Politics of express passenger loco building in WW2?

[OnTheBranchline]

I'm just curious on how Bulleid was able to get away with building the Merchant Navy class (which for all intents and purposes and subsequent use was an express passenger design) but when the GWR applied to have another go at building another Pacific, they were told no?

[The Johnster]

Oh, this one's gonna run and run...

 

Bullied argued that the smaller than usual driving wheel size, 6'2", despite having been used on the GW's express King class in order to accommodate the boiler, denoted a mixed traffic loco and indeed the Riddles standard Britannia, Clan, and 5MT were also regarded as mixed traffic engines with the same driving wheel diameter.  The pacific wheel arrangement was intended to solve some route availability issues and enable a large enough firebox to supply the big boiler.  All-welded construction also met austerity costings and the promise of no hammer blow from the chain driven valve gear helped the 'sell'.

 

Hawksworth was apparently particularly unimpressed with this...

[JimC]

 when the GWR applied to have another go at building another Pacific, they were told no?

 

They didn't. Hawksworth never wanted to build a pacific. What seems to have happened is that the staff in the drawing office sketched out some ideas on their own account, and when Hawksworth found out he put a halt to it. Its ironic that 20 odd years before Hawksworth and Stanier had done some similar work on an idea for a compound version of a Castle, but when the took it to Collett he put a stop to it!

 

I've heard it said that the main problem Bulleid had with the Merchant Navy was his workforce refusing to build anything which wasn't for the war effort. I don't know how much truth there is in that though.

Edited December 4, 2017 by JimC

[PenrithBeacon]

Post war the Merchants were considered 8P by BR but they were also 6F for fast freight. And the passenger services were pretty well run at fast freight speeds. The WCs were 7P5F so could be thought of as mixed traffic engines

 

I would doubt if the GW passenger classes with their larger drivers would be well thought of in WW2

Regards

[brack]

Bulleid originally asked for 150 leaders, arguing that he'd helped the war effort enough already with his design for a 0-6-0 goods loco so hideous no axis spy would dare risk their expensive camera lenses photographing traffic they hauled, nor would it be recognisable as a steam loco to any marauding Luftwaffe pilots. so when he was negotiated back to 140 dodgy pacifics the authorities figured they'd dodged a bullet and were so relieved they just signed the forms to get him out of the office.

 

(The official version of events is a post war cover up I'm afraid, the above information was pieced together from several highly redacted files only released in the past few years).

[Dunsignalling]

Oh, this one's gonna run and run...

 

Bullied argued that the smaller than usual driving wheel size, 6'2", despite having been used on the GW's express King class in order to accommodate the boiler, denoted a mixed traffic loco and indeed the Riddles standard Britannia, Clan, and 5MT were also regarded as mixed traffic engines with the same driving wheel diameter.  The pacific wheel arrangement was intended to solve some route availability issues and enable a large enough firebox to supply the big boiler.  All-welded construction also met austerity costings and the promise of no hammer blow from the chain driven valve gear helped the 'sell'.

 

Hawksworth was apparently particularly unimpressed with this...

The wheels on Kings were 6' 6", reduced from the 6' 8.5" usual on GWR express passenger locos.

 

The official reason was to keep the loco inside the loading gauge but it coincidentally fiddled the tractive effort to just over the magic 40,000 lb. as required for bragging rights.

 

John  

[The Johnster]

You are correct, and I stand thus corrected.  

 

The tractive effort nonsense was a response to the Southern's Lord Nelsons, arguably a better loco and certainly more generally useful, and involved playing around with boiler pressures as well.

 

Kings were reckoned to be 3 coaches better than Castles or Britannias at Canton during their brief period there, the loco the shed had wanted for 30-odd years, but not as fast as a Castle provided the Castle wasn't overloaded (on South Wales expresses, they usually were).  The Brits were reckoned as 'strong engines' and as fast as a Castle (though rougher, pacific or not) despite the mixed traffic driving wheels; this is not an opinion shared by other WR sheds.  I cannot remember ever seeing a Brit on a freight job at Canton, though they did good work on North to West line parcels trains, and the shed used 'Evening Star' on express work until officialdom pulled the plug, apparently on the basis that it was green with shiny bits; the 5 foot wheels were no deterrent!

 

In the later years of steam operation, improved lubrication and bearing materials enabled higher piston speeds and the need for large driving wheels was lessened on fast work; indeed, post war, the need for fast work was arguably lessened for about 2 decades.  Hammer blow became much more of an issue on 2 cylinder locos designed for simplicity of maintenance with outside Walchearts.

