Imaginary Locomotives

[PhilJ W]

The Irish gauge was decided by an English military engineer as I understand it. In Ireland there was a greater diversity of gauges, including standard gauge. Instead of adopting standard gauge he opted to take an average of all the gauges in use and came up with 5' 3" which meant that every line had to go through the process of altering gauge with all the expense and upheaval involved. The only other lines built to that gauge were in Argentina and NSW in Australia. There was another line in Germany built to 1.6 metres gauge that was quite soon converted to standard. 

7 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I wish the same had happened here.   Confederate 5' gauge make so much more sense the 4'8".   

The problem was that there were several different gauges in use in the Confederate states and few if any connected with each other. In the majority of Union states standard gauge prevailed, there was only one trunk route that wasn't. The powers that be, realising the strategic importance of the railways quickly set about converting those that weren't to standard. As well as that they set about building connections between different railways. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by PhilJ W

[Compound2632]

42 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The Irish gauge was decided by an English military engineer as I understand it. In Ireland there was a greater diversity of gauges, including standard gauge. Instead of adopting standard gauge he opted to take an average of all the gauges in use and came up with 5' 3" which meant that every line had to go through the process of altering gauge with all the expense and upheaval involved.

 

In 1836 there was an Irish Railway Commission which recommended 6'2" gauge. The Ulster Railway, building south from Belfast, complied with this but the Dublin & Drogheda built its line to 5'2" gauge, whilst the first operational line, the 8½ mile long Dublin & Kingstown, was built to Stephenson gauge.

 

Since the Ulster and Drogheda lines were clearly going to form part of a Dublin-Belfast main line (and were in due course constituents of the Great Northern), the Ulster complained and the Board of Trade investigated. Meanwhile the Battle of the Gauges was in full swing in England. This led to the passing of the Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act in 1846 mandating new construction to be to 4'8½" in Britain and compromise gauge of 5'3" for Ireland (The tale I've read is that some top nob engineers - possibly the Rennies - advised that the ideal gauge was around 5'0" - 5'6".)  By this date the Ulster Railway only extended for 24 miles to Portadown and the Dublin & Drogheda was 31¾ miles long, so the upheaval wasn't quite on the scale suggested - certainly nothing to correcting Brunel's expensive error of engineering judgement. The early railways around Glasgow were to odd gauges too.

 

S.W. Johnson reportedly said that he wished British railways had been built to Irish gauge, as the extra few inches between the frames would have enabled sturdier construction of the bearings and motion.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Compound2632

[PhilJ W]

And the 5' 3" gauge translates into a nice round figure in metric 1600 mm (+ a fifth of a millimetre).

Edited January 4, 2021 by PhilJ W

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

The Irish gauge was decided by an English military engineer as I understand it. In Ireland there was a greater diversity of gauges, including standard gauge. Instead of adopting standard gauge he opted to take an average of all the gauges in use and came up with 5' 3" which meant that every line had to go through the process of altering gauge with all the expense and upheaval involved. The only other lines built to that gauge were in Argentina and NSW in Australia. There was another line in Germany built to 1.6 metres gauge that was quite soon converted to standard. 

The problem was that there were several different gauges in use in the Confederate states and few if any connected with each other. In the majority of Union states standard gauge prevailed, there was only one trunk route that wasn't. The powers that be, realising the strategic importance of the railways quickly set about converting those that weren't to standard. As well as that they set about building connections between different railways. 

5ft 3in in South Australia and Victoria, NSW has always been standard gauge. Argentina is Iberian gauge - 5ft 6in.

[PhilJ W]

Getting my Australian states mixed up. There was one in Argentina, a short interurban line that was absorbed by another company and converted to a conventional railway.

[burgundy]

8 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I wish the same had happened here.   Confederate 5' gauge make so much more sense the 4'8".   

... or 17.5mm gauge in HO. See Roswell Mill.

In fact early railroads in the US included some at 4' 10" and the Erie at 6'.

Best wishes 

Eric 

[PhilJ W]

The Erie was converted to Standard during the early years of the civil war. 

[Budgie]

19 hours ago, melmerby said:

Satisfying a new management organisation that wanted to standardise everything.

 

I thought the BR standard kocos were built to satisfy R A Riddles's ego. And why was Duke of Gloucester built? That was never standard anything.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Budgie said:

I thought the BR standard kocos were built to satisfy R A Riddles's ego. And why was Duke of Gloucester built? That was never standard anything.

 

I cannot suppose that the BTC would have authorised the expenditure without something more of a convincing business case than that. One could see their purpose as managing the consolidation of the inherited design capacity - giving all the LDOs something to keep them busy whilst working out where to cut.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Compound2632

[JimC]

57 minutes ago, Budgie said:

 

I thought the BR standard kocos were built to satisfy R A Riddles's ego. And why was Duke of Gloucester built? That was never standard anything.

