Incompetent CMEs

[pete_mcfarlane]

33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The G&SWR had a series of highly competent Locomotive Superintendents in Patrick Stirling, James Stirling, Hugh Smellie, James Manson, Peter Drummond, and R.H. Whitelegg. The latter had a bit of a thing for Baltic tanks that were somewhat in vogue but not really satisfactory in an anybody's hands.

It's said that the Belfast and County Down acquired their 4-6-4 tanks after one of the Directors took a trip to Brighton and was impressed by the LBSC example that pulled his train. This  does show the kind of pressure that was being put on at least some CMEs by their boards. 

 

 

[bbishop]

Interesting arguments.  William George Beattie, a much maligned mechanical engineer.  He went on to design …..  oh I'll come back to this later.

 

Of course, he was replaced by William Adams who had just spent six years at Stratford during which sojourn he produced some very poor locomotives.  But then his output on the LSWR was superb.

 

How about Robert Whitelegg?  A year in charge of the LTSR followed by four years at Kilmarnock on the GSWR and he saddled both companies with a white elephant in the form of 4-6-4 tank locomotives, both too large for the services they were designed for.  Worse he messed up the existing GSWR locomotives which were undersized by 1918, but could at least steam until Whitelegg got to them.

 

The last three LBSC CME's all had their faults and seemed to need a couple of attempts before producing a locomotive fit for purpose.  Robert Billinton's 4-4-0 designs were pretty but useless.  Marsh brought the Atlantic blueprints with him from Doncaster but only one of his four 4-4-2 tank designs was successful and his 0-6-0 goods design was dire.  The production of the reasonable Pacific tanks co-incided with Marsh's resignation on the grounds of ill health and Lawson Billinton was then seduced by the Baltic tank concept.  

 

….. and WGB,s successful design?  A lawnmower.

 

Bill

 

 

[runs as required]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

Not exactly. The Midland also went very strongly into standardisation, especially of components. Crewe also. The trap is that eventually the standard parts become obsolete as technology progresses, but there is a reluctance to move forward to new ideas because the old ones are 'standard'.

I have always been an advocate of ‘component standardisation’ that can be used in open building - especially ‘self build’ - however that gets interpreted across the world. 

I learnt that working for the BR (E) CCE’s Research & Development Group designing Tinsley’s generally well received System C buildings, and also the ER’s widely used version System T (for timber) of the copyrighted Clasp school building system developed by Hertfordshire CC

 

The key to the success of this was also demonstrated to me: that you must be ready to ditch and supersede a standard component within the open system once it is obsolescent in insulation, fire or other functional terms as technology moves on.

 

Perhaps Mech Eng was slower in following this Civils’ dictum in Swindon and Derby. It was aso the same with VW’s Beetle and Citroen’s pre war Tractions down to the DS Goddess in 1952.

Mind the open approach was pursued by BL into ... um

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

16 hours ago, melmerby said:

Mind you how many companies had their top express locos capable of travelling over the majority of the company's main lines?

I would say all of the other 3 of the big 4.  They did necessarily not use them on all of their main lines; Princesses and Duchesses were rare on the Midland and L & Y parts of the LMS, and I'm not sure the Southern was overflowing with Lord Nelsons west of Exeter, but the LNER used pacifics on the GC, and they were used on routes other than the ECML in Scotland by BR.  The P2s were of course built for secondary main line use.  But the locos were by and large capable of running on most of each company's main line network, though tended to be kept to specific work because they were built in smallish numbers for that traffic and lesser express locos like Patriots, Jubilees, King Arthurs and the like were capable of efficiently handling their work. 

 

The Kings could not work into Cornwall, South Wales, or beyond Wolverhampton, though they were allowed to Cardiff and Shrewsbury, including the Severn Tunnel and the North to West main line, late in their careers when it was too late to make much difference.  They would have been able to achieve useful time cuts on the heavy South Wales trains and, if allowed to Birkenhead, might have enabled the GW to compete with the LMS for Merseyside traffic.

