Fowler 4F, really a poor loco?

[coachmann]

 As far as the 4Fs were concerned, there never seemed to be a concentration of them in any one area in Scotland. So there would be individual locomotives in amongst lots of 'native' 0-6-0s at sheds, possibly requiring different handling - not a situation designed to make them very popular. I've seen a picture of one on the Hurlford breakdown train, and 44255 was the Fort William snowplough engine for some years, which perhaps suggests they could be spared for standby duties. 

It's a good point and is actually how it was. No man goes to work to work harder than he needs to when he doesn't get paid any more. A loco that a driver did not have an instinct for could lead to an unhappy 8 hours. Giving them a Passed Cleaner for a duty was bad enough without giving them a loco that was not off their planet.

 

My mate and I brought an ailing B1 on shed one afternoon and all the canteen turned out to have a shufty. It is doubtful if anyone on our shed had even seen one close up before. "They've got ###### armchairs and electric light". That was a criticism!

Edited August 25, 2018 by coachmann

[bbishop]

Hi Folks,

 

In comparison Bullied's Q1 was an excellent inside cylinder 0-6-0 which the LMS could have built an early version of as outlined in E S Cox's excellent work Locomotive Panorama Vol. II., the Class 4 2-6-0's of 1947 was instead the end result.

 

Gibbo.

 

The Q1's were great locomotives until it came time to stop an unfitted freight train.  That is why the Urie S15s weighed 90 ton.

 

Bill

[Gibbo675]

The Q1's were great locomotives until it came time to stop an unfitted freight train.  That is why the Urie S15s weighed 90 ton.

 

Bill

Hi Bill,

 

That would be for the same reason the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway had over 85% of its goods stock as fully fitted vacuum brake and the remainder through piped by circa 1910.

 

What a shambles the railways ended up working unfitted freight into the 1970's !

 

Gibbo.

[bike2steam]

The Q1's were great locomotives until it came time to stop an unfitted freight train.  That is why the Urie S15s weighed 90 ton.

 

Bill

 

Bulleid brakes were notoriously poor on unfitted workings.

[The Johnster]

Hi Bill,

 

That would be for the same reason the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway had over 85% of its goods stock as fully fitted vacuum brake and the remainder through piped by circa 1910.

 

What a shambles the railways ended up working unfitted freight into the 1970's !

 

Gibbo.

 

Not the railways' fault entirely and they worked steadily and relentlessly to eliminate unbraked general mechandise wagons throughout the first 70 years of the 20th century.  But the biggest single type of wagon in numbers was the 10 ton 5 plank mineral, many of which were PO for many years and whose owners, along with the collieries, stubbornly resisted any form of automatic brake, or any form of buffer, coupling or wheelbase that would upset their establised shunting technique.  Many collieries had very limited siding space and loading equipment tailored to the 9' wheelbase mineral wagon, and until the advent of MGR this was the wagon mostly used.  

[coachmann]

Unfitted wagons and other things look primitive to young people today, and indeed they were, but to us at the time, it was as normal as expecting a bomb to land on the house.

[t-b-g]

575 were built over a 30 year period, from 1911 to 1941, with no major changes. They continued to be built under 3 different CME regimes.

 

Not something that happens often for any class and very unusual for a total dud!

 

Can they really have been as bad as they are being made out to be?

[Dunsignalling]

Bulleid brakes were notoriously poor on unfitted workings.

The problem with the Q1 was simple, 5F haulage capability and a fair turn of speed in a package with the weight to provide 3F stopping power.

 

I gather that modifying bogie tenders from withdrawn 4-6-0s was considered in order to improve matters but not proceeded with.

 

Coupling up a diesel brake tender would have helped too, but they came too late.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

575 were built over a 30 year period, from 1911 to 1941, with no major changes. They continued to be built under 3 different CME regimes.

 

Not something that happens often for any class and very unusual for a total dud!

 

Can they really have been as bad as they are being made out to be?

Essentially, if the work remained the same, and the men would put up with what they were used to, the company saw no necessity to change the machinery.

 

However, the locos being just-about-adequate to perform their allotted tasks despite being obsolescent before they left the drawing board was one thing. Locking those who had to drive, fire and maintain the things into a Victorian working environment was another matter altogether. 

