CMEs And Credit For Loco Designs

[Edwin_m]

I think I am right in saying that none of the design team you mention came with Stanier from the GWR.

 

I was just checking that out before seeing this post and the on-line information confirms these people didn't come from the GWR and there is no mention of Stanier having brought anybody with him. This suggests Stanier himself might have had a big influence on the design of the various LMS locomotives of the 1930s, even though he must have been busy with other things too.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I had always wondered how much input the CME's had towards their locos designs. Whilst each new loco is based on prior technology, but for a slightly different use or with modern upgrades, it must surely be more than one man's work to design a loco. Would they perhaps suggest their big ideas and then have a team try and work the best method to bring this idea into practice ...

That's the essence of how a design team works, for a typical engineering product development. Whoever effectively heads the team sets policy, that's where the 'big ideas' are found: though even an autocrat will if wise, be guided by the specialists in the team with in depth knowledge of specific technique relevant to their subject area, in terms of materials, manufacturing method, innovation, cost effectiveness.

 

But as ever in life there are many ways the basic tune can be played. A railway CME could be anything from Mr big ideas and totally hands-on, very closely concerned with the design from initial framing of the design parameters throughout its design development and construction and subsequent perfomance measurement on the road, to an administrator who recruits technically able people, consults with them in drafting the project proposal outline, leaves them to get on with it with periodic reviews, and puts his signature to their final output. (I have worked in teams at both extremes, and both delivered. Provided the direction is clear and the process structure well comprehended, practically any management method works.)

[The Stationmaster]

 

I was just checking that out before seeing this post and the on-line information confirms these people didn't come from the GWR and there is no mention of Stanier having brought anybody with him. This suggests Stanier himself might have had a big influence on the design of the various LMS locomotives of the 1930s, even though he must have been busy with other things too.

From what I've read it seems that there was probably quite a bit of suppressed talent in Crewe Drawing Office which had of course suffered under the weight of 'Derbyisation' during Fowler's tenure. Stanier I believe drew up a sort of basic list of things to be worked into designs as he moved tentatively to develop something suitable for the LMS and tried a few Swindon ideas which didn't translate. And amusingly Horwich designed the new Stanier 2-6-0 according to various instructions from the new boss but the first of which appeared with a boiler mounted safety valve cover bearing a remarkable resemblance to Swindon practice - it was removed very rapidly once Stanier cast his eyes on it.

[coachmann]

Stanier didn't bring anyone with him from the GW. Stamp poached him and then made sure The Midland politicians were scattered to "make shoes that nobody wore". Those in the drawing office and at Crewe Works who had suffered the early Midlandisation in silence were glad to work under new man Stanier.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

From what I've read it seems that there was probably quite a bit of suppressed talent in Crewe Drawing Office ...

No doubt about it, there were very able people effectively unable to work to anything like their potential while the dead hand of Derby prevailed. The LMS had only a few years before Stanier's arrival, placed the design of two new large loco designs with outside contractors; the implication being that there was no in-house capability. There wasn't at Derby for sure, and as far as the Midland infarction were concerned if Derby couldn't do it, nowhere else on the LMS could. But with Stanier's arrival, amazingly there was the capability to knock out half a dozen loco designs in a couple of years, all of them superior to anything previously produced from the Derby design shop, and better than the two farmed out designs; and to rapidly eliminate the initial shortcomings and develop an all around very successful family of locomotives.

 

What that implies is that the technical heart at Crewe had kept beating: the key people must have been fostering education in lieu of being able to gain experience directly by designing and building new products. The arrival of a CME, however able, could not transform a 'know nothing' outfit so quickly.

[bill-lobb]

No doubt about it, there were very able people effectively unable to work to anything like their potential while the dead hand of Derby prevailed. The LMS had only a few years before Stanier's arrival, placed the design of two new large loco designs with outside contractors; the implication being that there was no in-house capability. There wasn't at Derby for sure, and as far as the Midland infarction were concerned if Derby couldn't do it, nowhere else on the LMS could. But with Stanier's arrival, amazingly there was the capability to knock out half a dozen loco designs in a couple of years, all of them superior to anything previously produced from the Derby design shop, and better than the two farmed out designs; and to rapidly eliminate the initial shortcomings and develop an all around very successful family of locomotives.

 

 

 

Not in total agreement with that (There's a surprise). I assume that one of the 'farmed out' designs was the Royal Scots? They were responsible for the bulk of express work on the LMS until the end, most of the time in their unrebuilt form. No matter how good the Stanier Pacifics were (and I consider the Duchesses to be the finest pacifics built in Britain - there's a few more people upset) there were not actually very many of them compared to the LNER, so the brunt of working fell on the Scots. Stanier's rebuilding certainly improved them, but it was done very late in his tenure, so he must not have considered it to be a high priority.

