What could have ended the Midland's 'small engine' policy

[The Stationmaster]

The statement about the O2s makes no sense.

 

The O2s were being designed during WW1 and first appeared in 1918. At that time, it would have needed a great deal of crystal ball gazing to know that all those surplus O4s would be available a few years later and that the GCR and the GNR would be the same company rather than competitors.

 

Have people seen the details of what sorts of performances the V4s put in? They were great second string locos and the LNER would have been well served by a fleet of them (instead of B1s) had Gresley not died when he did.

 

I am not saying that the B1s were bad locos. They were very good indeed, better than an LMS Black 5 (that comes from drivers who have driven both types). The K4 was regarded as being better still! Very sure footed and powerful for a small loco and ideal for the route it was designed specifically for.

 

As for the comparison between an A2 and a Brit, two bits of video is hardly conclusive proof. The quality (and experience)  of the drivers, the rail surfaces and the load can make a huge difference.

A former colleague of mine was an ex-footplateman and he had an opinion of B1s which was as low as that of most other footplatemen I've ever talked to - very nice when ex works and low mileage but very rough once they had mileage on them; he, and most of his colleagues by far preferred B16s any day of the week (and he originally came from a shed which had been LMS).  Shiny ex-works locos with cosseted maintenance are one thing - but that was not the everyday railway in many places.

[t-b-g]

A former colleague of mine was an ex-footplateman and he had an opinion of B1s which was as low as that of most other footplatemen I've ever talked to - very nice when ex works and low mileage but very rough once they had mileage on them; he, and most of his colleagues by far preferred B16s any day of the week (and he originally came from a shed which had been LMS).  Shiny ex-works locos with cosseted maintenance are one thing - but that was not the everyday railway in many places.

 

I have heard that of B1s too. My friend Malcolm was a loco inspector (or whatever they were called at the time) in the 1950s and often went out to ride on a particular loco when faults were reported. He had been shaken about on a few B1s but said he had not been on anything as bad as a Black 5. He only rode on one once but was worried that the cab would fall off as many of the fixings were loose and it rattled about something terrible. The driver reassured him that it was quite normal!

 

The drivers I have spoken to who have driven both types have done it in preservation days, when most locos are looked after far better than they were in BR steam days.

[cheesysmith]

Love the comparisons of different locos working for the companys not original built for. What was the comment about the ex rod 2_8_0 when the gwr used them? Iirc something along the lines of would pull anything, but only 2 speeds. Plod forwards or reverse.

[Clive Mortimore]

Love the comparisons of different locos working for the companys not original built for. What was the comment about the ex rod 2_8_0 when the gwr used them? Iirc something along the lines of would pull anything, but only 2 speeds. Plod forwards or reverse.

 

Hi Chessy

 

I too like the comparisons. I use to drink with a chap who came from the other side of Hadrian's Wall and before comimh southwards had been a fireman and driver on both B1s and Black Fives. When I asked which was the best he said "Both were (not an RMweb word). I was glad when we had a diesel even if it did break down."

[coachmann]

From what I heard, the B1 and Black Five were equal in many respects but the B1 was not as strongly built and went rough quicker after shopping. I only fired a Black Five once and got the impression from this loco they were smooth riders. I suppose anything was a Rolls Royce compared to the usual Austerity 8F and I spent much of the shift sat down.

[t-b-g]

It is interesting to see how much stick the B1s are getting on here. I always thought that they were regarded as one of Thompson's success stories! Simple design, 2 cylinders instead of 3, no complex conjugated valve gear, easy to maintain but apparently, not actually very good.

 

Would it be really naughty of me to suggest that if they had been built with 3 cylinders, they might have run smoother, with more even power applied to the wheels, meaning they didn't wear and become rough riding so quickly? We may never know!

 

Wouldn't it be sweet irony after what Thompson did if we could convert one of the preserved B1s to 3 cylinders with conjugated valve gear to see if we could improve it. My tongue is so far in my cheek right now that there isn't a "smiley" that goes that far!

 

Please, nobody take this seriously........I certainly don't.

 

Tony

Edited January 23, 2013 by t-b-g

[clecklewyke]

Wouldn't it be sweet rirony after what Thompson did if we could convert one of the preserved B1s to 3 cylinders with conjugated valve gear to see if we could improve it. My tongue is so far in my cheek right now that there isn't a "smiley" that goes that far!

 

Please, nobody take this seriously........I certainly don't.

 

Tony

Retract tongue from cheek.

 

Isn't somebody doing nearly this by building a B17? If not they ought to...

[t-b-g]

Retract tongue from cheek.

 

Isn't somebody doing nearly this by building a B17? If not they ought to...

 

I believe so. I think it is the group who are rescuing the LNER tender as mentioned on another thread. Last I heard they were going to build two, one as a working loco and one for static display.

