption more accurately. Didn't these have slightly reduced coal capacity - presumably to make room for the weighing mechanism? Anyone know more details?

Yes, two types - one with an 8 ton capacity and one with an 8.5 ton capacity. So about 0.5 ton was lost to the weighing plate and mechanism.

 

[Dunfanaghy Roa]

If it's any help, Barrowmore Model Railway Group (creators of 'Mostyn') have Diagram Books of locos, carriages and wagons (LMS and BR).

Barrowmore Model Railway Group (BMRG)

Barrowmore Model Railway Group, Modelling to a high standard amongst friends.

barrowmoremrg.co.uk

Pat

 

[Harvester]

Alas, no water troughs on the Southern.

For non-stop running between Waterloo and Bournemouth/Salisbury 4000 gallon tenders were not considered suitable. The King Arthurs, Lord Nelson’s and later the MN tenders all had 5000 gallon tanks, with coal capacity just 5 tons, although the latter was not an issue on the SR.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The Stanier tenders with 9 or 10 ton coal capacity only had 4000 gallon tanks. One of the reasons the deal to transfer surviving Duchesses to the SR in early 1964 fell through!

I’ve never heard of this proposal - surprises me slightly as the SR wasn’t exactly short of Pacific type locomotives?

 

[Bevan Price]

I’ve never heard of this proposal - surprises me slightly as the SR wasn’t exactly short of Pacific type locomotives?

I remember rumours at the time, but don't know if there were "official" proposals, or just rumour propagation by enthusiasts. Certainly, some of the Stanier Pacifics were still in good condition and finding a new home for them might have been sensible, but alas that never happened and underpowered Class 40s continued to haul heavy WCML expresses (often 13/14 coaches) for several years.

 

[Harvester]

In early 1964 “Modern Railways“ reported that the move had been broached by the SR and LMR. However closer examination of clearances at some locations (Northam tunnel and Battledown Flyover) presented issues, and consequently the transfers never took place. The Duchesses would have been more suited for Waterloo-Exeter Central workings, but by 1964 the WR had taken over the Salisbury-Exeter section, and planned to introduce ’Warships’ diesels on Exeter-Waterloo workings later that year.

 

[Reiver]

The 4,000 gallon and 9 ton tenders were an LMS standard and that railway swapped tenders around at works visits (tenders could be repaired much quicker than locomotives) it therefore made sense to have as many of them as possible, the alternative being the Fowler standard which was 3,500 gallon and 5.5 tons of coal (a little more when coal rails were fitted). There were the 50 Stanier 3,500 gallon on Jubilees, but these were not really standard in terms of swaps although a lot of parts were common. The Fowler was pushing it on coal for runs of any distance. Jubilees were supposed to have Stanier 4,000 tenders, but they were more useful on the Royal Scots, so Scot Fowler tenders were swapped with the Jubilees. Fowler tenders were also narrower than the cabs on newer LMS engines. For the Black 5s, dragging the extra 3.5 tons of coal wasn't here or there and the 500 gallons of water had its uses. Even if a particular journey wasn't that long, locomotives were diagrammed to work as much as possible during their day so could end up on several journeys and not having to visit a shed light engine to coal up was a significant saving.

 

[The Crab]

The 4,000 gallon and 9 ton tenders were an LMS standard and that railway swapped tenders around at works visits (tenders could be repaired much quicker than locomotives) it therefore made sense to have as many of them as possible, the alternative being the Fowler standard which was 3,500 gallon and 5.5 tons of coal (a little more when coal rails were fitted). There were the 50 Stanier 3,500 gallon on Jubilees, but these were not really standard in terms of swaps although a lot of parts were common. The Fowler was pushing it on coal for runs of any distance. Jubilees were supposed to have Stanier 4,000 tenders, but they were more useful on the Royal Scots, so Scot Fowler tenders were swapped with the Jubilees. Fowler tenders were also narrower than the cabs on newer LMS engines. For the Black 5s, dragging the extra 3.5 tons of coal wasn't here or there and the 500 gallons of water had its uses. Even if a particular journey wasn't that long, locomotives were diagrammed to work as much as possible during their day so could end up on several journeys and not having to visit a shed light engine to coal up was a significant saving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2025 ==

