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

[jjb1970]

Bulleid is a bit of a hero figure to me, and to me part of his appeal is the very fact that his ideas were often deeply flawed. He was an innovator and refused to be bound by accepted norms and conventions, his ideas mixed brilliance with failure. There is something altogether more endearing about a man who ploughs his own furrow and who sometimes misses the target than others who played safe with conservative evolutionary development of a technology that had been developed almost as far as it would go long before Bulleid arrived at the Southern. The thing that fascinates me is that Bulleid was far too good an engineer to be oblivious to the obsolescence of steam and advantages of diesel and electric traction yet he threw himself into efforts to keep the steam locomotive relevant and to produce a modern design. His work with diesel and electric trains indicates that it was not just blind conservatism (indeed, if it was just conservatism he'd have followed the same evolutionary path of his contemporaries, designing locomotives that were basically just modest improvements of what they inherited) and that he had a solid understanding of more modern technologies.

On the Leader, it was the ultimate Bulleid design in some ways, blending brilliance with almost inexplicably bad ideas. The concept was in many ways excellent (although not as a replacement for 0-4-4T locomotives...) but the asymmetric chain drive, offset boiler, the use of sleeve valves (using as much oil for lubrication as a diesel used as fuel....) and some of the very abrupt changes in sectional area of the boiler are just bizarre. Aesthetically it looked forward to the modern era and the idea of an articulated tank design with end driving cabs was certainly valid IMO. His devotion to chains was also odd, as it is easy to say he was failed by inadequate materials technology but part of his job was to understand the limitations of the technologies and materials available to him and the basic problems associated with chain drives were understood by many of his contemporaries.

As much as I revere Bulleid and love his designs, his efforts to maintain steam as a viable motive power choice was an exercise in futility. True, diesels should have been a transitional technology on the path to electrification rather than a long term future but that doesn't alter the fact that they are a better technology in just about every way and that if nothing else the clean air acts were about to kill off coal fired locomotives anyway.

[Guest]

In the late 1940s it made sense to build new steam locos just to keep the railway working as it recovered from wartime dilapidations and post-war shortages of materials and money. They could operate from existing depots and did not need imported fuel. However it was not the time to launch into a fundamental redesign of the whole concept of the steam locomotive concept in response to athe Southern's straightforward but urgent operating requirement for more passenger tank engines. After 1948 BR, quite sensibly, had Brighton Works build a batch of Ivatt tanks to meet the immediate need.

That said, the steam locomotive did not have a long term future, it was just too inefficient.

[bike2steam]

 After 1948 BR, quite sensibly, had Brighton Works build a batch of Ivatt tanks to meet the immediate need.

 

Or do you mean Fairburn tanks ? Which, incidentally, Bulleid thought it a bad idea - until one of the W's came a cropper

[john new]

The concept of flexible geared steam locomotives wasn't unique, Shay made them work with gears and steam bogie/articulated designs with traditional valve gear worked too in various forms. Not sure how a steam Sentinel works (gears?) but they succeeded in non-rodded designs,

 

I'm not an expert on Leader but get the impression Bullied's concept of an oil fired, bogie transmission, steam engine with a cab at both ends WAS sensible. It failed fundamentally because oil firing was replaced by coal and logically at that stage the project should have been stopped. However it wasn't stopped at the oil to coal design stage which led to an overweight design, too hot to be operated, with several other innovations using elements of untested territory which then didn't work reliably. Not unique to Bullied, several later diesel classes had flaws too, in some cases because successful marine technology doesn't translate to the differing demands of rail mounted propulsion.

 

So my own view is no, not with the off centre coal fired boiler and the weight issues. Had the problems only been in the transmission system possibly but only with heavily modified bogies.

[kevinlms]

If the main criteria was to make more efficient use of a coal fired locomotive, with a bogie drive, surely a better approach would have been a steam turbine.

 

The LMS came close to a viable turbine driven locomotive, its main problems were the small turbine for reverse & the fact that the locking often failed damaging the turbine(s). Being a one off made the repairs, very slow and expensive, whereas a fleet would have standard parts ready for replacement.

