Was the GWR really so conservative?

[The Stationmaster]

On 14/11/2019 at 16:03, D9020 Nimbus said:

The GWR was also the only railway not to have any electrification at Nationalisation—ATC was incompatible with electrified lines. The LNER and LMS were collaborating on the development of the Hudd system—which after further development became the standard AWS system.

That is incorrect.  The GWR did in fact have several route miles of electrified railway up to around the time of nationalisation and had of course in the past had jointly owned electric passenger rolling stock.  Definitely not much in the way of electrification and it all finished up in the ownership of London Transport but every route mile of it still exists in some cases complete with its original GWR station buildings. 

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, kevinlms said:

They might of had a plan to electrify, but what exactly did they achieve, exactly nothing so hardly counts!

They certainly achieved rather more than exactly nothing, albeit - as I've already said - not a massive route mileage.  The GWR's first electrified railway was the Hammersmith & City which it owned jointly with the Metropolitan Railway from 1867 and which was electrified in 1906 using jointly owned electric trains.

 

The GWR's second electrified railway was the Ealing & Shepherds Bush Railway which was constructed and wholly owned by the GWR and was their only section of route planned from the outset to have electrically powered passenger trains being electrified using a 3rd rail system to enable the passenger train service to be provided by trains of the Central London Railway.  Opened to passenger traffic in August 1920.  This line also had some quite radical signalling by British standards being equipped throughout its length with 3 position upper quadrant semaphore signals including automatic signals.  it is now part of the Central Line.

 

So both basically London suburban railways and not any great route mileage but definitely achieved by the GWR so they certainly did more than nothing when it came to electrification.  In addition to the above there was a proposal between the wars to electrify all of the Company's lines from Taunton westwards using overhead electrification.  But it seems as much as anything to have possibly  been little more than a paper exercise designed to reduce coal and footplate manning costs although it might well have been seen as a way of taking advantage of Govt funding.

[JimC]

23 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Exactly, so they ordered an untried locomotive class, the Royal Scots.

 

My guess is that there was a lot of internal politics involved, and what the traffic department thought they  were going to get was a nice safe copy of a known good design, but clearly that didn't happen. How much of it was a semi Lord Nelson copy, how much North British own design (presumably developed from export designs) and how much Derby is difficult to ascertain, because every commentator seems to reflect their own preconceptions/biases.

[The Stationmaster]

Overall you can of course say any railway Company fails to progress if you pick particular areas.  You might say that about the GWR's loco practice although Collett made considerable progress in workshop practice and reducing repair and maintenance costs and that was probably even more important than introducing bold new loco dresigns.  It should also not be overlooked that the Collett period, driven by demands from the traffic depts saw a major move towards providing larger, 4-6-0 engines to replace the 4-4-0s (in some cases prematurely) and subsequently 2-6-0s as well.

 

In other areas there is no doubt at all that the company made significant advances trying hard to introduce larger wagons for coal traffic thereby improving efficiency and reducing costs.  Equally of course it built massively between the wars on its earlier introduction of the ATC system which placed it well ahead of other companies which basically did little more in terms of new ideas in that connection other than the joint LNER/LMS trial of the Hudd-Strowger system.  there were also some radical developments in signalling in the 1920s although these were not followed up in subsequent decades and the GWR in some respects definitely fell behind the SR and, in particular, the LNER in that period. 

 

so a mixture but then I think we could probably fairly say that the other compaalso all had their strong points and their weak points.

[kevinlms]

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

They certainly achieved rather more than exactly nothing, albeit - as I've already said - not a massive route mileage.  The GWR's first electrified railway was the Hammersmith & City which it owned jointly with the Metropolitan Railway from 1867 and which was electrified in 1906 using jointly owned electric trains.

 

The GWR's second electrified railway was the Ealing & Shepherds Bush Railway which was constructed and wholly owned by the GWR and was their only section of route planned from the outset to have electrically powered passenger trains being electrified using a 3rd rail system to enable the passenger train service to be provided by trains of the Central London Railway.  Opened to passenger traffic in August 1920.  This line also had some quite radical signalling by British standards being equipped throughout its length with 3 position upper quadrant semaphore signals including automatic signals.  it is now part of the Central Line.