Several of Stanier's designs (Jubilees, 2 cylinder 2-6-4T, 2-6-2T) were little more than versions of earlier engines with taper boilers. In the case of the Jubilees their initial performance was no better than, and in fact possibly worse the the Patriots from which they were derived. Some of the GWR features he introduced (low-degree superheat, blast pipe jumpers) simply did not work in LMS conditions. I think I am correct in saying that it was largely Tom Coleman (ex North Staffordshire railway, then Horwich) who sorted them out, and of course it is to Stanier's credit that he recognized the problems and abandoned those features.

But even Derby in Fowler's day was capable of excellent designs - I am specifically thinking of the 2-6-4T which had a modern front end with long lap long travel valves. Even the 0-8-0s had a very good front end, let down by the insistence on standard axleboxes that were undersized for the power the engines could develop.

I don't think that the design teams in Derby or anywhere else were the problem. Rather I think it stemmed from the adoption of the Midland's organization whereby the running of locomotives was separated from the design of locomotives into a running department. This might be OK, but on the LMS the running department was headed up by Anderson, an ex Midland man with design experience (I think he had been chief draughtsman on the Midland). He seemed to have very definite ideas as to the locomotives he wanted and specified them very closely, so limiting the CME. At one point he was in discussion with Beyer's regarding the supply of Garret locos at the same time as and independently of the CMEs department. Wonder what Beyer's made of that? Fowler was probably compliant enough to put up with it, Stanier probably wasn't. However even he wasn't totally immune. I understand he wanted to build an up to date medium goods loco, but was forced by the operating department to give them more 4F 0-6-0s instead. If there was a 'Dead Hand of Derby', it was, in my opinion, Anderson's and it restricted Derby as much as any other design shop.

[LMS2968]

A point to consider is that designing new locomotives was only a small part of a CME's job: most of it was about maintenance and repair, and not just of locomotives. He would also be responsible for the design, mainenance and repair of carriages and wagons and fixed structure (ash and coal plants, gas and water installations, turntables, goods yard capstans and hoists and even lifts in the company's hotels. He was also responsible for the road fleet (except horses). He would not be directly involved in picking up spanners to repair a worn out engine, and by the same token would not sit behind a drawing board with pencil and set square; he had people to do these things.

 

But he would direct HOW things were done (Beames introduced the 'Belt' system to Crewe works, for instance) while the CME, on engine design, would dictate broad specifications to the draughtsmen following a request from Traffic for a locomotive type capable of doing this amount of work over these particular routes. From these would be established the broad base of the engine: tractive effort, boiler and firebox sizes (for steaming rates) overall and individual axle weights, length (to suit turntables on the routes) and throw-over on curves. The design team would come up with a number of designs, sometimes based on an existing one, to meet these, and the CME would chose one, perhaps two, to work out in detail. Once these were established, the CME would either request some modification or authorise detail and component (using existing components where possible) drawings to proceed and sign off the drawings as they were completed. The CME was, as stated in another post, ultimately responsible for the design and would pay the price if it failed to meet requirements, as Stanier might have done had the Class 5X Jubilee steaming fiasco not been resolved.

 

Although the main and certainly most obvious difference between the designs modified by Stanier and those from which they were derived was the boiler and firebox, there were many others below the surface, not least the GWR-style axleboxes, which made for far greater reliability among LMS engines.

[coachmann]

Reproduction of a letter concerning the appointment of William Stanier appears in one of Jenkinson & Essery's loco books which gives an insight as to what "Uncle Will" thought of some LMS locomotives."Will tells me the Royal Scot boiler is no good and the Claughtons should be scrapped and then introduce the Castles as they did so well in trials on the L.N.W.R."

 

That the Fowler 2-6-4T's were so good was down to design work at Horwich by Hughes. He suggested a higher boiler pressure so that the large steeply inclined cylinders of the Crab could be avoided. His suggestions also included long lap long travel valves and Fowler was a late conversion to these ideas, although Andersons out of date ideas prevailed on the 2-6-2T that followed. Whether it mattered or not is open to debate seeing as most of the LMS's lame duck designs lasted into the 1960s even though they were heavy on maintenance. Stanier only thought it fit to make three completely new designs for the LMS, the Pacifics (in two guises), the class 5 4-6-0 and the Class 8 2-8-0.

[bike2steam]

I have found this thread interesting, but I would like to make a few points.

1) The 'main man' behind the LMS 'Crabs' was J.R.Billington (based it on an existing Caley design) ex LNWR chief designer, and Hughes right hand man, Hughes was too old but if only someone like him had taken the CME of the LMS mantle instead of Fowler - who knows .

2) The 'main man' responsible for the design of the LMS 0-4-4T was Sir Ernest Lemon, most of work for which was done before Stanier arrived.

3) Stanier didn't want his pacifics 'streamlined', he was over-ruled by Stamp, and the LMS board, some say his 'dust-bin' design (eergh, I hate it) was a metaphorical v-sign to them.

 

Loco classes were accredited to the CME of the time as the work was done or completed during their tenure.

[kevinlms]

 

But even Derby in Fowler's day was capable of excellent designs - I am specifically thinking of the 2-6-4T which had a modern front end with long lap long travel valves. Even the 0-8-0s had a very good front end, let down by the insistence on standard axleboxes that were undersized for the power the engines could develop.

