Incompetent CMEs

[Andy Kirkham]

I have been reading in Bradley's treatise on LSWR locomotives about the unhappy career of William George Beattie. He was appointed Locomotive Superintendant in 1871 following the sudden death of his Father, the illustrious Joseph Beattie, despite havng minimal experience of locomotive engineering. When asked to provide locomotives for the newly built Ilfracombe Railway the  Locomotive Committee rejected the two designs he submitted as being completely unsuited for their duties and ordered him to resort to outside manufacturers. Fortunately Beyer, Peacock came up with a satisfactory machine originally designed for Sweden - the 0-6-0 Ilfracombe Goods.

He maintained his position by perpetuating his father's designs and ordering from outside companies, but he even managed to make a mess of that; in 1873 when locomotives were needed for the new Exeter-Plymouth line he ordered 4-4-0Ts of the Metropolitan type from Beyer-Peacock. These proved unsteady at the higher express speeds for which they were never intended, and were too heavy for the lightly engineered line, causing damage to the track.

When in 1876 a new express type was required, he had no option but to come up with his own design - the class 348 4-4-0. The cheapest tender was accepted - from Sharp, Stewart, but the other companies invited to tender had either declined  or suggested significant design changes. In service these machines performed poorly and suffered numerous defects due to bad workmanship (loose cylinders and buffers falling off are recorded). As a result of this fiasco he was invited to resign.

Bradley describes him as ineffectual and naive, and reluctant to seek advice, but has some sympathy for him, blaming the directors for appointing such an inexperienced man.

 

Does anyone know of any other Loco Superintendants or CMEs who were simply not up to the job?

 

 

[DOCJACOB]

I think Hon E G Petre of the NBR warrants a mention.

 

As I recall turned the state of the NBR locomotive department from bad to calamitous and resigned instead of being sacked. 

 

PS before anyone says he was a locomotive superintendent not a CME  (NBR semantics) but he can rightly and fairly be stated to be incompetent 

[Wickham Green too]

Mansell on the S.E.R. comes to mind ........... another political appointee.

[PenrithBeacon]

Henry Fowler

[melmerby]

Anyone that didn't work at Swindon?

[Andy Kirkham]

12 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Henry Fowler

Fowler did occur to me but I hesitated to name him because I don't really know enough about him. I know he would never have claimed to be a locomotive designer, but perhaps his failure lay in in his inability to firmly manage the competing factions from Derby, Crewe and elsewhere.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[Andy Kirkham]

1 hour ago, DOCJACOB said:

I think Hon E G Petre of the NBR warrants a mention.

 

As I recall turned the state of the NBR locomotive department from bad to calamitous and resigned instead of being sacked. 

 

PS before anyone says he was a locomotive superintendent not a CME  (NBR semantics) but he can rightly and fairly be stated to be incompetent 

 

I'd be interested to know more but the Internet seems to be rather reticent about him ( I assume you meant Petrie)

[LMS2968]

Henry Fowler's failure was allowing people outside his department to usurp his position and make decisions which were rightfully his, something which took Stanier to put a stop to.

 

It's true he wasn't a locomotive engineer as the term is commonly understood, but he had served his apprenticeship at Horwich (along with Gresley) and was a very competent engineer. He just didn't specialise on locomotives.

Edited June 13, 2020 by LMS2968

[Compound2632]

Harry Wainwright. He was an incompetent manager who allowed a backlog or repairs to build up having mishandled the closure of Longhedge and transfer of work to Ashford and was asked by the directors to resign. As is well known his background was in the Carriage & Wagon side (nominative determinism?); the rather handsome and reasonably competent locomotives that pass under his name were the work of the Chief Draughtsman, Robert Surtees (ex-LCDR) and, one presumes, the Ashford and Longhedge drawing office teams.

[melmoth]

H.A. Hoy on the L&Y perhaps. Successor to Aspinall, produced one 2-6-2T design that had a tendency to derail and some experimental fireboxes that Hughes replaced in fairly quick order. Left to manage Beyer Peacock.

 

Or is this where we have the Edward Thompson argument all over again?

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, melmoth said:

H.A. Hoy [...]. Left to manage Beyer Peacock.

 

Can't have been a complete duffer, then?

[melmoth]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Can't have been a complete duffer, then?

 

Maybe not, but possibly over promoted. Before he was CME he was Works Manager at Horwich, and not many CMEs left that position to go back into works management.

[jim.snowdon]

2 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

Does anyone know of any other Loco Superintendants or CMEs who were simply not up to the job?

Perhaps we should remember that Locomotive Superintendents and Chief Mechanical Engineers do not themselves design locomotives. Their role is to manage the provision and maintenance of the locomotives required by the railway company to move its trains in an economical manner. Part of that is framing design policy, but actual design is left to the chief draftsmen and their staff in the drawing offices, assisted by the CME's technical assistants.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

Just now, melmoth said:

 

Maybe not, but possibly over promoted. Before he was CME he was Works Manager at Horwich, and not many CMEs left that position to go back into works management.

