Performance of the LSWR S15

[1165Valour]

Overall, how does the S15 compare to engines designed for similar work, such as the Grange? Could the S15s be properly classified as mixed traffic engines, rather than strictly goods? I remember hearing that the engines were somewhat disappointing on hills, is this accurate?

[slilley]

Certainly the later Maunsell version was used on passenger traffic on secondary trains and Haresnape's book Maunsell Locomotives says they had a lively turn of speed.

 

Simon

[45655]

As was the original Urie version.  The Southern Railway painted them in passenger livery for this reason, although they were basically designed for trunk haul freight traffic between Feltham marshalling yard and Southampton Docks.

 

I can report that no. 506 at the Watercress Line here in Hampshire is not at all disappointing on hills!  As a heavy freight engine designed to run long distances at 25mph, it is arguably rather more useful to a heritage railway than, say, a Bulleid Pacific.  Hopefully it will not be too long now before its stablemate 499 is back in traffic, in as-built Urie condition.  That will be a sight to see.

 

Keith

Alton, Hampshire.

[30368]

54 minutes ago, 1165Valour said:

Could the S15s be properly classified as mixed traffic engines, rather than strictly goods?

 

An interesting question. The LSWR did use ex ROD Robinson 2-8-0's and Drummond did have an 0-8-0 design prepared but the proposal was not proceeded with when Mr Urie took over after Drummonds death. The S15 design was proceeded with on the basis that although goods engines they could, at peak times, pull passenger trains and they did right up to the end of steam on the SR.

The Southern was a passenger railway with some goods business so it was logical to build a class of large goods engines that could also pull passenger trains. Both H15s and to a lesser extent, S15s were both mixed traffic engines a class of locomotive that the LSWR/SR (and the GWR) pioneered.

 

Regarding the performance of the S15 from my reading the Urie version were good sloggers and could manage the hills ok. The Maunsell version was a better locomotive.

 

One of my two Urie S15s - largely a DJH Kit.

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

[Rivercider]

Although the LSWR was not really a freight railway much of the freight traffic it did cater for was of a perishable nature.

The LSWR operated quite a few fast goods services, often overnight, between Feltham/Nine Elms and Southampton/Exeter and the west, these required free steaming fast running locomotives.  As 30368 has mentioned this was one reason the S15 was preferred over other types, because it was able to deputise on passenger work when there was a heavy demand for holiday passenger traffic, or liner services to Southampton.

In my book collection there are numerous pictures of S15s on passenger work, often semi-fast or stopping, but also specials.  

 

cheers

[Hal Nail]

8 hours ago, 45655 said:

I can report that no. 506 at the Watercress Line here in Hampshire is not at all disappointing on hills!  

 

I was about to post exactly the same thing! We've had some lively runs on the demonstration freight behind 506.

[johnofwessex]

828 did railtours back in the early 80's 

 

I remember it stalling on Honiton Bank with the Exe Parrot 

[Steamport Southport]

Might be worth pointing out the location of some of the survivors. I don't think the NYMR is exactly flat!

 

 

 

Jason

[Morello Cherry]

9 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

Regarding the performance of the S15 from my reading the Urie version were good sloggers and could manage the hills ok. The Maunsell version was a better locomotive.

 

 

What we really need is for 499, 506 and 828 to go head to head in some trials.

 

 

11 hours ago, 1165Valour said:

Overall, how does the S15 compare to engines designed for similar work, such as the Grange? Could the S15s be properly classified as mixed traffic engines, rather than strictly goods? I remember hearing that the engines were somewhat disappointing on hills, is this accurate?

 

I think comparing an S15 designed in 1920 with the Grange designed in 1936 is a little unfair as locomotive design shifted quite radically in the interwar period.

 

I would flag up that they outlasted their contemporaries - for example Robinson's various 4-6-0s on the GCR. They (H15 and S15) are much more pioneering than they are given credit for they pre-date the Halls by 8 years. A better comparison might be with the S15s near contemporary in Raven's S3.

 

Also, they were a rare success in a long stream of failed 4-6-0s - the less said about Drummond's efforts the better, but also the Claughtons etc.

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

8 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

 

What we really need is for 499, 506 and 828 to go head to head in some trials.

