Imaginary Locomotives

[Compound2632]

Yes but all these were larger classes that were all or mostly all reboilered as boilers fell due - in the case of the A2s only one was reboilered. I suppose at the time such powerful engines were few in number and needed to keep the traffic moving economically. Fitting an A1 boiler to an A2 must have been cheaper than building a new A1.

[Gibbo675]

3 hours ago, runs as required said:

Who do RMwebbers recommend as reliable commentators on contemporary railway engineering ?

 

Other recommendations please?

dh

 

35 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

If you want an experienced engineer as author prepared to tell you 'how it was' then D.W. 'Bill' Harvey is your man.

 

Hi Chaps,

 

A little know author is Edgar J Larkin, who wrote Memoirs of a Locomotive Engineer, he goes into fair detail about the operation of the works and the training and organisation of the men along with descriptions of the processes that were undertaken bye which locomotives were developed and improved.

 

As for Mr Hardy, I spoke with him upon various subjects locomotive wise in the past and his views were most objective and based upon his own practical experience and observations which he described both at length and in detail. His knowledge of Bulleid pacifics was most helpful to myself in the rebuilding of 34067 quite some years back.

 

Gibbo.

[Michael Edge]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

That sounds like a not especially cost effective/engineeringly sound solution.

As there already existed all the blueprints & jigs etc., producing a new A2 boiler would have been fairly straightforward, whereas all the mods needed to fit an alien boiler in the frames needed to be drawn up, pipe runs re-evaluated etc.

You then end up with one non standard loco in a small class, unless HNG did intend that maybe all would receive an A1 boiler as they needed re-boilering at some time in the future.

 

That the A2s actually lasted 12-13 years suggests they were still an asset to the company for some years.

The alterations to fit what was a standard boiler probably weren't that difficult and the locos were required in traffic, creating spare boilers in this way wasn't unusual. Building another boiler to what was seen as an inferior design would have seemed a retrograde step.

[Traintresta]

Plus there would have been plenty of room on that huge frame of the Raven pacific.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Look, too, at what Churchward and Collett both did after grouping.    How many Welsh locos received No. 2s?

Churchward retired before the grouping and the work was all signed off by Collett.  Swindon standard no.2 boilers found their way on to several Rhymney and Barry types, and Collett’s 1926 56xx class can be regarded as a vacuum fitted Rhymney R built out of Swindon parts.   Some TV locos were given No.3 boilers (44xx, 45xx, 4575) and Collett designed a new short  No.10 Standard for the smaller TV locos; this was later used on his 2251 class and Hawksworth’s 94xx and 15xx.  This boiler was a particular success on the most recent TVR design, the A class passenger tank.  IIRC the Barry 0-8-4s got no.4s. 

Edited May 31, 2019 by The Johnster

[AlfaZagato]

Still, the point being, fitting an alternate boiler is not too involved to deter updating what were supposedly inferior locomotives into standard practice.

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

Still, the point being, fitting an alternate boiler is not too involved to deter updating what were supposedly inferior locomotives into standard practice.

If we’re talking about the Raven Pacific’s I can’t actually tell if they were inferior. They supposedly were indifferent steamers but the results of the trials against the A1’s beg to differ. 

[The Johnster]

I don't know much about the Raven pacifics but they were kept in service until new boilers needed to be built, and one was given an A1 boiler, which suggests that Gresley thought well enough of them to keep them in service until major work was needed,  By that time the game had changed and the standard pacific was the A3, some of which were A1 rebuilds to the new specification, so one could say that both the Ravens and the A1s had had their day by then; it wasn't long before the A4s were on the scene, and that more or less took care of the top jobs until the arrival of the Deltics.

 

There really wasn't any work for cascaded A1s or Ravens either; Atlantics from both the GN and the NER with smaller fireboxes and boilers were still capable of running and timing such trains more economically.  Eventually, Thompson and Peppercorn between them provided the ECML with enough new pacifics to withdraw the Atlantics and start cascading A3s; both the Gresley A1s and the Raven A2s were as the snows of yesteryear by then!

