Imaginary Locomotives

[laurenceb]

snip/

  The LMS wanted to order 50 Castles which Swindon did not have the capacity to build in a time of similarly despicable internal politics, and they settled for the Lord Nelson based Royal Scot with Derby induced hobbling, a poor steamer.

 

It is time this fairy tale was put to rest, the Royal Scots were designed by North British who did not need to copy ideas from anyone

[micknich2003]

No way could the GWRly have built engines for the LMSRly, or anyone else for that mater. It was illegal for a railway company to trade as a manufaturer.

[Compound2632]

No way could the GWRly have built engines for the LMSRly, or anyone else for that mater. It was illegal for a railway company to trade as a manufaturer.

 

Indeed, the story as usually quoted (Nock?) is that a set of drawings was requested and the request was declined.

[JimC]

It is time this fairy tale was put to rest, the Royal Scots were designed by North British who did not need to copy ideas from anyone

The trouble is that the fairy tale is told first hand by executives who were directly involved. Its hard to ignore that. 

 

Beyer Peacock had no need for the LMS to specify (inadequate) axleboxes for the LMS Beyer-Garratts, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[laurenceb]

The trouble is that the fairy tale is told first hand by executives who were directly involved. Its hard to ignore that. 

 

Beyer Peacock had no need for the LMS to specify (inadequate) axleboxes for the LMS Beyer-Garratts, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The LMS sent NB a set of drawings but were told no thanks. About the only things tho two classes have in common is that they are 4-6-0's with Belpare fireboxes

[runs as required]

No way could the GWRly have built engines for the LMSRly, or anyone else for that mater. It was illegal for a railway company to trade as a manufaturer.

This doesn't seem to sound quite right.to me  There could have been ways in which they could have worked together.

After all Churchward was still alive at the time and in the CME's Union not many years before he had been the great proselytizer of standard designs .

One would have thought the GW board room would have been overjoyed to see the largest of the new groups falling back on a dependence upon Swindon - almost a decade before the LMS succeeded in luring a key  engineer across to the Euston.'confederacy'

 

dh

[Corbs]

The LMS sent NB a set of drawings but were told no thanks. About the only things tho two classes have in common is that they are 4-6-0's with Belpare fireboxes

Drawings for the Castle or drawings for the LMS's design for the 'Scots'?

[brack]

Drawings for the Castle or drawings for the LMS's design for the 'Scots'?

Drawings for lord Nelsons I think. Might have been Cox who said it, and he'd be in a position to know. Memory suggests it was the firebox in particular the drawings were used/meant to be used to inform/inspire.

[Corbs]

Ohhh yes I remember that now! Thanks.

[micknich2003]

This doesn't seem to sound quite right.to me  There could have been ways in which they could have worked together.

After all Churchward was still alive at the time and in the CME's Union not many years before he had been the great proselytizer of standard designs .

One would have thought the GW board room would have been overjoyed to see the largest of the new groups falling back on a dependence upon Swindon - almost a decade before the LMS succeeded in luring a key  engineer across to the Euston.'confederacy'

 

dh

The practise of building for other railways was made illegal in the late 19th century. The LNWRly built a batch of engines for the L&Y, the Independent Builders were not happy and took it to court. 

[Ohmisterporter]

Did the LNWR get round that by running the engines in their own service for a while and then passing them on to the L&Y as "secondhand"? As far as I know there was no law to stop secondhand equipment being sold to another company. We still do that today.

[Compound2632]

Did the LNWR get round that by running the engines in their own service for a while and then passing them on to the L&Y as "secondhand"? As far as I know there was no law to stop secondhand equipment being sold to another company. We still do that today.

 

No. They were selling them new. As far as I'm aware they had to desist once the Locomotive Manufacturers Association got their injunction. After that, second-hand sales were only of well-worn engines in very small quantities to minor railways (for example the DXs sold to the E&WJR).

Edited March 18, 2018 by Compound2632

[The Johnster]

AFAIK it was illegal for railway companies with their own locomotive and rolling stock manufacturing capabilities to tender for the supply of locos or rolling stock for other railway companies; it was thought that they would have an unfair advantage over private outside manufacturers.  But a situation (if it ever existed) in which a company asked for another company's locos as the LMS was said to have done with the GW Castles is not the same as tendering, and I am sure would not have happened if it had been illegal.  It would have attracted an enormous amount of comment, though, and the fact that Fowler was not consulted any more than Whale had been with the Star episode does not look good at all.  

[brack]

Had the railway companies really wanted to get around the restriction they could've probably set their works up as a subsidiary/affiliated company. For the most part they had their hands full building and maintaining their own stock. The injunction was more down to the private builders being concerned about losing business and stamping their territory out - originally most railways bought in from separate builders, in house loco works only emerged as lines merged together to create a system big enough for having their own works with full capabilities to be cost effective. When large lines started building their own the private firms lost a fair amount of business. A decade or so later and Crewe built a batch of locos for the l&y (I think they'd had a fire at their works, and there was merger talk between the companies around that time). You can see what the private builders might anticipate happening - a large railway works has sufficient internal baseload work to keep it going when orders are thin, they could design and develop locos, then test them in service before offering them to customers. In 1876 they got their injunction to delineate their territory from the railway works.

[Compound2632]

There are the examples of the Highland Castles for the Ouest built by NPL in 1910 and the earlier Belgian Dunalastairs, built by Neilsons. In the case of the Dunalastairs, Neilsons had the drawings by arrangement with McIntosh and the Caledonian board but as far as I can make out the Caley's only reward was to bask in the reflected glory. In the case of the Castles, of which NBL built 50 for the Ouest, having been building them in dribs and drabs for the Highland, it would seem to be a case of making free with the drawings in hand - were the Highland even consulted?