[JimC]

The wheels on Kings were 6' 6", reduced from the 6' 8.5" usual on GWR express passenger locos.

 

The official reason was to keep the loco inside the loading gauge but it coincidentally fiddled the tractive effort to just over the magic 40,000 lb. as required for bragging rights.

 

John  

 

I'm not at all sure about either of those often told stories.

 

The Great Bear boiler was built with the same flanging plates and had the same diameters as the King boiler, yet had 6ft 8.5 wheels, so it seems unlikely that the loading gauge was the problem. The 'Bear's boiler was pitched at 9ft 0in, and the King boiler at 8ft 11.25, as was the 4700 boiler (also the same diameters). 

 

Cook (GWR works head under Collett, later WR CME) says that the driving wheel size change was decided very early in the design process for the King - they piloted it on a Castle with tyres turned down to just under scrapping thickness.

He states that the TE was pushed to over 40,000 at Sir Felix Pole's request, but that this was done by boring the cylinders out 1/4 of an inch - effectively to first rebore. There's a strong suspicion that not every set of new King cylinders were taken out the last 1/4 of an inch - maybe even just the first set or first few. Reduced driving wheel size of express locomotives was of course a general trend from the late 19th C on.  

 

Naturally in service all cylinders would have been out to beyond 16.25 sooner or later, and all driving wheels would have been turned down to below 6ft 6in. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by JimC

[Bernard Lamb]

I'm just curious on how Bulleid was able to get away with building the Merchant Navy class (which for all intents and purposes and subsequent use was an express passenger design) but when the GWR applied to have another go at building another Pacific, they were told no?

Because he was a genius.

A brilliant innovative engineer who was also able to get one over on the politicians of his day. 

At times my imagination runs riot and I have a strange idea of what he would have achieved if he had been put in charge of Skoda in 1945.

Bernard

[woodenhead]

Because he was a genius.

A brilliant innovative engineer who was also able to get one over on the politicians of his day. 

At times my imagination runs riot and I have a strange idea of what he would have achieved if he had been put in charge of Skoda in 1945.

Bernard

Peat burning cars with a chain driven engine in an air smoothed casing or a Lada.

[LMS2968]

Peat burning cars with a chain driven engine in an air smoothed casing or a Lada.

Having in my time been a mechanic at both a Skoda and Lada dealers, the Lada was a definite improvement!

[phil gollin]

.

 

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/00001-d-salmon-35008-Bournemouth-25-07-66.jpg

 

Rebuilt Merchant Navy Class 35008 'Orient Line' shunts a container wagon from the London end of Bournemouth station 25th July 1966

 

From the David Heys collection

 

(I've also seen photos of an A4 shunting.)

 

.

[slilley]

Dont forget in all of this that the first batch of MNs were ordered and work had already start well before WW2 broke out.

 

Work was also started and stopped and restarted on other Southern locomotive types such as CC1 and CC2.

 

Regards

 

Simon

[Nearholmer]

Worth noting that the minister or war Transport in post by the time MN rolledout was a fully signed-up model railway enthusiast, who got given the regulator for the first few hundred yards. Hoe could he say “ no” to more after that?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Bulleid argued that the smaller than usual driving wheel size, 6'2"... denoted a mixed traffic loco...

But did he have to argue that as such? Don't forget he had come from Doncaster, where it had already been demonstrated in the V2 that 6'2" drivers were the correct choice for the fast mixed traffic loco: and the LNER would go on building said V2 in the quantity of 108 during the war years, along with four all new 6'2" pacifics. That's 112 new wide firebox 90mph+ capable locos built during the war, when 4'8" 2-8-0s were supposedly the right choice.

[Bernard Lamb]

Peat burning cars with a chain driven engine in an air smoothed casing or a Lada.

You must have seen the Sentinel lorries that they produced under license.

Bernard

[OnTheBranchline]

On 03/12/2017 at 16:08, The Johnster said:

Oh, this one's gonna run and run...

 

Bullied argued that the smaller than usual driving wheel size, 6'2", despite having been used on the GW's express King class in order to accommodate the boiler, denoted a mixed traffic loco and indeed the Riddles standard Britannia, Clan, and 5MT were also regarded as mixed traffic engines with the same driving wheel diameter.  The pacific wheel arrangement was intended to solve some route availability issues and enable a large enough firebox to supply the big boiler.  All-welded construction also met austerity costings and the promise of no hammer blow from the chain driven valve gear helped the 'sell'.

 

Hawksworth was apparently particularly unimpressed with this...

