LNER W1- could it have worked?

[Forward!]

Hi all,

 

I recently treated myself to the latest iteration of Hornby's 4mm scale LNER W1 water-tubed 4-6-4 more or less on a whim (I model the late 40s, so completely unjustifiable on my layout, but as ever, rule 1 applies...). It prompted me to read around the subject a little. I have consulted the usual sources- e.g. the relevant Yeadon's register about the whole unhappy experience the LNER had trying to get the damned thing to work, so I've got a fair idea of the technical reasons why it failed. What I'm less sure about is whether it ever could have been made to work had the LNER not cut their losses and had it rebuilt as a firetube-boilered single expansion loco. My instinct is that the high-pressure compound concept was a classic case of a solution that was in search of a problem, but I'd be interested in what others more familiar with the subject think.

 

Will

[Mol_PMB]

I think with all engineering and technology there's a balance between factors like performance, efficiency, reliability and maintainability.

And on railways, there are external factors related to the remainder of the railway network. 

I'm certain that the W1 could have been made to work (after all, it DID work), but would it ever have been cost-effective? I expect many of the nails in its coffin were effectively financial - in theory it was more fuel-efficient but the unreliability, poor availability and extra maintenance costs more than cancelled out any fuel saving. Was the theoretical improvement in performance over the standard Pacifics actually needed?

 

However, in different external circumstances the balance of factors doesn't always fall in the same way. I always think the Metrovick-Crossley diesel locos of the early 1950s are an interesting comparison. 

• The British Rail Co-Bos had some mods done but it was easier to junk the small fleet than fix the problems.
• In Ireland, the A and C classes were a significant part of the fleet and they had to be sorted, but that solution was new engines. The rest of the loco turned out to be quite good and they had long lives in their modified form.
• In Western Australia, the X, Xa and Xb classes were pretty much the whole diesel fleet at the time, and they persevered with the Crossley engines. After a long programme of modifications they produced a fleet of locos with adequate reliability, although perhaps heavy on maintenance.

Not directly related to the W1, but perhaps if the external circumstances had been different then the W1 would have been worth investing in to iron out the flaws.

 

[DenysW]

35 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

I'm certain that the W1 could have been made to work

I'm less so, just because of the vibrations and dirt inseparable from reciprocating coal-fired steam engines. Also the (relative) lack of control/perfectionism on water supplies. And the pride the British railway industry took in training on new technologies by osmosis. Stanier couldn't get dedicated crews to run Turbomotive, for heavens sake.

 

 

[RichardT]

Anything can be made to work, after a fashion, if you throw enough money, time and people at it. And 10000 did “work”. But the defintion of “making it work” depends on your initial objectives.  The LNER wasn’t an engineering research institute - it was a company looking for ways to generate more money from running trains by cutting costs in a way that showed a return on investment. 10000 was a worthwhile experiment that demonstrated that it wasn’t possible to achieve the objectives at reasonable cost in a British context. But the experiment provided useful data.

 

As for sources, Yeadon is good for anally-retentive trainspotters and rivet-counters wanting to make sure they’ve got the right shedplate on their B1. I’d not rely on him for contextualised engineering history. For 10000 you’d be better-off borrowing William Brown’s “Hush-Hush -The Story of LNER 10000”

 

Richard

Edited February 2 by RichardT

[Forward!]

15 minutes ago, RichardT said:

For 10000 you’d be better-off borrowing William Brown’s “Hush-Hush -The Story of LNER 10000”

 

Richard

 

Cheers Richard, I'll try to find a copy.

 

Will

[auldreekie]

I found it a good read,  especially taken in conjunction with John Hutchings' "Sentinel Locomotives and Sentinel-Cammell Railcars":  there's a lot of read-across,  particularly in respect of boiler design.  Taken together,  the two books offer a different perspective on a well-worn tale.

 

I was even motivated enough to build a model of the Sentinel Buenos Aires "tram locomotive" which used boiler technology similar to that of the original W1.

 

 

and

 

 

auldreekie

Edited February 2 by auldreekie

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Looking further afield, the water tube boiler was tried by major steam rail traction constructors around the world, with limited success. The Stephenson fire tube boiler held out to the end. International comparisons here:

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm

 

Scroll down to ' The Pressure is on' and take a look.

 

(You may end up reading the whole site, very interesting altogether.)

[Ken.W]

4 hours ago, DenysW said:

I'm less so, just because of the vibrations and dirt inseparable from reciprocating coal-fired steam engines. Also the (relative) lack of control/perfectionism on water supplies. And the pride the British railway industry took in training on new technologies by osmosis. Stanier couldn't get dedicated crews to run Turbomotive, for heavens sake.

 

 

 

Yes, apparently from what I've read of this matter, the water tube boiler didn't take kindly to being battered about running around the railway

 

However, one surprising aspect of the story which l recently came across...

 

The water tube boiler actually out-lived the loco by around 5 years

 

It survived as a stationary boiler at Darlington loco works until 1964, used for high pressure testing of boilers

 

The rebuilt W1 having been withdrawn June '59

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, DenysW said:

I'm less so, just because of the vibrations and dirt inseparable from reciprocating coal-fired steam engines. Also the (relative) lack of control/perfectionism on water supplies. And the pride the British railway industry took in training on new technologies by osmosis. Stanier couldn't get dedicated crews to run Turbomotive, for heavens sake.