 

Hence the droves of loco-men who deserted the railway pretty sharpish as soon as cleaner, less arduous work became freely available in other industries. 

 

John

Edited August 25, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[John_Miles]

There is criticism above saying the 4F was basically a Victorian design. So would this same criticism apply to the GWR which was turning out what were fundamentally Victorian designs into the 1950s. Also with regard to E.S. Cox's books, these have been shown to be heavily biased by the writings of Adrian Tester. Cox came from the L&Y and detested all things Midland. Finally the axle boxes, again this came from Cox. They weren't great but, for instance, a lot better than those fitted to the Super Ds which had a much worse failure rate.

[coachmann]

Essentially, if the work remained the same, and the men would put up with what they were used to, the company saw no necessity to change the machinery.

 

However, the locos being just-about-adequate to perform their allotted tasks despite being obsolescent before they left the drawing board was one thing. Locking those who had to drive, fire and maintain the things into a Victorian working environment was another matter altogether. 

 

Hence the droves of loco-men who deserted the railway pretty sharpish as soon as cleaner, less arduous work became freely available in other industries. 

 

John

Really......?

[Andy Kirkham]

I've no knowledge about the performance of the 4Fs, but in their appearance they strike me as just about the most dismal loco ever. I can find some perverse enjoyment in  a loco that is manifestly plug-ugly, but the 4F isn't in that class. In anthropomorphic terms the description that comes irresistibly to my mind is gormless.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Andy Kirkham

[Dunsignalling]

Really......?

How else would you explain a former colleague of mine becoming a passed fireman on main line duties just over two years into his railway career?

[LMS2968]

They weren't great but, for instance, a lot better than those fitted to the Super Ds which had a much worse failure rate.

You've said this before, but I'm still waiting. Cox, who was no more fond of the LNWR than of the Midland said that they were good engines, despite that their hot box record was about 50% worse than the 4Fs', but didn't mention the comparative loadings. It should also be said that the G2as - G1s with higher boiler pressure - retained their original boxes and axle diameters; the G2s proper had increased sizes to match their power output.

 

I still await your evidence regarding the downgrading of the lubricant used. As has already been stated, Sir Joshua Stamp had instituted statistical analysis of loco performance, including casualties. This formed the basis of the mass withdrawal of some classes, and had the oil change caused a spike in axlebox performance, this would have been made apparent very quickly, questions asked, heads roll and a reversion to the earlier product demanded.

[The Bigbee Line]

How else would you explain a former colleague of mine becoming a passed fireman on main line duties just over two years into his railway career?

In the 1980's when I was a guard I spent a week on a turn with an old hand from Hither Green.  He related that in the 1960's when the Kent Coast Electrification was in full swing, they passed out men as Motormen that under steam days would not have made a driver all the while they had a hole in their ar$e.  I'm not saying this is relevant, but it illustrates that the circumstances can vary tremendously

[Fat Controller]

In the 1980's when I was a guard I spent a week on a turn with an old hand from Hither Green.  He related that in the 1960's when the Kent Coast Electrification was in full swing, they passed out men as Motormen that under steam days would not have made a driver all the while they had a hole in their ar$e.  I'm not saying this is relevant, but it illustrates that the circumstances can vary tremendously

My old gaffer made it to Passed Cleaner at Tonbridge in about a year; if he'd stayed, he reckoned he'd have made it to Passed Fireman within another year, as people were leaving that quickly. Compare that with my father's experience when interviewed at Landore in 1926; he was told that he might be driving in 20 or so years, which decided him on a job in the steel industry, where he could do an apprenticeship in only seven years.

[coachmann]

Men leaving their job due to retirement was not unique to BR. The problem was, by the late 1950's, lads of my generation weren't joining the railway in sufficient numbers to cover. I made it to Passed Cleaner in two weeks. I needn't go into the dedication required in order to gain promotion save to say that footplate men did not leave BR lightly when they knew their skills were useless to them in civvy street.

[MarkC]

In defence of the 4Fs, Essery, in his "Firing Days at Saltley", actually mentions that he was shown, and then did it himself, a firing technique that worked on them. So it could be done.

