Fowler 4F, really a poor loco?

[LMS2968]

The Midland did not have a small engine policy! This is enthusiasts tosh! The 4F was larger than many other companies 0-6-0 designs and the Compound was very much a medium sized engine well into the 1940s having a heating area comparable with the Stanier mogul for example.

I don't think so. One of the problems George Hughes had when designing the Horwich Crabs was that his deputy, Henry Fowler, insisted that the new boiler specifically designed for it be exchanged for the Compound boiler. Hughes resisted this was retained on the grounds that the Compound's heating surface and steam raising capacity were insufficient. Once he retired, Fowler again tried to force the Compound boiler on to the design, but things were fortunately far too advanced by that stage.

 

The dimensions between the Compound and Stanier Crabs are as below:

 

Barrel Diameter 4’ 7-7/8” 5’ 0” - 5’ 8-3/8”

Barrel Length 11’ 11” 11’ 10-1/16”

Grate Area 26.0 sq.ft 27.8 sq.ft

Firebox heating surface 47.3 sq.ft 155 sq.ft

Tubes 1169.7sq.ft 1216 sq.ft

Superheater 290.7 sq.ft 224 sq.ft

 

Apart from barrel length and superheater, the Stanier boiler is noticeably bigger. You will sometimes see the Compound grate area quoted as 28.4 sq.ft. This is measured following the slope of the forward part; the dimensions quoted are from the plan view without taking the slope into account.

[LMS2968]

At the time of which I was speaking, around the turn of the century, Crewe was turning out Webb's 4-cylinder compounds of the Jubilee and Alfred the Great classes - 40 of each. Put these alongside the contemporary Johnson Belpaires (also 80 in number). It would be unfair to draw a comparison with the Compounds.

 

Go back just another ten years and compare Webb's minuscule 2-4-0s with Johnson's 4-4-0s...

 

And anyway, who could possibly object to the sight of two such perky little engines at the head of a train?

 

Glad to be providing entertainment!

Frank Webb's engines were always small: he believed that an engine was at its most efficient when working flat out, so they were designed to just do the required work. This fell apart when the next year the Traffic people increased the load or reduced the timing, and it really fell down about the turn of the century when much heavier corridor stock was introduced, which neither the engines nor Frank himself could cope with. So Whale provided the far larger Precursors and Experiments.

[Argos]

At the time of which I was speaking, around the turn of the century, Crewe was turning out Webb's 4-cylinder compounds of the Jubilee and Alfred the Great classes - 40 of each. Put these alongside the contemporary Johnson Belpaires (also 80 in number). It would be unfair to draw a comparison with the Compounds.

 

Go back just another ten years and compare Webb's minuscule 2-4-0s with Johnson's 4-4-0s...

 

And anyway, who could possibly object to the sight of two such perky little engines at the head of a train?

 

Glad to be providing entertainment!

 

Go on then I'll bite...

 

Your comparisons are very selective Compound.

I wouldn't describe the 2-2-2-0 Teutonic Compounds with 7' driving wheels outshopped by Crewe in 1889 & 1890 as "miniscule".

By 1891 Crewe were producing the 2-2-2-2 Great Britain class, not successful I grant you, but in no way could be described as small!

 

If we look forward another year the first of 0-8-0 goods tender engines are produced precipitating the change to 4-6-0 tender engines for mixed traffic and 0-8-0s for freight work and ending the production of 0-6-0 tender engines completely (last one built in 1902).

 

That said I'd gladly like to see a Webb Jumbo piloted by a Rebuilt Ramsbottom lady thrashing away up the WCML or a pair of Midland Compounds working hard on the Settle & Carlisle.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Argos

[coachmann]

At the time of which I was speaking, around the turn of the century, Crewe was turning out Webb's 4-cylinder compounds of the Jubilee and Alfred the Great classes - 40 of each. Put these alongside the contemporary Johnson Belpaires (also 80 in number). It would be unfair to draw a comparison with the Compounds.

 

Go back just another ten years and compare Webb's minuscule 2-4-0s with Johnson's 4-4-0s...

 

And anyway, who could possibly object to the sight of two such perky little engines at the head of a train?

 

Glad to be providing entertainment!

Sorry, you can't backtrack now. Here is what you said:- 

 

the LNWR was making extensive use of double heading from the 1890s through to grouping.

[Compound2632]

I stand by that statement. My particular illustration of a pair of Jumbos was intended to illustrate the situation in the 1890s - though the photo might be from a little later. Here's a pair of Claughtons.

[LMS2968]

There were many reasons why a particular train might be double headed, one was to simply work one of them home on an unbalanced working without using a path for a light engine movement.