 

So both basically London suburban railways and not any great route mileage but definitely achieved by the GWR so they certainly did more than nothing when it came to electrification.  In addition to the above there was a proposal between the wars to electrify all of the Company's lines from Taunton westwards using overhead electrification.  But it seems as much as anything to have possibly  been little more than a paper exercise designed to reduce coal and footplate manning costs although it might well have been seen as a way of taking advantage of Govt funding.

It was the proposal of electrifying from Taunton westwards that I was referring to.  Nothing came of that proposal and probably just as well.

[kevinlms]

45 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

After asking Swindon for Castle drawings and been refused.  

As i said before, the LMS were desperate, they wanted to increase the speeds of heavy trains on the WCML. They needed a new large 4-6-0 or a 4-6-2, since their existing Claughton's & L&Y 4-6-0 were already struggling with the current services.

 

I suspect the idea of a compound pacific, just scared everyone off. Far too many new features would be required and the LMS didn't have the time to mess around experimenting. They needed something yesterday.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, JimC said:

You're forgetting that Fowler's team already had a compound Pacific well progressed on the drawing board.  Its probably a fair bet though, that like other early Pacifics, it wouldn't have been any more capable than a Castle.

 

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Exactly, so they ordered an untried locomotive class, the Royal Scots.

 

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

After asking Swindon for Castle drawings and been refused.  

 

1 hour ago, JimC said:

 

My guess is that there was a lot of internal politics involved, and what the traffic department thought they  were going to get was a nice safe copy of a known good design, but clearly that didn't happen. How much of it was a semi Lord Nelson copy, how much North British own design (presumably developed from export designs) and how much Derby is difficult to ascertain, because every commentator seems to reflect their own preconceptions/biases.

 

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

As i said before, the LMS were desperate, they wanted to increase the speeds of heavy trains on the WCML. They needed a new large 4-6-0 or a 4-6-2, since their existing Claughton's & L&Y 4-6-0 were already struggling with the current services.

 

I suspect the idea of a compound pacific, just scared everyone off. Far too many new features would be required and the LMS didn't have the time to mess around experimenting. They needed something yesterday.

 

There is no longer any need for guesswork or the repetition of ancient myth. The history leading up to the building of the Royal Scots by NBL is the subject of scholarly analysis from primary sources in D. Hunt, J. Jennison, and R. Essery, LMS Loco Profiles No.15 The "Royal Scots" (Wild Swan, 2019). It really would be a good idea if folk went away and read that before commenting further on the subject!

[JimC]

Well then, it would be helpful if you were to say what the scholarly analysis concluded - especially if you are completely confident its free from the preconceptions and biases which are evident in the primary sources I've seen...

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by JimC

[kevinlms]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

 

 

There is no longer any need for guesswork or the repetition of ancient myth. The history leading up to the building of the Royal Scots by NBL is the subject of scholarly analysis from primary sources in D. Hunt, J. Jennison, and R. Essery, LMS Loco Profiles No.15 The "Royal Scots" (Wild Swan, 2019). It really would be a good idea if folk went away and read that before commenting further on the subject!

Please summarise.

 

Plenty of other stuff has been written by the gentlemen that you mention and not forgetting the late David Jenkinson.

I think the repeated stories of borrowing various drawings, is the least important part, since the finished loco, looked nothing like a LN! 3 cylinders instead of 4, you may as well chuck the drawings away.

[Compound2632]

@kevinlms, sorry, I was hungry for my lunch which made me a bit snappish. Now my appetite is sated and I'm in a more emollient mood. The authors of the LMS Loco Profile provide a detailed discussion of the evidence surrounding the development of the Royal Scots. They pay particular attention to the way in which the evolving management structure of the LMS (at levels of seniority above that of the CME) influenced the decision-making process. It's really worth the money to have a read.