[The Johnster]

14 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

As regards the Counties, it seems to me that much like the Bulleid Pacifics, they were really express passenger locos designated as 'Mixed Traffic' to enable them to be produced during wartime.

Well, BR designated them as 6MT, and they came at it with a fresh approach unfettered by the idea that the locos were nominally MT types to allow wartime building.  It's true that Hawksworth wanted to build an express loco, possibly a pacific, and the Ministry of Supply forbade this.  He was apparently very angry when they accepted Bulleid's even more thinly disguised and experimental spamcan proposals, and I sort of sympathise; it's easier to regard a 2 cylinder 4-6-0 as a mixed traffic loco than a 3 cylinder pacific!

 

The 10xx Counties are a slightly separate issue, albeit related; Hawksworth was being an opportunist and using the boiler templates that had come to Swindon free with the order for War Department Stanier 8Fs to build a mixed traffic 8F from GW standard parts.  It may have been intended as a replacement for the 47xx.  The combination of a 280psi boiler and Hall/28xx cylinders made for a coupling breaker on freight work, and the 47xx were kept for nearly another 2 decades.  They were considered fine on work that involved long distance uphill slogging (Cornwall, North to West line) and were very successful on heavy parcels duties, but Halls were much more versatile and continued to be built after the 10xx had all been delivered.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

It's said that the Belfast and County Down acquired their 4-6-4 tanks after one of the Directors took a trip to Brighton and was impressed by the LBSC example that pulled his train. This  does show the kind of pressure that was being put on at least some CMEs by their boards. 

 

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

How about Robert Whitelegg?  A year in charge of the LTSR followed by four years at Kilmarnock on the GSWR and he saddled both companies with a white elephant in the form of 4-6-4 tank locomotives, both too large for the services they were designed for. 

 

Ah, you see Whitelegg fell for Baltic tanks twice - once could be put down to learning but twice has to be failure to learn. And in both cases, he left them on Derby's hands.

 

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

Robert Billinton's 4-4-0 designs were pretty but useless. 

 

Good enough to make up time on Queen Victoria's funeral train (205 tons), whipping up to 80 mph on the level between Havant and Ford Junction and averaging 47.5 mph over the 87 miles from Fareham to Victoria - not an easy road; 110 minutes against the scheduled 122 minutes [O.S. Nock, Speed Records on Britain's Railways (David & Charles, 1971)]. So, not sluggards.

 

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

William Adams who had just spent six years at Stratford during which sojourn he produced some very poor locomotives.  But then his output on the LSWR was superb.

 

It's interesting to speculate on the relationship between Adams and Beyer, Peacock & Co., that firm building 4-4-0s for South America and for the Lynn & Fakenham (the M&GN "Peacocks") that bear a striking resemblance to Adams' early LSWR 4-4-0s:

 

 

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

It needs to be remembered that Webb looked at the divided drive to avoid coupling rods at a time when accuracy in the construction of frames was still considered an issue and eliminating coupling rods was hoped to produce free-er running locomotives. They were overtaken by events as workshop practice improved and accuracy of frame alignment increased.

Re Craven, at the time he was operating the concept of standardisation had not been developed very far, and he therefore built each loco to fulfil a particular task. Even in "standard" classes at that time there was a lot of variation (eg one or two of  the GWR tank loco "classes"!)