 

The NER were used to running pretty fast south of Darlington, and I have never heard that the Raven pacifics failed to maintain the tradition.  Gresley would, as a pragmatist, have no doubt improved them and maybe allowed Darlington to build more for the section had they been superior to his own locos, but this does not mean that they were in any way inferior.

[Compound2632]

I dare say money came into the question in a big way - the LNER was the least able to invest of the big four and a handful of pacifics that were on top of their work was not to be sneezed at.

[rockershovel]

13 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Still, the point being, fitting an alternate boiler is not too involved to deter updating what were supposedly inferior locomotives into standard practice.

 

Given how common the practice was, it must have been well understood by those who executed it, and offered realistic expectation of some defined return to those who authorised it? 

[melmerby]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Churchward retired before the grouping and the work was all signed off by Collett.  Swindon standard no.2 boilers found their way on to several Rhymney and Barry types, and Collett’s 1926 56xx class can be regarded as a vacuum fitted Rhymney R built out of Swindon parts.   Some TV locos were given No.3 boilers (44xx, 45xx, 4575) and Collett designed a new short  No.10 Standard for the smaller TV locos; this was later used on his 2251 class and Hawksworth’s 94xx and 15xx.  This boiler was a particular success on the most recent TVR design, the A class passenger tank.  IIRC the Barry 0-8-4s got no.4s. 

I think the GWR's re-boilering of South Wales locos is in a different league. Many of these locos were destined to have long lives, unlike Raven's Pacifics.

e.g. The TV "A" Class mentioned, were re-boilered at about age 10 and weren't withdrawn for another 25-30 years, the last going in 1957.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

While we are on the tack of rebuilds, how about charging Mr Stanier with making the Lickey banker and Beyer-Garratts into the machines they ought to have been?

 

12 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The NER were used to running pretty fast south of Darlington, and I have never heard that the Raven pacifics failed to maintain the tradition.  Gresley would, as a pragmatist, have no doubt improved them and maybe allowed Darlington to build more for the section had they been superior to his own locos, but this does not mean that they were in any way inferior.

Of the time they were introduced they were adequate to the task. The primary limitation was that they had none of the development potential of the Doncaster design, which spawned the most numerous series of wide firebox locos operated in the UK.

 

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I think the GWR's re-boilering of South Wales locos is in a different league. Many of these locos were destined to have long lives, unlike Raven's Pacifics...

But had the Doncaster boiler produced a real improvement in performance it probably would have been proceeded with across the class. (There's ample precedent in the long service lives of other pre-group designs improved with Doncaster boilers, the list commencing B12, B16, I posted up thread.) The major limitations of the Raven pacific were in the engine and frame layout: that proven, they were going to the scrapper as beyond economic improvement, just the tenders redeployed.

[The Johnster]

I think the game changed in about 1930, both in developmental and monetary terms.  The LNER was not exactly awash with cash to start with and the depression hit it hard, especially in the NER's erstwhile territory, despite which it proceeded to successfully develop Gresley's big boilered locos with wide Wooton fireboxes, themselves rooted in the Pennsy K4s.  Gresley was developing UK steam while the Raven pacifics were built to a pattern that was rapidly becoming outdated; they were not up to the standard of the A3s, which had proved themselves north of York by this time.  So they went the way of the Gresley A1s, outclassed by more capable machines.

 

The only future for them might have been reboilering with A3 boilers, but they were not considered suitable; Wikipedia comments that the A1 (and hence the A3) was a more 'technically advanced' design, whatever that means; I suspect it means the cylinder layout and the conjugated valve gear.  