 

Perhaps the turbine could have been used to generate electricity & drive standard EMU style bogies, which by the 1950s the technology was well established & worked very well (except for the Western & Scottish regions, who had none).

[Nearholmer]

Steam-electrics were perfectly buildable, an experimental one having been thoroughly tested as far back as the 1890s, when steam was still more efficient than internal combustion at the size involved, but the efficiency gains to be had by making the turbines a lot bigger, sticking them in a power station, and electrifying the railway are huge ...... so why bother building a steam-electric loco?

 

K

[Coryton]

 

- Similarly, nobody ever produced a true steam multiple unit or even a viable underfloor steam engine.

 

 

Didn't auto-coaches run with steam railmotors? (In fact if I recall correctly that was what they were originally developed for...then people realised that they would be even more useful if you replaced the railmotor with a locomotive).

 

A railmotor/auto-coach combination seems a pretty good candidate as a steam multiple unit.

[LMS2968]

The turbo-electric idea has a big plus: you retain all the proven technology of diesel electric so there's only the power unit to change. The big negative is that you replace a large and heavy diesel engine with a smaller turbine, but also a much bigger and heavier boiler. And to get the most out of the system you really should incorporate a condenser, which adds enormously to both size and weight.

 

As Nearholmer says, turbo-electric belongs in a power station, where your choice of fuel is much greater, too.

[Zomboid]

Coal fired steam turbine - electric drive was tried in the US. The one I know of was the C&O M1, which was absolutely enormous, in the way that American things often are. It was built in 1948, had 5200hp of generation capacity though, and a controller that went up to 11 (some 30 years before spinal tap, as well). They also broke down often and were scrapped at less than 3 years old.

 

With time and money the concept no doubt could have worked in a rail application, but by the late 40s there really was no point. Diesel and electric had already overtaken steam technologically. The C&O were only really interested because they hauled a lot of coal.

[peach james]

Been there, got the postcard:

 

DSC_0005 by Peach James, on Flickr

 

and

 

DSC_0054 by Peach James, on Flickr

 

No steam turbine electrics .

 

Jawn Henry had large problems with feedwater.  The Red Devil did too...  Both used Cofflin CG pumps, somewhere I have photos of a mate "riding cowboy" on one... so I have some knowledge of what I speak

 

The smaller Sentinels used chain drive (up to the 200 HP Dual Engine ones).  Some of the railcars did too, mostly the earlier ones.  The later Sentinel railcars had a 6 cylinder, single acting engine driving through shafting.  (these were the 3 unit railcars, not the singles)

 

Sentinel also built a few other engines that were larger- the 600 HP Colombian ones, and some for Egypt.  The 600 hp ones were meant to be the start of a series ranging from 300-1200 HP, using the Doble type engine (two cylinder, stephenson valve gear, piston valved, gear driven) on various wheel configurations.  I would assume the 1200 HP design would have been 0-8-0   0-8-0, as the engine was basically 150 HP per unit.  The boiler used for the Coombian engines was a watertube boiler at 450 PSI, which should have a reasonable life on a railway engine.  

 

- I had an email a fair time ago (more than 10 years) that seemed to indicate one of the Colombian engines survived at that point...

 

Now, how does any of the relate to Leader?  The answer is, I think, that Leader was a step too far in one go, that particularly the sleeve valve gear was not a great idea, and has not lived up to its promise.  A non centred boiler is possible, but why?  A centred boiler, without easy access from end to end makes far more sense than trying to cobble something to fit inside the UK loading gauge.  (because if you want a 2' passage, that means a boiler of 6' diameter maximum, which then limits steam generation & resulting HP- and a 2' passage is going to be tight, because you still have bodywork and boiler insulation to consider...).  If it was me, I would have started with a pair of 6 wheel bogies, using steam motors (a la Doble) gear connected to the axles.  (and the uneven axle spacing which is inherent in such an arrangement), with a conventional loco type boiler pressed to 300 PSI slung between a pair of uneven sized cabs- the smaller one at the smokebox end, the larger @ the firebox end.  If the engine is to be coal fired, then the bunkers would need to be saddle type, mostly overhead of the fireman if possible.  Oil firing means they could have been anywhere, such as between the bogies suspended from the boiler frame.  I would try and design around 2 person operation, with air operated regulator to allow MU of 2+ engines and a single driver, but retaining a fireman on each engine.  

