Bulleid's Leader: could it have even been successful?

[john new]

On 13/07/2017 at 16:23, Reorte said:

Induction charging I believe. Don't ask me how well it works or how efficient it is, although they must think it's viable. Wonder if it might be a future option for battery trains on fairly self-contained branches that are hard to justify the cost of electrification infrastructure, with the charging equipment sitting under the track at the terminus?

Like a sophisticated Parry People mover.

[runs as required]

13 hours ago, Edge said:

that being said, the design itself was fundamentally flawed in

being vastly overweight, underpowered, incapable of fitting in with existing infrastructure on the SR lines (the loco could barely take on water because of issues actually fitting the spouts of water towers into the loco)

and

thoroughly unpopular with the unions of the time because of the isolation of the fireman from the driver (and the alleged high temperatres for the fireman, althoguh reports about their actual experience was contradictory from man to man who worked on the engine).

 

 

What I find strange about all the Leader critique (and also the saga of the CIE turf burner which I saw in Inchicore in 1960)  is

 

1. At Doncaster, Bulleid seems to have been the 'Leader' in technical development, while working closely under Gresley as his Technical Assistant 
   and
2. I vividly remember as a boy, him being popularly vaunted on the Southern for having introduced the dazzling Spam cans amidst the sooty squalor of steam in the mid 1940s.

Both of which is what he got hired for by the Southern (and presumably by CIE/Fianna Fáil after the formation of BR). 

dh

[LMS2968]

5 minutes ago, runs as required said:

1. I vividly remember as a boy, him being popularly vaunted on the Southern for having introduced the dazzling Spam cans amidst the sooty squalor of steam in the mid 1940s.

Apart from the enthusiast fraternity, that would probably have been restricted to the drivers. I doubt the firemen were quite so enamoured, and as for the fitters . . .

[Edge]

I agree on Bulleid’s talents and brilliance, he was at the forefront of steam and it’s development and he deserves all of the plaudits he received.

 

my comments above were not about the man, but the machine. The sense is that Bulleid (who left the SR well before completion of the project) left things half finished and that the concept was fundamentally flawed from the get go. Originally touted as a replacement for the M7 tank loco, the engine simply was not fit for that purpose in any way.

[runs as required]

6 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Apart from the enthusiast fraternity, that would probably have been restricted to the drivers. I doubt the firemen were quite so enamoured, and as for the fitters . . .

3 minutes ago, Edge said:

I agree on Bulleid’s talents and brilliance, he was at the forefront of steam and it’s development and he deserves all of the plaudits he received.

 

my comments above were not about the man, but the machine. The sense is that Bulleid (who left the SR well before completion of the project) left things half finished and that the concept was fundamentally flawed from the get go. Originally touted as a replacement for the M7 tank loco, the engine simply was not fit for that purpose in any way.

I've two observations on the above

1. I remember that underpinning of the praise for Spam cans came from my Great Uncle Joe, works manager of Lion steam packings at Woking while conversing with (pretend) uncle Lindsall, a Stratford driver, while playing chess in 1945
2. When I was based in Malta for a couple of years from 1965 and discovered a hero of mine had retired to Lija, I was disappointed to get a blunt rebuff from OVSB about his work on the Southern and CIE.

dh

[62613]

21 hours ago, runs as required said:

 

What I find strange about all the Leader critique (and also the saga of the CIE turf burner which I saw in Inchicore in 1960)  is

 

1. At Doncaster, Bulleid seems to have been the 'Leader' in technical development, while working closely under Gresley as his Technical Assistant

 

I would say that there was a 'filter' between his ideas and what actually saw the light of day, called H.N. Gresley. When the filter disappeared, those ideas finally surfaced, for better or for worse.

[runs as required]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

I would say that there was a 'filter' between his ideas and what actually saw the light of day, called H.N. Gresley. When the filter disappeared, those ideas finally surfaced, for better or for worse.

Interestingly, while at the North Road station museum MR exhibition in Darlington last Sunday, two of us looked over their large scale model of 'Hush Hush' the Yarrow boilered 4-6-4 and more or less had just this conversation.

Seemingly HNG was conned into it as much as OVSG; our dialogue closed with "at least Hush Hush didn't explode like 'Fury' fatally on the LMS " 

dh

[john new]

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

 

I would say that there was a 'filter' between his ideas and what actually saw the light of day, called H.N. Gresley. When the filter disappeared, those ideas finally surfaced, for better or for worse.

Agree. It is rather like when you have a group brainstorm session for any activity - the zany gets proposed, the realistic get considered further and the worst immediately dropped.  The key though is that someone has to act as Chair and be brakesman. As you suggest that was probably Gresley on the LNER, on the Southern it would have been the Board; they obviously could be manipulated by Bulleid. What does the Shzlumper(?) book say on the subject? 