I don't think that the design teams in Derby or anywhere else were the problem. Rather I think it stemmed from the adoption of the Midland's organization whereby the running of locomotives was separated from the design of locomotives into a running department. This might be OK, but on the LMS the running department was headed up by Anderson, an ex Midland man with design experience (I think he had been chief draughtsman on the Midland). He seemed to have very definite ideas as to the locomotives he wanted and specified them very closely, so limiting the CME. At one point he was in discussion with Beyer's regarding the supply of Garret locos at the same time as and independently of the CMEs department. Wonder what Beyer's made of that?

 

 

I suspect that as far as the LMS Garratt's were concerned to Beyer Peacock, they probably took the view that the customer was always right - even when they clearly weren't.

How else would you describe building a further 30 units after almost 3 years practical experience with the first 3 and making almost no changes (rotating coal feed excepted). Even the spacing of the water tank inlets weren't changed to match the dual water crane spacing - set to suit a 3F & a 4F doubleheader. Instead they had to draw up twice, what a waste, for the sake of moving a couple of holes.

 

Kevin Martin

[bike2steam]

One wonders had the LMS have accepted the Garratt's as a pure B-P design instead of 'medling', would they have got a more satisfactory locomotive.

[LMS2968]

1) The 'main man' behind the LMS 'Crabs' was J.R.Billington (based it on an existing Caley design) ex LNWR chief designer, and Hughes right hand man, Hughes was too old but if only someone like him had taken the CME of the LMS mantle instead of Fowler - who knows .

 

George Hughes wasn't that old: he was 58 at the Grouping and took what we would now call 'early retirement'; Stanier was 56 when he was appointed the LMS's CME.. Most likely he wasn't prepared to stand the interference in his work from Derby.

 

When Hughes decided on a mixed traffic 2-6-0, he looked around to see if anything was available and looked closely at the yet to be built Caley design. However good it might have been, it was outside the loading gauge for much of the LMS combined system and would have had too many route restrictions to be effective. A new design was started at Horwich, and naturally followed L&Y practice, which was quite advanced for the day. The resultant Crabs leaned on the rebuilt 'Dreadnought' 4-6-0s in many respects, particularly as to valve events, and their appearance was, in many ways a scaled down version.

 

2) The 'main man' responsible for the design of the LMS 0-4-4T was Sir Ernest Lemon, most of work for which was done before Stanier arrived.

 

These were very definitely a slightly updated Midland design and I agree, nothing to do with WAS.

 

3) Stanier didn't want his pacifics 'streamlined', he was over-ruled by Stamp, and the LMS board, some say his 'dust-bin' design (eergh, I hate it) was a metaphorical v-sign to them.

 

His reported comment was,"Better to please a fool than tease him. They can have their streamliners, but we'll build five proper ones as well!" (6230-34). But it underlines the point that the CME built engines under direction of those above. There was in fact a Motive Power Committee of the Board of Directors, which had to authorise the requirement and how many engines (the minimum possible) were required to fill it, and authorise the funding.

 

Loco classes were accredited to the CME of the time as the work was done or completed during their tenure.

 

Yes.

[t-b-g]

My friend is quite well qualified to talk on such matters, having worked in the drawing office at Doncaster (starting just in LNER days) and having had a hand in the design of some locos. For example, the tender "cabs" on some J6 locos, often reported as being from withdrawn J52s, forget it, he designed them and knows they were made new. Some of his own drawings turned up with him when Tornado was being built.

 

If anybody mentions the Thompson B1 he will tell you that they were very good engines but that was down to Darlington drawing office rather than Thompson himself! Pretty much all the components were already available in other classes (or easily adapted) and Thompson told them what he wanted and they got on with it. As a confirmed Gresley enthusiast he acknowledges that the B1s were good through gritted teeth!

 

The B17s were hardly Gresley locos either, having been designed to his spec by contractors but his name is forever linked with the class.

 

Then there is the story that drawing office people were designing what became the Peppercorn pacifics while Thompson was still in office, covering the drawings up if Thompson was around.

 

My friend worked with the people there at the time and they told him that the story was true. When you look at the timescale between Peppercorn taking office and the appearance of the locos, it makes you think that he couldn't have started a fresh design process after he took over the position.

 

There have been several very good books on the subject of loco design and while it is clear that the man in charge may have set out a spec and supervised the work, the vast majority of the designing was down to some highly skilled and experienced people in the drawing office. They were well in tune with what the CME wanted and how he worked and very often he would only need to give them a rough idea and let them run with it.

[The Stationmaster]

But it underlines the point that the CME built engines under direction of those above. There was in fact a Motive Power Committee of the Board of Directors, which had to authorise the requirement and how many engines (the minimum possible) were required to fill it, and authorise the funding.

As exampled - complete with evidence - at Post No.12 in this thread where Mr Hurry Riches was told by the General Manager that 'the Directors have decided...' However it looks pretty certain that after that decision Hurry Riches and Prosser made a few of their own, and they had presumably put something to the Board in the first place