[bluebottle]

... I suppose anything was a Rolls Royce compared to the usual Austerity 8F ...

 

An old footplateman I used to know said that getting an even fire was no bother on an Austerity; you just threw the coal in the hole and the shake, rattle 'n' roll of the loco spread it out for you. Does that jibe with your recollection, Coach?

 

Gordon

[The Stationmaster]

It is interesting to see how much stick the B1s are getting on here. I always thought that they were regarded as one of Thompson's success stories! Simple design, 2 cylinders instead of 3, no complex conjugated valve gear, easy to maintain but apparently, not actually very good.

 

Tony

I think it is the usual story about comparing the theory, and probably maintainability as well of course, with what happens out on the road.  For some reason B1s got rough as they built up mileage, and they could get very rough at high mileage hence a lot of footplatemen tended to develop a low opinion of them, nobody likes their place of work to be uncomfortable.  An old friend of mine was once almost completely thrown off one, he had the presence of mind to grab the handrails as he was heading for a trip over the side - and he was an experienced Fireman well used to working on tightly timed fast running commuter trains.  So maybe economy in design, and presumably construction(?), wasn't necessarily the be all and end all when it came to steam locos?

[coachmann]

An old footplateman I used to know said that getting an even fire was no bother on an Austerity; you just threw the coal in the hole and the shake, rattle 'n' roll of the loco spread it out for you. Does that jibe with your recollection, Coach?

 

Gordon

Yes. Once they got rolling at a decent clip they shook from side to side and knocked badly added to which was a violent to-& fro banging against the tender. Not an engine to sit down on but they did whatever was asked of them. 

Edited January 24, 2013 by coachmann

[Guest Belgian]

I think it is the usual story about comparing the theory, and probably maintainability as well of course, with what happens out on the road.  For some reason B1s got rough as they built up mileage, and they could get very rough at high mileage hence a lot of footplatemen tended to develop a low opinion of them, nobody likes their place of work to be uncomfortable.  An old friend of mine was once almost completely thrown off one, he had the presence of mind to grab the handrails as he was heading for a trip over the side - and he was an experienced Fireman well used to working on tightly timed fast running commuter trains.  So maybe economy in design, and presumably construction(?), wasn't necessarily the be all and end all when it came to steam locos?

Perhaps it was just the accountants who liked the B1s!

 

JE

[talisman56]

The Midland Railway was the first railway to operate under a central control system, which was later copied by other railways. This successful system coupled with the light and frequent trains showed there was no need for huge locomotives.

 

Locomotive size does not always indicate a successful railway, both the G&SWR and the LT&SR had massive 4-6-4T locomotives that done no more work than a small suburban tank locomotive and the Southern Region was lumbered with too many Pacific locos which could end up working a 3 coach train down a branch line.

 

Those Pacific locos that ended up working a 3-coach train down a branch line usually started at Waterloo with a 14 coach train... are the operating department supposed to delay their crack train(s) by changing to 'suitable traction' in mid journey?

[PatB]

Those Pacific locos that ended up working a 3-coach train down a branch line usually started at Waterloo with a 14 coach train... are the operating department supposed to delay their crack train(s) by changing to 'suitable traction' in mid journey?

 

I was always under the impression that Bulleid's pacifics were specifically designed to be able to work down branch lines for exactly this reason.

[Guest Belgian]

I was always under the impression that Bulleid's pacifics were specifically designed to be able to work down branch lines for exactly this reason.

Certainly the 'Light Pacifics' were intended to work on the 'Withered Arm' lines, on which the 'two-coach trains' were most frequently observed: as has been noted above, such trains would have dropped off other sections or would pick up further sections en route from or to Exeter. (A train starting with a two-coach set at Padstow might pick up another such set at Halwill from Bude and more coaches at Okehampton from Plymouth, together with a number of vans or NPCCS vehicles from places such as Wadebridge so could end up as a 10+vehicle train by Exeter). On Summer Saturdays full-length trains would take the place of the portions.

 

JE

[t-b-g]

I think it is the usual story about comparing the theory, and probably maintainability as well of course, with what happens out on the road.  For some reason B1s got rough as they built up mileage, and they could get very rough at high mileage hence a lot of footplatemen tended to develop a low opinion of them, nobody likes their place of work to be uncomfortable.  An old friend of mine was once almost completely thrown off one, he had the presence of mind to grab the handrails as he was heading for a trip over the side - and he was an experienced Fireman well used to working on tightly timed fast running commuter trains.  So maybe economy in design, and presumably construction(?), wasn't necessarily the be all and end all when it came to steam locos?