 

 

 

I think comparing an S15 designed in 1920 with the Grange designed in 1936 is a little unfair as locomotive design shifted quite radically in the interwar period.

 

I would flag up that they outlasted their contemporaries - for example Robinson's various 4-6-0s on the GCR. They (H15 and S15) are much more pioneering than they are given credit for they pre-date the Halls by 8 years. A better comparison might be with the S15s near contemporary in Raven's S3.

 

Also, they were a rare success in a long stream of failed 4-6-0s - the less said about Drummond's efforts the better, but also the Claughtons etc.

 

 

 

The Claughtons did exactly what they were expected to do though. Just that better engines came along very soon afterwards such as Scots and then the Pacifics. A Royal Scot was virtually just a big boilered Claughton after all and some of the first Patriots were rebuilds. It was seen as more cost effective to just build Patriots and then Jubilees rather than rebuilding them.

 

Unlike other railways the LMS weren't running a museum. If they needed new engines they got them.

 

I doubt many of the LSWR 4-6-0s could pull 14 plus coaches up Shap....

 

 

 

Jason

[Morello Cherry]

"Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home". 

 

I must have missed the note on the design brief to Urie that his engines were required to pull 14 up Shap.

 

The point stands that as some of the last of the pre-Grouping 4-6-0 designs they, the B12s and B16s outlasted their contemporaries and continued to carry on in the roles for which they were designed into the 1960s, which I'd consider to be evidence of a fairly successful design.

 

If we apply your logic, then Drummond's 4-6-0s were a success, it was just that the better H15, N15 and S15 came along very soon afterwards. 

Edited May 25 by Morello Cherry

[30368]

I have long thought that the introduction and development of the 4-6-0 wheel arrangement in the UK (It was well established elsewhere) was a very interesting time for locomotive development in the UK. Some locomotive engineers struggled with the concept, notably Drummond on the LSWR and to a lesser extent Robinson (An engineer I have a great deal of respect for) as well as engineers on the LNWR.

On the one hand they seemed to have assumed that building a 4-6-0 was just a case of building a bigger 4-4-0 on the other hand some thought that the more cylinders you could cram in the better. I am not criticising these engineers indeed I find the wide variety of 4-6-0 types fascinating since it provides so many different prototypes to model.

It seems to me that Mr Churchward, based to some extent on his knowledge of US practice, designed a series of locomotive types that set the standard for the next two decades that was followed by all GWR engineers and greatly influenced the LMS range of standard locomotives. Having said that, Mr Urie, faced with the Drummond 4-6-0 inheritance designed a series of simple two cylindered locomotives with outside Whalschaerts valvegear that performed well (Although even better when Maunsell fitted to some longer travel valves) and were cheap to maintain and fairly popular with enginemen. Examples of the Urie 4-6-0's lasted into the 1960s and some to the end of steam on the SR. As Morello above, and myself on a number of occasions, Mr Urie's 4-6-0s were true pioneering engines of what became the British 4-6-0 Mixed Traffic engine of which well over a thousand were eventually constructed.

 

I have built examples of the following 4-6-0's:

 

H15 all varieties.

S15

N15

N15X

B9

B16/1

 

Still to build:

B7

BR Std 5

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

11 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

"Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home". 

 

I must have missed the note on the design brief to Urie that his engines were required to pull 14 up Shap.

 

The point stands that as some of the last of the pre-Grouping 4-6-0 designs they, the B12s and B16s outlasted their contemporaries and continued to carry on in the roles for which they were designed into the 1960s, which I'd consider to be evidence of a fairly successful design.

 

If we apply your logic, then Drummond's 4-6-0s were a success, it was just that the better H15, N15 and S15 came along very soon afterwards. 

 

Well you did deem the Claughtons to be failures. Far from it.

 

If they were that bad then why did the Southern nick the design for the Lord Nelsons?

 

 

 

Jason

[Morello Cherry]

2 hours ago, 30368 said:

I have long thought that the introduction and development of the 4-6-0 wheel arrangement in the UK (It was well established elsewhere) was a very interesting time for locomotive development in the UK. Some locomotive engineers struggled with the concept, notably Drummond on the LSWR and to a lesser extent Robinson (An engineer I have a great deal of respect for) as well as engineers on the LNWR.