 

As to the Lord Nelson connection, it is fact that NBL were provided with a set of Lord Nelson drawings but also that very little was taken directly from them. Henry Fowler was friendly with Richard Maunsell and it is highly likely that they would have discussed their mutual interest in a powerful, modern 4-6-0. However, Hunt et al. suggest that any similarity between the two designs is down to the fact that they were designed to meet similar requirements. They point out that Maunsell's chief draughtsman was the Derby-trained James Clayton, and suggest that it's more a case of the Lord Nelson having some Derby features rather than vice-versa! Clayton, Herbert Chambers, and Harold Holcroft also met frequently at the meetings of the ARLE. 

 

There was a lot of Derby LDO in the Royal Scots: the boiler design being based on those of the standard Compounds, Lickey Banker, and 3-cylinder compound 4-6-0; outside motion and valves from the standard 4P 2-6-4T, bogie based on that of the Standard 2P 4-4-0, etc. Chambers and A.E. Owens, deputy chief draughtsman at Derby, spent two days a fortnight in the NPL drawing office throughout the design phase. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Compound2632
Harold, not Henry, Holcroft - thanks to @Harlequin for the correction!

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Overall you can of course say any railway Company fails to progress if you pick particular areas.  You might say that about the GWR's loco practice although Collett made considerable progress in workshop practice and reducing repair and maintenance costs and that was probably even more important than introducing bold new loco designs.

 

Exactly.  In a well run company, with an Engineer who is more concerned with what the company needs rather than playing with new and exciting things, you do what most helps the company financially while presumably keeping an eye on what is happening other areas should priorities change.

 

So if your locos aren't providing the performance needed, then you spend your budget building exciting new designs that in turn excite the enthusiasts.

 

But if your locos are up to the job, and look to be for the near future at least, then you spend your capital looking at other ways to improve the company even if they end up looking less glamorous and generate less fame.

[kevinlms]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

@kevinlms, sorry, I was hungry for my lunch which made me a bit snappish. Now my appetite is sated and I'm in a more emollient mood. The authors of the LMS Loco Profile provide a detailed discussion of the evidence surrounding the development of the Royal Scots. They pay particular attention to the way in which the evolving management structure of the LMS (at levels of seniority above that of the CME) influenced the decision-making process. It's really worth the money to have a read.

 

As to the Lord Nelson connection, it is fact that NBL were provided with a set of Lord Nelson drawings but also that very little was taken directly from them. Henry Fowler was friendly with Richard Maunsell and it is highly likely that they would have discussed their mutual interest in a powerful, modern 4-6-0. However, Hunt et al. suggest that any similarity between the two designs is down to the fact that they were designed to meet similar requirements. They point out that Maunsell's chief draughtsman was the Derby-trained James Clayton, and suggest that it's more a case of the Lord Nelson having some Derby features rather than vice-versa! Clayton, Herbert Chambers, and Henry Holcroft also met frequently at the meetings of the ARLE. 

 

There was a lot of Derby LDO in the Royal Scots: the boiler design being based on those of the standard Compounds, Lickey Banker, and 3-cylinder compound 4-6-0; outside motion and valves from the standard 4P 2-6-4T, bogie based on that of the Standard 2P 4-4-0, etc. Chambers and A.E. Owens, deputy chief draughtsman at Derby, spent two days a fortnight in the NPL drawing office throughout the design phase. 

So much of the 'myth busting' information is not new. Just been reading Brian Reed's 'Loco Profile No.8 Royal Scot' (Feb 1971) and the details you point out, are in this small volume too. So clearly a case of many people have read the same primary source. The comment of two days a fortnight in the Glasgow drawing office cannot be coincidence.

 

A few things can be clarified - anyone can fiddle the order, or expand if they wish!

 

Stamp knew the LMS needed better engines to provide a faster service.

The loan of a GWR Castle proved what was possible, but drawings were not forthcoming.

The Lord Nelson's were a virtually new locomotive with many characteristics, that were needed and drawings were made available.

The LMS could not build new locomotives themselves, in the timescale required.

Derby & NBL drawing offices, worked together on the detailed drawings.

A contract was signed & NBL split the order between their 2 workshops.

The LMS wanted them for the 1927 summer timetable, but even the huge resources of NBL, couldn't achieve that, but did start rolling them out 2 weeks later.