 

It probably didn't help that Thompson inherited the job right in the middle of a certain unpleasantness involving some Germans and others. I can just imagine the guys in the drawing office being told to be stingy with every last scrap of metal in the design. I don't know for sure but it would seem logical that all the best quality materials were probably going into military equipment, plus the fact that many railway works were also producing weapons and suchlike. I can easily imagine a situatuion where the best engineers in the works were put on the military jobs. It is what I would have done. I would rather have the best blokes working on the bombs!

 

So perhaps poor old Edward Thompson was ever so slightly hampered by the circumstances.

 

Rather like the Austerities. I remember reading that they had a designed in life expectancy of something like 5 years and really were built on the quick and cheap principle. The fact that they were still running at all 15 plus years later (and a lot longer in some places) makes it understandable that they were a bit rough riding.

 

I haven't seen the preserved one running or heard anything about its running but I would be interested to hear if anybody has. Is it as rough as they were back in the day or is it a sewing machine now? Was the problem in the design or in the working conditions and lack of "TLC" that they got in the 50s/50s?

[Guest Belgian]

It probably didn't help that Thompson inherited the job right in the middle of a certain unpleasantness involving some Germans and others. I can just imagine the guys in the drawing office being told to be stingy with every last scrap of metal in the design. I don't know for sure but it would seem logical that all the best quality materials were probably going into military equipment, plus the fact that many railway works were also producing weapons and suchlike. I can easily imagine a situatuion where the best engineers in the works were put on the military jobs. It is what I would have done. I would rather have the best blokes working on the bombs!

 

So perhaps poor old Edward Thompson was ever so slightly hampered by the circumstances.

 

Rather like the Austerities. I remember reading that they had a designed in life expectancy of something like 5 years and really were built on the quick and cheap principle. The fact that they were still running at all 15 plus years later (and a lot longer in some places) makes it understandable that they were a bit rough riding.

 

I haven't seen the preserved one running or heard anything about its running but I would be interested to hear if anybody has. Is it as rough as they were back in the day or is it a sewing machine now? Was the problem in the design or in the working conditions and lack of "TLC" that they got in the 50s/50s?

Mr Bulleid too. Have we at last got an explanation for his simplification of the traditional steam locomotive? (Forget the Q1s - I mean his nice uncomplicated Pacifics).

[billbedford]

I think it is the usual story about comparing the theory, and probably maintainability as well of course, with what happens out on the road.  For some reason B1s got rough as they built up mileage, and they could get very rough at high mileage hence a lot of footplatemen tended to develop a low opinion of them, nobody likes their place of work to be uncomfortable.  An old friend of mine was once almost completely thrown off one, he had the presence of mind to grab the handrails as he was heading for a trip over the side - and he was an experienced Fireman well used to working on tightly timed fast running commuter trains.  So maybe economy in design, and presumably construction(?), wasn't necessarily the be all and end all when it came to steam locos?

 

Doncaster locos always had a reputation for being flimsy and rough riding. K3s weren't know as Jazzers because of the tunes they played. When the B17 were first drafted onto the GC Gorton men all but refused to to take them out because they thought they were so rough riding.

[The Stationmaster]

Mr Bulleid too. Have we at last got an explanation for his simplification of the traditional steam locomotive? (Forget the Q1s - I mean his nice uncomplicated Pacifics).

No - he really was going for some very lauadble aims, the preparation time for a Bulleid pacific was less than that of a Derby 4F due to the simplicity of oiling, plus numerous other aids to the enginemen (apart from that bl*sted steam reverser).  I know there were material problems, especially with the chains, but otherwise there was a lot of original thought in the design which improved operational efficiency (when they were working properly)

[t-b-g]

Doncaster locos always had a reputation for being flimsy and rough riding. K3s weren't know as Jazzers because of the tunes they played. When the B17 were first drafted onto the GC Gorton men all but refused to to take them out because they thought they were so rough riding.

 

Yet another sweeping generalisation. People who should know better sometimes write nonsense. V2s "flimsy"? Didn't the Peppercorn A1s do the highest mileages of express locos between major overhauls? Flimsy indeed! 

 

The Gresley Pacifics were generally regarded as some of the best riding locos on the railway.

 

As they were neither designed nor built there, may I query in what respect were the B17s "Doncaster" locos? Except that one was named after the football team!

 

Designed by North British (after Doncaster couldn't produce a design that would meet the "spec" - NB didn't either but the LNER was desperate and decided to go ahead anyway - even though they knew the design was compromised) and they were built at Darlington and at Robert Stephensons.

 

So Doncaster had little to do with the design (other to pass some failed design work on to NB) and nothing to do with the construction.

 

It is well recorded that they were unpopular due to rough riding at some sheds but in others records show that they were highly popular with the crews. It is all in the RCTS book and others. These are easily checkable facts for anybody that wants to take the trouble.