The 4,000 gallon and 9 ton tenders were an LMS standard and that railway swapped tenders around at works visits (tenders could be repaired much quicker than locomotives) it therefore made sense to have as many of them as possible, the alternative being the Fowler standard which was 3,500 gallon and 5.5 tons of coal (a little more when coal rails were fitted). There were the 50 Stanier 3,500 gallon on Jubilees, but these were not really standard in terms of swaps although a lot of parts were common. The Fowler was pushing it on coal for runs of any distance. Jubilees were supposed to have Stanier 4,000 tenders, but they were more useful on the Royal Scots, so Scot Fowler tenders were swapped with the Jubilees. Fowler tenders were also narrower than the cabs on newer LMS engines. For the Black 5s, dragging the extra 3.5 tons of coal wasn't here or there and the 500 gallons of water had its uses. Even if a particular journey wasn't that long, locomotives were diagrammed to work as much as possible during their day so could end up on several journeys and not having to visit a shed light engine to coal up was a significant saving.

Thank you for your most interesting comments. My original thoughts were that the last three tons of nine could be stuck in the back of the tender for some time and would eventually deteriorate. My guess is that most Black 5 diagrams would be less than 150 miles & thus would have their tenders replenished fairly frequently. Can't say whether this would have been important but I do remember reading that firemen would sometimes complain about the dross in the back of the tender.

 

[Andy873]

Some more information, be aware, in many cases things were not what they seemed...

Going back to the 8f 8218, built in 1942 and had the standard tender No. 9945, 4,000 gallons, 9 tons of coal. But in march 1964 it was swapped for a better condition one, No. 4615. This one was unusual as it only held 3,500 gallons. This replacement was also a Stanier tender but only 50 were ever made.

As BR withdrew steam locos, if one had a better tender than one in service, BR would swap tenders, that is, the withdrawn loco got the in service loco's tender and vice versa - if that makes sense. This is what happened for 8218.

But when 8218 was withdrawn (Sept 1967), tender 4615 was then taken from 8218, which was then coupled to 8f 8757 in October 1967. and in return 8218 got 8757's tender, No. 10782 .

So in English - some engines had several tenders whilst in service, and poorer one swapped out.

 

[Reiver]

Just after the grouping the LMS experimented with a frame on the tenders so the loco number could be changed. At the time the loco number was on the tender in large numerals, Midland Railway practice and they didn't usually change tenders, but the LNWR at Crewe did so to avoid repainting this hymn board system was tried. It didn't last long.

 

[Sun Chariot]

So in English - some engines had several tenders whilst in service, and poorer one swapped out.

Absolutely; and this article, on Sir Nigel Gresley Locomotive Trust's site, shows the myriad of "tender-to-engine pairings" for tenders which were allocated to each A4.
Some tenders moved between A4s but other tenders moved between different locomotive classes (A1, A3, A4, W1)

The 'Sir Nigel Gresley' Locomotive Trust Ltd

So it was a practice not limited to Stanier tenders.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The 4,000 gallon and 9 ton tenders were an LMS standard and that railway swapped tenders around at works visits (tenders could be repaired much quicker than locomotives) it therefore made sense to have as many of them as possible, the alternative being the Fowler standard which was 3,500 gallon and 5.5 tons of coal (a little more when coal rails were fitted). There were the 50 Stanier 3,500 gallon on Jubilees, but these were not really standard in terms of swaps although a lot of parts were common. The Fowler was pushing it on coal for runs of any distance. Jubilees were supposed to have Stanier 4,000 tenders, but they were more useful on the Royal Scots, so Scot Fowler tenders were swapped with the Jubilees. Fowler tenders were also narrower than the cabs on newer LMS engines. For the Black 5s, dragging the extra 3.5 tons of coal wasn't here or there and the 500 gallons of water had its uses. Even if a particular journey wasn't that long, locomotives were diagrammed to work as much as possible during their day so could end up on several journeys and not having to visit a shed light engine to coal up was a significant saving.

This thead, and this post in particular, has raised some issues I'd never thought of before, namely this tender issue must have been a devil for control and allocating loco diagrams in some cases. For example, a Jubilee with Fowler tender would, I presume, have been fine for a Euston - Wolverhampton working, Euston - Crewe or even Euston - Manchester?
But what about Birmingham - Glasgow? Was 5.5 tons enough coal for such a job? If not, then Saltley (I'm not sure, was Saltley the depot for LNW line trains back in the day) or whatever would have been fine with a 5X on a Euston train, but would need one with a larger coal capacity for a Glasgow turn.

