Which Railway Engineer or Designer would you be?

[RJD]

Ozexpatriate,

 

Suggested bio on I.K. Brunel is:

 

Isambard Kingdom Brunel - Engineering Knight-Errant, by Adrian Vaughan.

 

Richard Davies

Utah, USA

[The Stationmaster]

Suggested bio on I.K. Brunel is:

Isambard Kingdom Brunel - Engineering Knight-Errant, by Adrian Vaughan.

Richard Davies

Utah, USA

But I would read Brindle first

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... broad gauge - was it a bad idea?

 

the atmospheric railway - it sounded better in theory than it worked in practice (if it wasn't for those rats!) ...

 

Those two clearly his worst ideas.

 

The guy was an egotist of the first order. He had to outdo the Stephensons on the railway front, since he could in no way claim to be a primary originator of the steam worked railway concept in the way that they could. Thus these excesses: all his claims for the necessity of the broad gauge are negated by subsequent experience, the atmospheric railway was a dead end technology even without the rats. (Just the pointwork/shunting issue should be enough to convince anyone capable of rudimentary analysis of its inherent defects when used for anything more complex than a terminus to terminus shuttle.)

 

This is not to take away anything from the man's towering engineering achievements: shield tunneling under water with compressed air, and the screw driven ocean going steam ship more than enough to secure his reputation as one of engineering's greatest masters. As observed elsewhere in this thread, with great ability, energy, and ambition, all sorts of impressive things may be made to happen. For those of us who are made of more ordinary clay; on encountering such folk, a variation on the Chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times' is (I would suggest from direct personal experience) what springs to mind. Brunel didn't treat others any more gently than himself, worked himself to death is the usual assessment.

[bike2steam]

I think a few are overplaying GJC, yes he was good BUT his applications to improving GWR locos were not his own, a lot of his 'new' ideas were an end result of his extended visit to the USA.

[bluebottle]

Not reallly up ther e with GJC though was he?

I mean GJC " created" the GWR - what more can you ask for ?

 

As Mickey's post came after mine on the pronunciation of Smellie's name, I'm not certain who is meant by "he". If Brunel, that's a moot point, and in the unlikelihood of his having taken seriously Coachmann's mention of Smellie and my reply, I wouldn't dare to claim even that John Lennon was bigger than GJC.

[kevinlms]

• broad gauge - was it a bad idea?
  

 

 

Apparently so. Much more expensive to build & the necessary transhipment was equivalent to a 20 mile addition to the journey.

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13841354?searchTerm=&searchLimits=l-publictag=Break+Of+Gauge+GWR

 

Current high speed practice has proven beyond doubt that standard gauge, is more than capable of running faster trains than even Brunel could of envisaged.

 

Not surprising that the LNWR refused to have anything to do with a break of gauge station & went to enormous lengths to prevent the GWR from doing so.

 

Kevin Martin

[Armchair Modeller]

I think a few are overplaying GJC, yes he was good BUT his applications to improving GWR locos were not his own, a lot of his 'new' ideas were an end result of his extended visit to the USA.

 

He imported some French Atlantics too - I think the divided drive on his 4-cylinder locos comes from these?

 

Edit...

 

In fairness most British steam developments from the beginning of the 20th century were heavily influenced by foreign developments - it is no coincidence that Belpaire, Walschaerts, Schmidt and other names came into the railway vocabulary.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

To build on that last, successful UK railway improvements to the Stephenson locomotive essentially ended with the invention of tamper proof safety valves. Even the Smith compounding system which saw some service was never really pressed on with: simple expansion locomotives burning the generally excellent UK coal supply were good enough. Had it been possible in the 1948 BR trials to operate a modern compound French design in comparison to the UK express types, the threadbare state of UK railway steam loco engineering prowess in the field of fuel economy would have been palpable...

 

From the 1870s, it was the railway engineers working outside the UK facing far tougher challenges who were compelled to invent and develop into workable form essential improvements to keep on top of the traction demands they were up against. In that group you can include Beyer Peacock and NBL, who built locos for overseas service in advance of anything that ran in the UK. The last two UK based railway engineers who tried novel approaches were Paget and Bulleid. Some potentially good ideas that never got the development required, because what was to hand was good enough. Evolution requires stress: the new only succeeds when the old literally dies out under the pressure of new requirements.

[Ozexpatriate]

What other great engineering lights, besides the following:

 

Thomas Russell Crampton (1839 - 1843 under Gooch)

John G. Robinson (1872 - 1878 under Armstrong)

Sir William Stanier (1891 - 1931 under Churchward, Collett et al)

 

got their start working for the Great Western Railway?

[Ozexpatriate]

I think a few are overplaying GJC, yes he was good BUT his applications to improving GWR locos were not his own, a lot of his 'new' ideas were an end result of his extended visit to the USA.

He imported some French Atlantics too - I think the divided drive on his 4-cylinder locos comes from these?

Indeed yes!