 

 

But at least Turbomotive worked well in service. It's problem was that it was a one off, so it spent a lot of time out of service, waiting for parts to be made for it to special order. If there was even a small fleet, a stock of spare parts, would have had locos returned to service much quicker - just like traditional locos in fact.

[jjb1970]

I have no doubt a water tube boiler could work in rail traction use if properly developed. Whether the necessary investment would make much sense is another question. Electrification was already taking off in the 1930's and the diesel engine was approaching maturity for rail application. 

 

British naval boiler technology was also quite conservative and lagged behind the US in the interwar period. The RN avoided small tube high pressure boilers after unfortunate results meaning our ships in WW2 had less efficient and heavier steam plant than USN ships. On the other hand, the German Navy adopted higher pressure steam plant with excellent results for the allies as reliability wasn't great. 

[auldreekie]

The "Woolnough" boiler used by Sentinel on some of their larger locomotives  (including the Buenos Aires tram) was similar in principle to the "marine" boiler used by Gresley on the W1.  I was particularly moved to model the Buenos Aires machine,  because its bogies used steam traction motors of a relatively traditional form,  unlike the  (possibly) better-known Colombian Sentinel machines which also used the Woolnough boiler.

 

 

auldreekie

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I have no doubt a water tube boiler could work in rail traction use if properly developed. Whether the necessary investment would make much sense is another question.

The parallel with the more recent strongly promoted Wankel rotor ICE to supplant all them pistons whizzing up and down comes to mind.

 

The experiment that unfortunately doesn't appear to have happened, is the combination of water tube boiler with a steam turbine, the latter an undoubted technical and operational success on rails. The turbine offering much reduced vibration with better use of high pressure steam, as it is the equivalent of a uniflow multi stage compound, should have made life easier for the boiler.

 

A more radical locomotive layout on smaller wheel diameter bogies would present fewer constraints on boiler design, and potentially a better ride with reduced unsprung mass and a smaller reduction ratio requirement from turbine shaft to axle.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
compulsory break for lunch

[The Johnster]

In one sense 10000 was almost inevitable.  The first 39 years of the 20th century in terms of express passenger loco designs can be viewed as a quest for ever more powerful engines needing ever larger boilers.  The start of this process with atlantics and 4-6-0s replacing the sorts of inside-cylindered 4-4-0s that had been the unquestioned default for the previous two decades was in turn prompted by a perfect storm of increased passenger demand, longer non-stop runs resulting from the introduction of heavier gangwayed bogie coaches with toilet facilities and catering, and increased demand on paths which could be addressed by fewer, longer heavier faster trains.  
 

As boilers fattened and lengthened, ultimately resulting in pacifics, problems hitherto unrealised presented themselves to demand solutions.  Among these was a requirement for boiler output that was, by around 1930, becoming close to the limit of the capacity of human firemen.  The restricted British loading gauge meant that the boilers could not get much bigger, and crews views of the road ahead were becoming restricted.  Compounding had been widely tried and, except for the case of the Midland 3-cylinder 4-4-0, seems not to have been continued post-grouping.  Future improvements in power produced per shovel round came about after WW2 from better draughting and improved steam passages, but at the time of the ‘Hush-Hush’ high pressure looked like a viable idea.  
 

The LMS tried modifying a Royal Scot for high pressure and ran into big trouble with it, which seems to have ended experiment on that railway; Stanier wasn’t interested and went for more-or-less conventional 4 cylinder pacifics, fine engines but reaching the limit of human firing to the point of using coal pushers on the heaviest jobs. His next move was the Turbomotive, used on his heaviest turn, the 10.00 Liverpool Lime St-Euston.

 

Gresley preferred 3-cylinder pacifics and Kylechap exhausts, but was also coming to the top end of what his firemen could regularly and reliably do.  In the US and Canada they were using mechanical stoking, but this needed the wide fireboxes allowed by their loading gauge and could not be used here sufficiently efficiently.  The planned electrification of the ECML kept being deferred snd was never going to happen in the economic depression of the 30s.  And, at that time, a sufficiently powerful diesel suitable for British use had yet to be developed, the problem again being the loading gauge, and the size & weight of generating plant.  

 

If you’ve been trying to find an efficient and economically viable way around this combination of problems, which was only going to be made worse by the use of all-steel coaches, never mind that your first-class punters who’d been to America were starting to ask for air-conditioning, a high-pressure engine looks at least worth trying. 
 

And the sort of pressure you needed was not viable in a fire-tube boiler, it needed to be a water-tube device, which meant looking to marine boiler practice.  Hence (and as I suggested, inevitably), 10000.  Perhaps a turbine drive would have been better with it, as might oil-firing have been, and shock-absorbing boiler mountings might have helped as well, and perhaps those things would have been tried out, had the effects of German foreign policy decisions between 1939 and 1945 not produced an entirely new situation even after those policies and the German leader were forcibly removed to everyone’s benefit in 1945.  
 