50 were built in a year, even though NBL had plenty of work, so pretty amazing work.

The Royal Scots worked well, straight out of the box and did their job - later problems presented themselves, but that wasn't an initial concern.

 

Lastly, NBL apparently made virtually no profit from the Royal Scots!

[The Johnster]

I reckon the GW missed a trick when they refused to provide Castle drawings to the LMS; think of the bragging rights had the locos been built and, inevitably, proved successful.  It was known that Castles could handle the WCML trains, and presumably the result would have been a Castle de Glehn 4-cylinder layout engine fed by a Fowler boiler with a firebox suited to the local coal; I can't see any reason why it wouldn't have worked, and worked very well at that, so long as it retained the GW Stephenson valve gear and long piston stroke.  In fact, the loco that eventually solved the WCML's haulage problem, the Princess Royal class, had a 4-cylinder engine with a de Glehn layout, though the boiler and wide firebox were beyond anything any 4-6-0 could have carried.

[JimC]

I guess the question mark would be how well the GWR design would have survived LMS standards and practices of shed maintenance etc. Its documented that there were a number of GW specialities that didn't travel well.  Would Castles have prospered in the "treat 'em rough" ethos of the ex LNWR sheds? GW locomotives benefited from high but expensive standards of maintenance and a definite esprit de corps that isn't always evident from loco crews of other lines, and one of the key attributes of a successful design is that it should fit well in the environment it finds itself in.

[Metropolitan H]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I reckon the GW missed a trick when they refused to provide Castle drawings to the LMS; think of the bragging rights had the locos been built and, inevitably, proved successful.  It was known that Castles could handle the WCML trains, and presumably the result would have been a Castle de Glehn 4-cylinder layout engine fed by a Fowler boiler with a firebox suited to the local coal; I can't see any reason why it wouldn't have worked, and worked very well at that, so long as it retained the GW Stephenson valve gear and long piston stroke.  In fact, the loco that eventually solved the WCML's haulage problem, the Princess Royal class, had a 4-cylinder engine with a de Glehn layout, though the boiler and wide firebox were beyond anything any 4-6-0 could have carried.

But none of the GWR 4 - cylinder locomotive types were fitted with Stephenson's valve-gear.

 

The "Stars" were fitted with a form of "Scissors" gear - like Walschaerts, but with the drive taken from the other (90 degrees offset) crosshead. On the Castles and Kings the inside valvegear was a true Walschaerts gear with its drive from a single eccentric on each side.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Metropolitan H said:

But none of the GWR 4 - cylinder locomotive types were fitted with Stephenson's valve-gear.

 

The "Stars" were fitted with a form of "Scissors" gear - like Walschaerts, but with the drive taken from the other (90 degrees offset) crosshead. On the Castles and Kings the inside valvegear was a true Walschaerts gear with its drive from a single eccentric on each side.

 

Regards

Chris H

In fact most of the Stars had Walschaerts valve gear - only the prototype, No. 40 / 4000, had the scissors gear.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, JimC said:

I guess the question mark would be how well the GWR design would have survived LMS standards and practices of shed maintenance etc. Its documented that there were a number of GW specialities that didn't travel well.  Would Castles have prospered in the "treat 'em rough" ethos of the ex LNWR sheds? GW locomotives benefited from high but expensive standards of maintenance and a definite esprit de corps that isn't always evident from loco crews of other lines, and one of the key attributes of a successful design is that it should fit well in the environment it finds itself in.

Castles did very well in the WWII era of extremely rough treatment.  It was a practice at Old Oak Common and Tyseley (and probably elsewhere) to use the bucket method to oil the motion, i.e a bucketful of oil or two was simply chucked in between the frames instead of bothering to go round the numerous oiling points on the motion.  As long as the inside big ends were properly oiled the rest seemed to survive with no ill effects.    Don't forget too that Swindon workshop tolerances were considerably finer that most others, particularly Crewe, so GW engines could manage longer without attention to some things at running sheds.

