Incompetent CMEs

[brack]

Thing is, we're assuming again that CMEs can be judged solely on new loco designs produced during their tenure. Were the locos and stock maintained well?, were economies and efficiencies made? Did the loco works themselves need developing? Did he manage his staff well? Could he work within the budgets and constraints given?

There was much more to the role than merely turning out new designs . Whilst we may look at one or two and decide they were rubbish (mostly on the grounds of new loco designs they've rubber stamped), they may have been very good at other aspects of the job.

 

As for Baltic tanks in the UK, there was only one design that was truly successful, built by Nasmyth Wilson in 1904.

 

 

The shortest lived of the 4 lasted 48 years before a combination of age and dwindling traffic did for them, the eldest outlasted the railway itself, was preserved, then scrapped by thieves in 1968. CDRJC class 4.

 

[Bomag]

The CDJR Class 4 worked but the various books about them say that the Class5/5a were more economical for the same load.

[melmerby]

On 13/06/2020 at 23:13, melmerby said:

No doubt they went well when on the move but they, by all accounts, could be a b*gger to start.

There's the well documented but maybe apocrypal case of one that managed to have the uncoupled driving wheels going in opposite directions.

 

On 13/06/2020 at 23:28, Compound2632 said:

 

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson's challenge to James Macpherson: "show me your documents".

 

 

Being doing a bit of reading up on this.

With outside Joy's valve gear and an inside slip eccentric, if a loco backs on to it's train, when the driver operates the reversing gear to go forward the outside Joy's gear will be in forward gear, however the inside slip eccentric will still be in reverse.

If the driver now opens the regulator the wheels go in opposite directions.

However the locos were fitted with a valve to stop this happening, which the driver had to operate, this stops the inside engine operating until the loco was moving forward.

If the driver doesn't operate the valve the wheels go in opposite directions.

Did it happen? Possibly, but I can find little evidence to confirm it happened in practice, but drivers do make mistakes.

[LMS2968]

Even if the driver failed to operate the valve, it wouldn't happen as a matter of certainty, other factors were involved. Firstly, the inside cylinder (with slip eccentric) had no steam supply directly from the boiler but received only exhaust steam from the outside, high-pressure cylinders. So a lot depended on where the inside valve stopped and whether or not the port was open to admission. Even then, it would not receive steam until a port of an outside cylinder opened to exhaust, and by that time the engine, in theory at least, had moved sufficiently far for the slip eccentric to have moved into fore gear. The problem lay if the engine didn't actually move, but the leading drivers slipped, sending a lot of steam to the inside cylinder whose slip eccentric was still in back gear and assuming the port was open to admission.

Edited June 15, 2020 by LMS2968

[brack]

17 hours ago, Bomag said:

The CDJR Class 4 worked but the various books about them say that the Class5/5a were more economical for the same load.

There was only 3.5 years between then, but the 5s were a much more modern design with higher boiler pressure, smaller cylinders, piston valves, higher factor of adhesion and built superheated, so they should perform better. Sam Carse wrote that Nasmyth Wilson had argued for 14" cylinders on the class 4s but the loco superintendent, Livesey wanted 15". Experience suggested the manufacturers might have had a point and the class 5 had 14" cylinders.

I know it was only a few years between them, but there was quite a bit of technological improvement. The 4s were much better once superheated and a row of tubes taken out, but yes, the 5s were better.

[jim.snowdon]

There's more than few designers come unstuck when trying to produce an enlarged version of a successful design, as in enlarging a 4-4-0 into a 4-6-0, through failing to realise bigger boilers mean nothing if the valve openings constrain the steam flow. The Caledonian's Cardeans come to mind, impressive compared to the Dunalastairs but not actually much better.

 

Jim 

[62613]

15 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

There's more than few designers come unstuck when trying to produce an enlarged version of a successful design, as in enlarging a 4-4-0 into a 4-6-0, through failing to realise bigger boilers mean nothing if the valve openings constrain the steam flow. The Caledonian's Cardeans come to mind, impressive compared to the Dunalastairs but not actually much better.

 

Jim 

Not just that, Jim; things like fitting an adequate grate and ashpan in the space above the axle of large-diameter coupled wheels as well. Especially as boiler became larger, too. Would you say that most superintendents were caught out by the increase in the weight of passenger trains, and the almost sudden requirement for much larger locomotives as result?

 

[brack]

I think perhaps that sudden change provided an immediate way to separate a good, innovative designer who understood what was going on inside a loco from those who were simply producing minor variations on an existing theme (eg. The Caley 460 designs). Several designers who had previously shown themselves as innovative were perhaps now too long in the tooth to change with the times.

