Jump to content
 
  • entries
    63
  • comments
    345
  • views
    11,394

Book Format for Locomotive Development


JimC

1,074 views

I'm mulling over something different in the way of formats. Traditionally locomotive books have been written class by class, which in many ways is the most logical way to do it. But the trouble is that its difficult to get a sense of how design developed. Say for instance, you're looking at GWR 0-6-0 freight engines. You list the 57 class and its history from a cabless domeless sandwich frame locomotive in 1855 with Gooch motion, then maybe the renewals around the mid 1870s which were almost new locomotives, domes boilers,  Stephenson link etc, and then typical 1890s boilers, even Belpaire fireboxes before being withdrawn mostly in the 1910s. Then you jump back to the 79s in 1857, and a similar story, and so it proceeds, jumping between eras and what by the end of their lives are very different locomotives. Which is fine, and its conventional because it works for most people, but it makes it very difficult to gain a picture of how the design school was progressing. A Dean Goods at the end of the class service life in the 40s and 50s was a very different beast to the first built Dean Goods in the early 1880s, and maybe it makes as much or even more sense to look at it alongside a 2251 as opposed to an Armstrong Goods?

So then I got to thinking, OK, lets look at it over a time line. The most extreme version would be to use a format of annals - literally year by year, So sort of 

"1903.
Of the 60 locomotives built this year, most were transitional Dean/Churchward types with Churchward boilers. There were 10 Aberdares with Std 4 tapered boilers without top feed and slide valves. 27 Bulldogs, which mostly had second hand parallel barrel Std 2 boilers, although the last ten had short cone taper boilered Std 2s. The reason for the second hand boilers was that the original plan was for a sort of super Bulldog with a Std 4 boiler, but in the event these were used to upgrade Aberdares instead. The ten new Cities, fitted with Std 4 boilers were also built this year as were a further 10 of the 36xx 2-4-2Ts. Most notable, however, was the start of the Churchward revolution. The 2nd and 3rd prototype Saints 98 and 171, the 28xx, No 97 and the large Prairie No 99 all appeared this year, the first with the Churchward front end with integrated cylinders/saddle. The DeGlehn  no 102 also made its first appearance this year. Arguably this was year the final form of the British steam locomotive appeared.
Then illustrations of a City and the Churchward prototypes perhaps."

An alternate approach would be to do periods of design, for instance Churchward/Dean Transition and Churchward Standards. That would separate the 36xx, Aberdare, Std boilers on 4-4-0s and the Std 2/4 boiler era from the true outside cylinder era, and in many ways would be a lot more readable, but on the other hand there would be big overlaps, with transition types like the Bird and Flower as late as 1908, but the outside cylinders starting in 1903. On the other hand it would be a lot more readable.

What do you think folks? Would you be more likely to purchase a book based on timelines? Rigidly as annals, or more flexible with eras?

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 5

41 Comments


Recommended Comments



  • RMweb Gold

Something about that format doesn't feel right to me.

 

I think maybe it doesn't explain the actual development strongly enough. The reader has to tease it out for themself - and there's not enough detail to be able to do that in this format.

 

Take sandwich frames, for example. From a development perspective, it would be good to know why they were introduced, when, which classes used them, notable cases and exceptions, pros and cons, when they fell out of use and why.

 

That's just my tuppenny worth.

 

Link to comment

I fear I share your doubts about the format. I'll run on into early Wolverhampton and then review again.

Sandwich frames... yes, I'd love to know too. Not the least is the way that the Armstrongs only used plate frames on their all-new classes (I think, I'll be sure when I've gone through this), but when it came to renewing Gooch designs they retained sandwich frames, even when you'd think there was nothing of the old frames worth keeping. Dean built some classes with sandwich frames, although I haven't got that far yet to see if  they were semi renewals or not. And then we have Holcroft's first hand account of new sandwich frames being constructed for a major overhaul as late as 1901. I can report what happened, but why...

Holcroft's 156 is such a good example. Built by George England to a Gooch design. Renewed in 1882 when at the very least the frames must have been significantly altered, new frames again in 1901... Could it be that there were so many fittings, axleboxes, everything sized for the thick sandwich frames that it was worth keeping with them even though the actual frames were replaced? Accounts are very definitely not my strength, but It would be interesting, if such a thing exists, to have a itemised list of exactly where the money went on a new locomotive. I found a "Repairs and Partial Renewals Register" at Kew, and thought it would be interesting, but when I came to view it it showed exactly what was spent at each factory each week, but listed against Salaries, Office Expenses, Wages, Materials, Machinery & Plant and Other Expenses, without a single clue of what jobs the money was actually spent on!