Jonathan

Standardisation has clear advantages in a workshop or heavy repair depot, but makes little difference to the actual working of the loco.  Craven's approach to the problem was to assess what each individual duty required and build a loco to that exact requirement, a valid enough approach other than it seems odd to modern eyes.  There were 'standard' locos of a sort in those days, Stephenson Long Boilers, Jenny LInds, Sharpies, Burys and so on, but they were largely from outside builders, and standard in that they were built in a certain way because that had worked on the previous loco; it wasn't broke so you didn't fix it!  So a Jenny on the LBSC was pretty much the same as one on the Midland or anywhere else,  

 

But all locos wherever built were basically built as individual items on the shop floor, and if they were to a class it was that they were constructed to a class drawing, but each one differed in fine detail.  What Craven was doing was a logical extension of this, and not particularly radical at the time.  The way forward was mechanisation of workshop equipment, dividing jobs into different shops to develop specialist technique, and standardisation of major components, smaller parts, and the tools to make them.  The Smithy practice that informed early workshops meant that if a bolt was needed for a job and none suitable was to hand, you made one with the nearest suitable die and drilled and tapped a suitable hole for it, which might mean that this bolt is the only one of that size on the loco.  If an order comes down from the office for 'another 5 like that, please, and the original is copied it may lead to the unique bolt being copied 5 times if the people building it assume, logically enough, that there must have been a specified reason for the anomaly while on nights when the drawing office is not available for consultation.  Standardisation has advantages outside the stores department.

[tomparryharry]

My contender might be John Auld, the last CME of the Barry Railway. The L class 0-6-4 was supposed to be a mixed traffic locomotive, but couldn't keep its rear bogie on the rails, especially on certain Barry routes, and with certain types of traffic. 

 

When the grouping came about, Mr Auld became the manager for Great Western Docks & Ports, but managed to get the unfortunate L class scrapped en-masse. 

 

The Barry Railway M class, as the last in the line, was never ordered.

[corneliuslundie]

Standardisation and interchangeability are slightly different. The latter does not impede development as long as as those setting the original "interfaces"! are aware that things will change. As has been said, standardisation can prevent development, and if you standardise on the wrong thing you make a big mess instead of a small one.

I do not know the details, but if the Midland had had a standard way of mounting its bearings so that larger bearings could be substituted. but it sounds as though they didn't.

The fate of the G&SWR locos was mirrored by those of many of the small companies after the Grouping. The GWR regularly scrapped newish locomotives from the pre-grouping companies and replaced them with locomotives a decade or more older.

Jonathan

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Eric

 

there's a bit of truth in what you say.

 

its hard to find a great deal of detail about ‘JCC the man’, but I’ve often wondered if he would actually be considered mentally unwell by modern standards. There’s something in what little is known about him that suggests that he was doing pretty well up to a certain point, then progressively “lost it”.

 

Kevin

This chimes with mental illness well enough, and it is not unusual for high stress jobs to have an effect  on this issue.  Victorian gentlemen were kings of their castle at home, and unreasonable behaviour might easily have gone unchallenged, or unsuccessfully challenged.  One can see the possibility of a domineering personality, already insecure in his own self which is the reason for the control freakery in the first place, encouraged even if not actively in this behaviour at home, will be increasingly challenged by anyone whose opinion varies or who he does not think shows proper deference when he is at work. and will perceptibly deteriorate over time.  While women were reckoned hysterical by nature, and were easily declared insane, sometimes by 'gaslighting', a middle class man of means in those days had to be very obviously and dangerously mentally ill, or drug addicted, or alcoholic, before anyone did anything about it!  If Craven was ill, nothing would have been done about it.

[burgundy]

13 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

This chimes with mental illness well enough, and it is not unusual for high stress jobs to have an effect  on this issue.  Victorian gentlemen were kings of their castle at home, and unreasonable behaviour might easily have gone unchallenged, or unsuccessfully challenged.  One can see the possibility of a domineering personality, already insecure in his own self which is the reason for the control freakery in the first place, encouraged even if not actively in this behaviour at home, will be increasingly challenged by anyone whose opinion varies or who he does not think shows proper deference when he is at work. and will perceptibly deteriorate over time.  While women were reckoned hysterical by nature, and were easily declared insane, sometimes by 'gaslighting', a middle class man of means in those days had to be very obviously and dangerously mentally ill, or drug addicted, or alcoholic, before anyone did anything about it!  If Craven was ill, nothing would have been done about it.