I expect such turns would have normally be diagrammed for a Scot or Britannia, or perhaps had a loco change at Crewe if something smaller were provided, but in peak summer traffic, trying to find a suitable locomotive and be sure of its coal capacity could have caused issues, I'd imagine.

And perhaps on the Midland side of operations too? Not so far as Brum - Glasgow, but St Pancras - Leeds and Leeds - Glasgow St Enoch - both 200 miles plus, might be a struggle if Seahorse turned up with a 5.5 ton tender, perhaps?

 

[Reiver]

Saltley was the ex-Midland shed, ex-LNWR passenger traffic locos were provided by Monument Lane or Bushbury (Wolverhampton), Aston being mainly freight, although passenger locos might be serviced there. Saltley Seagulls however probably claimed to have signed the road to Glasgow, including the Moffat branch. Control allocated a power rating to the diagram, it was up to the shed-master to allocate the specific locomotive and much skill and ingenuity was employed to keep things running. They would know the tender attached to each loco, they were usually only changed at works visits so once back on shed they were a known quantity, and issues like poor steaming or being heavy on coal would be considered when allocating the days work. There were also issues like turntable size and on a few routes, clearances that were taken into account. They might decide that a Class 5 in good nick was a better choice for a 5XP turn than a run-down Jubilee with a small tender. If things went wrong, there were plenty of places to change locos and sheds were not averse to retaining a particularly useful visitor for a week or two.

9 tons just managed Euston to Glasgow, 400 miles so 5.5 tons would probably be good for 250 miles which was just enough for most workings over the former Midland routes, though working right through from Leeds to Bristol is unlikely, more often there would be an exchange so a loco could work home within the eight hour shift. Jubilees were not so common on the Western Division so from Birmingham it would have been Scots and later BR Standards.

Summer Saturdays with relief trains and the excursions did present issues, which is why there are so many interesting and unusual photos (also when the photographers were able to be about) but as these were not diagrammed turns, there was time to service the engine and fill the tender before the journey back.

 

[Harvester]

I don’t have figures for coal consumption by the A4s on the 393 mile non-stop Elizabethan, but it must have been very much lower than the 9 tons stacked on the corridor tenders. Numerous photographs show A4s nearing the end on their runs on the ECML, north and south bound, with coal still visible high on the tenders. Even with the tender’s water capacity of 5000 gallons, two successful water pick-ups would be needed from water troughs on route to complete the journey non-stop. During the 1961 summer, the last of steam haulage, the down service was frequently delayed by water stops at Darlington and Berwick after Wiske Moor and Lucker troughs were pre-empted by earlier trains.

 

[Reiver]

I've seen that too and was surprised. Mind you, the WCML was much more demanding in terms of gradients, but was better served by troughs, look at the tiny LNWR tenders.

 

[Bevan Price]

This thead, and this post in particular, has raised some issues I'd never thought of before, namely this tender issue must have been a devil for control and allocating loco diagrams in some cases. For example, a Jubilee with Fowler tender would, I presume, have been fine for a Euston - Wolverhampton working, Euston - Crewe or even Euston - Manchester?
But what about Birmingham - Glasgow? Was 5.5 tons enough coal for such a job? If not, then Saltley (I'm not sure, was Saltley the depot for LNW line trains back in the day) or whatever would have been fine with a 5X on a Euston train, but would need one with a larger coal capacity for a Glasgow turn.

I expect such turns would have normally be diagrammed for a Scot or Britannia, or perhaps had a loco change at Crewe if something smaller were provided, but in peak summer traffic, trying to find a suitable locomotive and be sure of its coal capacity could have caused issues, I'd imagine.

And perhaps on the Midland side of operations too? Not so far as Brum - Glasgow, but St Pancras - Leeds and Leeds - Glasgow St Enoch - both 200 miles plus, might be a struggle if Seahorse turned up with a 5.5 ton tender, perhaps?

From memory (and seen at Wigan), the daytime Birminham / Glasgow service was often a Stanier Pacific, so probably changed locos at Crewe. It could be a heavy train, sometimes conveying a West Country portion attached at Crewe (the portion travelled via Hereford & Shrewsbury).

 

[oldman]

It could be a heavy train, sometimes conveying a West Country portion attached at Crewe (the portion travelled via Hereford & Shrewsbury).

As I recall (early 60s) the Plymouth portion attached to the Midday Scot leaving Crewe about 1600. But the Birmingham would have been a big train anyway.