 

George Jackson Churchward was an engineer of the highest order - not necessarily an inventor. There is an important distinction.

 

To the GWR he introduced:

 

Standardized boilers

Tapered boilersBelpaire fireboxes

4-6-0 configuration with the 29xx Saint prototypes in 1902, (presumably an influence from the USA, though Worsdell's S class - LNER B13 - were on the NER in 1899)

Improved superheaters

By Importing the 4 cylinder De Glehn compond N^o. 102 "La France", in 1903, influenced the direction of the Star (1907)

 

He organized his design and workshops well, and built things that worked well. This wasn't accidental. It's the combination of things that he did well that makes him relevant, not that he did anything necessarily *new*.

[coachmann]

When August 1968 arrived, the Stanier Black Fives had exhibited vertical throatplates, sloping throatplates, combined topfeeds, back topfeeds, forward topfeeds, double chimneys, roller bearings, Caprotti valvegear, high running plates and low running plates. So when I saw that three of the earliest 1934/5 built Black Fives were in traffic until August 1968, it made me think that all the experimenting and general messing about wasting shareholders/taxpayers money could have been avoided.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and so if I had been Riddles I would have argued strongly against the "Dont upset anyone" mantra and built the locos that had stood the test of time instead of allowing the various BR loco works to give birth to what might euphemistically be called extramarital locomotives born of unwed parents.

 

The old Black Five would have been built as-is as would the Fairburn 2-6-4T's. I would have noted that the Peppercorn A1's were rougher at speed than the Gresley A3's and probably built lots more A3s but with 3 sets of Walchearts for top link use on London Midland and Eastern Region lines. The Western Region was always going to present difficulties so I would have directed that the instalation of hefthand signalling (colour lights) be a priority to bring that region into line with the rest of Britain. Stanier 8Fs would also have been built for use on the ER, WR and SR to eliminate elderly and outmoded 0-6-0 tender locos. Of the new standard Designs, only the Britannia, 4MT 4-6-0 and the 9F would have been given the go ahead.

 

The Merchant Navy class would have been withdrawn as soon as they failed for any reason, the target being a.s.a.p.. Likewise the Light Pacifics, all to be replaced by Britannias. There's be no Bullied Pacifics hauling two coaches on my railway.

 

Well, its all a bit of a laugh innit...

[The Stationmaster]

Indeed yes!

 

George Jackson Churchward was an engineer of the highest order - not necessarily an inventor. There is an important distinction.

 

To the GWR he introduced:

 

Standardized boilers

Tapered boilersBelpaire fireboxes

4-6-0 configuration with the 29xx Saint prototypes in 1902, (presumably an influence from the USA, though Worsdell's S class - LNER B13 - were on the NER in 1899)

Improved superheaters

By Importing the 4 cylinder De Glehn compond N^o. 102 "La France", in 1903, influenced the direction of the Star (1907)

He organized his design and workshops well, and built things that worked well. This wasn't accidental. It's the combination of things that he did well that makes him relevant, not that he did anything necessarily *new*.

An important feature needs to be added to that - as was pointed out to me a good many years ago running sheds don't keep spare boilers or wheels or things that big; they hold things like injector cones, and nuts and bolts and firebars - in fact they hold everyday consumables plus the necessary for running repairs. And an important feature of Churchward standardisation, and Collett's expansion of it, was that it resulted in GW sheds holding a smaller range of spares for in many cases a wider range of loco types than was the case elsewhere and certainly on the LNER - where not even nuts or bolts were standardised across types across the company until the Thompson designs arrived.

[Porco Rosso]

To be recognised as a great engineer, you usually need to be around at the right moment - opportunity as well as ability. That was certainly true for Churchward, Brunel, Gooch, the Stephensons and many others.

 

One of the greatest, but relatively unknown was Henry Meiggs, who engineered some of the most challenging lines in the world, mainly in the Andes in Chile and Peru. Being him would truly have been an exhilarating experience.

[coachmann]

One day Riddles will be recognised as a great CME or whatever they called them later. Robinson of GCR fame produced some good engines but folk tend to skirt over his 4-6-0 disasters, which were rapidly withdrawn after the war. Riddles's engines were all good 'uns and his Britannia and 9F were superb, the latter especially. Indeed, had it been designed by Stanier, Collett or Thompson it would have been hailed as the best freight locos ever.

[Porco Rosso]

One day Riddles will be recognised as a great CME or whatever they called them later. Robinson of GCR fame produced some good engines but folk tend to skirt over his 4-6-0 disasters, which were rapidly withdrawn after the war. Riddles's engines were all good 'uns and his Britannia and 9F were superb, the latter especially. Indeed, had it been designed by Stanier, Collett or Thompson it would have been hailed as the best freight locos ever.

Didn't he design the WDs too?

[Churchill8F]

Didn't he design the WDs too?

 

Along with the Austerities, of J94 fame, too. Quite a few great designs to his name.

 

Jack

[kevinlms]

Didn't he design the WDs too?