Interestingly, after leaving the LBSCR, Craven became a Councillor of Brighton Corporation and in 1881 was elected Alderman. He died in 1887 at the age of 73 (which does not sound that old from where I sit). Hamilton Ellis'  article on him suggests that his mental deterioration became acute in his final months.

Best wishes

Eric  

[SD85]

3 hours ago, bbishop said:

 

 

The last three LBSC CME's all had their faults and seemed to need a couple of attempts before producing a locomotive fit for purpose.  Robert Billinton's 4-4-0 designs were pretty but useless.  Marsh brought the Atlantic blueprints with him from Doncaster but only one of his four 4-4-2 tank designs was successful and his 0-6-0 goods design was dire.  The production of the reasonable Pacific tanks co-incided with Marsh's resignation on the grounds of ill health and Lawson Billinton was then seduced by the Baltic tank concept.  

 

 

 

Sorry but I have to challenge this.

 

Robert Billinton's 4-4-0s consisted of the B2s, which were elegant but woefully underboilered, a solitary B3 and the B4s, which were generally pretty successful and complemented the Gladstones as the principal express engine on the LBSCR for some years until Marsh's Atlantics arrived. Also, his Radial tanks and D3 class were all extremely versatile and long lasting designs.

 

I mentioned Marsh in an earlier post but despite the C3 not being a brilliant design, the boiler was successfully used in modified form in the Maunsell Z class tanks. He also rebuilt most of the C2s with larger boilers into the C2X class which survived until the early 1960s, and most crucially introduced superheating to the Brighton's locomotive fleet.

 

Regarding Lawson Billinton, he was very successful IMO and only one of his designs (the E2) was something of a dud. Firstly he modified the second Marsh J class tank by adding Walschaerts valve gear and other improvements, and as a result she was reputed to be one of the fastest engines on the line. His L class Baltic tanks were, IMO, magnificent engines whose only design flaw was their tendency to roll at speed due to the water surging in the enormous side tanks, a problem that was quickly and effectively solved by filling the side tanks to one third capacity and slinging the rest of the water supply in a well tank under the boiler to lower the centre of gravity. The only long-term issue with the L class was that they were designed specifically for the needs of the LBSCR's system and as a result couldn't really be used on the Western Section effectively due to their limited capacity for coal and water, hence their rebuilding as tender engines by Maunsell. Prior to their rebuilding they performed sterling work on the Brighton and Eastbourne lines for twenty years. Finally the K class were the most powerful engines the Brighton owned and gave yeoman service on vastly lengthy goods trains during the First World War, as well as proving themselves very capable mixed traffic engines and surviving until 1962.

Edited June 14, 2020 by SD85

[runs as required]

I am surprised no-one has yet made a pitch for "Fowler's Ghost" for total incompetence. The whole of the Metropolitan running in cut and cover tunnels from Paddington and Baker Street to the City was based on the engineer's assurance that his fireless steam local would afford acceptable clean air breathing!

 

It is another example similar to IKBs assurance that all would be well with his atmospheric system.

But before you all say "Aha! its that LMS Henry Fowler again (Graces Guide obit her), this is Sir John Fowler, no relative (Graces Guide obit here makes interesting reading), later designer of the Forth Bridge.

 

And as for his "Ghost":

Quote

from Wikipaedi:

As the Metropolitan Railway was still two years from completion, the first trial was held on the broad gauge Great Western Railway in October 1861 on the line near Hanwell railway station. The trial was a failure, with the locomotive completing only 7.5 miles (12.1 km). The condensing system leaked, causing the boiler to run dry and the steam pressure to drop. As a result, the boiler feed-pumps jammed, creating a dangerous situation where the boiler could overheat and explode.[1]

Again from Wiki, the only known photo of the loco is on its second trial in October 1862 at Edeware Rd on the still incomplete Met. once gain unsuccessful, the Stephensons built loco produced very little steam from its supposed heat retaining (Cowens Blaydon?) firebricks - the cause of the earlier Hanwell near explosion, because they could not be dropped as in a conventional firebox.

