Imaginary Locomotives

[Gilwell Park]

The problem with putting a LN boiler on the S15 is that, in general, the N/S 15 boiler was better than the LN boiler, it was easier to fire & was lighter. The LN boiler was heavier, would have increased the axle load and reduced route availability.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, thx712517 said:

using it as the basis for freight locomotives on the Southern

And there you have the reason it was never done.  There was never really much of a need on the Southern for such a loco; the Kent coalfield managed happily enough with 0-6-0s, and the fast fitted runs on the Western section were in the capable hands of Urie S15s; the Q and Q1s adequately filled any gaps.  The Ashford moguls were much better as mixed traffic locos, in fact as good as any in the country in that role until the Halls appeared.

[thx712517]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

And there you have the reason it was never done.  There was never really much of a need on the Southern for such a loco; the Kent coalfield managed happily enough with 0-6-0s, and the fast fitted runs on the Western section were in the capable hands of Urie S15s; the Q and Q1s adequately filled any gaps.  The Ashford moguls were much better as mixed traffic locos, in fact as good as any in the country in that role until the Halls appeared.

Too right. Is there an "Imaginary CME" thread here too? If I was in charge of the Southern I'd have my S15 and N, but I need to find my shunting tank still. 

[Gibbo675]

3 hours ago, thx712517 said:

Too right. Is there an "Imaginary CME" thread here too? If I was in charge of the Southern I'd have my S15 and N, but I need to find my shunting tank still. 

Hi thx,

 

I'm the CME of my own imagination, surely the same may be said of yourself also !!!

 

Gibbo.

[rodent279]

On 01/08/2019 at 12:29, Gibbo675 said:

Hin 34B&D,

 

I have the vision of a Clan with a low running plate complete with splashers, a Horwich style cab and an LMS 9 ton tender.

 

Gibbo.

A BR Standard cab more or less is a Horwich cab, isn't it?

[Gibbo675]

3 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

A BR Standard cab more or less is a Horwich cab, isn't it?

Hi Rodent,

 

I would agree and say the BR standard cab is the final development of the cab style that started on Huges' L&Y Dreadnoughts, carried on through the Crab, applied to some of the Fowler 2-6-4 tanks and all of the Stanier and Ivatt locomotives. My mention of Horwich cab was only to set it apart from the later Ivatt styled cabs with the cut down side sheets as fitted 6256/7 and the Ivatt class 4 2-6-0's.

 

It is worth noting that the Aspinall L&Y Highflyer Atlantics were the first locomotives in Britain to have a cab that was laid out so as to allow them to be driven from a seated position from which the dreadnought cab arrangement was a follow on design.

 

BR standards did after all carry a Horwich style chimney to suitably match their comfortable cabs.

 

Gibbo.

[rodent279]

The L&Y seems to be an underrated railway, but was actually quite a forward looking pioneer in many ways. A Hughes 4-6-0 or Baltic tank would be a nice new build project. That or an L&Y railmotor.

[Compound2632]

It's often overlooked that the the L&Y contributed the best express passenger locomotives to the LMS, in the form of rebuilt and new built Class 8 four-cylinder 4-6-0s built at Horwich from 1919. They may not have been the most sparkling performers but were reportedly masters of their work, to the extent that they displaced the LNWR Claughtons from the northern section of the LNWR main line, with the LMS completing construction until there were 70 of them - really a numerous class by express passenger standards. They were the most powerful locomotives in the country prior to the Great Northern pacifics. I wonder if their neglect in enthusiasts' consciousness is due to their not being London engines?

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

It's often overlooked that the the L&Y contributed the best express passenger locomotives to the LMS, in the form of rebuilt and new built Class 8 four-cylinder 4-6-0s built at Horwich from 1919. They may not have been the most sparkling performers but were reportedly masters of their work, to the extent that they displaced the LNWR Claughtons from the northern section of the LNWR main line, with the LMS completing construction until there were 70 of them - really a numerous class by express passenger standards. They were the most powerful locomotives in the country prior to the Great Northern pacifics. I wonder if their neglect in enthusiasts' consciousness is due to their not being London engines?

Mmm not so sure about this. Testing in 1924 showed that the best LMS passenger express engine was the Midland Compound and I speak as an enthusiast who has a particular interest in the L&Y. The LYR weakness was its lubrication system which was OK for the LYR, it being a railway that didn't really do express speeds, but was an issue on the WCML. It also consumed far more coal and water than was decent, an area which the Compound was much better in spite of its limited valve gear. 

 

On paper the Class 8 was superior, in practice not so, but by 1927 are so the Compound itself was showing its limitations hence the need for the Royal Scots.

