LMS locomotive design features analysed

[brack]

Compound - I agree, I think Hughes was getting closest, but reading between the lines he didn't want to spend his time fighting or playing politics so retired. The hardest part is that there seems to have been a step change in Edwardian times that needed a 4-6-0 or Pacific for passenger and mixed traffic duties, and a 2-6-0 for goods and lighter mixed duties. Critically it seems that you couldn't successfully drive those types from existing 4-4-0, Atlantic or 2-6-0 types. Those lines who tried to do so got generally unsuccessful results - Drummond's big 4-6-0s, Raven's A2, the Caledonian and LNWR 4-6-0s. Underwhelming, impressive looking but poor performers and often heavy on coal (big generalisations here - I might be slightly unfair on the A2, they weren't that awful, but they weren't A1s/A3s). The CMEs who managed to make modern designs work were those unafraid to start afresh and look at new ideas from elsewhere.

I'm not sure the LMS derby syndrome was unique to them either - elements of the GWR post churchward seem similarly stalled for 30 years, fortunately churchwards ideas and designs were essentially still fit for purpose until the end of steam, whereas carrying on with Derby's 1900 designs gently tweaked for 30 years didn't work as conditions changed hugely post ww1.

[Compound2632]

The hardest part is that there seems to have been a step change in Edwardian times that needed a 4-6-0 or Pacific for passenger and mixed traffic duties, and a 2-6-0 for goods and lighter mixed duties. 

 

That step change is called the corridor carriage. Express passenger train weights went up at least 30% per seat. 

 

I'm not sure the LMS derby syndrome was unique to them either - elements of the GWR post churchward seem similarly stalled for 30 years, fortunately churchwards ideas and designs were essentially still fit for purpose until the end of steam, whereas carrying on with Derby's 1900 designs gently tweaked for 30 years didn't work as conditions changed hugely post ww1.

 

 

As far as I've been able to work out from my reading, the supposed "Derby syndrome" is too general a term. It seems to come down to the different outlook of individuals in the Derby drawing office. There were some very forward-thinking engineers there - most of the elements of the 4P 2-6-4T, generally regarded as a highly successful design, were already being proposed in the Edwardian era but at that time what actually came out was the 0-6-4T. S.W. Johnson had been very open to innovation throughout his career - an early adopter of piston valves, for instance. He'd risen to the challenge of the corridor carriage by a total break with his previous standard designs in the Belpaire and Compound 4-4-0s; on the goods side, it was he who approved the H boiler version of the 0-6-0 and had a 0-8-0 on the go at his retirement. So the Derby drawing office in 1900 was a go-ahead place; subsequent events conspired to cramp the style of its most forward-looking engineers. Not least amongst these events was the start of the decline in profitability of the railways in the Edwardian/pre-War years.

 

Re. Churchward, while conditions remained static his standard components continued to assemble into highly satisfactory engines. In the even more radically changed conditions of the post-WWII era, they required some re-working to achieve optimum performance.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Compound2632

[LMS2968]

Yes, I have that book. It goes into that aspect of the North Western in remarkable detail. Well worth a read for those interested in the human side, to borrow from another thread!.

[Pandora]

What was the name of the  Chief Mechanical Engineer promoted from "Gas Engineer"  and said I do not know why they use my name I have never ever designed a railway locomotive in my life

[pH]

Neither, as far as I know, were high speed lines, though. And outstanding is open to interpretation. As others have pointed out, the similar looking Southern L1s would leave them standing.Yes, they worked. And that's about as much as can be said for them.

The G&SW line from Glasgow to Ayr would be classed as a 'high speed line' and, according to David L Smith, the 2Ps performed well on that part of the route as well.

[Flying Pig]

What was the name of the  Chief Mechanical Engineer promoted from "Gas Engineer"  and said I do not know why they use my name I have never ever designed a railway locomotive in my life

Read the thread

[PenrithBeacon]

What was the name of the Chief Mechanical Engineer promoted from "Gas Engineer" and said I do not know why they use my name I have never ever designed a railway locomotive in my life

Henry Fowler

[John_Miles]

The early LMS loco policy was largely evidence based and the LNWR engines, with the exception of the Super Ds were a poor lot. They were heavy on maintenance and coal, some types were known as colliers' friends - the LNWR had a smallish wheel 4-6-0 (19" Goods?) which was supposed to be very heavy on coal. So when you go in for Midland bashing, it needs to be based on more than emotional support for your favourite line. The Midland engines were well engineered and cheaper to run per ton mile than the alternatives - and yes this applies to the 483 class and the 4Fs which come in for such a bashing. While I am being rude about the LNWR, the recollections of engine men fairly consistently say that Derby built 4Fs were better than those built a Crewe.

