the purpose of the BR locomotive exchange trials

[LMS2968]

Some of Langley's recommendations, not only in this report, were a bit on the spurious side.

[pH]

3 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

What is more surprising is the difference in approach between the ER and WR systems of hand holds - it's surprising Swindon was permitted to come up with the solution they did - not only did it look odd but must have been significantly more expensive to implement.

From ‘Loco Profile #12 - BR Britannias’:

 

”With the not-unknown insistence of the sick to over-apply the cure, the W.R. scattered six hand-holds over each deflector; other Regions put in two, naturally of different shape and location.”

[TravisM]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Drifting a lot ........ do you recall that in an old thread about diesels around this period I mocked a drawing of an Alco MRS1 with LMS lettering? EMD also built a few MRS1, so you get a choice of US power plant in the British loading gauge, at roughly the right date.

The ALCo MRS1 would have been a great choice for BR in the time period given because the war had ended and to be honest, the USATC were practically giving them away.  Again they could have been adapted to fit the UK loading gauge, screw couplings and buffers at a reasonable price and BR would have a ready to go diesel to fill the gaps.

[Nearholmer]

I think you might be getting crossed with the earlier Alco RS-1 or the RSD-1, both only 1000hp.

 

The MRS1 were built for the US strategic reserve and remained in it until 1970, and not sold until then, so a bit of a long wait for what were by then rather outdated (low power/weight ratio) if locos. The EMD version only I think was ‘toured’ in Europe as a demonstrator, but they weren’t flogging them off war surplus c1950, they were building them.

 

When built, they demonstrated the dilemma facing potential buyers of diesel locos in Britain, wherever they came from: 100 tons and as long as a passenger carriage for 1600hp, with high first cost. The EE locos were somewhat heavier, but they were faster, and were pushing the power higher.

 

However messed and muddled the British diesel programme became later, when blind panic set-in as a result of the dire financial performance of the railways, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, based on what they produced for LMS and SR, EE actually weren’t doing too badly in comparison with the USA. What they didn't have was a big-enough market.
 

None of which really has much to do with the topic!

Edited September 9, 2020 by Nearholmer

[brianusa]

I dunno Kevin!  The comments resulting from the trials are justified as it did indeed prolong steamers for another twenty years or so and perhaps importantly for the nascent preservation movement a source of scrap to be rejuvenated into an important social business which has blossomed to the extent we see today. Covid permitting!

     Brian.

[Right Away]

Returning briefly to the steam v others, consideration might be given to the issues of staffing that were to follow in the Fifties onwards.

However we like to “sugar coat” the steam era through our rose tinted specs, it must be remembered that our beloved steam engines were very labour intensive (and expensive) to operate. 
Financially, the country was not doing too well, but jobs were seemingly aplenty and many did not involve people going home after a day’s work covered in the residue of a coaling plant or ash pit. I was a child in the 1950’s but can still look back with fondness of the lifestyles which were accepted by many, regardless of the toil.

I would think it a long stretch of the imagination to expect that had steam not been replaced when it was by “cleaner” forms of traction, recruitment to the vital labouring grades necessary for operation would be readily forthcoming.

 

What we wouldn’t do now for the chance just to get our hands oily and sooty!

 

[LMS2968]

It should be pointed out that measures were being taken to reduce the labour required to operate steam, particularly at preparation (grease lubrication rather than oiling around each day) and disposal (rocking grates and hopper ash pans, self-cleaning smokeboxes along with, on the ground, coaling and ash lifting plants), although these were not pursued as rigorously as they might have been: new designs had them but they were rarely fitted to retrospectively to existing locos. This wasn't a part of the Exchanges, but was probably more important than 0.1% less coal per drawbar horsepower.

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Right Away said:

What we wouldn’t do now for the chance just to get our hands oily and sooty

I doubt that the wider workforce would be even mildly interested in the work necessary to keep a commercial fleet of steam engines running these days.

