Masterpieces

[rogerzilla]

Most CMEs designed (by which I mean produced under their direction; few did much detailed work themselves) at least one loco that did the intended job right from the start, didn't need extensive subsequent rebuilding, was fairly numerous and was popular with crews.

 

Here's my list:

 

Stanier: Black 5 (8F close 2nd)

Collett: Castle

Bulleid: Q1

Gresley: V2 (A4 close 2nd)

Fowler: 3F Jinty

Churchward: Saint

Maunsell: Schools (N close 2nd)

Hughes: Horwich mogul, aka Crab

Peppercorn: A1

Henry Ivatt: GNR Atlantic

George Ivatt: D16/1 (controversial)!

 

Can't think of anything for Thompson.

 

Any alternatives or older ones?

[melmerby]

Personally I would take the Castle out of that list as it was not much more than an updated Star, several Stars were rebuilt as Castles.

A bigger revolution was putting 6' 0" wheels on a Saint to produce the progenitor of most modern mixed traffic 4-6-0 locos, Black 5

included.

For the LMS I'd put the Royal Scot in there, even though it was mostly the work of North British, it did the job, pretty well straight out of the works.

Stanier's masterpiece was the Coronation (although it appears he didn't do too much work in that either!)

 

Thompson: How about the B1, his version of the go anywhere, do anything locomotive.

Edited December 27, 2019 by melmerby

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Personally I would take the Castle out of that list as it was not much more than an updated Star, several Stars were rebuilt as Castles.

A bigger revolution was putting 6' 0" wheels on a Saint to produce the progenitor of most modern mixed traffic 4-6-0 locos, Black 5

included.

For the LMS I'd put the Royal Scot in there, even though it was mostly the work of North British, it did the job, pretty well straight out of the works.

Stanier's masterpiece was the Coronation (although it appears he didn't do too much work in that either!)

 

Thompson: How about the B1, his version of the go anywhere, do anything locomotive.

 

Agree with the B1.

 

James Holden - S46 (yes there is thought that it shouldn't be credited to JH at all as he was absent most of the time during production). Looks fantastic, handled the work required of it. Later on when the required work had changed, they were extensively rebuilt however.

 

AJ Hill - L77 - proved itself very worthy, so much so it became an LNER Group Standard loco. Only significant change was to increase valve travel length on later builds.

 

[Nearholmer]

Almost everything Stroudley designed for passenger and mixed work, but the Terriers above and beyond all.

 

He was less successful with goods engines, where his very free-steaming and economical boiler design seemed to go amiss - it’s hard to understand at 130+ years remove, but I read it that his boilers combusted fuel very efficiently, and transferred heat very efficiently, but that they didn’t act as very effective energy stores, because the free steam space was small and the pressures weren’t all that high (they were normal for their time in that respect) ...... this meant that they ate coal as goods engines because they made steam too freely when load was low/zero (which was the case a lot of the time for a victorian goods engine) yet got out of breath when given intermittent heavy demand. The Drummond Brothers took his goods engines design with them to Scotland, though, and made very good of it ....... maybe they altered the proportions of the boiler subtly.

 

Talking of whom, the Drummond Brothers did exceedingly well too, and maybe Dugald's LSWR M7 might get into the list.

 

Post about 1930, when the American ideas refined by Churchward had become widely disseminated, nobody really had any excuse for failures, so designs became universally better overall, and it might be easier to pick the duds than the stars. Which is bound to bring matters to The Bulleid Controversy.

 

And, possibly, the 9F from The Riddles Team as the best of the Standards, although the 4MT tank was a blooming good design, iterated by several CMEs on the LMS.

 

The complication in this discussion is that there is a world of difference between:

 

- designs that can barely do what they are meant to do, and there were a great many of those in Victorian and even Edwardian days; and,

 

- designs that can do what they are meant to do, but then get outclassed within five minutes as the demand changes, which was a continual problem in many areas.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Nearholmer

[rogerzilla]

Yes, I should start a duds thread but one-offs, being of an experimental nature, shouldn't count.

[melmerby]

Agree about the 9F, a superb loco, pity it was 10+ years too late.

 

Duds.

Start with the Fowler class 2 2-6-2T.

Reputed by the crews to be unable to boil enough water for tea!

Stanier's taper boiler upgrade was little better.

[rogerzilla]

Maunsell's Q class was pretty hopeless.  Not sure what he was thinking with that throwback, since his other designs had been state of the art.  The K class tanks too, although to be fair to Maunsell, Gresley could find nothing wrong with them on good GNR track.

 

Lots of BR Standards, such as the Clans and the Franco-Crosti 9Fs, were poor in service.

 

I won't start on Bulleid's other efforts!

[TravisM]

3 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

Lots of BR Standards, such as the Clans and the Franco-Crosti 9Fs, were poor in service.

The Franco-Crosti 9F’s I think have to be deemed more of a experiment to find out if they would give better coal consumption but sadly a failure.  When I lived in Scotland, I spoke to several ex BR steam drivers and they claimed that the Clans were good strong engines if a little underpowered.