[runs as required]

We seem to have overlooked the 1900s up to the end of WW1 (a century ago) when the Association of Railway Locomotive Engineers came together and deliberated over standardisation between themselves, Churchward and Holden played a leading part in proceedings.

By 1917 thirty railway companies had reached the point, via lots of subsidary specifications, of agreeing a standard 2-6-0 and 2-8-0  to be proceeded with. By June 1918 Churchward tabled full details of the 2 engines (designed by Maunsell and Fowler) "The main parts, such as cylinders pistons, valves, motion, valve gear etc.will be interchangeable".

Gresley Chair of the Institution (not the Association) of Locomotive Engineers disagreed with the whole unwieldy project. In March 1918 (well before the Armistice) he said "the present is in my opinion the most inopportune moment."

 

He was right. Events were to flood the railways with Woolwich Arsenal Woolworths (possibly that very same Maunsell 2-6-0) and RODs (maybe Robinson 2-8-0s were more robust than Fowler's several S&D locos )

Any more talk of 'Standards' was set aside for 30 years

 

But my point is that such projects were considered possible between the old Railway Companies (and did not preclude much of the work being carried out by the likes of Beyer Peacocks, North British and Stephensons)

(source: HAV Bulleid "Master Builders of Steam"; Ian Allan 1963)

 

dh

[brack]

There are the examples of the Highland Castles for the Ouest built by NPL in 1910 and the earlier Belgian Dunalastairs, built by Neilsons. In the case of the Dunalastairs, Neilsons had the drawings by arrangement with McIntosh and the Caledonian board but as far as I can make out the Caley's only reward was to bask in the reflected glory. In the case of the Castles, of which NBL built 50 for the Ouest, having been building them in dribs and drabs for the Highland, it would seem to be a case of making free with the drawings in hand - were the Highland even consulted?

If they had a set of drawings, presumably they can use them and there isn't much can be done unless patents were infringed? I can think of 3 or 4 cases off the top of my head (all overseas narrow gauge) where a loco was ordered, shipped with drawings and a suspiciously identical sister arrived from a different company a few years later (and the other company might be German or US based).

[Ohmisterporter]

There were several cases of a single loco being bought from a UK builder and then used as patterns for a fleet. I know Australia did this, with the concurrence of the UK builder, in fact some supplied the first loco and sets of drawings.  

[JimC]

If they had a set of drawings, presumably they can use them and there isn't much can be done unless patents were infringed?

 

There may always be contractual restrictions. Its common enough nowadays, I don't know about the 19thC.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It used to be written that the type of coal readily available to a railway influenced the design of firebox and boiler.

So in retrospect is that so much OS Nock armchair engineering?

 No, it was real.

 

The combustion characteristics of the coal, energy content per unit weight, and percentage ash content, were particularly critical for determining grate area and ash pan volume for any given sustained power output for a specified duration. These factors are what tripped up so many designers as coal quality began to decline, while sustained power output requirements steadily increased.

 

The limitation of grate area and ashpan volume of the narrow firebox design sets an absolute limit on the potential power output in horsepower hours, before the grate and ashpan have to be cleaned. Eventually the fire bars begin to clog, and the ashpan fills, both restricting combustion air supply, and the steaming capacity goes down in consequence. Churchward's success in this area was to have an ashpan and grate design that maximised what could be got out of the narrow firebox, and there was no significant improvement possible from that point in this respect. To go further in sustained output requires a format change, and he knew it, thus the Great Bear.

 

With a wide firebox the ashpan volume in particular ceases to be much of a problem in the UK operating environment. The wide firebox introduces other design problems (it is rare that gains come for free in engineering). The Doncaster team's achievement was to get a template out 'first time'. that was thereafter the development platform for cycles of improvement, where the others proved 'dead ends'.

[Satan's Goldfish]

What if there'd been a bit more imagination with AC electrics?...

 

I present the DP3! EE really wanted to make a power statement in a Deltic body, but ended up with a lot of Transformer weight, so it's all laid down through a 1bobo-bobo1 chassis. 2x cross-arm pans (probably reduced to 1 later in life). Would save some double heading!

 

[Flying Pig]

What if there'd been a bit more imagination with AC electrics?...

 

I present the DP3!

Not enough imagination. The Deltic cab is fine at one end for express passenger work, but how about a Class 20 cab at the other for overnight freight, thus pre-empting the Class 91s by a few decades? Also, as it seems like there's enough room in there for every conceivable voltage, plus clockwork, why not give it a 1500V DC panto for Woodhead workings at one end, some shoes for through workings to the Southern and possibly centre skates for Hornby Dublo three-rail, thus also thoroughly gazumping the 92s?

 

Presumably the radiators are retained as part of the electric tea-making equipment for the Manchester Pullman?

[Suzie]

It definitely should be multi-voltage to take coal trains over Woodhead and all the way to Fiddlers Ferry via Crewe.

 

Surely EP1 though?

[Satan's Goldfish]

That's a lot of mods to make, but noted!

[FPH 603]

What if there'd been a bit more imagination with AC electrics?...

 

I present the DP3! EE really wanted to make a power statement in a Deltic body, but ended up with a lot of Transformer weight, so it's all laid down through a 1bobo-bobo1 chassis. 2x cross-arm pans (probably reduced to 1 later in life). Would save some double heading!

Funny, I made a DP3 years ago. Completely different though. I can try and fish it out if I can. I have mentioned it before on this thread.