[LMS2968]

Not 1960s conditions in 2020, No. But that applies to most industry, all of which has had to make changes - when was the last time you saw a bricklayer climb a ladder with a hod on his shoulder? Had steam continued, changes would have been made, would have had to be made, and these would have been cheaper than wholesale replacement by expensive diesels.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Right Away said:

Returning briefly to the steam v others, consideration might be given to the issues of staffing that were to follow in the Fifties onwards.

However we like to “sugar coat” the steam era through our rose tinted specs, it must be remembered that our beloved steam engines were very labour intensive (and expensive) to operate. 
Financially, the country was not doing too well, but jobs were seemingly aplenty and many did not involve people going home after a day’s work covered in the residue of a coaling plant or ash pit. I was a child in the 1950’s but can still look back with fondness of the lifestyles which were accepted by many, regardless of the toil.

I would think it a long stretch of the imagination to expect that had steam not been replaced when it was by “cleaner” forms of traction, recruitment to the vital labouring grades necessary for operation would be readily forthcoming.

 

What we wouldn’t do now for the chance just to get our hands oily and sooty!

 

Labour was a major problem by the early 1950s.  Railway employment gradually became less attractive as newer industries began to grow and you could make a lot more money on a steady day turn in a car factory than you could working shifts in any railway job although it was not the nicest of work tied to a production line.  Even in the 1950s BR was actively recruiting in the West Indies - in particular - for shed labouring jobs (among other work) because being dirty work it was near impossible in some areas to recruit staff.

 

But as had s already been said a lot of work which could be made simpler wasn't and in some respects the s Standards were a massive step backwards from what Bulleid had been trying to do - never forget the very simple fact that it took longer to oil round an LMS 4F than it did a Bulleid (unrebuilt) pacific.  But whatever happened with things like loco prep a lot of shed work, even with mechanisation, was still very dirty work and also usually very poorly paid although teh introduction of bonus schemes did have some positive impact on earnings. 

[PenrithBeacon]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Labour was a major problem by the early 1950s.  Railway employment gradually became less attractive as newer industries began to grow and you could make a lot more money on a steady day turn in a car factory than you could working shifts in any railway job although it was not the nicest of work tied to a production line.  Even in the 1950s BR was actively recruiting in the West Indies - in particular - for shed labouring jobs (among other work) because being dirty work it was near impossible in some areas to recruit staff.

 

But as had s already been said a lot of work which could be made simpler wasn't and in some respects the s Standards were a massive step backwards from what Bulleid had been trying to do - never forget the very simple fact that it took longer to oil round an LMS 4F than it did a Bulleid (unrebuilt) pacific.  But whatever happened with things like loco prep a lot of shed work, even with mechanisation, was still very dirty work and also usually very poorly paid although teh introduction of bonus schemes did have some positive impact on earnings. 

You didn't need to oil round a Bulleid it did it for you. I think the comparison with 4F is wrong, any inside cylinder/motion engine would take longer than outside cylinder/motion engine, and correcting that issue was one of the 'drivers' behind the standards.

[LMS2968]

7 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

You didn't need to oil round a Bulleid it did it for you. I think the comparison with 4F is wrong, any inside cylinder/motion engine would take longer than outside cylinder/motion engine, and correcting that issue was one of the 'drivers' behind the standards.

Which is a point Bulleid didn't consider with the Q1s!

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Which is a point Bulleid didn't consider with the Q1s!

 

Was there anything to stand on other than the coupling rod to get at the inside motion?

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, JeremyC said:

Someone may have already pointed this out, but wasn't the issue in the Milton accident that the Western Region signals were set up for RH drive locos whereas the Britannias were LH drive leading to sighting problems. The other regions all used LH drive so the signals were positioned for that and, therefore, the problem didn't generally occur, so there wouldn't be the perceived need to alter the handrails.

There were several real issues in the Milton accident.  