[Nearholmer]

Worth considering that the SR lost Sir Herbert Walker as GM in 1937, although he did remain on The Board, and then lost Szlumper to war work in 1939, and history seems to suggest that Missenden was a less interventionist manager than either, which can be read two ways.

 

I think I've pointed out earlier in this thread that the SR's real plan, the very definite Plan A, was to electrify everything, bar a few very marginal branch lines, east of the Bournemouth Line, and dieselise everything else, including said marginal branch lines, using DEMUs (what emerged under BR as 2H and 3H) for branch passenger services and some sort of road-switcher-type loco for goods.

 

So, having Leader, or anything else steam come to that, in the mix was a Plan B at best. My reading is that The Board instructed Bulleid to make a fallback plan, and that, instead of doing what might have been the sensible thing in the circumstances, to pursue a rugged, but largely "best practice conventional" design, he let-loose his full creativity and brilliance on the job, attempting to produce the very best that steam could achieve. He definitely considered less radical options, as is well-documented in his son's engineering biography of him, but rejected them.

 

As it became apparent that, largely because of Nationalisation and the prioritisation of capital spend on other thing, elsewhere, the "secondary and branch motive power" crisis that SR/BR(S) had wasn't going to be solved by electrics and diesels in the foreseeable future, the stopgap solution proved to be things that worked instantly: "best practice conventional", in the form of first Fairburn 2-6-4T built at Brighton, then Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T, then BR Standard 2-6-4T (with a few Class 3 locos thrown into the mix).

 

It is sometimes said that "the best is the enemy of the good", and Sir Herbert Walker definitely knew that, it is evident throughout the way he steered the SR, and crystal clear in the brutal way that he terminated the LBSCR overhead electrification system in favour of the technically conservative, not ideal for long-distance application, 660V 3rd rail system, which could be deployed rapidly to solve desperately pressing problems.

 

My surmise is that Missenden lacked the instinct and firmness, or perhaps the bandwidth during very turbulent times, to steer Bulleid in the direction of a good, but not technically the best, design solution.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Nearholmer

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, runs as required said:

Interestingly, while at the North Road station museum MR exhibition in Darlington last Sunday, two of us looked over their large scale model of 'Hush Hush' the Yarrow boilered 4-6-4 and more or less had just this conversation.

Seemingly HNG was conned into it as much as OVSG; our dialogue closed with "at least Hush Hush didn't explode like 'Fury' fatally on the LMS " 

dh

Not so sure that 'Fury' exploded. It burst a high pressure pipe with tragic results, but an explosion would have been many times worse.

 

In the 1930s top link passenger trains were getting faster and heavier, so it's not surprising that the 2 railways with the longest distance to travel, embarked on some radical experiments.

 

More successful than 'Fury' or 'Hush Hush', was the LMS Turbomotive, which when working ran it's train quite well. The biggest problem was with lubricating the turbines and other new bits of technology. Given a bit of time, those problems probably could have been overcome. As it was, the one off example meant that failed parts, had to be specially made, leaving it with extended periods under repair.

 

Certainly these 3 locos kind of worked to a degree, but as for the 'Leaders', not so. Not even close, they were vastly bigger and heavier than the M7 locos they were meant to succeed. How they spent so much money on a product with so many new ideas, all at once, I don't understand.

 

I assume the fact that the Pacific classes, were largely successful, probably put Bulleid in someone's good books.

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, 62613 said:

 

I would say that there was a 'filter' between his ideas and what actually saw the light of day, called H.N. Gresley. When the filter disappeared, those ideas finally surfaced, for better or for worse.

 

Not a unique situation. Edward Turner designed the quite brilliant Triumph Speed Twin in the 1930s, but most of his later designs for Triumph, and subsequently BSA suffered from inadequacies of detail design (which were mostly mitigated by the drawing office before they saw the light of day). 

 

Triumph and BSA kept him on the books for thirty years in the hope that the lightning would strike twice. Of course it didn't. His subsequent single cylinder layout had a long life as the Tiger Cub/ C15/ B40/ Victor but there was little of Turner in the production models; his final design, the Fury/Bandit 350cc ohc twin, featured a quite excellent frame by someone else and nothing else to commend it, the design office being "out of the loop" by then

[Nearholmer]

Incidentally, I don't completely buy the line that the Leader was meant, very narrowly, to replace the M7.

 

Much more likely that the M7 was being held-up as the general sort of "old crock" that the SR desperately needed to rid itself of. The most significant concentration of "old crock" tank engines, being used to deliver a significant, busy service, containing some heavy trains, over a steep set of routes, was the Oxted Lines, where leader was tested. The secondary and branch motive power problem encompassed several different pre-grouping classes, notably LBSCR Atlantic Tanks and the two Pacific Tanks, and 0-4-4T from all three contituents, M7, D3, and H.