On the one hand they seemed to have assumed that building a 4-6-0 was just a case of building a bigger 4-4-0 on the other hand some thought that the more cylinders you could cram in the better. I am not criticising these engineers indeed I find the wide variety of 4-6-0 types fascinating since it provides so many different prototypes to model.

It seems to me that Mr Churchward, based to some extent on his knowledge of US practice, designed a series of locomotive types that set the standard for the next two decades that was followed by all GWR engineers and greatly influenced the LMS range of standard locomotives. Having said that, Mr Urie, faced with the Drummond 4-6-0 inheritance designed a series of simple two cylindered locomotives with outside Whalschaerts valvegear that performed well (Although even better when Maunsell fitted to some longer travel valves) and were cheap to maintain and fairly popular with enginemen. Examples of the Urie 4-6-0's lasted into the 1960s and some to the end of steam on the SR. As Morello above, and myself on a number of occasions, Mr Urie's 4-6-0s were true pioneering engines of what became the British 4-6-0 Mixed Traffic engine of which well over a thousand were eventually constructed.

 

I have built examples of the following 4-6-0's:

 

H15 all varieties.

S15

N15

N15X

B9

B16/1

 

Still to build:

B7

BR Std 5

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

 

 

 

I think you have three or perhaps four design responses which are successful:

 

1) Holden/Whale - inside cylinder. Looking a lot like a late Victorian/Edwardian 4-4-0 with an extra set of drivers.

 

2) Churchward - enough said.

 

3) Raven - several versions before the S3 which works.

 

4) Urie - 2 outside cylinder, whalschaerts valve gear, which basically became the standard through to the end of steam, excepting of course Swindon's 'sonderweg'.

 

It is a fascinating period because it includes so many deadends and unsuccessful designs, and that so many excellent designers struggled to produce a successful 4-6-0. Robinson is a prime example, he could design a superb 2-8-0 but not a 4-6-0.

 

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Well you did deem the Claughtons to be failures. Far from it.

 

If they were that bad then why did the Southern nick the design for the Lord Nelsons?

 

 

 

Jason

 

I've no problem accepting that my views are purely subjective but you'll have to forgive me here but what exactly is your evidence to support both those claims?

 

Of course, if true then this might explain why Lord Nelson's are not considered a high point of Southern locomotive design. Damning with faint praise.

 

Bottomline, railways only ever introduce new locomotives for two reasons:

 

i) the current locos are old, knackered and expensive to maintain due to age etc etc

ii) the current locos are recent but cannot fulfil the demands made of them, are expensive, unreliable etc etc

 

It is only ever a financial decision.

 

The Claughtons weren't the former so they must be the latter. If you are getting replaced before your contemporaries without any major shift in traffic patterns to render you prematurely obsolete, then you're not a successful design.

 

I mean I get that the S160s were designed with a short life expectancy, I didn't know that the Claughtons were designed with that in mind too.

Edited May 25 by Morello Cherry

[Artless Bodger]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

If they were that bad then why did the Southern nick the design for the Lord Nelsons?

I'm curious, I've never heard of that before, in what way was the LN a Claughton deriviative?

 

I may be wrong but Claughtons were 4 cyl all driving the front coupled axle whereas LNs were divided drive, following more GWR practice (as Pearson and Holcroft were both ex GWR men). The boiler was an enlarged N class? Most were 135 degree crank setting.

Except for the probable GWR influence I'd have thought the Drummond T14 was more likely as an ancestor?

 

There were some reasonable Scottish 4-6-0s, the HR/CR Rivers were pretty good I have read. A common problem with the move from succesful 4-4-0 designs to 4-6-0s appears to have been the arrangement of the firebox, grate, ashpan and draughting due to the rear coupled axle.

 

I'll be glad to learn more, thanks.

 

[LMS2968]

For the record, and nothing to do with the class in question, the Claughtons were successful in that they could easily do the work for which they were intended, at least at the start. Their coal consumption left a lot to be desired, although this proved to be a simple fix once the problem - the single wide Schmidt valve rings - was identified and a modified design of multiple narrow rings introduced. Where they fell down was high maintenance costs and poor reliability; they were, in Crewe, tradition, built too lightly to withstand the normal wear and tear. While they could not really be classed a major success, they were hardly an abject failure. But I'll agree that they were hardly an inspiration for the Lord Nelsons.