 

1  The Driver seems not to have responded to the ATC warning horn at Milton's Distant and must have cancelled the warning otherwise the brakes would have been applied.  The ATC was found to be working correctly following the derailment.   Although it is not addressed in the Report  I was told years ago by chap who was at the time a relief signalman and was one of the first on the scene that there was more than a suspicion that the ATC had been 'dealt with' using the well known trick involving a cork to jam the acknowledgement lever switch. I don't know if there was any evidence for this or if it was just a reflection of the long standing 'differences of outlook' between Signalmen and Drivers regarding the latter 'missing' Distant Signals standing at caution.  But whether or not the ATC had been simply ignored, deliberately interfered with, the failure to act on its warning was undoubtedly a major contribution to the train's excessive speed when it entered the crossover and its subsequent derailment

 

2.  The Driver had clearly either not read his notices correctly or , perhaps more likely, had forgotten what was in them in respect of Milton so had forgotten, or was not aware, that at Milton that his train was booked to be diverted there through a 10mph crossover to the Up Goods.  It was hardly a location which he could miss or mistake with several very good land marks, in unique combination, at Steventon about 1.5 miles in rear of the crossover at Milton.

 

3. The relevant Up Main signals at Milton were all to the right of the line in an area where the line also curved to the right although they were all capable of being sighted in sufficient time, albeit briefly, from the driving position of a 'Britannia'.  However the view of them was at times obscured by the smoke deflector and handrail.

 

4. The Driver was not working with his regular mate who, he said, generally helped look out for signals on the right side for him, but in any case the Fireman was dealing with a problem with an injector.  The Driver said that this had distracted him so it was probably a reason for any lapse of concentration at a critical time - even a couple of minutes dealing with that would have been more than enough to miss his landmarks at Steventon and what followed.

 

I have ranked these contributory factors in what I regard as their true order of relative importance although the relative impact of the first two is in some respects debatable.  But - as so often was the case in the past - the Distant Signal was the last line of defence against something like this occurring and while its sighting was not good for a left hand drive engine, fitted with smoke deflectors,  travelling at speed the ATC equipment did exactly what it was supposed to do but for whatever reason the human element didn't respond to it in the correct way.

 

The matter of being aware of what was going to happen to his train at Milton was in my view far more important to the Driver than the position of signals because he should have been prepared in any event to find the Distant at Caution and the Home Signal off for the crossover route to the Up Goods.  That means that he should have been looking out to make sure of where he was and paying particular attention to the difficult to sight signals - it's always been critical to pay really good attention to signals which are the harder ones to sight and usually they are the ones which tend to stick in the mind.   At this point the distraction due to the problem with the injector clearly comes into play so for that,  or whatever other, reason, none of that happened notwithstanding the unique (between Cardiff and Paddington) combination of land marks at Steventon all of which could be seen/felt from the left hand side of the cab.

 

To his great credit the Driver freely accepted responsibility for his lapse and the consequent derailment of his train.

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

You didn't need to oil round a Bulleid it did it for you. I think the comparison with 4F is wrong, any inside cylinder/motion engine would take longer than outside cylinder/motion engine, and correcting that issue was one of the 'drivers' behind the standards.

The comparison is exactly right.  The 4F was a typical fairly basic British inside cylinder/inside valvegear  0-6-0  - you couldn't get more basic than for comaparative purposesthat when it came to oiling round an engine for main line work

 

As it happened of course the time taken to oil round a Britannia, for example, was longer than the time needed to a Bulleid pacific - an obvious comparison but the extreme comparison is in my view a far more telling example of what might be achieved if the aim was to reduce time, and money, spent on preparation.

[PenrithBeacon]

Excepting of course that there wasn't any difference at between a GWR inside cylinder/motion engine and Midland one but heaven forbid that you criticise the GW! 

[kevinlms]

On 09/09/2020 at 00:25, Steamport Southport said:

 

I think you misunderstood me. I meant diesels and electrics weren't being considered at the trials and I don't know why they were mentioned in the first place as I thought we were discussing the 1948 Locomotive Exchanges not the 1955 Modernisation Plan.

 

I didn't say it would still be all steam. Just that in 1948 they were planning on building locomotives that will be working for fifty or sixty years. I fail to understand why that is seen as wrong. 

 

 

 

Jason

Agreed, in 1948, there was only 2 real mainline diesels and a number of shunters, so there was next to no comparisons to be made.

