Incompetent CMEs

[brack]

H.A. Hoy resigned from the L&Y when beyer peacock offered him £2000 per year plus 2.5% commission on net profits to be general manager (their managing director having resigned). He also took with him several key staff from the L&Y: AE Kyffin (appointed chief draughtsman), AC Rogerson (appointed works manager, formerly Chief Outdoor Machinery assistant) and Edgar Alcock (appointed deputy works manager, and who went to Hunslet as their works manager on Hoy's death).

Given Beyer were reorganising the works and electrifying all their machinery (only the second engineering works in the country to do so) around that time and Hoy's experience of working with electricity at Horwich, reorganizing the works there and the move from Miles Platting, he might have been chosen for a purpose. Whilst at Beyers he patented a steam lorry and they built a few, whilst also looking at automobiles and buying land for a loco works in montreal (never built due to legal wrangling, the land was sold in 1912) - it seems there was some thought to diversify their output away from steam locos. As it happened, the first garratt schemes were prepared and built under his watch, which certainly saw the company good for the next half century.

[burgundy]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

What about J C craven of the LBSCR? He seemed to create a sort of locomotive anarchy, upset his workforce, and reputedly had his son do most of the work on his later designs. When the directors told him to sort out the anarchy, he got the hump and resigned. His predecessor was sacked, so possibly not all that good himself.

Craven was apparently a particularly difficult person, not least to his own family. However, I would suggest that he is maligned as an engineer. He was responsible for the development of Brighton Works, even if by 1870 it was still following old craft practices, rather than modern production engineering. He operated on a shoestring, under continuous pressure from the Directors, recycling old material and rebuilding locos to squeeze the last drop of value from them. The same Directors were responsible for ignoring his requests to purchase  additional locos and then panic buying with disastrous results. Two locos arrived unannounced, which the Directors had bought without telling him. Under the circumstances, most self respecting  senior officers would have resigned (in fact he did so twice, with the Directors, on the first occasion, asking him to come back).   

Despite this, he left a stud of locos of which many lasted into the late 1880s and early 1890s: for much of the "Stroudley period" express trains were probably being hauled by Craven engines.  He was also open to innovation, trying new devices and designs - albeit at the expense of standardisation. 

By contrast, Stroudley is always regarded very highly. He was popular, he turned Brighton Works around, he produced locos in the 1870s which served until the end of steam and are still at work and he introduced a photogenic livery that ensured good publicity. The interesting question is how he would have followed the Gladstone class. Was it capable of further development and would he have overcome his dislike of bogies? Would he have stuck with his standard designs when in reality they were becoming outclassed?

As in many things, people are seldom simply either heroes or villains.  

Best wishes 

Eric

[Andy Kirkham]

From Edward Talbot's LNWR Miscellany volume 2 I learn that examples of Webb 2-2-2-0 compunds -  many practically identical to the Crewe products - were supplied to the following overseas railways:

The Austrian State Railway

The Western Railway of France

The Oudh and Rohilkund Railway of India

The Buenos Ayres Western Railway

The Paulista Railway of Brazil

The Pennsylvania Railroad

 

This testifies to Webb's compounds having a global reputation that must be unparalleled in British railway history. 

 

However it looks as if these were either single machines or small batches and there is no mention of repeat orders. Of the Pennslylvania example, Talbot states The wokmanship of Pennsylvania was considedered excellent and its coal consumption satisfactory but owing to difficulties in starting it could not be used in the same link as the comparable PRR engines. Consequently it was soon withdrawn from main-line service and was scrapped in 1898.

 

Might it then be a fair verdict that these machines were excellent performers but suffered from quirks in behaviour that LNWR crews were obliged to cope with, but which other railways would not tolerate?

Edited June 14, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[corneliuslundie]

It needs to be remembered that Webb looked at the divided drive to avoid coupling rods at a time when accuracy in the construction of frames was still considered an issue and eliminating coupling rods was hoped to produce free-er running locomotives. They were overtaken by events as workshop practice improved and accuracy of frame alignment increased.

Re Craven, at the time he was operating the concept of standardisation had not been developed very far, and he therefore built each loco to fulfil a particular task. Even in "standard" classes at that time there was a lot of variation (eg one or two of  the GWR tank loco "classes"!)

Jonathan

[PenrithBeacon]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Francis Webb's contribution to LNWR motive power, and via his pupils who became chiefs in many other railways both in Britain and abroad, was immense and went far beyond locomotives, including expanding and the reorganising of Crewe works to pre-eminence among loco works. He expanded into other aspects of railway operation, most noticeably signalling and trackwork. His engines were solid, hard working, economical and efficient machines and he provided thousands of them over a thirty year period, during which time he had the solid backing of a profits-orientated Board of Directors. The Compounds, both three- and four-cylinder, varied between poor and very good. His main problem was that he suffered from a poor press AFTER he resigned for medical reasons, powered by the powerful enemies he made when in charge.

One of the odder things about the current railway is the continued use of Webb's tumbler design of lever frame 150 years or so after it was designed. They're all over the place for siding ground frames, Welshpool and Ribblehead come to mind.

