What could have ended the Midland's 'small engine' policy

[Saltersbrook]

Slightly off topic, but it's interesting to note that railways have come full circle since the MR's small engine policy.

 

Virtually every passenger train on the national network is now powered by small engines, so small that they fit below the floors of the carriages. Adding extra coaches to the train brings more engines with them to provide the required horsepower. So maybe the Midland had it right all the time.

[The Stationmaster]

The Midland was the first to introduce traffic control - presumably this alone had a huge impact on economics, without significant capital investment.

It definitely had an impact on economics - reduction of enginecrew overtime being an immediate saving for example.  But it did involve capital investment of course - in office space/facilities the necessary telecoms network and of course an ongoing running cost.  No doubt with the longer working week of that time the added expense beyond basic pay wasn't too much but as time went on the cost of control offices escalated considerably and that would definitely have been the case between 1918 and the time of the grouping.  So don't get the idea such things came free - they weren't!

[Blue Max]

In response to the original question - mainline express derivatives of Big Bertha

[bluebottle]

I blairites, smokescreeners, whitewashers and protection of 4F bearings associates will now follow.....

 

 

Good God, what part did TB play in the Midland's 'small engine' policy saga?

 

Gordon

[billbedford]

I wonder if two locos worked yards on different sections of the line simultanieously then joined up their trains later in the day to work double headed to a marshalling or transfer yard?

 

Both Toton and Brent yards were big enough not to need extra tripping. However we do know that one of the engines from a double headed down mineral empties back to Toton, while other after some trip workings worked a down goods. What isn'r entirely clear from what I have heard is how the goods wagons balanced out. If we assume that there were more loaded loaded wagons leaving London than coming in then we could get a sequence something like this:-

 

UP: 3F+4F - 86 loaded minerals

DOWN: 4F - 86 empty minerals

DOWN: 8F - 60 loaded goods

DOWN: 3F - 30 loaded goods

UP: 8F - 40 loaded goods + 50 empty goods

 

Which seems to me a much more efficient way of working than having a large engine under utilised returning the same number of empty wagons that -it had brought down.

[Sheffield]

I blairites, smokescreeners, whitewashers and protection of 4F bearings associates will now follow

I'm not sure this level of snide remark is very helpful. I have tried to indicate that a lot of the problems with 4F axle boxes was because of changes made by the LMS, and in Midland days and by pregrouping standards performance was not too bad. If there is evidence to the contrary perhaps it should be posted.

I seem to recall the French 4-8-0s of over 4,000 ihp had axleboxes 8.5in dia by 8.8in long ie roughyl 4F size.

I had hoped we could have a mature debate with firm evidence presented on both sides, and thereby arrive at a reasonable understanding of the reasons for the Midland policy.

I spent a lot of my childhood the thickness of a fence away from the Midland mainline, and the sight and sound of 8Fs struggling to get their trains on the move after a signal check caused me to have an interest in the background to the MR policy. It did seem to me at the time that the Garratts, 12 wheels instead of 8, made a much better job of it.

[coachmann]

Au contraire.  Right, I'm off, busy busy busy.

[Barry O]

I blairites, smokescreeners, whitewashers and protection of 4F bearings associates will now follow

I have tried to indicate that a lot of the problems with 4F axle boxes was because of changes made by the LMS, and in Midland days and by pregrouping standards performance was not too bad. If there is evidence to the contrary perhaps it should be posted.

The changes made by the LMS were limited - they didn't change the size of bearings and eventually all of the LMS followed the Midlands servicing policies ( I refer you to "A Breath of Steam" Vol 1 by W G F Thorley who worked on a variety of engines including the 4Fs and Garratts at Wellingborough among other sheds. Mr Thorley opens an engineering window on the 4Fs and Garratts - interestingly he infers that the Garratt loadings were fixed by the potential brake power of the engine not the true haulage power. They experimented with trying to find the reasons for hot boxes on both types of locomotives but it came back to a strict mileage set for checks and inspections - although he suspected that the bearings were not up to the job of handling the loads produced in he Garratt design.