Those who were most successful looked at overseas practice where larger locos were already established and copied/adapted accordingly. Churchward for instance must have recognised the need for improvements in boiler/firebox design as he looked at US boiler construction, but borrowed the front end from france. The NER made several visits to the US, in particular to the Pennsylvania Railroad, where close links probably stem from both of the worsdell's having worked at altoona in their career. This influenced the big engine policy, the NER atlantics, boiler sizes and electrification. Apparently some information was passed back the other way too. Gresley was obviously inspired by both transatlantic and cross channel influences.

What I find particularly interesting are the NER 4 cylinder compound atlantics - credited to W Worsdell but he openly acknowledged they were his draughtsman, W Smith's idea and design. Worsdell allowed Smith to spend more on them than he had budgeted on his own locos, and they were excellent locos. To me, that is a CME who is confident enough in his own position to allow someone below him in the hierarchy free rein to have a go at something quite at odds with his own ideas (he hated compounds for a start).

[Andy Kirkham]

3 hours ago, brack said:

There was only 3.5 years between then, but the 5s were a much more modern design with higher boiler pressure, smaller cylinders, piston valves, higher factor of adhesion and built superheated, so they should perform better. Sam Carse wrote that Nasmyth Wilson had argued for 14" cylinders on the class 4s but the loco superintendent, Livesey wanted 15". Experience suggested the manufacturers might have had a point and the class 5 had 14" cylinders.

I know it was only a few years between them, but there was quite a bit of technological improvement. The 4s were much better once superheated and a row of tubes taken out, but yes, the 5s were better.

 

Interestingly, though I see (having just consulted Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotives_of_Ireland#West_Donegal_Railway) that the 4s outlasted the 5s by a good many years (withdrawn 1953-1959 and 1940-1950 respectively). 

 

[Edit} I'm a bit confused, as it seems that it is the 2-6-4s that survive today. Error in Wikipedia?

Edited June 15, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, brack said:

What I find particularly interesting are the NER 4 cylinder compound atlantics - credited to W Worsdell but he openly acknowledged they were his draughtsman, W Smith's idea and design. Worsdell allowed Smith to spend more on them than he had budgeted on his own locos, and they were excellent locos. To me, that is a CME who is confident enough in his own position to allow someone below him in the hierarchy free rein to have a go at something quite at odds with his own ideas (he hated compounds for a start).

 

... and also to allow Smith to liaise with S.W. Johnson in the design of the Midland's Smith-Johnson Compounds, which, at least as far as the engine part is concerned, were developed from the solitary Class M (3CC). It's a shame that, with the changes at the top of the locomotive department at Derby on Johnson's retirement and Smith's death, there wasn't to be a Smith-Johnson 4-cylinder compound atlantic! Or was there? Smith's third son was in the Derby LDO but moved to Gorton just as Robinson was building compound atlantics... 

 

It was also through Smith's influence that Johnson adopted piston valves for express passenger engines in the mid-90s - when were they first used on the North Eastern?

 

I also learned from the obituary reproduced in Grace's Guide that Smith was the originator of the firebox cross water tubes usually associated with Dugald Drummond.

 

They're all linked: Smith was Johnson's chief draughtsman at Cowlairs in the mid-1860s, where Stroudley and Drummond were Johnson's assistants.

 

Perhaps we need a new thread: instead of incompetent CMEs, brilliant Chief Draughtsmen. Walter Mackersie Smith would be right at the top of the list along with Tom Coleman, James Clayton, and maybe Robert Surtees.

 

 

[John M]

45 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

Interestingly, though I see (having just consulted Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotives_of_Ireland#West_Donegal_Railway) that the 4s outlasted the 5s by a good many years (withdrawn 1953-1959 and 1940-1950 respectively). 

 

[Edit} I'm a bit confused, as it seems that it is the 2-6-4s that survive today. Error in Wikipedia?

Wikipedia typo. The Class 5 2-6-4T were gradually withdrawn between 1940  and the final closure of the system in Jan 1960s, Nos 4-6  are still in existence. No 7 is recorded as scrapped in 1940  No 8 in 1955. (The County Donegal Railways EM Patterson 1962)

[burgundy]

31 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

They're all linked: Smith was Johnson's chief draughtsman at Cowlairs in the mid-1860s, where Stroudley and Drummond were Johnson's assistants.

