Was the GWR really so conservative?

[1165Valour]

When the Great Western Railway is discussed in comparison with other companies, it is common to associate a certain conservatism to them. Some companies such as the LNER or the Southern were known for their trailblazing ways, while the GWR is considered to have had an attitude of "take what works and improve." Collett tends to regarded as something of a dull CME, mostly improving the designs of Churchward, and Dean before him.

 

I have to ask: is this really the case? Certainly Hawksworth changed things in engine design when he became CME, but I can't help but think there's a bit of flanderization at play.

[Miss Prism]

10 minutes ago, GWRSwindon said:

Collett tends to regarded as something of a dull CME, mostly improving the designs of Churchward, and Dean before him.

 

Locomotive-wise, that's probably a fair comment, especially in the mid-1930s, where loco design did start to stagnate. But then, a valid question is, what was there traffic-wise that demanded a new approach?

 

For coaches however, Collett was a revelation compared to the bizarre concoctions of Churchward.

 

[Harlequin]

Churchward did all the trailblazing that was needed in loco design for the next few decades.

 

Hawksworth didn’t really get a chance to prove himself.

[Steamport Southport]

Were they conservative?

 

DRCs, diesel shunters, modern steel mineral wagons (Felix Pole), motorbuses, etc. You've also got to remember the economic problems at the time, especially in the South Wales coal industry.

 

The GWR didn't really have vast swathes of urban railways that could be electrified like the SR and LMS. They also didn't have direct competitors for prestigious routes like the LNER/LMS so weren't really trying to break records. 

 

 

 

Jason

[Bernard Lamb]

Conservative?

I always understood that Swindon were the leaders when it came to production methods and machine shop practices.

They never tended to make a song and dance about it. They just got on with it.

As for basic locomotive design, what was it they put up alongside the opposition at the Wembley Exhibition?

It took the LNER 10 years or so to get near it performance wise and another 20 odd to actually get the best out of the machine that they sent to Wembley.

Bernard

[Edge]

Problem for me is that the GWR has such a long tenure that anything that says ‘the GWR was...’ will never really apply properly.

 

Brunel was undoubtedly an innovator and famous maverick, his successors were less so, its standardisation programme was itself rather revolutionary at the time of its suggestion (in scope, certainly), and towards the end of its existence the gas turbine experiments were big steps forward. Not to mention, their development of things like AWS

 

however, they rarely strayed from their established steam loco patterns and several were based on 19th century designed right to the end of steam. 
 
so there are arguments on both sides really

[Talltim]

Some of the answers show a typical lococentric viewpoint. The others show that locos aren’t the only thing that matters, really they are just a tool for moving the important parts of a railway around and that’s there’s plenty of ways of being innovative without doing  fancy new loco designs

[Zomboid]

You could probably find justification for saying that any rail company was both innovative and highly conservative.

 

For example, the SRs main line electrification program was pretty trailblazing in it's scope as far as the UK went, but the 660V DC 3rd rail system they used wasn't really cutting edge even then. The LBSCs overhead electrification was more advanced, and overseas railways were even further ahead (the Pennsylvania Railroad for example).

 

So no doubt that whilst the GWR may have designed their last original new steam loco in about 1908, I'm sure in other parts of their business they were innovating.

[brianusa]

Conservatism went out the door when streamlining was the order of the day and it didn't take them long to see what happens when one drifts off a tried and true course.  Things soon returned to normal with their steamers although they did import French 4-4-2s for comparison which didn't really impress Churchward enough for them to be soon returned to 4-6-0s.  It wasn't just trains, they dabbled into the hotel business, there were ferries and tenders at ports, even an airline.  With the war and its aftermath, things settled down but the new 2c Counties emerged followed by the innovative gas turbines, the first non steam since the quite successful prewar Railcars.  Hardly conservative!

     Brian.

[johnofwessex]

Like all things I suppose there was also the issue of the availability of capital.

 

But in the inter war period they almost entirley replaced their locomotive stock with modern designs

[eastglosmog]

Having been reading Tony Atkins books on GWR goods cartage, I would say that in the 20th century the GWR was very innovative in terms of integrating road/rail goods movement for speedy delivery.

[Aire Head]

I think it says a lot about the so-called "conservatism" on GWR designs that the LMS thought it nessecary to import Stanier in order so they could play catch up!

[LMS2968]

46 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

I think it says a lot about the so-called "conservatism" on GWR designs that the LMS thought it nessecary to import Stanier in order so they could play catch up!