[kevinlms]

On 09/09/2020 at 00:01, LMS2968 said:

Sorry to disagree here, Johnster, but the Rugby Test Plant was a joint LMS / LNER venture initiated by Sir Nigel Gresley (the private builders were initially to be involved, but later all dropped out) pre-WWII, and the shell of the building was in place before war was declared and the measuring equipment delivered and moved into safe storage.

 

I agree that the Plant personnel's interpretation of the recorded figures left something to be desired; there are several instances were their verdict on a particular engine's abilities were way below decades of experience by the men who operated them day in, day out. What the rollers gave was a column of figures which became the basis for the calculations, and errors in these were possible, and that assumes the rollers were correctly calibrated to start with. I've done a bit of this in the past, although not on steam, alas.

 

There were many problems with the Trials. Firstly, the track was still suffering from wartime lack of maintenance so TSRs were common, and new ones could appear overnight. Second, the loads and conditions were not constant as different train formations, weather conditions applied and coal varied; and as already mentioned, no clearly defined objectives were given to the crews, so each interpreted what was expected of them in their own way and this interpretation varied enormously. Quite frankly, the results of the Trials were useless for any form of comparison as to best practice in any area.

In regard to what was required of the crews, some took it on themselves to prove how well their locos could perform, with efficiency, making up lost time etc and other drivers, just went out for a 'normal' drive.

[kevinlms]

On 09/09/2020 at 05:28, Philou said:

But we all know that a GWR loco could pull any other two backwards - or so it has been said (runs and hides)

Yeah, but who wanted their trains to go backwards?

[kevinlms]

On 09/09/2020 at 04:29, roythebus said:

I would suggest the results of the rugby testing station have been largely disproved in recent years with the advent of the "steam specials" over Shap and the S&C.

 

Witness the Bulleid Pacific going over Shap with a heavy load on plus a diesel on the back for the ride with the safety valves lifting.

 

Or the remarkable video of 3 steam trains following each other on the same stretch "on the block" with one train catching up with the one in front. Were all these specials heavier than the average train in the 1950s I wonder?

 

But the current condition of preserved steam, is likely to be in a far better standard than the 'average' loco in the 1950s. A loco recently shopped in 1950, with good coal and a good crew, was NOT the regular standard of train running to be seen.

 

Also a full run from say Euston to Carlisle in the 1950s, is NOT the same as just going over Shap or the S&C. All sorts of things come into play on a longer run, smoke box, condition of firebox, quality of coal, all adversely affect the overall quality of a run.

[PenrithBeacon]

I think that's true, but what is also true is that there are now at least three men on the footplate; a driver, a fireman and a loco inspector. This means that there are at least two people who can drive and three who fire. This has an effect on locomotive performance because it means that more coal can be shovelled into the firebox over the course of the journey.

[JimC]

11 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But the current condition of preserved steam, is likely to be in a far better standard than the 'average' loco in the 1950s. 

Or worse than average... I've seen papers that suggest a lot of work was done on what could be expected from severely run down locomotives, which is reasonable, because any locomotive allocated to a service needs to be able to run to time, not just those in average or better condition. I was, however, amazed by the magnitude of faults that were considered acceptable on a locomotive still in service. 

Edited September 12, 2020 by JimC

[kevinlms]

24 minutes ago, JimC said:

Or worse than average... I've seen papers that suggest a lot of work was done on what could be expected from severely run down locomotives, which is reasonable, because any locomotive allocated to a service needs to be able to run to time, not just those in average or better condition. I was, however, amazed by the magnitude of faults that were considered acceptable on a locomotive still in service. 

I remember reading a funny story depicting the opposite.

 

I believe it's in David Smith book 'Tales of the Glasgow and South Western Railway', where a loco crew were given a new service to haul. IIRC it was a newspaper service to Carlisle. So they turned up with a perfectly turned out loco - a 2P?

Only to find a single coach! So vastly over provisioned, so no trouble running that service.

Day, the same. So now the object was to see how far they'd get, without touching the fire.