 

When Stroudley went to Brighton, he was joined by Drummond as Works Manager and by Robert Billinton as Chief Draughtsman. Billinton then went on to the Midland before returning to Brighton

I agree. It would be fascinating to draw out the network of contacts and relationships among the well known names - although I have no idea how you would do it in a way that was informative!  

Best wishes

Eric  

[Compound2632]

S.W. Johnson's son James, who was for a while Locomotive Superintendent of the Great North of Scotland, married Dugald's daughter Christine.

[brack]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

S.W. Johnson's son James, who was for a while Locomotive Superintendent of the Great North of Scotland, married Dugald's daughter Christine.

A number of the LNER and constituent CMEs seem to be related, often by marrying daughters of prominent engineers! Have a look at the engineers biographies on lner.info.

The other thing that struck me was how closely linked quite a few were to Stephenson - eg. The Worsdell's dad made the carriages for the liverpool & manchester, fletcher was Stephenson's apprentice, Holden snr his nephew, then holden jnr. In terms of marriages Raven's daughter was married to thompson, Ivatt snr's daughter married to bulleid, Ivatt jnr at the LMS etc.

[DCB]

Surely William Pickersgill deserves a mention?  His designs never equalled his predecessor J.F. McIntosh's locos and in the case of the 4-6-0s never approached the performance of the McIntosh locos.

Built like battleships , smaller superheaters than the older locos same achilles heel small fireboxes as the CR McIntosh locos, when the belgian McIntosh locos used fireboxes 25% larger.  I think his plan was lousy valve events, small firebox, small superheater meant low power out put hence low wear and tear and less work for St Rollox to do.  Mind you her really excelled himself with the 956.  He did buy some of the finest 4-6-0s of the pre group era, the Rivers, designed by that other genius Smith of the Highland.

Now some CMEs made locos able only to operate over a very few of the company's routes but Smith's Rivers could not be used on ANY of the highland's routes. Sheer Genius.

Bulleid designed a loco with the same route availability as a GW Castle for use on Branch Lines. It just happened the Southern engineered their branches for 20 ton axle loads where the GW struggled make many of theirs cope with 17.5 ton axle loads.

Hawkesworth put one of Staniers boilers on a Hall chassis with Stanier cylinders and cocked up valve events pushed the boiler pressure through the roof and changed the tender buffers to longer ones and came up with a real dogs breakfast of the County. Sam Ell sorted them out essentially by rebuildng the boilers with different tube plates, but like Stanier's designs the Old Churchward Straight Throatplate boilers demonstrably out performed the later sloping throatplate ones.  The outstanding Jubilee Rooke, had a straight throatplate boiler.  Putting a heavy taper boiler on a Pannier so it was too heavy for most duties was not exactly genius, building 10 of each of 2 design was questionable when there were 800 plus of the older very successful design but BR building another 200 was sheer madness.

Thompson was a genius, making an improved pacific which burned 50% more coal than the original on test was genius.

While Riddles has no place here.  His Clans were acclaimed for their economy of running and low repair costs, and the valve gear didn't fall off, or tenders uncouple, and he kept them away from the GWR. Sheer genius.

Then again Cummings needs credit for his Clans on the HR, basically for placing the outline spec and getting NB loco co design and build them, Fowler on the LMS with the Scots, and Gresley on the LNER with the Sandringhams pulled the same stunt. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[brack]

4 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Now some CMEs made locos able only to operate over a very few of the company's routes but Smith's Rivers could not be used on ANY of the highland's routes. Sheer Genius.

Smith's Rivers could have operated over all of the Highland's main routes if Alexander Newlands (the chief civil engineer) hadnt been (or more likely pretended to be) utterly ignorant of any recent research in the previous few decades directly affecting his job. They put far less weight and stress on the rails than the clans or the Big Bens (which actually had a higher static axle loading) and were specifically designed to be within the dynamic loading of the castles.

Newlands and Smith didnt get on or communicate, which is clearly a failing of both of them. But Newlands was fully aware of all the above, yet chose to wait until the locos were delivered to make his stand, when it caused maximum damage to his rival. This was also the time it caused maximum damage to the company, as they were desperate for power during ww1. The greater lack of competence is surely his on the grounds of either neglect to keep abreast of research on hammer blow or allowing his pettiness and personal dislikes to damage the company.

Even if one accepts Newlands' position regarding static axle loading the question remains as to why he made no great play regarding Drummond's Big Bens. It was simply a man putting his personal vendetta ahead of his professional duties, but that ought to be filed under incompetent civil engineers.

[LMS2968]

However true that is, the fact remains that Smith produced and built engines which were rejected by the CCE and he should have had the design accepted before building, however correct he was in his calculations.