Edited by JimC
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to comment

Well, I'm progressing through an initial draft of this format. I'm basically up to Swindon 1870. I think realistically I have to get well into the 1870s, maybe 1880s before I can make a judgement of whether I think the format works. It's going more slowly than I might have hoped, because I keep getting stopped because I don't have a sketch of a new class in original form. I'm hoping the drawing list will be more complete a few years on. At the moment I'm listing  Swindon and Wolverhampton separately for 1864-1877 and 1877-1892. That may need to be rethought, because I've just got to the 1076s, and have to note that they appear strongly influenced by the 1016s at Wolverhampton, but at the moment Wolverhampton 1864 is after Swindon 1877 in page order. Another thought is that this might work better as an electronic document than paper. If one has hotlinks on each section to the previous and next entries for each class it would be a lot easier to read the whole history of a class link by link electronically than it would be on a paper equivalent. 'm also wondering if I should use lot numbers extensively in headings and indices. It's a very convenient way of separating successive builds of classes, and its also the way the GWR worked. I tended to stay clear of them in the last book as an unnecessary complication, but with this format it might well help readability and referenceing.

Running by date certainly works in some respects. I'm picking up things that I hadn't really noticed before, introduction of injectors for instance, and the replacement of cottered bearings with plain bushes on the coupling rods. Also spotting things that seem to be missing. RCTS seems very quiet about the changeover from coke to coal, and that was a very big deal indeed at the time. 

Edited by JimC
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to comment

Boiler dimensions...


The last book had a big table of leading dimensions for each class, Builder, Dates Built, Number Built, Route Colour, Power Class, Tractive Effort, Driving Wheel Size, Cylinder Dimensions, Wheelbase ,Front Overhang , Rear Overhang, Boiler Class, Dates Withdrawn (overhangs mainly/only 0-6-0 classes where it differentiates between classes and was often altered). Now all well and good, but the big tables distract from readability and I'm trying to give this a bit more flow, and also in general make it a smaller volume*. So I was thinking that just driving wheel size, cylinder size and some measure of boiler size in the text would be enough to get the picture.


So I thought it would be a good idea to quote heating surface of the boilers as a measurement of real size and to illustrate capacity increase. I'm realising, though, that in the mid 19thC they were really cramming tubes into some boilers, to the extent that a new built 645 had a deal more heating surface than a 57xx, and very nearly as much as an unsuperheated 94xx, which was a far larger boiler. I've read, too, that these had the tubes crammed in too much to be optimal. So I guess I have to abandon that measure as being misleading.  The question is what to substitute. The best measure of boiler capacity of course is to list the whole damn lot, physical size, heating surface, the lot but that's getting into the dense lump of numbers I was trying to avoid.  I suppose barrel diameter and length and firebox heating surface might be the closest to a simplified measure, but that seems to be a nasty mix of measurements. Would barrel L & D plus firebox length be too simplistic? Or am I still getting over buried in numbers, and it would be better to skip the boiler data completely? But if I say OK, let's have a table at the end, effectively that's repeating the RCTS Boiler Appendices. and even if one simplifies its still a massive body of data and pretty damn indigestible. With RCTS now readily available on line at moderate cost it seems somewhat pointless to replicate a sub set of it. 

 

Any thoughts, suggestions?

*which as I seem to be doing a fair number of extra sketches may be doomed to failure

Link to comment

A lot depends on your target audience.  Modellers need external dimensions and details like wheel diameters and number of spokes  A tricky one is always boiler diameter over the cladding - a figure that can be hard to come by, except by examination of photos.  It's frustrating only to have side elevations too.

 

Internal dimensions, like numbers of tubes, don't actually reveal a lot, except that some designers packed in more tubes than made sense and some over-long boilers were acting more like condensers at the chimney end.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Yes, I too have bitten nails in frustration over boiler diameters... I think realistically the amount of data you need to do a proper job for modellers is beyond my capabilities. Typically one of my profile sketches takes two or three days, depending on the level of detail I have in sources and the number of components I already have available. At one extreme I can do a fictional locomotive from the GWR parts kit in a couple of hours. At the other extreme if I have a hazy GA drawing with lots of detail but nearly impossible to read, and want a better level of detail than something weight diagram sourced it can be days. But if I was trying to do something for a modeller... (None of this will be news to Mike)

Of course the first problem is sourcing data, You need elevations and probably sections.  If the drawings are available they're probably in the NRM collection, and at £7.50 a scan it soon adds up - I have done something in the region of 200 sketches for the book, and if you were to budget 20 or 30 quid for NRM files for each then it starts to hurt!  And then the amount of work in getting end elevations. Profile photos are relatively common and useable (and I can count the number of spokes!). When really desperate I've tried de-perspectiving (there'll be a word for that) 3/4 or at least 7/8 photos, but its hard work. Getting elevations from photos, well I find the thought quite intimidating. I would think its got to be weeks not days to produce a three view drawing.
 

Anyway, yes, thanks for that, it all helps crystallise my thinking. 

Link to comment

So at the moment I'm thinking that maybe I should mark boiler capacity in the "too difficult" column and omit it. After all it would need something quite extraordinary to be able to distinguish poor steam generators from good ones by dimensions.