 

Regards

Edited August 3, 2019 by PenrithBeacon

[Compound2632]

Perhaps I should have said, best for working the LNWR Northern Division main line. For all the merits of the Compounds, that's a job they weren't designed for. As for no high speeds on the L&Y, I think Sir John Aspinall would invite you to inspect the company's service between Liverpool and Manchester. Admittedly that doesn't really bear comparison with a Preston-Carlisle non-stop.

[PenrithBeacon]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

Perhaps I should have said, best for working the LNWR Northern Division main line. For all the merits of the Compounds, that's a job they weren't designed for. As for no high speeds on the L&Y, I think Sir John Aspinall would invite you to inspect the company's service between Liverpool and Manchester. Admittedly that doesn't really bear comparison with a Preston-Carlisle non-stop.

The Compounds were designed as express passenger locomotives and as such were suitable for the entire LMS system. The short sections of the LYR where 60+ could be attained cannot be compared with possibilities of sustained high speed on the LNW WCML and the Midland south of Derby. Sustained high speeds has implications for lubrication (amongst other things) and it wasn't until Hughes designed the Mogul that the penny dropped concerning some of Horwich's design practices. The lesson of the Class 8s was learned to the advantage of the LMS.

 

Regards

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

It's often overlooked that the the L&Y contributed the best express passenger locomotives to the LMS, in the form of rebuilt and new built Class 8 four-cylinder 4-6-0s built at Horwich from 1919. They may not have been the most sparkling performers but were reportedly masters of their work, to the extent that they displaced the LNWR Claughtons from the northern section of the LNWR main line, with the LMS completing construction until there were 70 of them - really a numerous class by express passenger standards. They were the most powerful locomotives in the country prior to the Great Northern pacifics. I wonder if their neglect in enthusiasts' consciousness is due to their not being London engines?

Blame it all on the dominance of Derby's malign influence over the first nine years of the LMS loco engineering. When Stanier arrived, the star of Horwich influence began to rise, most noticeably in the person of Tom Coleman.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The Compounds were designed as express passenger locomotives and as such were suitable for the entire LMS system.

 

... within their load limits. I'm far from saying they weren't splendid machines, ideally suited to the way the Midland Division was operated, quite the thing for a Birmingham express, and welcomed with open arms in Scotland - the Drummond tradition having reached its terminus - but not well-matched to the way the Western Division's operating department was accustomed to going about its business.

 

40 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Blame it all on the dominance of Derby's malign influence over the first nine years of the LMS loco engineering. When Stanier arrived, the star of Horwich influence began to rise, most noticeably in the person of Tom Coleman.

 

Given the acknowledged excellence of the Compounds, that seems to be over-stating the case somewhat. If the Derby LDO was so poor, explain the 4MT 2-6-4T - generally considered to be a very successful design. Anyway, Coleman was chief draughtsman at Stoke at the grouping, only moving to Horwich in late 1926, a year after Hughes' retirement.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

... If the Derby LDO was so poor, explain the 4MT 2-6-4T - generally considered to be a very successful design...

Everyone gets lucky once in a while. Still only power class 4. Plenty of duff stuff to set against it, 3P 2-6-2T , Austin 7, Garratt. It's not exactly the stuff of legend is it?

[Zomboid]

Can the Midland be given credit for the SDJR locos? I'm no expert on such things, but the 7F at least was very highly thought of.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Can the Midland be given credit for the SDJR locos? I'm no expert on such things, but the 7F at least was very highly thought of.

 

Absolutely. The Midland had been responsible for S&DJR motive power since the formation of the joint committee, with the Locomotive Superintendents at Highbridge being a succession of Derby men. They had quite a free hand at rebuilding and were  forward in requesting appropriate locomotives but new designs were prepared by the Derby LDO.  

Edited August 3, 2019 by Compound2632

[The Johnster]

The LMS Fowler 2-6-4T and Hughes/Fowler 'Crab' moguls were very successful engines; I'd put the 2-6-4T as the best fast suburban loco in the country at the time and it set the pattern for the later Stanier, Fairburn, and Riddles locos.  Imagine, a Maunsell River that stayed on the track...  This convergence of Mildand and Lanky practice post-grouping produced some very good locos.  Where there were failures, such as the Austin 7 and Royal Scot, they were due to the continuance of pure Derby methods beyond their sensible design limits, especially axleboxes.  

 

Stanier's early attempts hardly covered themselves in glory, either.  Discounting the 0-4-4T as a modernised Johnson that Stanier had little to do with beyond signing it off, the 2-6-2T and mogul were not particularly brilliant and one gets the impression of a designer 'finding his feet'.

[Compound2632]

... and adapting to local conditions, vide the history of superheating of the Jubilees.

[The Johnster]

10 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Can the Midland be given credit for the SDJR locos? I'm no expert on such things, but the 7F at least was very highly thought of.