The post-war world was different; none of the big four CMEs in post when it started were still there when it ended (coincidence, nothing to do with the war), good coal and manpower were both difficult to come by, investment capital next to impossible, and 10000 was considered a better asset working out it’s life as a conventionally-boilered A4 clone, unremarkable except for its wheel arrangement.  Within a decade the prototype Deltic was being trialled and within another decade there was a fleet of ‘em working on the ECML, and steam was in its death throes.  
 

 

 

 

[The Lurker]

Actually Bulleid was appointed CME of the Southern in 1937, although that doesn’t diminish the point you were making about the changed conditions postwar.

 

[jjb1970]

The ultimate examples of trying to keep the coal fuelled steam locomotive relevant were probably the US steam turbine electric locomotives such the GE prototype, the N&W Jawn Henry and the C&O M-1. They weren't unique as turbo-electric locomotives but they were probably the most serious efforts. GE also tried a pulverised coal GT.

Edited February 5 by jjb1970

[auldreekie]

8 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

GE also tried a pulverised coal GT.

 

My.  That would be interesting on the Indy2000 circuit...

 

auldreekie

[The Stationmaster]

On 04/02/2024 at 11:45, jjb1970 said:

The ultimate examples of trying to keep the coal fuelled steam locomotive relevant were probably the US steam turbine electric locomotives such the GE prototype, the N&W Jawn Henry and the C&O M-1. They were unique as turbo-electric locomotives but they were probably the most serious efforts. GE also tried a pulverised coal GT.

However they overlooked one basic piece of physics.  Coal is carbon and can therefore conduct electricity, although probably not very well, and 'Jawn Henry' in particular apparentluy suffered electrical failures diue to coal dust getting into places where it ought not to have been.

[jjb1970]

I might say they were an answer looking for a question but that might be unfair as roads like N&W had an interest in coal but they were developed at a time when electrification and the diesel locomotive had made steam obsolescent in rail applications and it's difficult to see a real case to invest the amount of effort they'd have needed to work. Impressive machines though.

[DenysW]

7 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

at a time when electrification and the diesel locomotive had made steam obsolescent in rail applications

Not sure it's a black-and-white as this.

 

The US cost comparisons I've seen from the time did not assume only about a 12-year life for the diesels but a 40-year life for steam locomotives (but with a 15 yearly reboilering). For diesels they also didn't recognise the reality of the overhead penalty of steam needing water/coal every 100 miles and diesels maybe three times this interval.

 

Electrickery is only as good as your scale. USA too big outside of commuter/East Coast. UK sensible for heavily used lines, but I've yet to see a drive to electrify from the Central Belt to Inverness, yet alone Wick/Kyle.

[jjb1970]

The step change brought by diesels was operating cost, the early diesels were more expensive to buy and a lot less powerful than the big steam locomotives. However, power could be addressed by multiple running (which was much easier with a diesel) and power is too blunt as an indicator of performance. Torque is also critical for a heavy duty application and the power-torque characteristic of electric motors is pretty much perfect for rail application. Three reasons the big American steam locomotive builders continued to think steam still had a future well into the 40's were:

 

• Lower cost to buy;
• Greater power; and
• High degree of customization for individual railroad needs.

 

The cost argument was outweighed by total cost and companies like EMD offering new financing models, the power was addressed by multiple working and railroads realizing that the different characteristics of electric motors needed to be considered in a different way and the third wasn't a big deal when the overall benefits were so heavily stacked in favour of diesels.

The transition away from steam locomotives is arguably the most text book perfect example of disruption caused by a technology discontinuity. We look at the papers published by engineers in the steam locomotive world in the 30's and 40's predicting a bright future for steam as a result of transformative changes through using roller bearings, higher superheat etc and think 'eh? who ever thought that would make much difference?' but these were clever, accomplished engineers. Unfortunately they were conditioned by their existing reality and manufacturers had an interest in maximizing returns from investment in steam too.

A reason EMD was so successful was they were new and had no interest in steam so they could plan their production around a new technology, build new factories, develop diesels without being concerned that they were killing off a much bigger part of their business which built kettles etc. They were also very clever in providing training to railroad staff so their new diesels would work well, and first class spare parts service. 

People today baulk at the cost and difficulty of moving away from fossil fuel, but the railway transition demonstrates that when a new technology offers compelling advantages business will change for their own commercial reasons. One of the remarkable things about the transition was it's speed, a whole industry was reorientated, abandoning the technology which had served it well since its inception and replacing thousands of very expensive assets, developing a whole new maintenance and support infrastructure, developing new skills etc in not much more than a decade. If it hadn't been for WW2 it would have happened sooner I think.

Two wider societal issues were environment and labour. We might love steam locomotives as enthusiasts but they were filthy, when we look at old pictures of cities at how the stonework was black it reminds us of just how dirty air was in the coal era. And operating and maintaining steam locomotives demanded a huge labour force willing to do hard, dirty work. After WW2 the labour issue became ever more critical as there was a growth of opportunities to do other, cleaner, stuff requiring a lot less effort and probably with a lot less risk too.