 

There is plenty of evidence that WWII conditions, and lack of workshop capacity due to it being used on war work, resulted in GW engines being forced into considerably increased mileage between shoppings and they were in any case by then receiving much of their main works attention (such as boiler changes) on the basis of need and inspection rather than anything else.  Delays definitely built up in the shopping programme (as no doubt happened all over Britain) but a basic question needs to be to what extent that impacted on the number of failures in traffic.  One interesting comparison was that for various reasons in terms of depot practice the GWR was able to keep boilers in loco frames for longer than the LMS thus reducing the number of visits to main works for a boiler lift.   

 

However all railways suffered during teh war, and after, with a shortage of labour, especially unskilled labour, at running sheds and the impact of that varied between the Companies because of the way various work on shed was handled by differing grades of staff.

Edited November 17, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[Metropolitan H]

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

In fact most of the Stars had Walschaerts valve gear - only the prototype, No. 40 / 4000, had the scissors gear.

Phil,

 

Thanks for the correction - I wasn't sure when the change was made.

 

Regards

Chris H

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Metropolitan H said:

Phil,

 

Thanks for the correction - I wasn't sure when the change was made.

 

Regards

Chris H

Before mass production of the class started.  The scissors gear on 4000 was a never ending source of complaint from Enginemen - until it was replaced.

[62613]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Before mass production of the class started.  The scissors gear on 4000 was a never ending source of complaint from Enginemen - until it was replaced.

 

Is that the "Scissors Gear" as also applied to the MR '990' class 4-4-0s?

(I think I have the class designation correct)

[Metropolitan H]

2 minutes ago, 62613 said:

 

Is that the "Scissors Gear" as also applied to the MR '990' class 4-4-0s?

(I think I have the class designation correct)

That is my understanding.

 

I can also understand the complaints of the enginemen:

- The links to transfer motion from the crosshead on one engine to the expansion link on the other engine were necessarily large and would get in the way when oiling and preparing the loco.

- As the links are large and have significant mass there will be even more noticeable fore and aft oscillation imparted to the locomotive.

 

Or have I got it all wrong??

 

Regards

Chris H

[JimC]

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

 

Is that the "Scissors Gear" as also applied to the MR '990' class 4-4-0s?

(I think I have the class designation correct)

 

Not really, the GWR design was very different and I believe rather more sophisticated. AIUI the MR design didn't have the "scissors" part which made for more even valve timing.

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, 62613 said:

 

Is that the "Scissors Gear" as also applied to the MR '990' class 4-4-0s?

(I think I have the class designation correct)

Yes and no. It is essentially the same gear, but neither Deeley nor Churchward invented it, and both used it independently of each other. It was invented by the Belgian engineer Armand Stevart, and probably known to both of the British engineers. I believe Deeley obtained a British patent for it, and then complained to Churchward about his having used it. Even though Churchward was on safe ground legally, he had already decided against repeating its use, a significant problem being that if any defect disabled one side of the locomotive, the cross-connected nature of the valve gear automatically disabled the othe side of the locomotive.

Churchward was reportedly reluctant to consider outside Walschaerts gear on account of not being able to make its components robust enough within the limitations of the loading gauge, amongst other things. How much foundation there is in that is debatable, as Coleman managed to achieve it for the Coronations on the LMS under very similar conditions as applied to the Churchward 4-cylinder locomotives. 

 

Jim

[JimC]

The fundamental problem with putting outside Walschaerts on the Stars is that there's nowhere to put a rocker to drive the inside valves. With the inside gear the rocker is located ahead of the outside cylinders to drive them from the front. Locating the rocker the other side of the cylinder from the valve gear and trying to make allowances for expansion does not seem like the sort of thing Churchward would have found satisfactory.

Edited November 17, 2019 by JimC

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

The fundamental problem with putting outside Walschaerts on the Stars is that there's nowhere to put a rocker to drive the inside valves. With the inside gear the rocker is located ahead of the outside cylinders to drive them from the front. Locating the rocker the other side of the cylinder from the valve gear and trying to make allowances for expansion does not seem like the sort of thing Churchward would have found satisfactory.

Coleman and his team found a way for the Coronations. There is nothing to say that Churchward's Chief Draftsman and his team could not have found a way if they had needed to.

 

Jim