 

A similar but less drastic situation arose on the LNWR when C.J. Bowen Cook designed the four-cylinder Claughtons. As all cylinders drove the leading axle, hannerblow was nil, so he went for a higher static axle load. He put this to the CCE, but such advances were beyond his understanding and the design was rejected. It later reappeared, but following weight reductions, particularly from a smaller than intended boiler.

[ikcdab]

On 13/06/2020 at 18:48, jim.snowdon said:

Perhaps we should remember that Locomotive Superintendents and Chief Mechanical Engineers do not themselves design locomotives. Their role is to manage the provision and maintenance of the locomotives required by the railway company to move its trains in an economical manner. Part of that is framing design policy, but actual design is left to the chief draftsmen and their staff in the drawing offices, assisted by the CME's technical assistants.

 

Jim

You can't get away with that!  They may not be responsible for detailed design work, but they are accountble for the output of their department. It's the same in any industry. The CEO may not know the details but certainly carries the can when it goes wrong. 

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, brack said:

The Worsdell's dad made the carriages for the liverpool & manchester, 

 

Initially, their grandfather, Thomas Clarke, until he went to the Leipzig and Dresden Railway in 1837. Thomas William and Wilson's father, Nathaniel, was present at the first carriage design discussion between his father and George Stephenson in 1828 and went on to a career on the L&M, GJR, and LNWR, continuing at the Crown Street carriage works, moving to Crewe in 1843 as manager of the GJR carriage-building workshops, then in 1860 (when carriage-building was concentrated at the ex-L&B works at Wolverton), as head of the Stores Purchasing Department [G. Hill, The Worsdells - a Quaker Engineering Dynasty (The Transport Publishing Company, 1991)].

 

Worsdell-designed equipment was in use on Britain's railways from the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester to within a year or so of the end of main-line steam.

[bbishop]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Perhaps we need a new thread: instead of incompetent CMEs, brilliant Chief Draughtsmen. Walter Mackersie Smith would be right at the top of the list along with Tom Coleman, James Clayton, and maybe Robert Surtees.

 

 

 

I would add Jock Finlayson, who was Chief Draughtsman under Robert Urie and was responsible for the Arthurs, Nelsons and Schools under Maunsell.  I agree that Clayton had to sort out the front end of the N15 class (pre-Arthurs).  Finlayson had been an estimator for he North British Locomotive Company. 

 

One of my sources is Langridge's "Under 10 CMEs".  Finlayson did not approve of leading pony trucks and even his hump shunters had a leading bogie.  Bill

 

[melmoth]

I seem to remember Holcroft saying (probably in Locomotive Adventure 1) something to the effect that Maunsell, Clayton and himself had a degree of difficultly in getting Finlayson to do what they asked him to do because he was rather set in his (and Eastleigh's) ways.

[jim.snowdon]

2 hours ago, ikcdab said:

You can't get away with that!  They may not be responsible for detailed design work, but they are accountble for the output of their department. It's the same in any industry. The CEO may not know the details but certainly carries the can when it goes wrong. 

I hadn't said that they weren't accountable, only that they don't do the detailed design work - that is delegated.

 

Jim

[tomparryharry]

5 hours ago, ikcdab said:

You can't get away with that!  They may not be responsible for detailed design work, but they are accountble for the output of their department. It's the same in any industry. The CEO may not know the details but certainly carries the can when it goes wrong. 

 

Churchward is well noted for having impromptu meetings in the draughtsman's offices, and very often at the draughtsman's chair.  Design issues were often resolved there & then, with the relevant staff involved.  There was no can-carrying going on, as the whole process was designed to obviate these instances. 

[bbishop]

4 hours ago, melmoth said:

I seem to remember Holcroft saying (probably in Locomotive Adventure 1) something to the effect that Maunsell, Clayton and himself had a degree of difficultly in getting Finlayson to do what they asked him to do because he was rather set in his (and Eastleigh's) ways.

 

But was that a bad thing?  The "LSWR" designs (Arthurs, Schools, S15s) didn't need to be reframed in the 1950s and the Green Tanks (the H16 class built for the cross London freight traffic) enjoyed their Summer holiday job hauling the Ascot race specials without falling off the track.  Bill

[burgundy]

11 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Now some CMEs made locos able only to operate over a very few of the company's routes but Smith's Rivers could not be used on ANY of the highland's routes. Sheer Genius.

Not completely true. After grouping, they ended up back on the Highland. But that was after hammer blow was better understood. The real sin was to have ignored the advice of the civil engineer, Newlands.

Best wishes

Eric