Fowlers Compound Pacific and the Lemon 4-8-0

[Horsetan]

 I was recently given the master's book in its English translation, and it is such a good read. ....

 

Long out of print, and only available for extortionate prices. Maybe Bachmann took a leaf out of this!

 

See if you can also obtain a copy of Marcel Peroche's book.

[Old Gringo]

Long out of print, and only available for extortionate prices. Maybe Bachmann took a leaf out of this!

 

See if you can also obtain a copy of Marcel Peroche's book.

 

A translation by Roland Wilson of 'Pacific Senator' - A Train driver's Life, by Marcel Peroche (1984), was published in a paperback version by Argyll Publishing in 2005 (ISBN 1-902831-85-3) and as 'Horsetan' recommends is a very good read.  

 

 Off topic I'm afraid, but I especially like his expression of war on p172: (whilst drinking a bottle of wine with a German railwayman in 1944) "War involves a lot of men killing men who they don't even know for the benefit of a few other men who know each other and never get killed at all".  After reading that I wondered if Marcel had read 'All Quiet on the Western Front' by Eric Remarque, first published in 1929, but maybe not so available in France before WW2?

[Blandford1969]

Well you asked to see the etches so here you go. They were hand drawn so would not win any prizes.

 

The first is the body etches for the 4-6-0 and the Beames 4-8-0, next a shot showing all the etches including tender etch and finally the fames and tender frames. I must get round to building them.

 

 

[EddieB]

A translation by Roland Wilson of 'Pacific Senator' - A Train driver's Life, by Marcel Peroche (1984), was published in a paperback version by Argyll Publishing in 2005 (ISBN 1-902831-85-3) and as 'Horsetan' recommends is a very good read.  

 

 Off topic I'm afraid, but I especially like his expression of war on p172: (whilst drinking a bottle of wine with a German railwayman in 1944) "War involves a lot of men killing men who they don't even know for the benefit of a few other men who know each other and never get killed at all".  After reading that I wondered if Marcel had read 'All Quiet on the Western Front' by Remarque, first published in 1929, but maybe not so available in France before WW2?

I bought a copy of "Pacific Senator" from the bargain bookshop that used to be on the corner of Waterloo Road, on the way to Ian Allan.  Sadly the shop has now gone, as they used to have some excellent railway books at "remaindered" prices - as was "Pacific Senator".

 

Quite a lot to say about fusible plugs.

 

An excellent read and worth checking the remaindering shops to see if any are still about.

[Londontram]

 A standard gauge inside cylinder inside Stephenson valve gear loco is always going to find difficulty in accommodating adequate axle boxes,

The Caledonian seemed to manage to fit generous size axle boxes 30 years earlier with the 812 class 0-6-0 and even the jumbos before that in fact more than adequate axle boxes were a well recognized feature of all Caledonian locomotives. The LMS inherited this knowledge when the Caley became part of the LMS so the information would have been at hand if they wanted it.

[kevinlms]

The Caledonian seemed to manage to fit generous size axle boxes 30 years earlier with the 812 class 0-6-0 and even the jumbos before that in fact more than adequate axle boxes were a well recognized feature of all Caledonian locomotives. The LMS inherited this knowledge when the Caley became part of the LMS so the information would have been at hand if they wanted it.

'If they wanted it', seems to be a key point. Fact is the classic Midland chassis for 0-6-0s had dated back decades, where the lubrication was probably adequate. By the time of the 4F's & even the S&DJR 2-8-0 and the Garratt's, the locos were capable of developing much more power, thus exposing the weakness of the design.

I suspect it was a case of 'but we've always done it this way', the fact that a 'minor'* Scottish railway did something better was irrelevant to the powers to be. Remember the comparisons of the 1920s, revealed that Midland designs, were the cheapest to run & maintain & so set it concrete, the basic principles, for at least a decade.

 

* OK so the Caley was the largest Scottish railway, but to Derby, huh!

[richard i]

Great etches, I did some from the book of the lner 0 8 2 so that man has a lot to answer for.

Are you looking to do a run of the etches?

Richard

[Blandford1969]

I was not planning on doing more etches. As it stands there are two for each engine, this thread may galvanise me to get started on both.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 Regarding picking up best practise in steam loco design 'as invented/proven elsewhere', the Midland drones were completely surrounded by 'better ideas' within and outwith the LMSR, and even the UK. And very determined to prove their way was the right way, come what may. When in charge it is easy to produce evidence supporting your case. Fortunately the eventual arrival of a new broom made very clear that this evidence was 'true' only for a rather limiting hypothesis: essentially that sub-1000dbhp sustained output locomotives were completely sufficient to operate that railway.