 

I forgot to conclude by checking that dependable "Fireless" accumulator charged systems with steam  or compressed air did not gain practicability until the 1870s on US and French tramways, later of course widely used on  Industrial systems.

Edited June 14, 2020 by runs as required

[burgundy]

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

The last three LBSC CME's all had their faults and seemed to need a couple of attempts before producing a locomotive fit for purpose.  Robert Billinton's 4-4-0 designs were pretty but useless.  Marsh brought the Atlantic blueprints with him from Doncaster but only one of his four 4-4-2 tank designs was successful and his 0-6-0 goods design was dire.  The production of the reasonable Pacific tanks co-incided with Marsh's resignation on the grounds of ill health and Lawson Billinton was then seduced by the Baltic tank concept.  

Bill

 

 

A rather sweeping opinion, if I may say so. 

For a more objective assessment, can I suggest the three volumes by Klaus Marx  on Robert Billinton, Marsh and Lawson Billinton. 

Much maligned for some of his locos, Marsh was responsible for the introduction of the electric network and brought in superheating. And there was nothing much wrong with the Brighton Baltics on the work for which they were designed, which was the short, sharp dash to Brighton. If nothing else, read the volume on Lawson Billinton for the chapter that covers his wartime service. His work in Romania and his travels through Russia in the middle of the revolution read like something straight out of Boys Own.  

As I said in an earlier post, there are not many examples of absolute heroes or absolute villains.

Best wishes

Eric  

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, GeoffAlan said:

I'm not a great fan of the Great Way Round, but that's a complement to the GWR's early adoption of a kind of standardisation. A limited number of Boilers, a few different wheel sizes throw them in the air and you get an express, mixed traffic or goods engine.

It took a long time for other companies to follow suit.

I am a great fan of God's Wonderful Railway, and only partially agree.  There were a good number of different types of boilers already under Dean, and Churchward added more rather than replacing the Dean types, which were still being used in brand new designs in the 1950s (16xx). It is less important to have standardised boilers, or even cylinder blocks, or wheels, motion pieces and so on, as these take up the same amount of storage space whether standardised or not; you need around the same number of overhauled and certificated spares to service locos arriving at workshops, taking the same amount of space and not much more in administration and records.  

 

Of course, Churchward, and Collett and Hawksworth, had to design new boilers for bigger engines than Dean ever had to reckon with, but one has wonder what the no.10 brought to the party, and why it or something like it was not used to replace Dean parallel boilers on smaller locos, assuming that tapering was actually worth the extra effort and cost which some people doubt.  I reckon that the ability of a storesman to throw a number of parts in the air and come up with a workable locomotive was very valuable in Churchward's time, but may have been a box outside of which Collett and Hawksworth were hampered from thinking!  

 

Look at the Grange, regarded as better than a Hall by the drivers and in every way a 'throw the parts in the air' design of standard parts.  Churchward didn't build it because the 43xx was sufficient for the traffic in his time, but when Collett had to improve on the 43xx he came up with the idea of putting 6' wheels on a Saint.  This worked well enough and 329 built overall, but the Grange was introduced later and only 80 Granges were built.  This might mean that the railway would have done better with 80 Halls and 259 Granges, and that if this is true then Collett's interpretation of an established standardised range of parts led him to introduce a new wheel size and deprive the railway of Granges while saddling it with Halls.

 

It is probably much more important that smaller components are standardised across the entire range of stock, as this has major benefits in storekeeping.  This means that you can have as many variations of major parts as you like, as they are all made of standard smaller parts and can be dismantled and rebuilt as something else which is still standards, like a modular approach in modern terms.