[brack]

The raven Pacific is clearly a stretched Atlantic in concept and by all accounts a bit of a rushed job, keeping the front end of the c7, hence its limited potential for further development. The A1 was designed from a fresh start (after gresley had sketched up his own stretched version of the gnr atlantics and realised it was going nowhere), following careful observation of the Pennsy K4, but reduced to fit our loading gauge (which was descended from a much bigger Atlantic, the E6, but was pretty much the most modern Pacific loco in the world engineering press). Raven can be excused for perhaps not keeping his eye on the latest Express steam developments as he was more interested in his other Express loco, which was somewhat superior technologically to what gresley and everyone else in the country was doing.

 

What is also worth noting is that the A2 was a couple of feet longer than the A1 - I wonder if this affected things in terms of riding and track wear at speed?

 

[runs as required]

Did simmering resentments come into this in any way in the LNER (as they clearly did in the LMS) ?

We read about it after Thompson's succession following the death of Gresley, but did it linger in works other than Darlington?

Gresley was notable in continuing building and developing classes in other pre-Grouping constituents.

dh

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

All this talk of plonking new types of different boilers onto older frame sets is not quite as easy as it sounds, for instance there are certain types of LMS Black Five boiler and frame combinations that will not fit. The other aspect is that draughting arrangements would have to be sorted out in that cylinder volume, exhaust arrangements and chimney dimensions would have to be adjusted. I have replaced boiler back onto the frame sets that were removed from in the first place and found it to be quite tricky at times !

 

With respect to new and altered designs it was the CME's job to find and supply the most cost effective methods of hauling trains by efficient and reliable means. In the case of the reboilering of the Raven pacifics with Gresley boilers it may well have been an exercise in shewing that such a course of action was waste of time, effort and money to placate the bean counters that would not allow relatively new locomotives to be scrapped before such time as the initial capital investment in building them in the first place was fully depreciated.

 

Had grouping not taken place the Raven pacifics may well have been rather more successful in that they would not have been subject to such financial scrutiny in that they would not have been set against a better, newer and more numerous class of locomotive ostensibly designed for the same task. Just the organisation, production and allocation of spare parts for one class of locomotive is a considerable task made more complicated when several types of locomotive are considered each with their own non standard parts expands what is required for day to day running. You only have to think of fire bars, brake blocks and springs to see how the range of spares required expands enormously when minor classes of locomotive are kept on.

 

Take the situation on the LMS in the 1920's, it was chaotic in that they had over 10300 locomotives of over 400 types, not forgetting that there would be sub-classes within that number. The solution was to utilise Midland locomotives for new build, not because they were ostensibly better but that the Midland had the greatest range of standard parts over the range of classes of locomotive that they operated.  This continued until Stanier's arrival that eventually delivered a new range of standard locomotives with standard parts to more modern and updated designs.

 

As with so many things in life, not just upon the railways, money seems to have far too much sway in how things are rather than the physical reality of the undertaking or operation of anything that you may care to mention whether or not an item is any good or not.

 

Gibbo.

[PhilJ W]

Gresley didn't really have much choice other than to continue other pre-grouping designs firstly because the money was not available and secondly because there were several very good designs. The Raven pacifics were not a bad design overall but being only a small none standard class early withdrawal was perhaps inevitable. Also some of the constituent companies as has been stated had excellent designs suitable for development such as the GER B12.

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

While we are on the tack of rebuilds, how about charging Mr Stanier with making the Lickey banker and Beyer-Garratts into the machines they ought to have been?

 

Of the time they were introduced they were adequate to the task. The primary limitation was that they had none of the development potential of the Doncaster design, which spawned the most numerous series of wide firebox locos operated in the UK.

 

But had the Doncaster boiler produced a real improvement in performance it probably would have been proceeded with across the class. (There's ample precedent in the long service lives of other pre-group designs improved with Doncaster boilers, the list commencing B12, B16, I posted up thread.) The major limitations of the Raven pacific were in the engine and frame layout: that proven, they were going to the scrapper as beyond economic improvement, just the tenders redeployed.