They had to be building *something*. Even with short lifetimes, steam being capital cheap and maintenance heavy, I imagine the standards were cheaper than keeping life expired pre group locos designed in an era of cheap labour running. 

 

As for alternatives, the Southern had to have new design, the standards were substantially LMS anyway, so it's really only West and East where there was a case for perpetuating existing design schools. But with the East in the middle of a design upheaval anyway I think it can be argued that only on the Western was there really a strong justification for perpetuating existing design. 

[Compound2632]

I suppose there was also the "political" impact of doing the logical cost-effective thing of allocating Black Fives and Doodlebugs to all regions - although there were steps in that direction, with over half the Ivatt 4MTs built at former LNER works.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Budgie said:

 

I thought the BR standard kocos were built to satisfy R A Riddles's ego. And why was Duke of Gloucester built? That was never standard anything.

Based on a Brittania chassis, with a boiler derived from a Duchess, seems to fit in well with the "standardisation" ethos.

[Northmoor]

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Based on a Brittania chassis, with a boiler derived from a Duchess, seems to fit in well with the "standardisation" ethos.

Even when not actually employing standard major components like boilers, Riddles certainly employed the engineering principle known as Group Technology.  This is where there are versions 1A, 1B, 1C etc. which have common design features, even if the major dimensions are different.  While you might see one tender as totally different from another, you might find curves to the exact same radius on all welded or riveted panels , so you only need one press tool to form those curves.  Basically it focuses on only changing the features necessary to achieve the required change in function.

[The Johnster]

Duke of Gloucester was built for a very clear economic and traffic related reason; following the destruction and writing off of the back broken 46202 Princess Anne at Harrow and Wealdsone, practically a brand new loco though to a 1932 design, after it’s rebuild from the Turbomotive only a few months previously, the WCML was short of it’s quota of 8P power by one loco and a replacement was needed.  I think there would have been a certain amount of adverse comment if a new Princess Royal had been ordered!

 

I do not agree at all that the standards were built to satisfy anyone’s ego.  They were certainly controversial, and with the benefit of hindsight short-lived and not worth the bother, but when the decisions were taken it was reckoned that the country had 30 years’ of cheaply winnable coal, recent history fresh in everyone's minds showed the risks of relying on imported oil (nobody knew what lay beneath the North Sea for another decade and a half), and the BTC’s policy, which Riddles was following, was that steam locos to last until 1980 when the bulk of the system would be electrified were needed asap to replace stock that was life expired, difficult to prep or dispose in the post war world of labour shortages, and generally unsuitable and costly.  This is pretty much what happened in most European mainland countries. 
 

The transport world in the UK changed radically in the next few years, and BR was re-organised in 1954 under the new BRB, effectively an internal coup d’etat; the word ‘modernisation’ entered the railway lexicon, and resulted in the ‘modernisation plan’ in 1955.  Riddles and his ilk were winkled out, and the ‘steam ‘til 1980’ policy abandoned.  We could discuss the wisdom of this and the effectiveness of the locos that replaced it or the effect of the race to eliminate steam, but it’s been done to death and more. 
 

The BTC concept of an integrated rail, road, and waterway transport system had never got off the ground, and was another baby thrown away with the bathwater; not sure why this happened when the concept had worked well in mainland Europe.  Electrification by 1980 was still planned, but of course the Treasury bottled at the cost and progress has been piecemeal and is still pending in many areas.  None of this can be laid at the door of Riddles, his alleged ego, or the Transport Commission, nor can the money drain that BR became prior to the introduction of the HST. 

 

The idea that Riddles oversaw the building of locos to satisfy his ego is ludicrous and, unless it has the excuse  of being ill informed, frankly scurrilous and offensive.  His policy may be justifiably criticised as shortsighted and insufficiently innovative, but it was a pragmatic child of it’s time, and of austerity economic government policy, and of a general acceptance that imported oil was A Bad Thing despite our colonial control of it’s production in the Middle East, because of the adverse effect on our desperate balance of payments problem, and because of it’s strategic vulnerability.  There may have been less imperfect alternatives available, but here were plenty worse, such as Swindon wanting more Castles! The cold war was getting under way and it was not long previously that the U boats had nearly defeated us.  30 years of cheap coal, remember!
 

If you want egotistical CMEs, you need to go back about to Victorian times.  

 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by The Johnster

[JimC]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 I think there would have been a certain amount of adverse comment if a new Princess Royal had been ordered!