 

For all of that, I would guess that you could come up with a 1200-1600 HP engine, that had <40 000 lb TE at starting.  It is for all intents, a Garatt that has non conventional bogies.  As noted, Beyer, Peacock & Co would have been happy to quote and supply a conventional engine 

 

"The Red Devil" goes into some depth about relatively easy fixes (at the design stage !) to increase steam engine n.  It also, along with some other papers, goes into a _lot_ of the costing arguments about diesel vs steam.  Suffice to say, someone got their palms lined in order to make steam look bad, in my opinion.  Major guilty party is likely GM...they were convicted over streetcars, but I don't think anyone wanted to go looking at railways.  The other part of that equation was simply one of finance and financial arrangements, where the changes post WW2 made it much more "affordable" to lease power in than buy it outright.  Except said power costs in the end 3-4x the price of buying it outright, it being accountancy cheaper !

 

I think next on our list of engines is the opposite end of Garret, in the form of a 0-4-0 0-4-0 one that needs putting together in 5" gauge.  It should make an interesting paperweight, as the boiler is about 10 sq ft of heating surface... (and no, it's not K1 !)  

 

 James

[Edwin_m]

Didn't auto-coaches run with steam railmotors? (In fact if I recall correctly that was what they were originally developed for...then people realised that they would be even more useful if you replaced the railmotor with a locomotive).

 

A railmotor/auto-coach combination seems a pretty good candidate as a steam multiple unit.

By a "true multiple unit" I mean something that could couple together several power units "in multiple" and drive them with one set of controls.  This allows a multiple formation to have the same performance as a single unit and for them to be split apart and travel todifferent destinations.  The steam-electric mentioned above could have had this capability, and indeed the push-pull systems could have been adapted (but probalby still needed a fireman on the footplate!), but neither every happened as far as I known.  By the time of Leader diesel traction was taking over in the States, and although they never went in for DMUs they did have multiple working on locomotives.  

[Nearholmer]

I'd have to check dates, but I think that the Heilmann steam-electric predated the devising of viable electric multiple unit control by Sprague. There were some 'stone age' MU systems before Sprague's, but nothing really viable.

 

This thread is relevant http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/108628-what-is-multiple-unit-control/

K

Edited June 28, 2017 by Nearholmer

[rockershovel]

Leaving aside the question of "why design a 120-ton 0-6-6-0 as a replacement for a pre-grouping 0-4-4T", surely the subsequent "turf burner" showed that (a) the basic design could be made to work quite well (2) conventional locomotives could be made to work at least as well (3) the time for such experiments was past

 

One thing I did find out, is that Bulleid's BFB wheels aren't "boxpok" at all.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulleid_Firth_Brown

Edited June 28, 2017 by rockershovel

[jjb1970]

Steam turbines are a far superior technology to steam reciprocating plant but even steam turbine plant isn't that efficient, particularly the sort of low pressure flexible turbines you'd probably need to use for a locomotive. Whichever way you look at it coal is a dirty fuel and the handling systems are labour and maintenance intensive compared to liquid and gaseous fuels. If you really wanted a turbine locomotive it'd make more sense to go for gas turbines which would be much lighter, potentially more powerful and these days they're pretty efficient, reliable and don't need a lot of maintenance.

[The Johnster]

Didn't auto-coaches run with steam railmotors? (In fact if I recall correctly that was what they were originally developed for...then people realised that they would be even more useful if you replaced the railmotor with a locomotive).

 

A railmotor/auto-coach combination seems a pretty good candidate as a steam multiple unit.