[1165Valour]

5 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

For the record, and nothing to do with the class in question, the Claughtons were successful in that they could easily do the work for which they were intended, at least at the start. Their coal consumption left a lot to be desired, although this proved to be a simple fix once the problem - the single wide Schmidt valve rings - was identified and a modified design of multiple narrow rings introduced. Where they fell down was high maintenance costs and poor reliability; they were, in Crewe, tradition, built too lightly to withstand the normal wear and tear. While they could not really be classed a major success, they were hardly an abject failure. But I'll agree that they were hardly an inspiration for the Lord Nelsons.

For that matter, the Hughes Dreadnoughts were successful in their own right - would be fascinating to see how they would have performed had they been fitted with 3A boilers, as was proposed.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 24/05/2024 at 12:56, 30368 said:

Both H15s and to a lesser extent, S15s were both mixed traffic engines a class of locomotive that the LSWR/SR (and the GWR) pioneered.

The Raven S2 4-6-0 for the NER (later LNER B15) of 1911, specifically  designed as a mixed traffic locomotive, did the pioneering..

[LMS2968]

22 minutes ago, 1165Valour said:

For that matter, the Hughes Dreadnoughts were successful in their own right - would be fascinating to see how they would have performed had they been fitted with 3A boilers, as was proposed.

I'm not sure it would have helped: steaming was not a problem with the Dreadnoughts. There were a few issues, mechanical weaknesses, which even Stewart Cox said would be easy and cheap to fix; high coal consumption caused by the same Schmidt piston rings aided and abetted by ball valves in the valve heads designed to allow transfer of air from one end of the cylinder to the other when coasting, but which also leaked live steam with the regulator open. Their main problem was that they were intended for a line with relatively short runs with frequent stops and restarts and, medium speeds. They found themselves on the Euston - Carlisle section with high speeds non-stop over long distances, for which they were not suited. Changing the boiler would have done nothing to help this.

[30368]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The Raven S2 4-6-0 for the NER (later LNER B15) of 1911, specifically  designed as a mixed traffic locomotive, did the pioneering..

HI,

I am agreat fan of NER Locomotives having spent much time in the NE during the mid 1960s when the Q6/7 and J27s were still very active. The B16's were great locomotives and I have built a DJH B16/1.

However my point is that the H15's, being a two cylinder outside valvegear 6ft driving wheel design of 1913 (First one completed in January 1914) was a pioneer of all those 4-6-0 locomotives, like the LMS 5, LNER B1 and later BR Std 5 all of which could trace their ancestry back to the LSWR design and to Churchwards 2 cylindered designs. The B16, being three cylindered with inside motion smaller driving wheels and introduced in 1919 does not quite meet the profile.

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

[burgundy]

Does the Prussian P8 of 1908 fit your criteria - or is a 5' 9" driving wheel too small?

Best wishes 

Eric 

[30368]

1 hour ago, burgundy said:

Does the Prussian P8 of 1908 fit your criteria - or is a 5' 9" driving wheel too small?

Best wishes 

 

Hi Eric,

 

It is not my criteria at all but that adopted by British Locomotive Engineers in the first part of the 20th Century. All I did was to apply the profile back to the early part of the 20th Century as the British 4-6-0 was being developed.

As to European and USA practice, generally, design seems to have been 10 or more years ahead of the UK.

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

[SRman]

The S15s were classified as 6F by BR, meaning they were considered pretty powerful. As others have said already, they also had a good turn of speed when needed and were definitely used on passenger turns as well. So, while officially classified as freight engines, they should possibly have had a passenger rating as well, or an MT one.

[Wickham Green too]

Indeed, with Maunsell's modifications they could be considered a large version of his 'N' - and they were classified 4P5F by BR.

[johnofwessex]

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

Does the Prussian P8 of 1908 fit your criteria - or is a 5' 9" driving wheel too small?

Best wishes 

Eric 

 

Didnt the P8's have the same 'vital statistics' as a lot of subsequent UK 4-6-0's?