 

As for their aesthetics, after Johnson's 700 class, Midland designs were never really the same, were they? The 4F was merely a natural progression of what followed.

[PenrithBeacon]

In defence of the 4Fs, Essery, in his "Firing Days at Saltley", actually mentions that he was shown, and then did it himself, a firing technique that worked on them. So it could be done.

 

...

And he was by no means the only one.

 

I think the problem with the 4F and other locos of its generation was that there was no means of communicating issues up the the management tree. Technical issues can be resolved but the technicians have to know the problems before they can be dealt with. Fowler wasn't a loco designer, but neither was he a communicator and a leader, being very aloof in his attitude. The responsibility for the 4F lies with him.

 

The steaming issue with the 4F could be sorted as BR proved post-war, I believe that solution has been applied to both the 4Fs that have been steamed in restoration, but both have lost the characteristic sound of the 4F!

[LMS2968]

That their steaming was not good is correct, and firemen generally were able to devise the best methods for each class, and with so many 4Fs around, should have been able to find the method themselves. I too have read about the improvements available, but while people push this forward, they neglect what would have been an inevitable consequence.

 

The 4F axleboxes were marginal while the engine's steam, and power output, was limited. What effect would a big improvement in the engines' abilities have on those?

[Dunsignalling]

Men leaving their job due to retirement was not unique to BR. The problem was, by the late 1950's, lads of my generation weren't joining the railway in sufficient numbers to cover. I made it to Passed Cleaner in two weeks. I needn't go into the dedication required in order to gain promotion save to say that footplate men did not leave BR lightly when they knew their skills were useless to them in civvy street.

As you say, recruitment got difficult but, also, most of the lads BR did mange to attract (as cleaners) didn't hang around once they saw readily obtainable jobs outside that came with at least equal money and better hours/conditions.

 

Even youngsters from "railway families" were beginning to look for opportunities elsewhere, encouraged by older relatives who could see the writing on the wall for the industry; something almost unthinkable in earlier, less prosperous times.

 

What made things even more difficult was that cohorts of men who had joined during inter-war "humps" in recruitment were coming up to retirement age together.

 

John

Edited August 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[kevinlms]

A regard the G&SWR, of course they liked the 2P and Compounds, because prior to them coming, they only had two superheated locomotives on the whole line!

[coachmann]

The G7S was a big boiler with a large firebox married to a short-lap engine portion designed for plodding along on freight duties. Cheap to build and economical on coal if used as intended, not for nothing did the operating department keep asking for more. The LMS was a business ~ first and last. I consider myself fortunate to have ridden on a 2P 4-4-0 on passenger and a 4F's. "Fowlers" got my heart racing for a variety of reasons, not least their steady beat and ringing of the snifting valves when steam was shut off. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by coachmann

[asmay2002]

You've said this before, but I'm still waiting. Cox, who was no more fond of the LNWR than of the Midland said that they were good engines, despite that their hot box record was about 50% worse than the 4Fs', but didn't mention the comparative loadings. It should also be said that the G2as - G1s with higher boiler pressure - retained their original boxes and axle diameters; the G2s proper had increased sizes to match their power output.

 

I still await your evidence regarding the downgrading of the lubricant used. As has already been stated, Sir Joshua Stamp had instituted statistical analysis of loco performance, including casualties. This formed the basis of the mass withdrawal of some classes, and had the oil change caused a spike in axlebox performance, this would have been made apparent very quickly, questions asked, heads roll and a reversion to the earlier product demanded.

Read Adrian Tester's book "In defence of the 4F" it's all in there.  Cox was responsible for the design of the "Ivatt" class 4's which were miserable things when first built. Cox was defending his own shaky position by having a go at the 4F's.

[bike2steam]

 

Lile I said, they were cheap, quick and easy to build and easy to maintain.)

 

 

 

 

 Well, according to Haresnape, those were the reasons why the Operations Department insisted on more in 1937. Just think what would've happened if the MR hadn't stuck it's nose up at the idea of some in the design office who wanted the S&DJR 2-8-0 as the new freight loco standard.

Edited August 26, 2018 by bike2steam