 

Yes, to do a job. I believe he was quoted as stating something along the lines of that he didn't care if they were pushed off a pier at the end of the war.

 

Kevin Martin

[Armchair Modeller]

Yes, Riddles - so the LMS/LNWR school had the last laugh as far as steam loco design was concerned in the UK?

 

I think some of the greatest opportunities for steam engineers was in the USA - just think of the Pennsy, NYC, Santa Fe and Union Pacific, for example. Haven't a clue about who the big names actually were, mind - though I know Loewy did the styling on some locos.

[bluebottle]

Along with the Austerities, of J94 fame, too. Quite a few great designs to his name.

Jack

 

 

The 0-6-0T Austerity (LNER J94) was a modified form of a Hunslet standard design. Riddles's input was mainly in the materials used in their construction, allowing them to be built more quickly and cheaply - to Riddles's credit.

[Churchill8F]

The 0-6-0T Austerity (LNER J94) was a modified form of a Hunslet standard design. Riddles's input was mainly in the materials used in their construction, allowing them to be built more quickly and cheaply - to Riddles's credit.

 

Ah, wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the correction.

 

I still hold him in high regard, the likes of the 9F were fine machines, and could have easily soldiered on into this century.

 

Jack

[Ozexpatriate]

I think some of the greatest opportunities for steam engineers was in the USA - just think of the Pennsy, NYC, Santa Fe and Union Pacific, for example. Haven't a clue about who the big names actually were, mind - though I know Loewy did the styling on some locos.

The big names in industrial design in the late 1930s like Henry Dreyfuss and Raymond Loewy styled streamliners (and their coach sets) largely for the PR appeal, yet the engineers who did the real engineering work are largely anonymous*. There just isn't the same awareness of their identities as there is for the Chief Mechanical Engineers in Britain.

 

The US market for locomotives was different. Independent manufacturers like Baldwin, the American Locomotive Company (ALCO) and Lima supplied railways large and small. Of course some of the larger railroads also built their own locomotives in large erecting shops like Altoona/Juniata (PRR) and Sacramento (SP) but not exclusively.

 

The UP and NYC bought many locomotives from ALCO, the ATSF from Baldwin. The SP bought from everyone. Many designs were licensed to be manufactured by multiple builders. Sometimes the locomotive would come from one manufacturer and the tender from another.

 

Many of the projectors of railways (particularly in the guilded age) are quite famous, or infamous as the case may be, many with monumental egos (J.J. Hill, the "empire builder", Thomas Durant, Edward Harriman, Cornelius Vanderbilt, the "Commodore", Henry Flagler, etc) but rarely any engineers, unless they named companies for themselves like Westinghouse.

 

Of course there were lots of independent locomotive manufacturers in Britain serving the smaller industrial and narrow gauge railways but we don't much talk about the designers at Avonside, Hunslett, Peckett, Andrew Barclay and Manning-Wardle in the same tones as say Stanier or Gresley.

 

* Which in a way is odd compared with automobiles, Ford, Chrysler, Chevrolet, Buick, Studebaker, Olds etc and aircraft, Wright, Boeing, Lockheed (Loughead), Northrop, Grumman, Martin, Douglas, Hughes, etc.

[Poggy1165]

One of Robinson's unnoticed achievements was the degree of standardisation he introduced to the GCR. Not, admittedly, as obvious at that on the GWR, but significant nonetheless. I must politely disagree with Mr Coachmann's assessment of his 4-6-0s as 'disasters'. They did the jobs they were required to do, especially when crewed by men who knew how to handle them. Their glory day was arguably during WW1 when they frequently worked heavy trains (too heavy for a 4-4-0) from Marylebone to Manchester, but the B7s in particular were highly regarded by GC crews and did a lot of good work, especially on express goods trains.

 

It's true the 4-6-0s were mostly a tad heavy on the black stuff (especially when manned by GN crews) but this was not a major consideration at the time they were designed for a railway that sat squarely on two of the principal coalfields of England. Not great designs, not even Robinson's best, but at least OK. Away from the GWR, which was an exception to the general rule, there were not too many great 4-6-0s produced in that era - most, if not all, were indifferent.

[Porco Rosso]

This standardisation lark was old hat to the LNWR - Buddicom, Ramsbottom and Webb went back a long while.

[Horsetan]

The Deutsche Reichsbahn engineer Max Baumberg, who became the head of that wonderfully experimental East German department known as VES(M) Halle.

 

Without him, we might not have had 18.201, the Pacific created out of various leftover bits and the only one approved today to run at 180km/h. Not to mention 18.314. And then there were the other useful hybrids that he and his team created......

[Southernman46]

It would have to be IKB - not only is it a very cool name and I was slightly in love with D1662 as a small boy (one of the 1st I ever saw as a very young Kent based gnat in the late 60's) and it was probably the longest (??) nameplate on any BR diesel, BUT mainly because as I continue to work with structures on the Western, the sheer brillance and genius of this man's works just impress...........