 

The Churchward standard no 1 boiler was used on the Saint, Star, Hall, Modified Hall, 28xx, 2884, and Grange, 7 classes.  But those classes required 4 different sets of mounting plates because the boiler was pitched at different heights relative to the running plate (and the ground).  A case of standardisation requiring non-standard parts to enable it to be implemented!  

 

No two GW tender loco classes seem to have had standardised cab designs, spectacle plates being different even between 28xx and 2884!

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

The Churchward standard no 1 boiler was used on the Saint, Star, Hall, Modified Hall, 28xx, 2884, and Grange, 7 classes.  But those classes required 4 different sets of mounting plates because the boiler was pitched at different heights relative to the running plate (and the ground).  A case of standardisation requiring non-standard parts to enable it to be implemented!

Where the boiler is pitched relative to rail level, or to the running plate is immaterial. What matters is the spatial relationship between the smokebox saddle and the rear boiler mountings on the frames.

 

Jim

[LMS2968]

Which, given the way the saddle and cylinders were cast integral, then made either for different cylinder castings or varied heights for mounting them to the frames.

[jim.snowdon]

The latter.

 

Jim

[bbishop]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

It's interesting to speculate on the relationship between Adams and Beyer, Peacock & Co., that firm building 4-4-0s for South America and for the Lynn & Fakenham (the M&GN "Peacocks") that bear a striking resemblance to Adams' early LSWR 4-4-0s:

 

 

Joseph Beattie started the relationship between the LSWR and Beyer Peacock, which was continued by his son who mainly purchased off the peg designs from the firm until he designed the infamous 348 class.  Adams needed to order his early designs from the trade whilst Nine Elms concentrated on repairs, but these orders were spread across several companies, if anything more went to Robert Stephenson than other companies.  As Edwardian said, probably Beyer Peacock evolved an Adams design (they built the 135 class) .  At a later date, Adams' son designed an inside cylindered for the North Staffordshire Railway.

[bbishop]

Burgundy, I followed a comment that Marsh was an incompetent CME by saying the last three LBSC engineers all had faults.  The B4s were an improvement on the B2s but tests in 1924 showed them markedly inferior to the contemporary Drummond T9 class.  Robert Billinton's other classes were derived from the Midland Railway (0-4-4T) or extrapolated from Stroudley's West Brighton design.  Marsh seems to have problems with front end design.  My criticism of Lawson Billinton was that he fell for the allure of a Baltic tank; I'm not criticising his firebox design, which was adequate for the short distances of the LBSC, but proved too small for the South Western main line.  This is why the N15X class worked the Waterloo - Basingstoke semi-fast trains.   I don't think any of them were incompetent but none were scintillating.  Bill

[SD85]

^ Fair points, but does it really matter if R Billinton's Radial designs were all derivatives of the lone Stroudley 0-6-2? The key thing is they worked very well.

 

Regarding the L class, I don't honestly see what the issue is with L Billinton falling for the allure of a Baltic tank design. From my perspective he made the logical decision on going for a big, fast express tank engine which could handle the intensive but relatively short distance London-Brighton and London-Eastbourne services with ease. Given the fact that the LBSCR had already been using tank engines for express passenger services for some years by that point, a Baltic tank was the next logical step.

[pH]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The G&SWR had a series of highly competent Locomotive Superintendents in Patrick Stirling, James Stirling, Hugh Smellie, James Manson, Peter Drummond, and R.H. Whitelegg.
 

There was nothing really wrong with the Sou'-West's locomotive fleet; it was well-suited to the local traffic and conditions. It was just that in absolute numbers it was not large and made up of too many small classes, so was an early victim of LMS standardisation ...

 

6 hours ago, bbishop said:

How about Robert Whitelegg?  A year in charge of the LTSR followed by four years at Kilmarnock on the GSWR and he saddled both companies with a white elephant in the form of 4-6-4 tank locomotives, both too large for the services they were designed for.  Worse he messed up the existing GSWR locomotives which were undersized by 1918, but could at least steam until Whitelegg got to them.