[Nearholmer]

26 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

Maunsell's Q class was pretty hopeless.  Not sure what he was thinking with that throwback,

The thinking was speed, as in getting them into service quickly. Cheaply too, and to do a job that needed nothing more advanced.

 

I'm not sure why ‘hopeless’ though. They did what they were meant to do, which was to provide very direct replacement for a few old crocks.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Nearholmer

[eastglosmog]

To preempt a post from a certain quarter, I would nominate the MR Johnson/Deeley Compound as doing the job it was designed to do economically.

Also the Webb 0-8-0 did what it was meant to do, haul long trains of coal wagons at 25mph or so.

When looking at the size of boiler that Victorian engineers could fit, the limited axle loading they were permitted did restrict what they could do.

[rogerzilla]

The Midland Compound was probably the only successful British compound.  Other countries used them a lot more. Maybe British drivers (who weren't as highly-trained as their French equivalents) couldn't get to grips with separate cut-offs and the other foibles of compounds.  I seem to remember that the later compounds built on the Smith system had simplified controls.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

To preempt a post from a certain quarter, I would nominate the MR Johnson/Deeley Compound as doing the job it was designed to do economically.

Also the Webb 0-8-0 did what it was meant to do, haul long trains of coal wagons at 25mph or so.

When looking at the size of boiler that Victorian engineers could fit, the limited axle loading they were permitted did restrict what they could do.

Another good loco, that did all it was asked to, was the Robinson 8K for the GCR, suitable enough to be the War Dept loco of WW1

The Churchward 28XX was better but probably wouldn't have stood up to the privations of war use.

[melmerby]

44 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

The Midland Compound was probably the only successful British compound. 

Webb's uncoupled compounds were probably the worst.

Went OK if the wheels were in sync when starting. (Else the two halves could go in opposite directions!)

[pete_mcfarlane]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

The thinking was speed, as in getting them into service quickly. Cheaply too, and to do a job that needed nothing more advanced.

 

I'm not sure why ‘hopeless’ though. They did what they were meant to do, which was to provide very direct replacement for a few old crocks.

The main criticism seems to be that Bulleid thought they were a bit old fashioned. Possibly because the Q does not feature a single piece of untested technology.

[adb968008]

9 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

Most CMEs designed (by which I mean produced under their direction; few did much detailed work themselves) at least one loco that did the intended job right from the start, didn't need extensive subsequent rebuilding, was fairly numerous and was popular with crews.

 

Here's my list:

 

Stanier: Black 5 (8F close 2nd)

Collett: Castle

Bulleid: Q1

Gresley: V2 (A4 close 2nd)

Fowler: 3F Jinty

Churchward: Saint

Maunsell: Schools (N close 2nd)

Hughes: Horwich mogul, aka Crab

Peppercorn: A1

Henry Ivatt: GNR Atlantic

George Ivatt: D16/1 (controversial)!

 

Can't think of anything for Thompson.

 

Any alternatives or older ones?

Nice to see Horwich & Crewe works employees feature so highly in this list (bold) .... of course George Ivatt he was the son of Henry Ivatt.. also influenced (underlined) by the LNWR, plus Bulleid was the Son-in-law of the same...so i’m sure the topic came up over lunch... and Peppercorn was from the Gresley influence, whom like Maunsell, Fowler and Hughes were ex-Horwich.

 

If Derby wasnt closer to London than Horwich.. steam technology might be even better

 

only leaves 1 other company, whos designs were arguably stuck in the past.

 

Whilst Stanier was of GW background, its LMS designs that he standsproud, whilst feteing the Black 5, it was the Stanier mogul that appeared first, therefore defining that “Stanier shape” before the 5MT and 8f and that was of a Horwich Crab origin too... 

 

missing from this list is Cox and Riddles. (Both also studied at Horwich, and Crewe).

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by adb968008

[rogerzilla]

There's a pretty direct line from the Crab to the BR Standards.  Stanier's mogul is a bit less like a Crab than some of Riddles' designs because Stanier managed to get the cylinders horizontal again.

[jim.snowdon]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Nice to see Horwich & Crewe works employees feature so highly in this list (bold) .... of course George Ivatt he was the son of Henry Ivatt.. also influenced (underlined) by the LNWR, plus Bulleid was the Son-in-law of the same...so i’m sure the topic came up over lunch... and Peppercorn was from the Gresley influence, whom like Maunsell, Fowler and Hughes were ex-Horwich.

 

If Derby wasnt closer to London than Horwich.. steam technology might be even better

 

only leaves 1 other company, whos designs were arguably stuck in the past.

 

Whilst Stanier was of GW background, its LMS designs that he standsproud, whilst feteing the Black 5, it was the Stanier mogul that appeared first, therefore defining that “Stanier shape” before the 5MT and 8f and that was of a Horwich Crab origin too... 

 

missing from this list is Cox and Riddles. (Both also studied at Horwich, and Crewe).

 

Don't forget that a lot of this is down to the Chief Draftsmen in the various locomotive drawing offices, the men who were behind the actual design work. Chief Engineers framed design policy, and decided who they wanted as Technical Assistants and senior designers, but it is the draftsmen who created the locomotives themselves. A very large part of Stanier's output is down to Tom Coleman, including the Coronations.