While that's very true, you need to add that the LMS not only caught up with the GWR under Stanier's leadership but then, in locomotive matters, overtook it. Who knows how things would have panned out if Stanier was Swindon's CME instead of Collett? But without the move to the LMS, would he too have sat on Churchward's laurels?

 

George Jackson Churchward was probably the greatest British locomotive engineer of the Twentieth Century. He gave the GWR a lead of about 25 years over its British rivals, and on his retirement a sound base for progress to greater things. That progress was not made under Collett, and it remains speculation as to what Hawksworth would have done, but the low superheat of his Counties, despite a 280 p.s.i. boiler pressure, didn't look promising, but who knows?

 

The GWR LOOKED old fashioned and it did have very long roots; it's history went back to the 1840s, and while the same could be said of the other three of the big four, realistically they started anew in 1923. That made a difference. The GWR valued its traditions and played them in its publicity, although there was undoubtedly much progress below the surface. Realistically, it did its job, at least as well as did its rivals.

 

The problem is that GWR enthusiast will accept no criticism of the company: the only right way to do things was the GWR way. There is a tendency for the enthusiasts of the other three to react in the opposite direction. All four companies had their strengths and weaknesses, and post Churchward, loco development wasn't a GWR strength. That doesn't mean it wasn't progressive elsewhere.

[KeithHC]

Also I believe it was the only one of the Big Four that was still paying a dividen  on shares after the war. Don't forget the Cheltenham Flyer that was the worlds fastest schedule service.

 

Keith

[JimC]

All the railway companies suffered from a terrible complacency in some respects, different for each one. The trouble is unless we have the whole picture, maybe we don't have any. Collett, for example, would never have tolerated the level of big end failure that Gresley's team seemed unable to cure, and when the LNER big ends were finally sorted out it was with concepts that went back to Collett's work when King big end bearings were looking less than adequate in service.  Gresley led a more innovative design team than Collett, but Collett led a better engineering team.
 

High superheat is an odd one. Its such a top trumps figure. There's no doubt that high superheat brings greater efficiency, but it also comes with a price tag in increased oil consumption, wear and other disadvantages.  Is anyone in a position to say where the business case lay? And at what date? I understand there was a big jump in lubrication technology in the 1930s. Its pretty well documented that Stanier introduced higher superheat on his early classes not for economy, but because his design team couldn't get the boilers to steam adequately without it.  Its obvious that this was not a problem the GWR boilers suffered from, at least until coal supply intervened WW2 and after. But its possible to exaggerate coal supply too. When Castles embarrassed the local locomotives on the LNER and LMS they were using local coal, not Welsh. Doubtless it was top quality local coal, not the sort of low quality material that plagued post WW2 operation, but even so.

 

One of the most interesting, perhaps, is boilers. There's an obvious difference in design philosophy between the north eastern stream of very large diameter parallel boilers with round top fireboxes and wide grates, cheaper and easier to construct, and the western philosophy of much more complex and expensive tapered boilers with narrow belpaire fireboxes. Both design schools had some practical experience of the other style, but a consensus was never reached.  I wonder who was right? Can we ever know? Did it have anything to do with works capability rather than paper design? There was that lovely example in BR days when they established that machining costs at Works A were cheaper than Works B, and casting costs at Works B were cheaper than Works A. So they did the obvious thing, and got Works B to do the casting, and Works A to do the machining. End result - more expensive than either, since Works A's costs machining Works Bs castings were through the roof.

 

And while the Cheltenham flyer was the Worlds fastest train, its also documented that the typical GWR service was a quick acceleration up to 60mph, then a gentle trundle along until it was time for the next station, where they'd probably spend about five minutes on the station work.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

While that's very true, you need to add that the LMS not only caught up with the GWR under Stanier's leadership but then, in locomotive matters, overtook it. Who knows how things would have panned out if Stanier was Swindon's CME instead of Collett? But without the move to the LMS, would he too have sat on Churchward's laurels?

 

 

My understanding is that Stanier, specifically didn't want to just Great Westernise the LMS.

 

He could easily have done so, but made a point of ordering the original copper topped top feed cover of his first LMS loco class the 2-6-0, to be removed.

 

No, he wanted some features of GWR practice (notably the tapered boilers), but much was of different designs, especially drive layouts.

 

But let's face it, there was a lot wrong with LMS locomotive practice in 1932, of which Stamp was fully aware and headhunted Stanier (to use a modern term), specifically to address these issues.

 

It has to be said, Stanier did a terrific job for the LMS and largely his ideas were used right to the end of steam construction by BR. Would he have been able to achieve the same on the GWR, probably not.