 

A translation by Roland Wilson of 'Pacific Senator' - A Train driver's Life, by Marcel Peroche (1984), was published in a paperback version by Argyll Publishing in 2005 (ISBN 1-902831-85-3) and as 'Horsetan' recommends is a very good read.  

 

 Off topic I'm afraid, but I especially like his expression of war on p172: (whilst drinking a bottle of wine with a German railwayman in 1944) "War involves a lot of men killing men who they don't even know for the benefit of a few other men who know each other and never get killed at all".  

 It is a good read, my copy went walkies when loaned to a one-time friend. Interestingly, Peroche was specifically wrong in terms of the WWII outcome, where some of the normally invulnerable people were killed in consequence of the post-match analysis and tidy-up.

[John_Miles]

If they wanted it', seems to be a key point. Fact is the classic Midland chassis for 0-6-0s had dated back decades, where the lubrication was probably adequate. By the time of the 4F's & even the S&DJR 2-8-0 and the Garratt's, the locos were capable of developing much more power, thus exposing the weakness of the design.

I suspect it was a case of 'but we've always done it this way', the fact that a 'minor'* Scottish railway did something better was irrelevant to the powers to be. Remember the comparisons of the 1920s, revealed that Midland designs, were the cheapest to run & maintain & so set it concrete, the basic principles, for at least a decade.

 

Regarding picking up best practise in steam loco design 'as invented/proven elsewhere', the Midland drones were completely surrounded by 'better ideas' within and outwith the LMSR, and even the UK. And very determined to prove their way was the right way, come what may. When in charge it is easy to produce evidence supporting your case. Fortunately the eventual arrival of a new broom made very clear that this evidence was 'true' only for a rather limiting hypothesis: essentially that sub-1000dbhp sustained output locomotives were completely sufficient to operate that railway.

 

 

Yet more Midland bashing. It crops up every now and then on RMWeb and elsewhere such as the histories by people like Cox (an ex-L&Y man). Yes there were faults with Midland engines in terms of front end design but they were reliable, cheap to run and well built. More than you can say for most LNWR designs, other than the Super D's which were to remain to the end of steam whereas most other LNWR designs were got rid of asap. Engines from other constituents which were good were kept such as ex-Caledonian designs, although some of the later Caledonian engines seem to have been poor performers. The other myths about axle boxes etc have been well dealt with by Adrian Tester in his book "A defence of the MR/LMS class 4F" which deals in facts rather than prejudice. You do need a working knowledge of fracture mechanics and tribology to understand it all but the basic message is that 4Fs suffered fewer hot boxes than for instance the Super D's and had very good axle box performance until the LMS started using cheaper oil around 1930. Also in terms of frame fractures, their record was the same as other engines.

 

To be entirely objective, Fowler was a bad appointment and was effectively sacked after a few years. He admitted that he knew nothing about locomotive design and during his tenure, he allowed things too drift. Some very good designs emerged such as the 2-6-4 tanks and some bad ones such as the 2-6-2 tanks but much of the choice of what to build was controlled by the running people under Anderson and his successors.

[Sheffield]

Well said. Even Cox had to admit the LMS did the right thing when it adopted Midland designs as its standard immediately after grouping, having carried out trials of some of the various pre-grouping designs it had taken over.

For all the Garratts are now considered a "failure",  during the final years before scrapping, they were returning better utilisation figures than the 9Fs that were supposed to replace them. It does seem that the Operating Dept liked them, and if a Garratt was available they would use it.

If a fraction of the money and effort that was spent making the first Stanier designs work properly had been spent on some of the pre-grouping designs much improvement could have been made to them.

As regards frame cracks, the Black Fives had to have the frames redesigned and one of Cox's Britannias suffered a complete frame breakage into two pieces, the only case in modern times as far as I am aware.  

[Horsetan]

.... one of Cox's Britannias suffered a complete frame breakage into two pieces, the only case in modern times as far as I am aware.

 

Not the only one. Std 4MT tank no. 80103 was the first Standard to be withdrawn because it had suffered a complete fracture of one of its frames.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Yet more Midland bashing. It crops up every now and then on RMWeb and elsewhere such as the histories by people like Cox (an ex-L&Y man). Yes there were faults with Midland engines in terms of front end design but they were reliable, cheap to run and well built.

 I do not believe for a moment that it is 'bashing' to observe that the major fault with the LMS' initial Midland inspired locomotive policy was that it was a dead end, and already known to be so in 1923 from evidence elsewhere. Or do you really believe that the low sustained power output limitation inherent to these designs would have been completely adequate for the LMS to the end of steam? If so please say so unequivocally, then we can all have a good laugh.