 

Yes they did, and were originally developed for that.  Steam railmotors were originally the railways' response to competition in what was then outer suburban territory from new-fangled electric tramways; the popularity for what the GW originally called 'Haltes' dates from this period.  The railmotors were often underpowered and overloaded, victims of their own success, and the later ones tended to have more powerful engine units and, because those took space from paying passengers and necessitated smaller passenger saloons, were designed to run with matching trailers, which had to have driving cabs and through control to the engine unit to retain the advantage of not having to run around at termini.  On the GW and some of the South Wales railways it absorbed in 1923, these became auto-trailers.

 

The disadvantages with a steam railmotor proved to be that even the more modern uprated designs still struggled for power, speeds were low (40mph was intended but very rarely achieved), and that when maintenance or overhaul was needed, the whole unit was out of service, coach and all.  The GW reasoned that time-served tank engines which had fully depreciated but were still capable of light service could be fitted with the control gear, were plenty powerful and quick enough, and could be used for other traffic when the auto train was not running, an auto loco for no more than the cost of the gear; 2021 class were common originally, as were 517 0-4-2s and Metro 2-4-0s.  In later years, these engines were replaced by purpose built new locos, 48/14xx, 54xx, and 64xx, plus some conversions to 4575 by BR.  The system was designed to allow for up to two trailers to be worked on each side of the locomotive, so 4 coach trains were possible with the loco sandwiched between two pairs of trailers; this was quite common on the busier commuter routes around Cardiff (including the branch of which you are a namesake, Coryton) and Plymouth, and they could easily achieve speeds and rates of acceleration suitable for pathing purposes on main lines.

Edited June 28, 2017 by The Johnster

[roythebus]

Was it Sentinel that developed the underfloor horizontal steam engine similar to the AEC underfloor bus engines? I remember seeing one on the road at a rally somewhere and it was remarkably quick off the mark. Maybe that engine could have been used for a steam multiple unit?

[Edwin_m]

Steam turbines are a far superior technology to steam reciprocating plant but even steam turbine plant isn't that efficient, particularly the sort of low pressure flexible turbines you'd probably need to use for a locomotive. Whichever way you look at it coal is a dirty fuel and the handling systems are labour and maintenance intensive compared to liquid and gaseous fuels. If you really wanted a turbine locomotive it'd make more sense to go for gas turbines which would be much lighter, potentially more powerful and these days they're pretty efficient, reliable and don't need a lot of maintenance.

Either a gas turbine or a diesel engine burns its fuel directly inside the power unit.  A steam turbine or a steam engine also needs a boiler and firebox and a store of water (or condensing gear) as well as fuel.  This applies whether the fuel is coal, oil or anything else.  So the steam option is always going to be at a disadvantage where minimising space or weight is important. 

[Coryton]

The disadvantages with a steam railmotor proved to be that even the more modern uprated designs still struggled for power, speeds were low (40mph was intended but very rarely achieved), and that when maintenance or overhaul was needed, the whole unit was out of service, coach and all.  

 

And because it was a unit, the nice bit with the seats in ended up in a steam shed overnight - not the nicest of environments for coaching stock.

 

engines were replaced by purpose built new locos, 48/14xx, 54xx, and 64xx, plus some conversions to 4575 by BR.  The system was designed to allow for up to two trailers to be worked on each side of the locomotive, so 4 coach trains were possible with the loco sandwiched between two pairs of trailers; this was quite common on the busier commuter routes around Cardiff (including the branch of which you are a namesake, Coryton) and Plymouth, and they could easily achieve speeds and rates of acceleration suitable for pathing purposes on main lines.

 

I've travelled on a working auto-train on the Dean Forest Railway - a very interesting experience. 

 

(Also in Didcot but it was just being pushed, rather than properly auto-worked).

[Zomboid]

The GW didn't have a monopoly on remote control of steam locos in the UK did they? I'm sure the Southern and LMS also had some proper push-pull trains on the same pattern, and no doubt the LNER too (never encountered one of theirs).

Or did those feature a fully crewed cab with a third person in the driving coach?

[brack]

Was it Sentinel that developed the underfloor horizontal steam engine similar to the AEC underfloor bus engines? I remember seeing one on the road at a rally somewhere and it was remarkably quick off the mark. Maybe that engine could have been used for a steam multiple unit?