Edited January 25, 2013 by t-b-g

[Guest Belgian]

No - he really was going for some very lauadble aims, the preparation time for a Bulleid pacific was less than that of a Derby 4F due to the simplicity of oiling, plus numerous other aids to the enginemen (apart from that bl*sted steam reverser).  I know there were material problems, especially with the chains, but otherwise there was a lot of original thought in the design which improved operational efficiency (when they were working properly)

I agree Mike - I'm really one of Bulleid's disciples. I was trying to be funny (unsuccessfully!)

 

Jeremy

[billbedford]

For Gorton men all Doncaster designed locos were reckoned to be rough riding compared to Robinson's locos. This included the C1s when they were first moved to Sheffield. Of course the complaints subsided as the men got used to the new machines and the drivers who had served their time before WW1 retired.

It is worth reading the two books by Jackson and Russell entitled 'The Great Central in LNER Days' to get a wider perspective on this.

Edited January 25, 2013 by billbedford

[jamie92208]

It probably didn't help that Thompson inherited the job right in the middle of a certain unpleasantness involving some Germans and others. I can just imagine the guys in the drawing office being told to be stingy with every last scrap of metal in the design. I don't know for sure but it would seem logical that all the best quality materials were probably going into military equipment, plus the fact that many railway works were also producing weapons and suchlike. I can easily imagine a situatuion where the best engineers in the works were put on the military jobs. It is what I would have done. I would rather have the best blokes working on the bombs!

 

So perhaps poor old Edward Thompson was ever so slightly hampered by the circumstances.

 

Rather like the Austerities. I remember reading that they had a designed in life expectancy of something like 5 years and really were built on the quick and cheap principle. The fact that they were still running at all 15 plus years later (and a lot longer in some places) makes it understandable that they were a bit rough riding.

 

I haven't seen the preserved one running or heard anything about its running but I would be interested to hear if anybody has. Is it as rough as they were back in the day or is it a sewing machine now? Was the problem in the design or in the working conditions and lack of "TLC" that they got in the 50s/50s?

I heard a tale that at Wakefield shed, which had  a lot of WD's they once spent a lot of time setting one up so that it didn't clank but though it didn't clank it wouldn't pull so they put it back to the original tolerances and it pulled fine but clanked.

 

Jamie

Edited January 25, 2013 by jamie92208

[t-b-g]

For Gorton men all Doncaster designed locos were reckoned to be rough riding compared to Robinson's locos. This included the C1s when they were first moved to Sheffield. Of course the complaints subsided as the men got used to the new machines and the drivers who had served their time before WW1 retired.

It is worth reading the two books by Jackson and Russell entitled 'The Great Central in LNER Days' to get a wider perspective on this.

 

The GCR drivers were amongst the most loyal to their CME in the country. Robinson was so well loved and respected that they would rather drive any Robinson loco than the best "foreign" locos around. Any interloper was doomed to non acceptance before it arrived. I have read Jackson & Russell as well as other books on the subject. After a while the GCR drivers came to accept the B17s and used them turn and turn about with the GCR Atlantics. I recall reading that the GCR crews were allowed to keep some Atlantics as a "sweeteneer" to encourage then to use the B17s. 

 

The C1s were exceptional locos and when you read Nock's accounts of their performances when deputising for Pacifics in the 1920s/30s they could often manage either very heavy or very fast trains at Pacific timings.

 

I always think that winning over the hearts and minds of people is a big part in the battle to have your locos accepted by the operating crews. CMEs who gained the respect of the loco crews could sometimes provide them with a less than perfect loco and it would be accepted as if it was wonderful. The crews would do their utmost to find ways f getting the best out of the locos.

 

When that loco is then transferred to another section, where they had their own highly respected CME, any shortcomings were then highlighted rather than swept under the carpet. 

 

Gresley had that degree of respect on the LNER.

 

I often wonder how much better people would think of Thompson if he had just designed his own locos, instead of making his first task to take the historic first Gresley pacific, "Great Northern" and completely altering it. Even if he had used a less well known loco as a test bed.

 

His first action so antagonised enthusiasts and LNER people who admired Gresley and his work that he had a massive uphill struggle to win their hearts and minds after that. He lost a lot of support in Scotland when he took the P2s away. The operating people up there wondered why they had to give up the only locos they had that could pull some of their trains!   

[t-b-g]

I heard a tale that at Wakefield shed, which had  a lot of WD's they once spent a lot of time setting one up so that it didn't clank but though it didn't clank it wouldn't pull so they put it back to the original tolerances and it pulled fine but clanked.

 

Jamie

 

Brilliant! WD Austerity with designed in "Clank". I wonder which draftsman came up with that idea!

 

Tony