[Sheffield]

Midland designs were right for the 1920s, but not for the 1930s. To say the Midland inspired design policy was a "dead end" is like saying the William Dean's designs were a dead end. They were right for the time, but things evolved. There does seem to be a school of view that Fowler/Anderson equals incompetent, and Stanier equals brilliant, whereas both did good and less good things. There is no suggestion that designs based on the Midland designs would have been adequate until the end of steam, just a suggestion that the LMS loco policy in the early 1920s was as it was for good reasons, and not as short sighted as is often suggested.

[Old Gringo]

"LMS loco policy in the early 1920s was as it was for good reasons, and not as short sighted as is often suggested".

 

Sorry to say, but the LMS didn't even have a satisfactory locomotive policy after Hughes resigned and the idea that Midland policy was good for all aspects of the giant LMS company is utterly wrong.  Not until Sir Josiah Stamp took control of the huge conglomerate did the LMS make any progress. 

[Horsetan]

....There does seem to be a school of view that Fowler/Anderson equals incompetent, and Stanier equals brilliant, whereas both did good and less good things. ...

...and I seem to recall Josiah Stamp was something of an admirer of the Nazis, but there you go. You think you know people.

[kevinlms]

Yet more Midland bashing. It crops up every now and then on RMWeb and elsewhere such as the histories by people like Cox (an ex-L&Y man). Yes there were faults with Midland engines in terms of front end design but they were reliable, cheap to run and well built. More than you can say for most LNWR designs, other than the Super D's which were to remain to the end of steam whereas most other LNWR designs were got rid of asap. Engines from other constituents which were good were kept such as ex-Caledonian designs, although some of the later Caledonian engines seem to have been poor performers. The other myths about axle boxes etc have been well dealt with by Adrian Tester in his book "A defence of the MR/LMS class 4F" which deals in facts rather than prejudice. You do need a working knowledge of fracture mechanics and tribology to understand it all but the basic message is that 4Fs suffered fewer hot boxes than for instance the Super D's and had very good axle box performance until the LMS started using cheaper oil around 1930. Also in terms of frame fractures, their record was the same as other engines.

 

To be entirely objective, Fowler was a bad appointment and was effectively sacked after a few years. He admitted that he knew nothing about locomotive design and during his tenure, he allowed things too drift. Some very good designs emerged such as the 2-6-4 tanks and some bad ones such as the 2-6-2 tanks but much of the choice of what to build was controlled by the running people under Anderson and his successors.

So if there were ongoing problems, why were they not even acknowledged, let alone dealt with? I like Midland engines, but were they really suitable for the changed conditions after the mid 1920s? Fact is there were hundreds of nearly new 0-6-0 & 2 types of 4-4-0 which ought to have had some test modifications done to them to overcome some of the drawbacks.

You can claim its Midland Bashing all you like, fact is other non LMS Group railways didn't seem to have the same problems.

 

As for the 2-6-4T's being very good & 2-6-2T's pretty poor, that is a very good indication of major problems in the design office & not working as a team. Perhaps it was Fowler's fault, by letting Anderson have too much control.

 

I've read that when loco designs put forward, were approved or not, with no reason for failure being given. Much later (for Royal Scots on the MML in 1940s?), it was found that the issue was a couple of small bridges, that got rebuilt & then they passed.

[kevinlms]

...and I seem to recall Josiah Stamp was something of an admirer of the Nazis, but there you go. You think you know people.

Ironic that he was killed by a German bomb.

[unclebobkt]

.       ... .   The other point is that British crews were not trained to the degree that their French counterparts were, and it would have taken a revolution in British locomotive thinking to institute the kind of system of academic study that the French drivers and firemen took for granted.

 

 

 

      But didn't the 'Midland.' have both compound & simple locos.?  If so then I presume that the compounds' footplate crew must have rec'd. some training?

  Swindon had an Institute/Library to encourage further knowledge amongst its staff - so probably academic study was not omitted completely.

  You may remember that Churchward looked-at compounding,  but considered that it wasn't viable taking into account the length of track-miles in his time.

 

        

[John_Miles]

Shortly after the grouping, the LMS did some comparative tests of main line express engines and heavy goods engines. The Midland Compound was compared with Hughes 4-6-0s, LNWR Claughtons and the Caley 4-6-0. The Compound won hands down, very embarrassing for Hughes who had had several attempts to improve his 4-6-0. Likewise with goods engines there were tests and the Super D won, against the S&D 2-8-0 and the L&Y 0-8-0. So the LMS produced an "updated" Super D, the Austin 7 - nuff said. So early LMS loco policy was evidence based. Yes the need for larger engines should have been recognised earlier but with Hughes in post, it was difficult to say his 4-6-0 was not up to the job.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 Regarding Stamp and Hitler, he was far from the only prominent UK citizen deeply impressed by 'die Heilige Heiland' in the 1930s. It looked like an outright miracle, what happened in Germany at that time. The recent documentary on the life of the late aviator Eric 'Winkle' Brown was most revealing on the subject. He wasn't fooled, but he was impressed. Because it was impressive...