The 7F was a one off, and as you say very well thought of, ideally suited to the S & D's North Somerset Coalfield mineral traffic.  I am unqualified to comment on how useful it might have been as a Midland or LMS standard; long main line runs may have exposed weaknesses.  The other S & DJ locos were simply Derby standards in blue livery, and no better or worse than their crimson lake cousins.  It is interesting to speculate how a Midland compound might have run on the S & DJ; the driving wheels might have been a bit large for the banks but the T9s did ok in later years.

 

A WD 2-8-0, a whole power class 'better' than the 7F, was trialled at Green Park, and considered inferior to the 7F, but it is difficult to assess how much of this failure was down to the unfamiliarity of the S & DJ's loco crews with the loco.  An unfamiliar loco on a difficult route can cause all sorts of mayhem!

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, The Johnster said:

The 7F was a one off, and as you say very well thought of, ideally suited to the S & D's North Somerset Coalfield mineral traffic.  I am unqualified to comment on how useful it might have been as a Midland or LMS standard; long main line runs may have exposed weaknesses.  

 

There was some testing on Toton - Brent coal trains, the conclusion of which would appear to be that the 2-8-0s were unsuitable for such work, though I've never seen any explanation of why.

 

1 minute ago, The Johnster said:

The other S & DJ locos were simply Derby standards in blue livery, and no better or worse than their crimson lake cousins.  

 

Not entirely true - the Scottie 0-6-0s were rather smaller than Johnson's standard goods engines, being to all intents a tender version of the 1102 Class 0-6-0T - the latter engines being used on a similar secondary, single track line, the Midland route from Hereford to Swansea. The Avonsides represent a distinct step in the development of Johnson's 0-4-4T; the Johnson 4-4-0s were smaller-wheeled than any Midland class. Only the Bulldogs were identical to Midland standard engines, and five of those were delivered to Highbridge in red! In the early 20th century, the various reboilerings of Johnson engines paralleled what Derby was doing, but frequently produced engines unlike anything from Derby proper. It was only really once the Bulldogs were rebuilt as conventional 3Fs and the big 4-4-0s as 483s, along with the arrival of the Armstrongs (Midland 4F), Bagnalls (LMS standard 3F 0-6-0T) and 2Ps, that S&DJR engines could really by regarded as Derby standards - by which time they were all black, apart from the 2Ps, a class that was never red on the LMS!

[PenrithBeacon]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 ...

 

Stanier's early attempts hardly covered themselves in glory, either.  Discounting the 0-4-4T as a modernised Johnson that Stanier had little to do with beyond signing it off, the 2-6-2T and mogul were not particularly brilliant and one gets the impression of a designer 'finding his feet'.

This may well cause Stanier enthusiasts problems, but I have felt for a number of years that the LMS hired the wrong bloke.

What the LMS needed was a locomotive designer but Stanier's background was very much that of a production engineer and the two disciplines require very different experience.

The LMS experience with the Stanier led adaption of low temperature superheat tells me that Stanier didn't really know about superheating to the level of detail that the topic required. He approved changes to the Churchward standards and those changes had a very detrimental effect on the Jubilees in particular. It is true that he approved the adoption of high temperature superheat and he should get the credit for being flexible on the matter, but it cost the LMS dear.

The bloke the LMS needed was Hawksworth, a locomotive designer who was the Swindon Chief Draughtsman.

Regards 

[The Johnster]

That’s an interesting take, Penrith, and one wonders what might have transpired had Hawksworth taken Stanier’s place on the LMS; this should be fertile ground for imagined locomotives!  

 

But by the time the LMS hired Stanier, such jobs were rare as rocking horse doodoo, and seniority was highly prized within the industry; dead men’s shoes was the only game in town!  There couldn’t have been many other candidates the LMS seriously considered, and one can’t easily visually envisage circumstances in which they’d have given the job to

Hawksworth; I don’t even know if he applied...

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

That’s an interesting take, Penrith, and one wonders what might have transpired had Hawksworth taken Stanier’s place on the LMS; this should be fertile ground for imagined locomotives!  

 

But by the time the LMS hired Stanier, such jobs were rare as rocking horse doodoo, and seniority was highly prized within the industry; dead men’s shoes was the only game in town!  There couldn’t have been many other candidates the LMS seriously considered, and one can’t easily visually envisage circumstances in which they’d have given the job to

Hawksworth; I don’t even know if he applied...

I thought Stanier was specifically "head hunted" with no one else particularly in the frame for the job.

The LMS management wanted an end to the pre-grouping in-fighting that had shackled it's early years.

Presumably a Swindon man was sufficiently far removed to be the ideal candidate, qualifications excepted.

[rodent279]

And I guess it wasn't really technical/engineering skills they needed, more a diplomat without an axe to grind, who could bring together the warring parties and get the best out of them.

[The Johnster]

There was certainly a political element to Stanier’s appointment.  Nobody ‘in house’ was untainted and Stanier, who would have some time to wait for his job on the GW, must have been delighted to be offered the post.