 

The goods engine situation wasn't quite so bad, but if the electrification and dieselisation programme could have been afforded, they would have need something to take over from the many 0-6-0 tender engines, and Bulleid's 500Hp 0-6-0DM can be read as an essay in that direction. Again though, the choice of transmission hints at technical purity over practical good-practice, because a mechanical transmission can theoretically be more efficient than an electrical one, but winding 500hp through one in a railway application was nowhere near as well-understood as was getting 500hp through a few electric traction motors, which was "bread and butter stuff" on the Southern. The 0-6-0DM was also tried on the Oxted Lines, incidentally, taking the Norwood Yard to Tunbridge Wells Goods.

 

The SR drawing office had designs for Bo-Bo diesel-electrics tucked away from "years back", and by working with Sulzer, could probably have got a very practical 800-1000hp machine on the road in short order. Sulzer had built slightly less-powerful ones for SBB-CFF before WW2, and the first ones in Ireland, at 915hp, hit the rails in 1950.

 

Notice again that diesel 10800 was tried on the Oxted Lines ...... good idea in general; complicated, and un-proven-in-rail-service engine, though.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Reorte]

52 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

More successful than 'Fury' or 'Hush Hush', was the LMS Turbomotive, which when working ran it's train quite well. The biggest problem was with lubricating the turbines and other new bits of technology. Given a bit of time, those problems probably could have been overcome. As it was, the one off example meant that failed parts, had to be specially made, leaving it with extended periods under repair.

I was under the impression that Turbomotive was a successful loco, to the degree that I've always been surprised more weren't built like it along its lines. Too late in the development of steam power?

[runs as required]

42 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

... suffered from inadequacies of detail design (which were mostly mitigated by the drawing office before they saw the light of day). 

 

Relations with the drawing office can be important:

I have posted before about next door's nonagenarian grandmother having instant recall of "in her prime" days as a feisty tracer in Doncaster Plant.

They all disliked Thompson "he treated us all as if we weren't there" but ... Peppercorn, he was such a gentleman - though he did get into trouble about a frig in his office I remember" 

Her boss was Bert Spencer - for whom she would do anything.

 

I've spent large chunks of my life in drawing offices (I was addicted to the smell) and was always very aware of the balance of commitment to design and detail (and where the social centres might be found).

Could it be that OVSB had "lost" the  drawing office in the latter years of WWII ?

 

But this doesn't explain OVSB being taken up by the Irish (who were pretty anti Brit in the 1940s) to have a go at the Turfburner version of Leader - and to opt for frail Crossleys (of all makes considering their 1920s role in Ireland !) rather than Sulzers as the preferred diesels.

dh

[JohnR]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Incidentally, I don't completely buy the line that the Leader was meant, very narrowly, to replace the M7.

 

Much more likely that the M7 was being held-up as the general sort of "old crock" that the SR desperately needed to rid itself of. The most significant concentration of "old crock" tank engines, being used to deliver a significant, busy service, containing some heavy trains, over a steep set of routes, was the Oxted Lines, where leader was tested. The secondary and branch motive power problem encompassed several different pre-grouping classes, notably LBSCR Atlantic Tanks and the two Pacific Tanks, and 0-4-4T from all three contituents, M7, D3, and H.

 

 

 

 

Yes, what was needed, really was a 2-6-2 or 2-6-4 tank engine, possibly similar in design to the Q1 to keep maintenance costs down. 

 

[Nearholmer]

Pepercorn got in trouble over what in his office??!!

 

I'm reading a very detailed Irish book about the turf burner, and another academic book about Irish fuel and railway policy post WW2, at the moment, so will report further on the Irish questions.

 

 

[peach james]

There is very much a 3rd part to this story, in the form of the goings on in Shrewsbury at Sentinel.  It's clear that SR were interested in some of the concepts which Abner Doble brought to Sentinel, in the form of the Dyke branch railcar.  I am suspicious that Sentinel (Metal Industries)  put paid to the idea of buying more Doble 150hp compounds because they lost money hand over fist on them.  This includes the LMS 7192 and the  4VT engine Sentinel built for tank (armored thing, not 0-6-0) use.    The technological developments in the 1930's were at the very outer edge of what could be done then with steam.  I am quite sure that using FEA and similar, some further increases in power/weight, and skill required to get best operation are possible.  

 

Of course, if you really want "mad as a hatter"... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine

 

James

 

[LMS2968]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

I was under the impression that Turbomotive was a successful loco, to the degree that I've always been surprised more weren't built like it along its lines. Too late in the development of steam power?