Edited by JimC
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
On 15/11/2023 at 18:01, JimC said:

... Also spotting things that seem to be missing. RCTS seems very quiet about the changeover from coke to coal, and that was a very big deal indeed at the time. 

I think that trying to fill the gaps is important.  Now that the RCTS books are available again on a print to order or digital basis, there's not a lot of point in repeating what can already be found there.  Their biggest weaknesses in those books are the very small illustrations and very little about constructional developments and details, apart from boilers - adoption of the Giffard injector, as an example.  I like the way that, in an earlier time period, Edward Lane included drawings or sketches of various little details that appeared on the engines of his time (1840s)

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

Their biggest weaknesses in those books are the very small illustrations and very little about constructional developments and details,

Yes indeed, I'm looking at developments as much as I can for the 19thC developments, injectors, cabs, all that sort of thing. If the idea comes off it should be possible to page through and see the design progress in successive illustrations. In an ideal world I'd combine my profile sketches with a good selection of photographs, but the trouble is I find the cost of library photographs quite prohibitive, and all the older stuff is with Locomotive Publishing Co collection at the NRM. I wonder at the economics of books full of photographs.

Link to comment

Running numbers and Lot numbers... How important to list these do you think. Lot numbers seem rather arcane, but are really rather important because changes were normally introduced with new lots. Running numbers are really rather less unimportant in development, but rather important if you are trying to work out what you are looking at. 

At the moment I still don't know if I like the format. Its rather cool to be able to page down, look at the sketches and see how the general style changed from domeless Gooch, early small dome Armstrong and when I get that far various dome positions under Dean, plus inside frames outside frames, sandwich etc. 

But on the other hand it feels as if the average entry could be something like:

 

XXX Class 2-4-0 1866
[image]

Lot ZZ, numbers 456-499 and 1024-1037. 
14*24 cylinders and 5ft driving wheels. This was the first XXX Lot to have bushes rather than cottered bearings on the connecting rods.
See p13 for earlier class members, page 22 for the next batch built and p45 for the 1878 renewals.
 

or alternatively (see discussion below)
For the previous Lot ZQ see P13, for the next Lot AAB see P22, and for the 1878 renewals see P45. 

 

Well maybe not quite as bare as that, but you get the point. But as Mike said with RCTS available again there's little point in going for RCTS levels of detail, but I think the consistent series of sketches has something to offer...

I've also been playing with indices, having figured out a peculiar bug/feature in MS Word which was stopping me creating multiple indices. At the moment I'm playing with Illustrations, Classes, Year/Class, Lot, and CME/Class. It occurs to me, as a thought, whether rather than having all the class numbers in the text it would be good to have an index of class number. Ferocious bit of work, and you'd end up with multiple entries for some numbers, but it would be a useful thing to have even if some entries looked like

149-163 - page 75

157-164 - page 13

157-164 - page 35

159 & 159 - page 82

Easy to end up with a volume that had ten pages of inexes at the end though! 
What do folks think would be useful? Also what about cross references like the "see P 13" in the example. It seems to me vital that one can readily follow a class through this annal format which does mean lots of Xrefs. Having that based around Lot numbers might be helpful, as in the variant above.
 

Link to comment

I think annotated drawings would help explain various features So many books talk about details on a loco, but don't state what one is supposed to be looking at.

Link to comment

Annotated drawings is a good thought. I did something like that for GWR valve gear because I had trouble working out what all the bits were, and especially as the GWR occasionally uses different terms to other lines. 

http://devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/GWStephensonGear.php

 

I've also done a page of reversing lever arrangements

http://devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/GWReversingArrangements.php

 

I'll have a thought what else might be useful. Suggestions welcome. Just don't expect me to explain how an injector works!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

 

Hi Jim,

 

Have you seen Longworth's rolling stock books? He is not afraid of a huge index. Although it appears to be daunting at first it is in fact very useful.

 

For instance, the GWR coaching stock is categorised by the diagram prefix letters and increasing diagram number within each category. Within each diagram entry all of the running numbers are listed with brief notes only where something exceptional needs to be noted. The index is ordered simply by running number and it Xrefs the diagram number not the page number the diagram is on. That works because the diagrams are laid out in logical order.

 

So, the first actual coach entry is diagram A4 (he only lists coaches that survived into BR ownership). Conversely the first entry in the index/list is W15 which refers to diagram S11, near the far end of the entries.

 

Another thing Longworth does is to keep the actual entries very terse by using symbols and abbreviations which are described in a key section at the start.

 

 

Since Lot numbers are really the stepping stones through the loco history, and the main identifier of jobs in the Works, I think it makes sense to use them for the main categorisation and list the running numbers as attached info. (That should help a bit with running numbers that were re-used because they will be naturally separated by Lots.) But that would need an index of running numbers that reference the Lots so that readers who know a running number can find the details they want in the Lot list.

 

Phil

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...