Mention has been made of Edward Talbot's book, The LNWR Recalled. IIRC there is a description in it of how to start a Webb compound that was distributed by the company.

[LMS2968]

4 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

It needs to be remembered that Webb looked at the divided drive to avoid coupling rods at a time when accuracy in the construction of frames was still considered an issue and eliminating coupling rods was hoped to produce free-er running locomotives. They were overtaken by events as workshop practice improved and accuracy of frame alignment increased.

Coupling rods did actually impede power output, which is why singles remained popular for so long until increases in train weights went beyond their capacity. Jim Markland, a Bolton fireman, relates the story of a 4F going to Horwich works. It had sheared a crank pin, something the class was prone to do, but was running light engine with all coupling rods off so effectively a 2-2-2. The crew was amazed at how free running it was and how far it would travel with the regulator closed in comparison with the usual 4F. It wasn't just in the mid-19th Century that rods added friction.

[Nearholmer]

Eric

 

there's a bit of truth in what you say.

 

its hard to find a great deal of detail about ‘JCC the man’, but I’ve often wondered if he would actually be considered mentally unwell by modern standards. There’s something in what little is known about him that suggests that he was doing pretty well up to a certain point, then progressively “lost it”.

 

Kevin

[Compound2632]

Another point about the uncoupled driving wheels of the Webb 3-cylinder 2-2-2-0 compounds is that they enabled a longer wheelbase - 9'8" on the Teutonics - than was usually possible at the time, because coupling rods of that length would contribute significantly to the total reciprocating mass and there was also concern about making them strong enough to avoid breakages. The longer wheelbase enabled a long grate.

 

Anyway, it seems to me that Webb and Hoy too have been cleared of the charge of incompetence and we can move on. 

 

A particularly incompetent early locomotive engineer was I.K. Brunel, who had to be dug out of a hole by one of Robert Stephenson's Drawing Office staff.

[LMS2968]

Just a minor point, Compound, coupling rods add to the rotating masses, not the reciprocating.

[pete_mcfarlane]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

F.W. Webb could hardly have held the position of Locomotive Superintendent of the principal railway company in the United Kingdom for a third of a century if he had actually been incompetent.

 

There has been a great deal of nonsense written about his compound locomotives; it has to be remembered that there were only 30 of the 2-2-2-0s and 20 of the 2-2-2-2s out of a total locomotive stock of over 2,000. The best of those, the Teutonic Class of 2-2-2-0s, were very good engines that put in some fine performances - notably Adriatic's very swift run down to Crewe in the '95, and Jeanie Deans' day-in-day-out working of the 2pm "Corridor" - the principal daytime Scotch Express - down from Euston to Crewe and back up later in the day - throughout the 90s. Like most express passenger engines of the 90s, their time in the limelight was curtailed by the increasing weight of expresses in the Edwardian era. 

 

Webb wasn't alone in experimenting with double singles - Dugald Drummond built a handful for the LSWR. These were problematic - I've seen suggestions that the problem was unequal power output between the two sets of cylinders due to the different vale gears.

 

What seems to be happening in both cases is a practice of building semi-experimental locos in moderately size batches (5, 10, 20) and giving them them a try under real conditions, rather than building a single prototype and testing it for years (as Churchward did). This means you've got 20 potentially useless engines if things doesn't work out, but on the other hand if the ideas are sound you've moved loco design forward a lot more quickly. 

[sir douglas]

surely starting off was a common problem for all large wheeled single drivers, all youve got here are 2 single stuck together. the midland spinner was known for it even though the crews liked its performance at speed. but yes it would a large inconvenience for one of your axle to turn the wrong way

Edited June 14, 2020 by sir douglas

[Compound2632]

32 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Just a minor point, Compound, coupling rods add to the rotating masses, not the reciprocating.

Mea culpa. Reciprocating go back and forth - pistons, crossheads, valve gear must contribute too - resulting in waddle. Rotating go round and round, giving hammer blow.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

 

Webb wasn't alone in experimenting with double singles - Dugald Drummond built a handful for the LSWR. These were problematic - I've seen suggestions that the problem was unequal power output between the two sets of cylinders due to the different vale gears.

 

The Drummond double singles weren't compounds, so I'm struggling to see why the two pairs of cylinders would be given different valve events. 

 

Now Drummond was a supremely competent locomotive engineer so long as he stuck to the designs he originated on the NBR but suffered from incompetence when it came to 4-6-0s - Urie said of one of those that it was the only engine he had encountered that wouldn't roll away on a 1:100 gradient. [I'd be glad if someone could give chapter and verse for that.] But he wasn't alone: many LDOs learned the hard way that you can't make a good 4-6-0 by lengthening a successful 4-4-0. Crewe seems to have got away with it, though.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Compound2632

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

16 hours ago, melmerby said:

Anyone that didn't work at Swindon?

I offer you IKB.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I offer you IKB.

Wrong

Never CME or Locomotive Superintendent, so not valid.