 

As the way the Midland paid for locos to be built new as well as those rebuilt was from two different pots - while the maintenance was from a third pot - perhaps the bean counters were happy to live with the 4F bearing situation - which, strangely enough, the LMS at first were not.

 

Its a bit like buying a big shiny new diesel from a major manufacturer claiming high reliability - then finding out the cost of transporting fitters around to keep the reliability high...

[bluebottle]

In response to the original question - mainline express derivatives of Big Bertha

 

You jest, Sir, but, according to Haresnape's "Fowler locomotives", the boiler design of the "Royal Scot" was based on the Lickey banker. That showed promise of better things - unfulfilled until Stamp took things by the scruff...

[62613]

I blairites, smokescreeners, whitewashers and protection of 4F bearings associates will now follow

I'm not sure this level of snide remark is very helpful. I have tried to indicate that a lot of the problems with 4F axle boxes was because of changes made by the LMS, and in Midland days and by pregrouping standards performance was not too bad. If there is evidence to the contrary perhaps it should be posted.

I seem to recall the French 4-8-0s of over 4,000 ihp had axleboxes 8.5in dia by 8.8in long ie roughyl 4F size.

I had hoped we could have a mature debate with firm evidence presented on both sides, and thereby arrive at a reasonable understanding of the reasons for the Midland policy.

I spent a lot of my childhood the thickness of a fence away from the Midland mainline, and the sight and sound of 8Fs struggling to get their trains on the move after a signal check caused me to have an interest in the background to the MR policy. It did seem to me at the time that the Garratts, 12 wheels instead of 8, made a much better job of it.

 

Wasn't the size of the bearings that made them a bad design. From my memories of when I did my seconds ticket, the point of greatest pressure in a bearing is usually at the bottom of the journal, so don't introduce the oil at that spot; introduce it at the top, and it stands more chance of doing its job.properly. The Midland 4fF bearings had the oil inlet at the bottom of the journal, and so proper lubrication was made more difficult. Also, don't scrape the bearing to leave no gap for the oil to enter and form the 'wedge which lifts the shaft clear of the journal.

[kevinlms]

I have tried to indicate that a lot of the problems with 4F axle boxes was because of changes made by the LMS, and in Midland days and by pregrouping standards performance was not too bad. If there is evidence to the contrary perhaps it should be posted.

I seem to recall the French 4-8-0s of over 4,000 ihp had axleboxes 8.5in dia by 8.8in long ie roughyl 4F size.

OK, AJ Powell in his book 'Living with LMS Steam' is quite dismissive of the Midland axlebox design, mostly due to poor lubrication. I'm going out now, so I'll find it later with some quotes.

 

OK, here we are.

 

Page 24. On 0-6-0's generally.

 

"Then the axleboxes: they were really rather prehistoric. They consisted of a steel horse-shoe body, with parallel sides & square crown into which fitted (loose) the 'brass'. This located by a circular machined boss which engaged in a matching recess in the crown of the steel body. A straightforward keep containing an oil pad, held in place by the pin of the spring D-link, completed the assembly. You could only get at the pad by dropping the wheels, of course!

Lubrication, from oil box or mechanical lubricator, was taken to the crown of the steel box and thence to the top boss of the brass and the crown of the bearing. The bearing area was very inadequate  the use of inside crank axles with the two pairs of eccentric sheaves leaves no room for journals more than about 8 1/2 inches long - and so hot axle boxes were all too frequent. These occurred because of various deficiencies in the oil supply, inadequately backed up by the underpad, and also due to the fore and aft 'roll' which developed on the bearing when, for instance, Class 4F's were involved in heavy, slow speed pulling; all these could prevent the maintenance of a proper oil film."

 

Similar comments are there on the problems with springing and cylinder & motion design.

 

Chapter 14 is a 'What if I was CME?, with a summary of what he'd do.