 

Jim

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

There's a pretty direct line from the Crab to the BR Standards.  Stanier's mogul is a bit less like a Crab than some of Riddles' designs because Stanier managed to get the cylinders horizontal again.

In that case there is a direct line from the GWR 43XX to the Standards.

The Stanier mogul was arrived at by taking the Crab and mixing it with a liberal dose of Swindon, such as taper boiler, with higher pressure and horizontal cylinders.

[Zomboid]

Their day jobs weren't really so centred on new locomotives though. Maunsell was in charge at the Southern for the Brighton and Portsmouth electrifications for example, which is a much bigger deal than the N class or Schools. I don't know much about who did what, but his part of the organisation would have had a big input into the rolling stock for those schemes. I use that example because electrification was IMO the "masterpiece" of the Southern, whoever was running the show.

[Nearholmer]

Designing emu stock, at least the electric bits, is much more a matter of maths and standard recipes than is designing a steam loco, which seems to require that plus a load of black magic (to cover the bits that aren’t or weren’t then treatable with maths). The electrical kit for the various southern emus in the 1930s were designed by collaboration between the DOs at the railway and at English Electric. 
 

I'm not sure without checking when the younger Raworth joined the team, but they had a very experienced electrical engineer in Jones, ex CSLR and exLSWR, and they had competent carriage designers, so my bet is that Maunsell waved the baton and the band played the tune.

 

PS: Alfred Raworth joined the LSWR in 1912, so he served under Jones for a long period before promotion and he became a consultant to English Electric when he retired, which underlines the symbiotic relationship between the two design offices. His father was a notable tramway and railway electrical engineer, who designed the first (sort of) workable system of regenerative braking for multi-vehicle DC electric railways, which hes tested on a section of track at Neasden which they hired from the Met, using IIRC two or three adapted 'Camelbacks'. The system worked, but was discredited when a tramcar with faulty motor windings (so not actingas a generator), ran away on a hill, after which it got quietly forgotten until power electronics became viable. The elder Raworth's illustrious career is summarised in this article https://tramwayinfo.com/tramways/Download/Raworth.pdf

Edited December 28, 2019 by Nearholmer

[JimC]

The challenge to pick out Churchward's masterpiece is really that none of them stood above the others.  Also that the earlier designs like the Saints were considerably upgraded as the standard specification evolved. 

[The Johnster]

On 27/12/2019 at 13:16, melmerby said:

 

Thompson: How about the B1, his version of the go anywhere, do anything locomotive.

Bit of a poor man's Black 5; steamed ok but the crews didn't like the rough riding.  Poor lambs, you might think, but a bad ride is very tiring over a shift, will shake your loco to bits leading to increased down time, mess up the firing, and not do your per. way any favours; poor riding is a serious problem.

 

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

In that case there is a direct line from the GWR 43XX to the Standards.

Yes, certainly for the 76xxx, and for the 5MT from the Hall, itself a derivation of the Saint, as well.

 

I think we need to include 'Jenny Lind' (oh, what a Joy) (see what I did there?) as a straight off the bat success. and surely Webb redeemed himself a bit with the 'Precedent'.

 

As for duds, the BR Standard 82xxx prairie tank comes to mind.  It used a domed version of the Swindon no.2 boiler which was ok, but was used on the WR to replace 5101s as new builds.  The 5101 was an overall success, based on Churchward's original 31xx from half a century earlier, but the Standard 3MTs were not up to 5101 work, perhaps not surprising as they were an entire BR power class lower.  Smaller cylinders and Walchearts valve gear seemed to take the 'punch' out of them in comparison.  

 

I'm less than convinced by Ivatt's 2MTs, as well.  The tank version is comparable in size to a 45xx/4575 but rated by BR at 2MT against the GW loco's 4MT.  The moguls were complained about by drivers at Brecon and Moat Lane as poor steamers when they replaced antediluvian Dean Goods locos on the Mid Wales line, resulting in some inter-regional high level bickering and the WR testing one at Swindon, where the steaming was found to be inferior to the Dean loco and the draughting altered; apparently the loco was then able to pull 20 coaches of test train at 60 mph on the GWML.

 

Wasn't a Stroudley Terrier driven from Dieppe to Paris at an average 60mph for the Paris Exhibition?  Even if I've got that wrong and 60 was the maximum, that's a phenomenal performance!!!

[Harlequin]

Dean: Dean Goods - mentioned in passing by The Johnster but fits the OP criteria very well.

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Harlequin

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

In that case there is a direct line from the GWR 43XX to the Standards.

The Stanier mogul was arrived at by taking the Crab and mixing it with a liberal dose of Swindon, such as taper boiler, with higher pressure and horizontal cylinders.

 

And the 43XX was nicked from the Yanks by Holcroft...

 

Same as the GNR 2-6-0s and SECR 2-6-0s which he was also involved with. They knew the 2-6-0 was probably the ideal mixed traffic loco, but the ones they tried from America were a bit rubbish. Eventually they got it right, but it was Holcroft that did much of the work.

 

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

 

 

 

Jason

[Boris]

Ivatt: 10100 needs more love