So the week went on, gradually getting further without touching the fire.

 

Come Saturday, they arrive to pick up the service, only to find 6 coaches. The problem is that they have filled up the firebox, because they reckoned they could get all the way and there is no sign of real fire! So they have to nurse the loco carefully over the hills, attempting to keep the brakes off.

 

Would have been hilarious to anyone able to take a helicopter view, but I bet they were not amused!

[The Johnster]

I think the effect that the condition of the loco has on the running is the same now with heritage railways and main line running at 75 or 90mph as it always was.  Flying Scotsman is a classic example. a loco with all sorts of records under her belt, first verified 100mph, longest non stop haul, and so on.  I believe she still held the world longest non stop haul record for a steam loco and for any loco in the UK when Alan Pegler bought her in 1963.  I met him 4 years later on the Festiniog (1967 spelling) and remembering him commenting that his steed that day, Prince, then the oldest working locomotive in the world in regular service, was in far better condition than his A3.  The reason BR withdrew her in 1963 was that she was a clapped out bag of nails, albeit with a famous name, and her running between then and her full overhaul into what was effectively a brand new loco by the NRM simply made matters worse.  

 

If you look at some video of preserved locos running on main line work, there are often front-on telephoto shots which reveal how poorly the locos is riding, and some are frankly terrifying!   After the first flush of locos acquired from Dai Woodham, all the good ones were gone and the choice was of the 'best of the worst' for buyers by the time BSLAG got itself organised, and some main line favourites are not in particularly good condition when it comes to frames, or cylinders, or springs, or equalisation beams, all of which affect the ride, which in turn affects the performance and shakes the loco to bits leaving more work after the run in terms of tightening everything that has worked itself loose back into place.

 

The locos spend their time away from main line work in revenue earning use on heritage railways, which perform miracles on a daily basis but they cannot, with the best will in the world, be being looked after to the same standard as they were in daily use on BR.  In the meantime, rust and wear are still ongoing...

 

Applying this to the 1948 exchanges, imagine yourself in the position of being shed foreman at a big main line shed.  Orders come from On High that you must send one each of your top link express passenger, mixed traffic, and heavy freight locomotives, complete with crews, to another region for some time, during which you will be given comparable locos from the other region to fill the gaps and run your trains.  You are, despite what some of your staff may think, a human being subject to the vagaries, prejudices, and moods of human beings.  So you might consider this instruction from on high a burden to your already busy day and, out of sheer cussedness, send your poorest locos and crews.  In anycase you don't want to lose the best performers, locos or crews, for any length of time.  You may think the whole exercise is a waste of time, that your engines have been developed to be the best for your particular work, and that this is just management throwing their weight about to remind you that there is a New Order  Or, you may regard it as a chance to show those cocky b*ggers over at Old Oak (other sheds and railways are available) a thing or two about your railway, and send them the best of the best.  Or anything in between.

 

In the event it was a waste of time, but I don't consider that the locomen, who were instructed to drive the locos in the same way they normally did, can be blamed for this.  Locomen have different attitudes to running trains; some consider it a point of honour to make up lost time, some consider it just as much a point of honour to run to the timings including the set recovery times, and some make a point of running to the timings exactly, ensuring that any lateness is bookable to signals, temporary speed restrictions, tardy station work, or poor work by fitters; they will arrive the exact amount of time late that this allows, no more no less, as a point of principle and demonstration of superior skill.

 

The job of the locomotive driver is firstly to stop the train at the times and places specified in the working timetable or relevant special notices with full regard to safety and the passengers' comfort.  This is still the case in the event of an exchange trial.

[Nearholmer]

32 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

which reveal how poorly the locos is riding, and some are frankly terrifying!  

I thought I was the only one who’d noticed this. 
 

A couple of videos I watched on YouTube a day or two ago really put my heart in my mouth.

 

Maybe these locos always wallowed about, or maybe track maintained fit for modern stock isn’t quite right for them, but Certain bulleid pacifics I could mention certainly looked ready to part company with the rails to me.