 

So the Kings were a mixed traffic loco? Got it

[2251]

On 04/12/2017 at 14:45, JimC said:

 

I'm not at all sure about either of those often told stories.

 

The Great Bear boiler was built with the same flanging plates and had the same diameters as the King boiler, yet had 6ft 8.5 wheels, so it seems unlikely that the loading gauge was the problem. The 'Bear's boiler was pitched at 9ft 0in, and the King boiler at 8ft 11.25, as was the 4700 boiler (also the same diameters). 

 

Cook (GWR works head under Collett, later WR CME) says that the driving wheel size change was decided very early in the design process for the King - they piloted it on a Castle with tyres turned down to just under scrapping thickness.

He states that the TE was pushed to over 40,000 at Sir Felix Pole's request, but that this was done by boring the cylinders out 1/4 of an inch - effectively to first rebore. There's a strong suspicion that not every set of new King cylinders were taken out the last 1/4 of an inch - maybe even just the first set or first few. Reduced driving wheel size of express locomotives was of course a general trend from the late 19th C on.  

 

Naturally in service all cylinders would have been out to beyond 16.25 sooner or later, and all driving wheels would have been turned down to below 6ft 6in. 

 

We had this topic some time ago. To avoid, repetition, here is the link:

 

 

[The Johnster]

I was mistaken and corrected; the King driving wheel diameter was 6’6”, and nobody ever claimed they were mixed traffic locos.  The Bulleid MNs had 6’2” drivers and were claimed by Bulleid to be for mixed traffic, allegedly to gain permission from the Ministry of Supply to get them build in wartime.  Thompson also had 6’2” pacifics built during the war, but nobody seems to have questioned this from the war production perspective.  Apparently, Hawksworth tried to get a pacific with 6’3” drivers built in the war but the MoS vetoed it as they considered it an express loco, and he was, it is said, miffed when Bulleid got the go ahead.  
 

I have never seen these theories officially confirmed anywhere, and will retain my view of both the shennanigans and the actual and potential qualities of those locos built or not built; it is in any case a well trodden path and I doubt my opinions on the matters would add anything new to the mix.  
 

Hawksworth’s war built Counties had 6’3” drivers, and were power classed as 6MT by BR, despite being banned from loose coupled freight work because of excessive piston surge.   BR considered their Britannia, Clan, and standard 5MT locos to be mixed traffic in purpose, and all had 6’2” driving wheels.  So did ‘Duke of Gloucester, but that was an 8P, as it was a replacement for the written off ‘Princess Anne’, but this must mean that either the small driving wheels or the 8P classification (or both) are anomalous.   Could the loco have been a unique 8MT?

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Hawksworth’s war built Counties had 6’3” drivers, and were power classed as 6MT by BR, despite being banned from loose coupled freight work because of excessive piston surge.   BR considered their Britannia, Clan, and standard 5MT locos to be mixed traffic in purpose, and all had 6’2” driving wheels.  So did ‘Duke of Gloucester, but that was an 8P, as it was a replacement for the written off ‘Princess Anne’, but this must mean that either the small driving wheels or the 8P classification (or both) are anomalous.   Could the loco have been a unique 8MT?

So why did the WR issue loads for them on such trains as early as 1949 and as late as 1959?  Surely if they were banned there wouldn't have been any loads quoted?

[Michael Hodgson]

On 03/12/2017 at 21:08, The Johnster said:

Oh, this one's gonna run and run...

 

Yep, it's not gone away yet.

[KeithMacdonald]

On 04/12/2017 at 15:46, woodenhead said:

Peat burning cars with a chain driven engine in an air smoothed casing or a Lada.

 

Here's one we prepared earlier:-

 

 

[Andy Kirkham]

28 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Here's one we prepared earlier:-

 

 

 

Its builder Frank Rothwell is a remarkable man; he rowed solo across the Atlantic at the age of 70.

 

He gained his wealth by renting out portable sleeping accommodation.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/bear-grylls-frank-rothwell-glastonbury--13219189

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

He gained his wealth by renting out portable sleeping accommodation.

And, apparently, saving on transatlantic air fares...

[Bomag]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

  BR considered their Britannia, Clan, and standard 5MT locos to be mixed traffic in purpose, and all had 6’2” driving wheels.  So did ‘Duke of Gloucester, but that was an 8P, as it was a replacement for the written off ‘Princess Anne’, but this must mean that either the small driving wheels or the 8P classification (or both) are anomalous.   Could the loco have been a unique 8MT?

 

DOG was less powerful than LNER Peppercorn A2 by about 1k lbf and the A2 was 8P7F so DOG would not have been 8MT (however, the power thresholds did change)