Mmm, but if there hadn't been the desire to build a new design then they wouldn't have built a new locomotive, in the language used before the war on the GWR they would have renewed the locomotive utilising such parts as might have been suitable for re-use, which would probably have been not many... The Duke of Gloucester is certainly the hardest of the BR standards to justify. But perhaps they foresaw more heavier trains, in which case more 8ps would have been desirable. 

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Duke of Gloucester was built for a very clear economic and traffic related reason; following the destruction and writing off of the back broken 46202 Princess Anne at Harrow and Wealdsone, practically a brand new loco though to a 1932 design, after it’s rebuild from the Turbomotive only a few months previously, the WCML was short of it’s quota of 8P power by one loco and a replacement was needed.  I think there would have been a certain amount of adverse comment if a new Princess Royal had been ordered!

 

 

 

 

AFAIK the LMR was considered perennially short of 8P power and the loss of one was considered disastrous.

IIRC there had been suggestions that some Pacifics could be transferred to the LMR from the ERs considerable numbers.

It then makes you wonder how, if the LMR was so short of 8Ps that they were able to actually loan some to the WR when the Kings disgraced themselves.

Edited January 2, 2021 by melmerby

[john new]

With WWII not long over maintenance of jobs for the returning ex-service men was a key consideration. Women got kicked out of their new found skilled work just as they had after WW1,  a further upward notch in the desire for women's rights.

 

Whether the option of modernising and increasing efficiency could have been done immediately after the war is almost irrelevant - it was never an option that could have been widely sold to the electorate. The standard classes when they came along a few years into the new BR era were an attempt to do that, standardise parts and introduce some labour saving ideas for accessible routine maintenance etc. A good idea but time overtook it.

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by john new

[The Johnster]

Not sure one can regard 71000 as a ‘proper’ BR standard; it was a bit of a conceptualt one off and as such the antithesis of a standard.   Certainly standard parts and adapted versions of standard parts were incorporated in it’s design and construction, daft not to, but AFAIK there was never intended to be a class of 8Ps based on it; there were plenty of modern locos with a good bit of life in them for 8P work, and even on the WR the Kings were being uprated.  It was a departure from the 2 cylinder format of the standards ‘proper’ as well.  

[rue_d_etropal]

It should not be forgotten that the 'Clean Air Act' came into force in 1956. The health problems caused by poor quality air, in particular London,triggered work towards this, and no coincidence that diesel development was increased, and rushed with all the problems that resulted in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956

If more had been known about diesel pollution, then maybe more would have been done to build electric rather than diesel.

[rockershovel]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Duke of Gloucester was built for a very clear economic and traffic related reason; following the destruction and writing off of the back broken 46202 Princess Anne at Harrow and Wealdsone, practically a brand new loco though to a 1932 design, after it’s rebuild from the Turbomotive only a few months previously, the WCML was short of it’s quota of 8P power by one loco and a replacement was needed.  I think there would have been a certain amount of adverse comment if a new Princess Royal had been ordered!

 

I do not agree at all that the standards were built to satisfy anyone’s ego.  They were certainly controversial, and with the benefit of hindsight short-lived and not worth the bother, but when the decisions were taken it was reckoned that the country had 30 years’ of cheaply winnable coal, recent history fresh in everyone's minds showed the risks of relying on imported oil (nobody knew what lay beneath the North Sea for another decade and a half), and the BTC’s policy, which Riddles was following, was that steam locos to last until 1980 when the bulk of the system would be electrified were needed asap to replace stock that was life expired, difficult to prep or dispose in the post war world of labour shortages, and generally unsuitable and costly.  This is pretty much what happened in most European mainland countries. 
 

The transport world in the UK changed radically in the next few years, and BR was re-organised in 1954 under the new BRB, effectively an internal coup d’etat; the word ‘modernisation’ entered the railway lexicon, and resulted in the ‘modernisation plan’ in 1955.  Riddles and his ilk were winkled out, and the ‘steam ‘til 1980’ policy abandoned.  We could discuss the wisdom of this and the effectiveness of the locos that replaced it or the effect of the race to eliminate steam, but it’s been done to death and more. 
 

The BTC concept of an integrated rail, road, and waterway transport system had never got off the ground, and was another baby thrown away with the bathwater; not sure why this happened when the concept had worked well in mainland Europe.  Electrification by 1980 was still planned, but of course the Treasury bottled at the cost and progress has been piecemeal and is still pending in many areas.  None of this can be laid at the door of Riddles, his alleged ego, or the Transport Commission, nor can the money drain that BR became prior to the introduction of the HST. 