[Aire Head]

5 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

But let's face it, there was a lot wrong with LMS locomotive practice in 1932, of which Stamp was fully aware and headhunted Stanier (to use a modern term), specifically to address these issues.

Absolutely if the Great Western was conservative it's fair to say the Midland was Conservative with a capital C!

[kevinlms]

2 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Absolutely if the Great Western was conservative it's fair to say the Midland was Conservative with a capital C!

Yes, but moving away from Midland style locomotives had already started, well before Stanier arrived. I give you the Royal Scots, which had little on them Midland style - except for the original tenders.

Stamp had arrived in 1926 and the Scots ordered in 1927 - a coincidence?

[Aire Head]

19 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Yes, but moving away from Midland style locomotives had already started, well before Stanier arrived. I give you the Royal Scots, which had little on them Midland style - except for the original tenders.

Stamp had arrived in 1926 and the Scots ordered in 1927 - a coincidence?

Certainly not a coincidence however I'd argue that the Royal Scots were still very much under the Derby influence!

[Zomboid]

Didn't the Royal Scots have some Ashford/ Waterloo influence? Or is that a different story altogether?

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Didn't the Royal Scots have some Ashford/ Waterloo influence? Or is that a different story altogether?

 

Yup.

 

I believe that originality the LMS approached the GWR asking if it could use the drawings for the Castle class to help them create a new loco - but the GWR said no.

 

The LMS then went and asked the Southern if they could have a look at the Lord Nelson drawings - and the SR agreed with the end result that some aspects of the Royal Scot class are strikingly similar to a LN

[Steamport Southport]

40 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Absolutely if the Great Western was conservative it's fair to say the Midland was Conservative with a capital C!

 

Any more so that any of the others?

 

Google the LNER A4, B1 and D11 names and on the GWR - Viscount Churchill, The Earls (named after GWR shareholders) and many of the Castles, Halls, Manors, Granges, etc. some of which were named after shareholders homes...

 

Most of them were politicians.

 

 

 

Jason

[LMS2968]

49 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

My understanding is that Stanier, specifically didn't want to just Great Westernise the LMS.

 

He could easily have done so, but made a point of ordering the original copper topped top feed cover of his first LMS loco class the 2-6-0, to be removed.

 

No, he wanted some features of GWR practice (notably the tapered boilers), but much was of different designs, especially drive layouts.

 

But let's face it, there was a lot wrong with LMS locomotive practice in 1932, of which Stamp was fully aware and headhunted Stanier (to use a modern term), specifically to address these issues.

 

It has to be said, Stanier did a terrific job for the LMS and largely his ideas were used right to the end of steam construction by BR. Would he have been able to achieve the same on the GWR, probably not.

Yep, agree to all that. Stanier did move away - eventually - from many GWR characterises which didn't work away from Swindon, which is where the improvements on GWR practice came..

 

The Scots were almost an entirely North British design and not from the LMS. The Southern's drawings story tends to be overstated: practically nothing from the chassis appeared in the Scots, the boiler barrel was different although there was some similarity in the firebox from a side elevation, although not end on. Eric Langridge, a draughtsman at Derby, in may writings was adamant that there was no Southern influence in the Scots' design. If there was any, it was minimal.

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

But let's face it, there was a lot wrong with LMS locomotive practice in 1932, of which Stamp was fully aware and headhunted Stanier (to use a modern term), specifically to address these issues.

 

Frequently lost to the casual observer or fan, but the people running things really don't necessarily go for change for the sake of change.  If the goal is to run the business efficiently (whether that is to make a profit, or to minimize subsidies) you have to consider not only if the potential improvements improve the balance sheet, but whether the resources spent could have achieved better results being spent on improving other parts of the business.

 

Not being familiar with the steam operations in question, the above would possibly seem to explain it quite well.  The GWR had a fleet of locos that were performing quite well for the GWR needs, and so the costs of any improvements wouldn't give the same return as it would for the LMS who apparently had issues.

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yup.

 

I believe that originality the LMS approached the GWR asking if it could use the drawings for the Castle class to help them create a new loco - but the GWR said no.

 

The LMS then went and asked the Southern if they could have a look at the Lord Nelson drawings - and the SR agreed with the end result that some aspects of the Royal Scot class are strikingly similar to a LN

There was a network of connections and if I remember correctly the engineering departments of the railway companies used to hold conferences and share ideas in learned journals.

 

Harry Holcroft worked under Churchward and pretty much proposed and designed the 43XX Mogul class under Churchward's aegis. But when loco development slowed down at Swindon he moved to the SECR (later the SR) where he worked under Maunsell and Bulleid.

 

I don't know but I would guess he worked on the Lord Nelson class.