 

Certainly from David L. Smith’s writings, the last two in that list of Locomotive Superintendents were not unqualified successes. Drummond’s early designs for the G&SWR were not welcomed (surprising in view of his previous work on the Highland) but his later designs were well regarded. Some of them were the last G&SWR engines in service, and had been used far beyond ex-G&SWR territory.

Whitelegg appears to have been an almost unmitigated disaster. The Baltics did well enough on ‘outer suburban’ services, but weren’t suited to much else. His rebuilds of earlier classes were not a success. In a sense, attempts at standardisation in G&SWR days was part of the problem. The locomotive fleet was in really bad shape after WW1, and needed rebuilding. Whitelegg wanted to create a small range of standard boilers to replace the ‘one offs’ in so many existing classes, and all his rebuilds used boilers from this new range. It was just unfortunate that the new boilers were not as good as the ones they replaced. That, plus other ‘improvements’, resulted in engines less useful than the originals.

 

After the Grouping, he became General Manager of Beyer Peacock, so he must have impressed some people.

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

Burgundy, I followed a comment that Marsh was an incompetent CME by saying the last three LBSC engineers all had faults.  The B4s were an improvement on the B2s but tests in 1924 showed them markedly inferior to the contemporary Drummond T9 class.  Robert Billinton's other classes were derived from the Midland Railway (0-4-4T) or extrapolated from Stroudley's West Brighton design.  Marsh seems to have problems with front end design.  My criticism of Lawson Billinton was that he fell for the allure of a Baltic tank; I'm not criticising his firebox design, which was adequate for the short distances of the LBSC, but proved too small for the South Western main line.  This is why the N15X class worked the Waterloo - Basingstoke semi-fast trains.   I don't think any of them were incompetent but none were scintillating.  Bill

Bill 

My comment was that your remark was sweeping. I have also said earlier in this thread that, like most of us, CMEs tend to have strengths and weaknesses. However, you seem to have a particular difficulty with Baltic tanks generally. On their home turf, the Brighton Baltics (after initial issues with surging) did exactly what was required of them. Their rebuild and relocation did them no favours.

I would still commend the biography of Lawson Billinton, "Lawson Billinton: A Career Cut Short", which provides a good history of his career on the Brighton and his other achievements. There is an interesting line of "what ifs", had he not been passed over in favour of Maunsell on seniority grounds to be CME of the Southern.       

Finally, given your views on Baltics, I thought that you might like a short video of a Baltic tank, complete with Westinghouse pump.  

https://youtu.be/QrDaj6cX4w4

Best wishes 

Eric 

[robmcg]

I nominate a CME with attributes OPPOSITE to Robert Ribbles.   

[bbishop]

Eric,  three of the British Baltic designs were vanity projects.  The L&Y design had the most justification but was a disappointment.  The LBSC Baltic was the best design but I wonder if they were a significant improvement over Bessborough?

 

None of the three CMEs of the Southern Railway constituents were design men.  Billinton's career to 1911 was mainly on the running side, Urie was a works man and Maunsell a manager, reliant on his team of Clayton, Holcroft and Pearson.  However, I think an important person in the SR design team was Finlayson, who had been the LSWR chief draughtsman and sketched out all the big locomotives up to the Schools.  A dour Scot and no self publicist.

 

And so to my hero, Dugald Drummond.  I would call the "Double Singles" heroic failures.  Their concept was a big firebox and boiler to produce the steam for four cylinders, but the mixed Joy - Stephenson valve gear was a failure.  And then the 4-6-0 express locomotives!  Again Drummond chose mixed valve gear, this time Stephenson - Walschaert, and five failures were followed by a complete failure, another ten failures, before finally he designed the Paddleboxes with only Walschaert gear - most of the class serving their allotted span.  But whist the failures couldn't run, they could pull, and serendipitously were used on the Salisbury to Portsmouth coal trains during WW1.  Bill