Indeed, they have very high starting torque. I'm not sure how successful the big bogie sentinel locos for Colombia and Argentina were, but there was a lot of interesting thinking in them that seems to have been a far better attempt at a post Stephensonian loco than leader

[kevinlms]

By a "true multiple unit" I mean something that could couple together several power units "in multiple" and drive them with one set of controls.  This allows a multiple formation to have the same performance as a single unit and for them to be split apart and travel todifferent destinations.  The steam-electric mentioned above could have had this capability, and indeed the push-pull systems could have been adapted (but probalby still needed a fireman on the footplate!), but neither every happened as far as I known.  By the time of Leader diesel traction was taking over in the States, and although they never went in for DMUs they did have multiple working on locomotives.  

The Americans did build a fair number of Budd railcars, some of which were used as an urban service. They even produced some combination units which were effectively used to carry smaller items, especially in remote areas.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Company#Rail_diesel_car

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car

[DCB]

It was rather sad that Bullied went down the route of building new steam locos in the 1940s after the southern had spent so much time and effort on electrification.  If only the effort had been put into diesels in the 600 bhp  60 mph range for branch and secondary work to replace the miriad

0-4-4Ts and 4-4-0s.

Had that Leader / WC/ BB/ MN funding been spent wisely BR might have had a decent fleet of diesels by the mid 1960s and the WC/BB/MN gap could have easily been filled by building a batch of Black 5s at Ashford/ Brighton etc.  

[clecklewyke]

But various features really did work:

The centreless bogie design was later used on the 1co-co1 bogies

 

 

Are you referring to the Southern Railway locos which carrie BR Nos 10201 - 3?

 

These are described here as being designed by Bulleid and were certainly a success, lasting in service until 1963 when they were withdrawn, largely bcause they were non-sandard. They look to me to be diesel versions of the Leader, sharing many of the Leader's design concepts - not just the bogies - and their much of their design was eventually developed into the BR class 40 (the EE Type 4 to us preTOPS types).

 

So could the Leader have been developed successfully? Maybe it was, as the BR Class 40?

 

Ian

[Kelly]

BR had no real choice but to build more steam locos in the 50s as they had so many decrepid and worn out designs needing replacing with diesels not likely to be on stream in time to replace them, and electric was deemed too expensive in a country still struggling from the effects of the war (financially if nothing else), so whilst they didn't want to build more steam locos, they had to, and as was proven the pilot scheme became a farce, with many designs being poor or terribly unreliable (class 21,22,28 being notable) and others being found to be underpowered for what was wanted, due to not fully understanding diesel technology at the time perhaps.

 

Are you referring to the Southern Railway locos which carrie BR Nos 10201 - 3?

 

These are described here as being designed by Bulleid and were certainly a success, lasting in service until 1963 when they were withdrawn, largely bcause they were non-sandard. They look to me to be diesel versions of the Leader, sharing many of the Leader's design concepts - not just the bogies - and their much of their design was eventually developed into the BR class 40 (the EE Type 4 to us preTOPS types).

 

So could the Leader have been developed successfully? Maybe it was, as the BR Class 40?

 

Ian

 

The Class 40 was produced because EE had a tried and proven engine having had it in the 10000/1 and 10201-3, effectively being 10203 with a EE style bodyshell and some later enhancements. It was to be fair by the time it appeared iirc outdated being based in part on 40s rather than 50s technology.

[PatB]

Indeed, they have very high starting torque. I'm not sure how successful the big bogie sentinel locos for Colombia and Argentina were, but there was a lot of interesting thinking in them that seems to have been a far better attempt at a post Stephensonian loco than leader

I suspect that Sentinel's extensive experience with road steam was helpful in their railway work. The demands on a road power unit are probably closer to what is required of a shunter or branch/suburban passenger unit than those on main-line locomotives.

 

Foden, too, of course, produced some interesting and relatively advanced steam lorries at a fairly late date, leading to some entertaining speculation as to whether their engines, too, could have been used successfully in rail applications had Foden been so inclined.