 

The idea that Riddles oversaw the building of locos to satisfy his ego is ludicrous and, unless it has the excuse  of being ill informed, frankly scurrilous and offensive.  His policy may be justifiably criticised as shortsighted and insufficiently innovative, but it was a pragmatic child of it’s time, and of austerity economic government policy, and of a general acceptance that imported oil was A Bad Thing despite our colonial control of it’s production in the Middle East, because of the adverse effect on our desperate balance of payments problem, and because of it’s strategic vulnerability.  There may have been less imperfect alternatives available, but here were plenty worse, such as Swindon wanting more Castles! The cold war was getting under way and it was not long previously that the U boats had nearly defeated us.  30 years of cheap coal, remember!
 

If you want egotistical CMEs, you need to go back about to Victorian times.  

 

 

 

You need to remember the background to events in Britain in the later 1940s and 1950s - particularly the profoundly mistaken concepts of “continuation of Empire in Africa” and “continuation of Sterling as an international reserve currency”, both of which came crashing to an end as a result of the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the subsequent problems. 

 

There was also the fundamental, but related problem of maintaining the situation by which the productive industries were subservient to the financial sector. 

 

The population understood this. Casualties were less than 400,000 killed in WW2, but almost 2 million emigrated in the mass migration which ended in the late 1970s. My late father was deeply embittered that his war injuries, and lack of any recognised trade from his time in the military left him unable to emigrate (he was a “£10 tourist” at one point, but couldn’t establish himself there and returned). 

 

 

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

41 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Not sure one can regard 71000 as a ‘proper’ BR standard; it was a bit of a conceptualt one off and as such the antithesis of a standard.   Certainly standard parts and adapted versions of standard parts were incorporated in it’s design and construction, daft not to, but AFAIK there was never intended to be a class of 8Ps based on it; there were plenty of modern locos with a good bit of life in them for 8P work, and even on the WR the Kings were being uprated.  It was a departure from the 2 cylinder format of the standards ‘proper’ as well.  

 

There was meant to be more. I saw an official list of names a few years ago for a class of BR 8Ps. The same list also had more Clans and Britannias. It was printed in one of the magazines.

 

The first one was 71000 Prince Charles. I can't remember the others but they were all male members of the Royal Family. I think DoG was meant to be 71001,  but they refused using the name Prince Charles after the Harrow accident. I think Duke Of Kent was another.

 

The Britannias had some strange names that weren't used. Such as Lancashire & Yorkshire and North Staffordshire, carrying on the railway company names from the A1s and the GW Castle. 

 

 

Jason

[rockershovel]

8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

There was meant to be more. I saw an official list of names a few years ago for a class of BR 8Ps. The same list also had more Clans and Britannias. It was printed in one of the magazines.

 

The first one was 71000 Prince Charles. I can't remember the others but they were all male members of the Royal Family. I think DoG was meant to be 71001,  but they refused using the name Prince Charles after the Harrow accident. I think Duke Of Kent was another.

 

The Britannias had some strange names that weren't used. Such as Lancashire & Yorkshire and North Staffordshire, carrying on the railway company names from the A1s and the GW Castle. 

 

 

Jason

 

I can’t imagine that a locomotive was simply built, as an amusing diversion for bored drawing office staff and/or megalomaniac CMEs. That isn’t how things get done, in the real world. Somewhere behind such a build, there will be a whole scenario of how many were intended, for what duties and at what anticipated cost.

 

That’s how the GWR operated its occasional policy of “heavy rebuilds” based upon the reversing handle and one drivers cufflink. The CME’s job is to provide tractive effort, by the hour, at acceptable cost. If he can convince the bean-counters, they will not care in the slightest exactly how it is achieved. 

 

[RLBH]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 I think there would have been a certain amount of adverse comment if a new Princess Royal had been ordered!

Although it should be remembered that the original thoughts for a Standard Class 8P locomotive in 1948 were for a Coronation given BR Standard features, in the vein of the Class 4 2-6-0 or Class 5 4-6-0.

[melmerby]

I have seen it suggested that the case to build 71000 was based on the lack of desire to rebuild 46202 again, it already being a hybrid of a Princess Royal & a Coronation. After all the Coronation 46242 involved in the Harrow crash was rebuilt, although extremely badly damaged, the engine leading 46202, Jubilee 45637 was also scrapped, it was the most severely damaged of the three locos.

[rockershovel]

24 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I have seen it suggested that the case to build 71000 was based on the lack of desire to rebuild 46202 again, it already being a hybrid of a Princess Royal & a Coronation. After all the Coronation 46242 involved in the Harrow crash was rebuilt, although extremely badly damaged, the engine leading 46202, Jubilee 45637 was also scrapped, it was the most severely damaged of the three locos.

 

The incentive to rebuild a non-standard locomotive into another non-standard locomotive, without the incentive to make best use of expensive, perfectly serviceable components and with the original experiment which led to its construction, concluded with no useful outcome.... not there, is it?