 

 

      But didn't the 'Midland.' have both compound & simple locos.?  If so then I presume that the compounds' footplate crew must have rec'd. some training?

 The Smith compound system (as devised and perfected operationally on the NER where the original skill to make an effective steam locomotive was first developed, we should never forget) as subsequently applied to produce the Midland compound, eventually had the controls simplified to make the driving equivalent to that of a simple locomotive. And that's where it all so often went horribly wrong, because many drivers accustomed to barely reducing cut off after starting, and varying power on the regulator, trundled their compounds around working simple all the day long. Those who knew to fully open the regulator, and vary power on realtively small cut-off got the results: this probably accounts for the large variation in coal consumption of the compounds, when these and other types were tested by the newly formed LMS.

 

    ...  Swindon had an Institute/Library to encourage further knowledge amongst its staff - so probably academic study was not omitted completely.

  You may remember that Churchward looked-at compounding,  but considered that it wasn't viable taking into account the length of track-miles in his time.

 

 I think you will find that almost every railway company had such foundations, intended to allow all interested staff to educate themselves to whatever extent they chose. There's a nice little piece in the GNR history by Grinling describing how fines for loco crew misdemeanors were allocated specifically to the purpose of purchasing books to furnish such an educational institute, the crews themselves building at least one room for the purpose from materials provided by the company.

 

Regarding compounding, while the theory was good, the technique wasn't yet fully developed during Churchward's career; economically a good simple matched a compound in net operational cost in UK conditions with good steam coals available at a relatively low price.

 

Compounding achieved its triumph in thermal efficiency on the road in France, under the pressure of low quality indigenous coal supplies. Even at the end of UK steam with the coal price rising and fuel quality falling, the estimate of the economics of the greater build cost and maintenance burden of a compound compared to an equivalent simple barely makes it pay off; and then only in locos designed for sustained high power output. Churchward made a good call there.

[The Stationmaster]

Don't forget also that French Drivers were on coal saving bonus which influenced the way they drove as it encouraged them to be economical but at the same time they were penalised for late running and with Flaman recorders on many locos they could also be penalised for speeding.  Thus the basic driving ethos was different from that on British railways where coal saving bonuses had long vanished and running discipline was gradually eased over the years.

 

Oddly this carries through to today with some very different emphases in France in respect of restrictive or cautionary signal aspects compared with British practice.

[kevinlms]

Don't forget also that French Drivers were on coal saving bonus which influenced the way they drove as it encouraged them to be economical but at the same time they were penalised for late running and with Flaman recorders on many locos they could also be penalised for speeding.  Thus the basic driving ethos was different from that on British railways where coal saving bonuses had long vanished and running discipline was gradually eased over the years.

 

Oddly this carries through to today with some very different emphases in France in respect of restrictive or cautionary signal aspects compared with British practice.

Coal was also comparatively expensive, because almost all had to be imported, so there were real benefits to the railway companies for encouraging coal savings.

[kevinlms]

Shortly after the grouping, the LMS did some comparative tests of main line express engines and heavy goods engines. The Midland Compound was compared with Hughes 4-6-0s, LNWR Claughtons and the Caley 4-6-0. The Compound won hands down, very embarrassing for Hughes who had had several attempts to improve his 4-6-0. Likewise with goods engines there were tests and the Super D won, against the S&D 2-8-0 and the L&Y 0-8-0. So the LMS produced an "updated" Super D, the Austin 7 - nuff said. So early LMS loco policy was evidence based. Yes the need for larger engines should have been recognised earlier but with Hughes in post, it was difficult to say his 4-6-0 was not up to the job.

Yes, but the Compounds simply weren't up to the job in regards to the heavier trains, especially on the WCML. By 1927 (only 4 years on), the LMS were desperate enough to get 50 large 4-6-0s built at short notice by a private company - obviously the Royal Scot class. It is important to note that the Compounds were in fact still under construction at the time. So something clearly amiss!

[John_Miles]

Yes, but the Compounds simply weren't up to the job in regards to the heavier trains, especially on the WCML. By 1927 (only 4 years on), the LMS were desperate enough to get 50 large 4-6-0s built at short notice by a private company - obviously the Royal Scot class. It is important to note that the Compounds were in fact still under construction at the time. So something clearly amiss!

 

I agree but the Claughtons and Hughes 4-6-0s had also been found wanting. As said at the start of this thread, Fowler had proposed a 4-6-2 shortly after he succeeded Hughes and it had been approved by the Locomotive Committee. The process even got as far as cutting out the frames for the first loco before the operating people scuppered it. Various reasons have been given for the cancellation (need to build new turntables, lack of confidence in Fowler, Anderson throwing his weight around), I guess we will never know.