There was a scheme to completely rebuild the A2’s as A3’s but this cake to bought. Whether it was finances or need I’m not sure but there would have been little of the A2 left. So it would seem they were considered of value and although they were indifferent steamers, their long careers would suggest they weren’t in need of re-building to do what they did. 

 

1 hour ago, brack said:

The raven Pacific is clearly a stretched Atlantic in concept and by all accounts a bit of a rushed job, keeping the front end of the c7, hence its limited potential for further development. The A1 was designed from a fresh start (after gresley had sketched up his own stretched version of the gnr atlantics and realised it was going nowhere), following careful observation of the Pennsy K4, but reduced to fit our loading gauge (which was descended from a much bigger Atlantic, the E6, but was pretty much the most modern Pacific loco in the world engineering press). Raven can be excused for perhaps not keeping his eye on the latest Express steam developments as he was more interested in his other Express loco, which was somewhat superior technologically to what gresley and everyone else in the country was doing.

 

What is also worth noting is that the A2 was a couple of feet longer than the A1 - I wonder if this affected things in terms of riding and track wear at speed?

 

Apparently they were a bit lively at the rear end but otherwise no notable problems that I’ve read of. 

 

1 hour ago, runs as required said:

Did simmering resentments come into this in any way in the LNER (as they clearly did in the LMS) ?

We read about it after Thompson's succession following the death of Gresley, but did it linger in works other than Darlington?

Gresley was notable in continuing building and developing classes in other pre-Grouping constituents.

dh

Quite the opposite. Gresley even built GCR directors as they fit the bill and could be built quickly as plans were to hand. I seem to recall there were some NER classes of 0-6-0 that were built under Gresley and of course he liked the B12’s to a point. 

[Michael Edge]

57 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

All this talk of plonking new types of different boilers onto older frame sets is not quite as easy as it sounds, for instance there are certain types of LMS Black Five boiler and frame combinations that will not fit. The other aspect is that draughting arrangements would have to be sorted out in that cylinder volume, exhaust arrangements and chimney dimensions would have to be adjusted. I have replaced boiler back onto the frame sets that were removed from in the first place and found it to be quite tricky at times !

 

With respect to new and altered designs it was the CME's job to find and supply the most cost effective methods of hauling trains by efficient and reliable means. In the case of the reboilering of the Raven pacifics with Gresley boilers it may well have been an exercise in shewing that such a course of action was waste of time, effort and money to placate the bean counters that would not allow relatively new locomotives to be scrapped before such time as the initial capital investment in building them in the first place was fully depreciated.

 

Had grouping not taken place the Raven pacifics may well have been rather more successful in that they would not have been subject to such financial scrutiny in that they would not have been set against a better, newer and more numerous class of locomotive ostensibly designed for the same task. Just the organisation, production and allocation of spare parts for one class of locomotive is a considerable task made more complicated when several types of locomotive are considered each with their own non standard parts expands what is required for day to day running. You only have to think of fire bars, brake blocks and springs to see how the range of spares required expands enormously when minor classes of locomotive are kept on.

 

Take the situation on the LMS in the 1920's, it was chaotic in that they had over 10300 locomotives of over 400 types, not forgetting that there would be sub-classes within that number. The solution was to utilise Midland locomotives for new build, not because they were ostensibly better but that the Midland had the greatest range of standard parts over the range of classes of locomotive that they operated.  This continued until Stanier's arrival that eventually delivered a new range of standard locomotives with standard parts to more modern and updated designs.

 

As with so many things in life, not just upon the railways, money seems to have far too much sway in how things are rather than the physical reality of the undertaking or operation of anything that you may care to mention whether or not an item is any good or not.

 

Gibbo.

I agree but the LMS did do this with 5MTs, altering some to take different boilers in order to increase the availability of spare ones, I think a similar approach was taken with the Princesses. The need for spares arises from the fact that the boiler takes longer to repair than the mechanical bits so with a spare one the locos are out of traffic for a shorter period. I very much doubt that Gresley had any interest in developing the Raven pacifics but there was benefit in keeping them going for some time.