[Compound2632]

Go on then I'll bite...

 

Your comparisons are very selective Compound.

I wouldn't describe the 2-2-2-0 Teutonic Compounds with 7' driving wheels outshopped by Crewe in 1889 & 1890 as "miniscule".

By 1891 Crewe were producing the 2-2-2-2 Great Britain class, not successful I grant you, but in no way could be described as small!

 

If we look forward another year the first of 0-8-0 goods tender engines are produced precipitating the change to 4-6-0 tender engines for mixed traffic and 0-8-0s for freight work and ending the production of 0-6-0 tender engines completely (last one built in 1902).

 

That said I'd gladly like to see a Webb Jumbo piloted by a Rebuilt Ramsbottom lady thrashing away up the WCML or a pair of Midland Compounds working hard on the Settle & Carlisle.

 

Most 6-wheeled LNWR engines - 0-6-0s and 2-4-0s - were small compared to their Midland counterparts - 7'3" + 8'3" or 7'5" + 8'3" wheelbase vs 8'0" + 8'6" wheelbase, etc. - but of similar size to contemporary 6-wheeled engines on other lines. The 2-2-2-0 compounds were certainly bigger engines which, excusing Webb's preference for radial axles and reluctance to provide coupling rods, should be compared with contemporary 4-4-0s and I will admit that when the Teutonics came out they were bigger than Johnson's contemporary 4-4-0s - it wasn't until the 60 Class of 1898 that Derby produced an engine with the same 9'6" "coupled" wheelbase, 20.5 sq ft grate area &c. dimensions - both classes weighing in at 45 tons. The 2-2-2-2s, for all their alleged deficiencies, ought really to be considered as the first British Atlantics, and I give you the eight-coupled goods engines. Frankly, I adore Webb's 3-cylinder compounds. But at the end, Johnson was able to make a decisive move forward with the Belpaires and Compounds in a way that Webb didn't quite manage with his 4-cylinder compounds. (Engines which I find rather ugly.)

 

Johnson was four-and-a-half years Webb's senior but Webb reached his final position, as locomotive superintendent at Crewe, three years before Johnson took up the corresponding post at Derby. They retired within a few months of each other. For three decades they were in charge of the locomotive departments of the two largest British railway companies. They make a fascinating comparison: both willing to experiment, though perhaps the results of Johnson's experiments were the more enduring. I have the impression of Webb as a rather lonely figure - he never married - whereas Johnson seems to have had the knack of building enduring friendships within the locomotive engineering profession. He'd moved around more in his early days, Stroudley and Dugald Drummond worked for him at Cowlairs in the 1860s. His son, James (briefly of the GNoS), married Drummond's daughter Christine; they named their son Dugald Samuel Waite Johnson, which suggests to me that both his grandparents were held in respect and affection.

 

One could draw up a "family tree" of 19th century locomotive superintendents, showing how their careers were intertwined.

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

One could draw up a "family tree" of 19th century locomotive superintendents, showing how their careers were intertwined.

And continue it right up to Nationalisation, family connections as well.

 

Vincent Raven ------- Edward Thompson (son-in-law)

H A Ivatt ----  OVS Bulleid (son-in-law)

[brack]

"One could draw up a "family tree" of 19th century locomotive superintendents, showing how their careers were intertwined."

 

Don't want to go too far off topic but I was reading through the biographies of CMEs on LNER.info the other day and a surprising percentage were intermarried to suitable daughters. Being CME pre grouping seemed very much like a family affair!

[kevinlms]

A glance at the small firebox on a Dean Goods is enough to tell me I would be shoveling coal all shift. This is what happened on the L&Y A Class 0-6-0's if asked to do a road job instead of pilot work. On a 4F, I only threw a couple of shovel fulls down each side the box. It wasn't my engine and so I don't know what the fireman thought of the machine. I'll bet the men at Lees would have been glad of half a dozen 4F's in place of the A class once they got used to them. The shed had Fowler 2-6-2T's and 7F 0-8-0's. I mean things couldn't have gotten any worse, but it was an LNWR outpost in L&Y territory and the men stubbornly refused to admit they had crap.

A lot of truth there.

But if a loco crew had been given a loco that was truly superior, they would surely have acknowledged it. An example being, Fowler/Stanier/Ivatt 2-6-4T's for passenger service, as opposed to various 2-4-2T's of old, LNWR & L&Y.

[The Johnster]

The 2 railways regarded having more than one engine at the front of a train in a different way, though (perhaps this is semantics, but it betrays an attitude).  The Midland double headed, and the LNW piloted, often with older locos that were not up to modern work on their own but were still usefully employed.