[Wickham Green too]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Harry Wainwright. He was an incompetent manager who allowed a backlog or repairs to build up having mishandled the closure of Longhedge and transfer of work to Ashford and was asked by the directors to resign. As is well known his background was in the Carriage & Wagon side (nominative determinism?); the rather handsome and reasonably competent locomotives that pass under his name were the work of the Chief Draughtsman, Robert Surtees (ex-LCDR) and, one presumes, the Ashford and Longhedge drawing office teams.

In Bradley's words "It is true that motive power problems did arise in 1912-3, but these were caused by the directors' insistence that Longhedge Works be closed before its capacity had been fully overtaken by the extensions at Ashford. As frequently occurs with directorial errors, the blame was allowed to fall elsewhere and Wainwright was asked to retire .... " ......................... no, I've no idea whether you're right or Bradley - but the quality of the locos produced & rebuilt by the team that Wainwright inherited / assembled is in little doubt.

[Andy Kirkham]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The Drummond double singles weren't compounds, so I'm struggling to see why the two pairs of cylinders would be given different valve events. 

 

 

Would it be explained by their having Stephenson's valve gear for the inside cylinders and Joy's for the outside?

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

Would it be explained by their having Stephenson's valve gear for the inside cylinders and Joy's for the outside?

 

Aha. It would, I think, be next to impossible to set the two to give the same events. Mind you, if the problem with Drummond's double singles was unequal power from the two pairs of cylinders, that's no different from the Webb 3-cylinder compounds. 

[Legend]

Quite surprised that the Glasgow &South Western Railway hasn’t appeared . I can’t remember which designer it was Smellie or Whitlegg but their designs seem really not to be up to scratch , so that after grouping Caley and Fowler locos has to be drafted in to do the job . 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Wrong

Never CME or Locomotive Superintendent, so not valid.

IKB  was simply engineer to the GWR, the title encompassing all roles. His towering success with the atmospheric railway anyone? No whitewashing, he was a great civil engineer, but in rail traction a failure, his locos were little better.

 

Credit where due, he hired a Stephenson's trained man in Daniel Gooch and delegated to him the 'Loco Superintendent' title, and he immediately supplied designs from the 'true source' of competent main line steam rail traction.

[GeoffAlan]

16 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Great Western engines could be designed by the Swindon storesman!

 

What time does the next bus leave?

I'm not a great fan of the Great Way Round, but that's a complement to the GWR's early adoption of a kind of standardisation. A limited number of Boilers, a few different wheel sizes throw them in the air and you get an express, mixed traffic or goods engine.

It took a long time for other companies to follow suit.

[LMS2968]

No-one's good at everything, and his essays in the world of mechanical as opposed to civil engineering were not particularly successful, ships included. But he certainly taught the world much. In that respect, he was the opposite of George Stephenson, who was a better mechanical engineer than civil. His son Robert seemed happy in both worlds, although even he didn't always get it right, as with the Roodee Bridge at Chester.

 

Of course, one of the greats was William Stanier, although there were a few teething troubles when he first introduced the 5XPs, better known as 'Jubillees'. And while, as already stated on here, it was the DO which produced the actual design, it was he who laid down all the parameters, including the taper boiler, smokebox regulator and low-degree superheat. The DO just followed his orders.

[LMS2968]

2 minutes ago, GeoffAlan said:

I'm not a great fan of the Great Way Round, but that's a complement to the GWR's early adoption of a kind of standardisation. A limited number of Boilers, a few different wheel sizes throw them in the air and you get an express, mixed traffic or goods engine.

It took a long time for other companies to follow suit.

Not exactly. The Midland also went very strongly into standardisation, especially of components. Crewe also. The trap is that eventually the standard parts become obsolete as technology progresses, but there is a reluctance to move forward to new ideas because the old ones are 'standard'.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Legend said:

Quite surprised that the Glasgow &South Western Railway hasn’t appeared . I can’t remember which designer it was Smellie or Whitlegg but their designs seem really not to be up to scratch , so that after grouping Caley and Fowler locos has to be drafted in to do the job . 

 

The G&SWR had a series of highly competent Locomotive Superintendents in Patrick Stirling, James Stirling, Hugh Smellie, James Manson, Peter Drummond, and R.H. Whitelegg. The latter had a bit of a thing for Baltic tanks that were somewhat in vogue but not really satisfactory in an anybody's hands. There was nothing really wrong with the Sou'-West's locomotive fleet; it was well-suited to the local traffic and conditions. It was just that in absolute numbers it was not large and made up of too many small classes, so was an early victim of LMS standardisation - the equally satisfactory North Staffordshire locomotive fleet is a similar case, all swept away by the late 30s.

 

It's notable that four of the G&SWR's six Locomotive Superintendents were natives of Ayrshire.

[GeoffAlan]

4 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Not exactly. The Midland also went very strongly into standardisation, especially of components. Crewe also. The trap is that eventually the standard parts become obsolete as technology progresses, but there is a reluctance to move forward to new ideas because the old ones are 'standard'.

Yes, I'd forgotten their insistence on such items as wheel bearings that were already too small on the 4F and were positively 'the weakest link' on the Garratts. At least Swindon were able to change when change was needed.