[bbishop]

 

 

As far as I've been able to work out from my reading, the supposed "Derby syndrome" is too general a term. It seems to come down to the different outlook of individuals in the Derby drawing office. There were some very forward-thinking engineers there - most of the elements of the 4P 2-6-4T, generally regarded as a highly successful design, were already being proposed in the Edwardian era but at that time what actually came out was the 0-6-4T.

 

designed by Eric Langridge, trained at Eastleigh under Robert Urie.  The only thing "cast in stone" was the 8 '- 8' 6" coupled wheelbase.

 

Bill

[brack]

As we'd sort of concluded above, the designs of all major constituents weren't great. The midland gets the stick because a) their designs and parts were built for a decade even though they were not up to modern standards or demands and b) their former employees dominated the grouped company and pushed their practices (some of which were good, some rather flawed). Had LNWR locos been chosen instead we'd likely be wondering why they'd continued to multiply those.

The company wasted a decade as the powers that be couldn't recognise or admit for some time that none of the designs or designers they had were up to the standard required. This realisation seems to have begun to dawn in the mid 20s with the loan of the castle, getting NBL to design much of the Royal Scots and indeed trying to get drawings from successful 4-6-0 designs elsewhere to help with that. It still took a further 5 years on from that to actually get someone (ie. Stanier) in to fix things.

Edited April 8, 2018 by brack

[LMS2968]

I have said this many times: the Midland engines were good enough and answered the requirements of the Midland Railway very well - just as Crewe engines met the needs of the LNWR; Horwich engines those of the L&YR; etc. The problem was that it was Midland types which were proliferated over the entire system and finding themselves in circumstances they were never designed for. Exactly the same situation would have arisen if Crewe had been dominant, or Horwich - The Dreadnoughts on the Euston - Carlisle route, for example. As for well engineered, you can point fingers at all types: the LNWR engines were lightly built and then very heavily worked - which would certainly effect both repair and coal costs. Midland engines' loads were very carefully controlled. And please read my post No. 24 regarding LNWR coal consumption - you cannot generalise that ALL LNWR engines were coal eaters.

[Compound2632]

I agree absolutely!

 

And indeed as you said superheating reduced the appetite for coal of the George the Fifth and Prince of Wales classes over the Precursors and Experiments, which were the worst offenders.

[coachmann]

When discussing the early problems on the LMS, we are mainly talking about the West Coast route because that is where most of the Midland interference was felt. Large LNWR engines were busy hauling 390 to 450 tons trains over this route, but while the LNWR company had presumably been quite happy forking out for the coal that was consumed through thrashing its locos, the MR contingency of the newly formed LMS decided it would be better to run shorter trains up to around 325 tons behind their Compounds and cut down coal consumption in the process. Maybe the frequency was increased to compensate...I don't know. However, it wasn't long before Lord Stamp decided to go above the heads of them all and order large powerful 4-6-0's in February 1927, so presumably he considered the LNWR idea of dragging 15 coach trains was best after all.

 

Scottish crews were reputedly very fussy and so presumably they liked the Midland influx of Crabs, Compounds 2P 4-4-0's and 4F's. No doubt other areas of the LMS did likewise. Nevertheless, the LMS continued to produce too many duds right up to Stanier's appointment culminating in the 2P 0-4-4T, the last flowering of Midland Design Follies.

 

From a modellers viewpoint, the Fowler LMS classes had bags of character, but I can't help wishing things had been different and I would have seen LNWR 4-4-0's and 4-6-0's in my childhood. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by coachmann

[The Johnster]

Good point raised about stagnation on the GW; they got away with it for the best part of 40 years after Churchward's retirement by dint of his basic policy being ahead of it's time, and were still arguing that the locos were more than adequate for purpose in the 1950s.  Their protagonists still do, and with some justification.  Post Churchward loco design at Swindon consists of Collett, and later Hawksworth (both of whom learned their trades under Churchward and were heavily influenced by/in awe of him), jiggling about with boilers and wheel sizes to try to provide locos for particular niches and to provide greater power for the main expresses.  Faced with modernising the South Wales constituent/absorbed fleet, Collett had a look and decided that the best on offer was the Rhymney's 'AR' class and built 200 of them out of Swindon standard bits.  He did design new boilers for other South Wales engines which made their way on to the likes of 2251 and 94xx, though.  Hawksworth's main contribution was to build 4-6-0 Stanier 8Fs with GW standard bits, which generated different opinions but which everyone agreed could pull well enough. 

 

Swindon ultimately suffered from being the only one of the big 4 that had a continuous design policy from pre-grouping days coupled to a similar situation in management; it failed to benefit from the new blood that infused and enthused the other railways.  In fairness to Hawkworth, he came late to the game and was constrained by the austerity economy, but he was overshadowed by the ghost of Churchward as was everybody else at Swindon.  The idea of building 4 cylinder Castles in 1950 that needed a contortionist gynacologist to prepare them properly, let alone introducing a 'new' pannier tank in 1951, is risible, but it happened!