 

Suggests that works management was his forte. But are the circumstances known? He may have been made an offer by BP.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Douglas Earle Marsh of the LBSC takes some beating. His best designs were allegedly produced whilst he was off sick, and not able to interfere with the drawing office. 

[Compound2632]

Just now, jim.snowdon said:

Perhaps we should remember that Locomotive Superintendents and Chief Mechanical Engineers do not themselves design locomotives. Their role is to manage the provision and maintenance of the locomotives required by the railway company to move its trains in an economical manner. Part of that is framing design policy, but actual design is left to the chief draftsmen and their staff in the drawing offices, assisted by the CME's technical assistants.

 

Exactly so - at least by the last third of the 19th century, say. An incompetent CME is one who failed to manage his department effectively - on fruit of that might be ineffective locomotive designs but not necessarily so - vide Wainwright. The older title of Locomotive Superintendent stresses the managerial rather then engineering aspect of the role. 

 

Alexander McDonnell is an example of a Locomotive Superintendent whose person management skills weren't up to the job, when faced with drivers averse to innovation.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Douglas Earle Marsh of the LBSC takes some beating. His best designs were allegedly produced whilst he was off sick, and not able to interfere with the drawing office. 

 

Another one asked by his directors to resign.

[Steamport Southport]

17 minutes ago, melmoth said:

H.A. Hoy on the L&Y perhaps. Successor to Aspinall, produced one 2-6-2T design that had a tendency to derail and some experimental fireboxes that Hughes replaced in fairly quick order. Left to manage Beyer Peacock.

 

 

 

Hoy was heavily involved in the L&Y electrification schemes though.

 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

Just now, Steamport Southport said:

 

Hoy was heavily involved in the L&Y electrification schemes though.

 

 

The implication has to be that Aspinall hadn't left the Horwich drawing office in very good shape...

[LMS2968]

I think you'd need to provide a bit more evidence for that! John Aspinall left the CME position because he was promoted to be General manager, the only CME ever to make that change, which doesn't suggest that he'd made a mess of the CME appointment. Albert Hoy was in office for only 1899-1904, when George Hughes took control. The L&YR, after some very bad times in the early years, had settled down to be an efficient and well run line, the locomotive side included once Barton Wright had become its Locomotive Superintendent.

 

 But the two Albert Hoy items quoted, the 2-6-2Ts and corrugated fireboxes for the 0-8-0s (the engines so fitted were known a s 'Sea Pigs') were for specific purposes. The first was to provide acceleration to match the electrics when introduced (they did) and provide additional adhesion on the steeply graded Pennine branches; the second was to produce a firebox without stays following an explosion of one of the 0-8-0s following stay failure. Once the electrics were in operation, the tanks were no longer needed between Liverpool and Southport, and the 2-4-2Ts proved quite cable on the branches. The 2-6-2s were then relegated to shunting, but their all-flanged coupled wheels were not popular on tightly curved yard trackwork. The flanges were turned off the intermediate wheels, which then dropped off the edges of the rails, hence the derailments. The corrugated fireboxes were not successful, but you can't blame a man for trying.

[rab]

58 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Perhaps we should remember that Locomotive Superintendents and Chief Mechanical Engineers do not themselves design locomotives. Their role is to manage the provision and maintenance of the locomotives required by the railway company to move its trains in an economical manner. Part of that is framing design policy, but actual design is left to the chief draftsmen and their staff in the drawing offices, assisted by the CME's technical assistants.

 

Jim

True, but designers and draughtsmen work to

a brief or specification, and I would have thought

the man in charge would normally have a say in that

[jim.snowdon]

20 minutes ago, rab said:

True, but designers and draughtsmen work to

a brief or specification, and I would have thought

the man in charge would normally have a say in that

That's the bit about framing policy, or as Churchward reportedly said to Holcroft, "Very well, get me out a 2-6-0 with a No (whatever it was) boiler and as many standard parts as you can." Locomotive design involved quite a bit of interaction between the Chief, his Assistants, the Chief Draftsman and his lead Draftsmen, all in accordance with the established hierarchy.

 

Jim

[LMS2968]

28 minutes ago, rab said:

True, but designers and draughtsmen work to

a brief or specification, and I would have thought

the man in charge would normally have a say in that

The 'man in charge' was the one who would sign off the drawings and thereby accept responsibility for the design. This was why it was credited to the CME rather than the draughtsmen, so if it was a great success (the Coronation Pacifics come to mind; Stanier was in India for much of the time they were on the drawing board) then he took the plaudits; if, however, it was flop, he carried the can for it too.

[LMS2968]

1 minute ago, jim.snowdon said:

That's the bit about framing policy, or as Churchward reportedly said to Holcroft, "Very well, get me out a 2-6-0 with a No (whatever it was) boiler and as many standard parts as you can." Locomotive design involved quite a bit of interaction between the Chief, his Assistants, the Chief Draftsman and his lead Draftsmen, all in accordance with the established hierarchy.

 

Jim

Great Western engines could be designed by the Swindon storesman!

 

What time does the next bus leave?

[APOLLO]

Jimmy Riddles 

 

OOOPS - Sorry, I thought you said Incontinent CME's !!

 

Brit15