6202 was a success in terms of a one-off prototype. But she wasn't a massive improvement over the standard Lizzies, was expensive to build and maintain, and her availability was poor. Much of this last was down to uncertainty - she would be stopped for something trivial  'just in case' when another engine would be allowed to run, and then parts for a unique and very different machine were not available off the shelf so delays occurred. Production machines would not have followed the same format; for example, why use 6ft 6in wheels when there was no real limit on rpm?

 

One thing is that she was a single prototype, same as Fury, the Hush-Hush engine, all the previous turbine types, and many others. OVSB's problem wasn't that he produced a radically new type of engine, but that he didn't follow the single prototype convention and had five Leaders on order, totally untried and untested. This was an improvement over the Pacifics, arguably less innovative but not by a lot, with ten in the first batch, then twenty more before the then known issues were sorted out, then 110 lighter versions with most of the same problems built in. He seemed to assume that if he designed it, it would work first go, a surmise in which he was sadly mistaken.

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

I was under the impression that Turbomotive was a successful loco, to the degree that I've always been surprised more weren't built like it along its lines. Too late in the development of steam power?

 

Didn't someone post quite recently that Turbomotive was a success for its designed purpose - a specific diagram involving continuous high speed running with a heavy express - but less successful for general duties?

[MarkC]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Pepercorn got in trouble over what in his office??!!

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Well, quite

[MidlandRed]

Given the successful main line diesel heritage of the Southern and Bulleid it seems extraordinary this project got to the stage it did - unless there were thoughts that diesel was not the way forward for non-electric services/work at this stage. 

Edited September 6, 2019 by MidlandRed

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, MidlandRed said:

Given the successful main line diesel heritage of the Southern and Bulleid it seems extraordinary this project got to the stage it did - unless there were thoughts that diesel was not the way forward for non-electric services/work at this stage. 

Yes, but were the diesels, like the earlier electric locomotives, inspired/sponsored by the Chief Electrical Engineer? The Southern, with its very strong reliance on electric traction, was something of a split personality; the CME looked after the mechanical parts whilst the CEE looked after the electrics. I would hazard a guess that a diesel generator set, particularly as the whole engine/generator ensemble came from EE as a package.

Bulleid's background was all steam and carriage & wagon.

 

Jim

[brack]

6 hours ago, peach james said:

There is very much a 3rd part to this story, in the form of the goings on in Shrewsbury at Sentinel.  It's clear that SR were interested in some of the concepts which Abner Doble brought to Sentinel, in the form of the Dyke branch railcar.  I am suspicious that Sentinel (Metal Industries)  put paid to the idea of buying more Doble 150hp compounds because they lost money hand over fist on them.  This includes the LMS 7192 and the  4VT engine Sentinel built for tank (armored thing, not 0-6-0) use.    The technological developments in the 1930's were at the very outer edge of what could be done then with steam.  I am quite sure that using FEA and similar, some further increases in power/weight, and skill required to get best operation are possible.  

 

Of course, if you really want "mad as a hatter"... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine

 

James

 

You proposing a standard gauge one of these?

 

 

I suspect it might have had a decent chance tested in the uk and developed nearer the factory. Conditions in Colombia weren't quite so conducive to experimental  or innovative locos.

 

Best info is either in Walker's book on Colombian railways or Doug selfs website: http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/colombia/colombia.htm

[Nearholmer]

MidlandRed & Jim

 

Bulleid and his team crucially designed the bogies for the big diesels, and they were very good, good enough to go forward into BR designs, but the engine,, generator, control circuitry etc was EE. But then, the SR electrical department and EE were "hand in glove" anyway. The "Hornby" electric locos seem to have been more of an SR home-brew, although EE may have contributed to the designs, a good collaboration between mechanicals and electrical, each contributing from their strengths.

 

As I said earlier, if you think of Leader as a Plan B that allowed to get badly out of hand, it makes some sense.

 

Kevin

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Nearholmer

[peach james]

1 hour ago, brack said:

You proposing a standard gauge one of these?

 

 

I suspect it might have had a decent chance tested in the uk and developed nearer the factory. Conditions in Colombia weren't quite so conducive to experimental  or innovative locos.

 

Best info is either in Walker's book on Colombian railways or Doug selfs website: http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/colombia/colombia.htm

 

That is exactly what I was thinking of.  The patent applications included standard gauges up to 5'3"  and up to 8 engines each of 150 hp.  Once on a time, I was passed some information indicating one of them might survive- that was the best part of 20 years ago.    Anyone know more?

 

I suspect that they had a larger influence on Leader than other ideas had.  The Sentinel engined rail cars and locomotives were quite successful for what they were.  The general problem was a lack of boiler capacity, especially when fired with other than good welsh steam coal.  (Dad claims the last "good" coal he saw was in 1962, he fired the Sentinel tar sprayer for the Lloyd Jones brothers until we left for Canada in 1979).

 

I know, a little off the topic of Leader...

 

James