[Stanley Melrose]

Every time these debates go on for a bit I find myself wondering just how much designing the various CMEs actually did.  I've no doubt they had discussions with their chief draughtsmen, giving them general directions but the thought of any of them actually sitting in front of a drawing board seems to me highly dubious.  Whether Fowler was a chief scout, a gas engineer or a CME is probably irrelevant, there were draughtsmen in the drawing offices doing the day-to-day design work and all the CME did was sign the drawings before the designs went off to the various shops for manufacture.  At least Coleman gets credit for the Princess Coronations because Stanier wasn't even in the country when "his" masterpiece was designed.

 

Stan

[kevinlms]

The 2 railways regarded having more than one engine at the front of a train in a different way, though (perhaps this is semantics, but it betrays an attitude).  The Midland double headed, and the LNW piloted, often with older locos that were not up to modern work on their own but were still usefully employed.

Both railways put assisting locos on the front, whereas the GWR almost always, put the train loco in front and the assisting loco behind it. 

 

There exists photos of the MML, during WW1 of coal trains being assisted by 4-2-2 singles.

[Compound2632]

the LNW piloted, often with older locos that were not up to modern work on their own but were still usefully employed.

 

But still had to pull and run, as the Jumbos certainly could. I suspect "piloting" started out as a euphemism in the days when a Greater Britain needed a Precedent in front to move anything...

 

Actually, I have a lot of doubt about the reports of such double heading where observers claimed that the 2-4-0 was doing all the work. There's no doubt that the Teutonics were superb engines so I can't see that the 2-2-2-2s can have been really so very bad - surely their major defect was the over-elongated boiler affecting steam production? Because the compounds exhaused steam from the single low pressure cylinder twice per revolution of the driving wheels, they would have had a softer exhaust than the two-cylinder simple, exhausting steam at a higher pressure four times per revolution. 

 

Sorry this has wandered off from the topic of the 4F, largely as a result of my teasing certain Wessy and Lanky enthusiasts.

[bike2steam]

Over the years there have been some interesting biographies on CME's from Oakwood Press.

[Compound2632]

Both railways put assisting locos on the front, whereas the GWR almost always, put the train loco in front and the assisting loco behind it. 

 

There exists photos of the MML, during WW1 of coal trains being assisted by 4-2-2 singles.

 

The North British followed the same policy - putting the more experienced driver, whose regular turn the working was, in the better position to see the road ahead.

 

As to singles double-heading coal trains during the Great War, that's efficient use of scarce resources. The singles were unsuitable for wartime passenger work - they were built for light, fast expresses, not the heavy trains at reduced schedules that came into force by 1917. The Midland had loaned 81 Kirtley outside-framed 0-6-0s to the RoD in 1917 so the 95 otherwise under-used singles had to take their place. With the adhesion of a 0-6-0 to get the train underway, the single could contribute at least as much power to keep it moving - and stop it - as could the 0-6-0 it replaced. 

[bike2steam]

Getting back on topic, as the long-term memory just kicked in, I can remember some Bescot crews used to refer to the 'standard' 4F as 'Duck-6's', on account of their tendency to 'waddle' when the wheel bearings were showing bad signs of wearing, the same reason as the LNWR Super-D's were referred to as 'Duck-8's'. 

[John_Miles]

For LMS2698, the information I have on lubricating oils is in Adrian Tester's book. It covers pages 151 - 161 so a lot of information to post here. He gives references as well. If you send me an email address, I'll scan what he has written and send it to you.

[John_Miles]

Getting back on topic, as the long-term memory just kicked in, I can remember some Bescot crews used to refer to the 'standard' 4F as 'Duck-6's', on account of their tendency to 'waddle' when the wheel bearings were showing bad signs of wearing, the same reason as the LNWR Super-D's were referred to as 'Duck-8's'. 

 

Duck 6 is a general Midland's (not Midland Railway) term for any 0-6-0. See the latest Backtrack for confirmation of this.

Edited August 29, 2018 by John_Miles

[LMS2968]

Duck 6 is a general Midland's (not Midland Railway) term for any 0-6-0. See the latest Backtrack for confirmation of this.

Thanks, much appreciated.

[Compound2632]

Duck 6 is a general Midland's (not Midland Railway) term for any 0-6-0. See the latest Backtrack for confirmation of this.

 

"I'm usually called 'Duck'. They say I waddle" - Duck Takes Charge. Awdry was living in Kings Norton when he first started writing the Railway Series.