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

While we are on the tack of rebuilds, how about charging Mr Stanier with making the Lickey banker and Beyer-Garratts into the machines they ought to have been?

 

Of the time they were introduced they were adequate to the task. The primary limitation was that they had none of the development potential of the Doncaster design, which spawned the most numerous series of wide firebox locos operated in the UK.

 

But had the Doncaster boiler produced a real improvement in performance it probably would have been proceeded with across the class. (There's ample precedent in the long service lives of other pre-group designs improved with Doncaster boilers, the list commencing B12, B16, I posted up thread.) The major limitations of the Raven pacific were in the engine and frame layout: that proven, they were going to the scrapper as beyond economic improvement, just the tenders redeployed.

There was a scheme to completely rebuild the A2’s as A3’s but this cake to bought. Whether it was finances or need I’m not sure but there would have been little of the A2 left. So it would seem they were considered of value and although they were indifferent steamers, their long careers would suggest they weren’t in need of re-building to do what they did. 

 

1 hour ago, brack said:

The raven Pacific is clearly a stretched Atlantic in concept and by all accounts a bit of a rushed job, keeping the front end of the c7, hence its limited potential for further development. The A1 was designed from a fresh start (after gresley had sketched up his own stretched version of the gnr atlantics and realised it was going nowhere), following careful observation of the Pennsy K4, but reduced to fit our loading gauge (which was descended from a much bigger Atlantic, the E6, but was pretty much the most modern Pacific loco in the world engineering press). Raven can be excused for perhaps not keeping his eye on the latest Express steam developments as he was more interested in his other Express loco, which was somewhat superior technologically to what gresley and everyone else in the country was doing.

 

What is also worth noting is that the A2 was a couple of feet longer than the A1 - I wonder if this affected things in terms of riding and track wear at speed?

 

Apparently they were a bit lively at the rear end but otherwise no notable problems that I’ve read of. 

 

1 hour ago, runs as required said:

Did simmering resentments come into this in any way in the LNER (as they clearly did in the LMS) ?

We read about it after Thompson's succession following the death of Gresley, but did it linger in works other than Darlington?

Gresley was notable in continuing building and developing classes in other pre-Grouping constituents.

dh

Quite the opposite. Gresley even built GCR directors as they fit the bill and could be built quickly as plans were to hand. I seem to recall there were some NER classes of 0-6-0 that were built under Gresley and of course he liked the B12’s to a point. 

[brack]

Regarding the reboilering of the A2, lner.info suggests this was done to create a spare A2 boiler for the other four (rather than have one out of traffic for a significant time whilst a boiler was being fixed). This suggests to me that they were needed at the time to fill the requirements of the timetable and they couldn't afford to lose one for long periods.

Presumably for new locos a spare boiler wasn't a priority, but at some point down the line you'd assume they would've needed to consider providing one, by which time (5 years) gresley had decided not to sanction the investment in new parts for a non standard class that would be phased out? Is this as much a factor in the reboilering experiment as the claimed attempt to address steaming troubles?

[The Johnster]

As the thread is for imaginary locos, how about a Raven Atlantic derived prairie to precede the V2s...

[melmerby]

Or reduce the driving wheels to 6' 0" stick on tanks and a rear bogie for a 4-6-4T fast outer suburban loco.

 

A bit like Whiteleggs GSWR loco.

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, melmerby said:

A bit like Whiteleggs GSWR loco.

 

Not sure that's a recommendation. Any instance of an outstanding 4-6-4T?

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not sure that's a recommendation. Any instance of an outstanding 4-6-4T?

NO! Just imagining someone could make one that works OK.

Plenty of dud choice to choose from

L&Y, LTSR, LB&SC etc.

The 4-6-0s they were derived from/morphed into seem to be better machines.