 

I think much of this should be born in mind when one considers the shortcomings of early LMS locomotive policy, while not excusing the poisonous office politics of the tiem!

Edited April 10, 2018 by The Johnster

[LMS2968]

Standardisation is a wonderful thing up to a point, but that point is when the item - or design philosophy - becomes obsolescent. The GWR fell into the trap, although not to anywhere near the same extent as Derby managed!

[uax6]

What I find quite strange is that the Highland had a good collection of good steaming 4-6-0's, that seemed to be regarded well by the staff, but yet were never really looked at to see if they were worth developing... maybe the were just too far away from London...

 

Andy G

[Compound2632]

What I find quite strange is that the Highland had a good collection of good steaming 4-6-0's, that seemed to be regarded well by the staff, but yet were never really looked at to see if they were worth developing... maybe the were just too far away from London...

 

Andy G

... or simply too few in number.

[Compound2632]

... there was surely some logic in multiplying already numerous classes, whatever one may think of the ones actually chosen.

[John_Miles]

The LMS paid dividends (see post 40). To compare it with the GWR is unfair. The GWR largely stayed as it was after the grouping so didn't have the problems of merging three very large companies (two of which were as large as the GWR) and several other quite large companies, with all the competing egos, traditions etc.

[LMS2968]

The early LMS loco policy was largely evidence based and the LNWR engines, with the exception of the Super Ds were a poor lot. They were heavy on maintenance and coal, some types were known as colliers' friends - the LNWR had a smallish wheel 4-6-0 (19" Goods?) which was supposed to be very heavy on coal. So when you go in for Midland bashing, it needs to be based on more than emotional support for your favourite line. The Midland engines were well engineered and cheaper to run per ton mile than the alternatives - and yes this applies to the 483 class and the 4Fs which come in for such a bashing. While I am being rude about the LNWR, the recollections of engine men fairly consistently say that Derby built 4Fs were better than those built a Crewe.

I meant to challenge this at the time, but it got away. The Ds were awful things from an enginemen's point of view, in that everything was poorly laid out and inconvenient, to the extent of being dangerous to a fireman swinging the shovel. For the operators, they were strong, economical and reliable, and were NOT heavy on maintenance. E.Stuart Cox to S.J Symes again:

 

G1 and G2 Types (461 engines)

 

These engines have a fairly good record as regards trouble in the sheds. The frames are undoubtedly weak and fractures occur around the driving horns. The Joy's valve gear and smokeboxes are further sources of high maintenance.

 

Hot Boxes. Are not numerous considering the large number of engines in the class. There are proportionately more on the more powerful G2 class. Figures for 1930 are:

G1 class (401 engines) - 26 cases, 14 driving

G2 class (60) engines - 13 cases, 9 driving.

[rodent279]

Standardisation is a wonderful thing up to a point, but that point is when the item - or design philosophy - becomes obsolescent. The GWR fell into the trap, although not to anywhere near the same extent as Derby managed!

Standardisation is good, but when it becomes a sacred cow it is a problem.

[John_Miles]

I meant to challenge this at the time, but it got away. The Ds were awful things from an enginemen's point of view, in that everything was poorly laid out and inconvenient, to the extent of being dangerous to a fireman swinging the shovel. For the operators, they were strong, economical and reliable, and were NOT heavy on maintenance. E.Stuart Cox to S.J Symes again:

 

G1 and G2 Types (461 engines)

 

These engines have a fairly good record as regards trouble in the sheds. The frames are undoubtedly weak and fractures occur around the driving horns. The Joy's valve gear and smokeboxes are further sources of high maintenance.

 

Hot Boxes. Are not numerous considering the large number of engines in the class. There are proportionately more on the more powerful G2 class. Figures for 1930 are:

G1 class (401 engines) - 26 cases, 14 driving

G2 class (60) engines - 13 cases, 9 driving.

 

I agree with this but on the criteria set in the tests they were better than the opposition. Super Ds were called Bum Burners on the Midland because the short footplate meant that when the firemen turned towards the tender......

[LMS2968]

Super Ds were called Bum Burners on the Midland ......

Almost!

 

And the Austin Sevens enjoyed the same accolade on the Lanky, for exactly the same reason!

Edited April 15, 2018 by LMS2968

[Compound2632]

Almost!

 

And the Austin Sevens enjoyed the same accolade on the Lanky, for exactly the same reason!

 

I suspect in both cases the issue was making the engine short enough to fit on the available turntables. There were all sorts of infrastructure costs associated with bigger engines! The bridge issue is another case in point - it may, for a while at least, have been better economics to have two engines to a train than have the outlay of major civil engineering works. The sum required to strengthen bridges on the Midland main line for the compounds was pushing £100,000 (and at that time was forthcoming).