"44027-44606 Fowler 4F. Performance fair, but mechanically not satisfactory. Boilers, wheels, tender & much other materials salvageable for partial rebuild."

 

Now I'm no engineer, but it sounds to me like, the design wasn't that good. Perhaps other pre-group railways were as bad, but ought it have been 'good enough' for the LMS?

 

 

 

 

What I fail to understand is, why many hundreds more were built with the same design faults and worse still, those faults were copied into brand new locomotive designs.

 

Edited to add quotes from AJ Powell, who was much involved with the day to day running & sorting out various problems. He worked with ES Cox & Bill Thorley (both mentioned by others, here).

 

Book title is 'Living with London Midland Locomotives'. ISBN 0711007284, Ian Allan.

Edited February 20, 2013 by kevinlms

[kevinlms]

As the way the Midland paid for locos to be built new as well as those rebuilt was from two different pots - while the maintenance was from a third pot - perhaps the bean counters were happy to live with the 4F bearing situation - which, strangely enough, the LMS at first were not.

 

Its a bit like buying a big shiny new diesel from a major manufacturer claiming high reliability - then finding out the cost of transporting fitters around to keep the reliability high...

 

It seems an odd set of accounting practices that, because it came from a different pot, it was regarded as 'not a problem', or more correctly 'passing the buck', otherwise known as 'duck shoving'!

[coachmann]

The fitters at Lees MPD said the Fowler 3P 2-6-2T's were very heavy on springs, meaning they were constantly needing attention. The Fowler 7F's at Lees did their work plodding across the Pennines with endless trains of coal but got rough very quickly after overhaul. It was said that Lees had a seige mentality with it being an ex LNWR shed put under L&Y Newton Heath. Lees would not ask its parent shed for anything, would rather travel into Yorkshire to turn a loco rather than use Newton Heath's turntable, and would keep its allocation of poor Fowler designs in traffic rather than admit defeat! The men spoke disparagingly of of MR injectors as well, and seeing as they kept the worst of the MR inspired LMS designs going week in week out for 18 years, I consider their words carried some value.

 

As a postscript, 19th Century L&Y 2-4-2T's had to be borrowed when the Fowler 2-6-2T availabilty hit ziltch in 1953. There must have been sympathy in high quarters for Lees as the shed finally got Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T's in 1954 .

Edited February 20, 2013 by coachmann

[New Haven Neil]

snip<From my memories of when I did my seconds ticket, the point of greatest pressure in a bearing is usually at the bottom of the journal,

 

You quite sure about that?  Also you need to consider a loco bearing has different forces acting upon it than a diesel engine....double acting fore and aft, plus the weight of the loco vertically.

[The Stationmaster]

Edited to add quotes from AJ Powell, who was much involved with the day to day running & sorting out various problems. He worked with ES Cox & Bill Thorley (both mentioned by others, here).

A very nice chap and certainly one whose steam knowledge and experience one would instantly respect as he always spoke in a way which explained why he was saying what he was saying.  I didn't know him very well but he definitely knew what he was at with bearings on LMS locos in my experience of him (part of which was in dealing with bearings on an exLMS loco as it happens).

[bluebottle]

When all's said and done (and I suspect more will be said before we're done), 772 Fowler 4Fs were built (including 45 built from '37 to 41 during Stanier's tenure) and were widely used over the LMS. “They were not as efficient as they could have been, with only relatively little alteration to the design of the front-end and the axleboxes, but their robust and simple construction was entirely in the traditions of Derby, and they may indeed be described as a classic example of the humble, but useful, British 0-6-0 goods engine”. (Yeah, OK, I'm quoting from my recently acquired copy of Haresnape's “Fowler Locomotives”). Seeing the KWVR's no. 49324 in action re-activated my interest in railways thirty-odd years back, and I look forward to Bachmann's model of it.

 

Gordon

 

[coachmann]

Speaking as an enthusiast, when I last rode behind Keighleys 4F in 1972 drifting downgrade from Oxenhope, the chattering snifter valves were sheer music as well as nostangia! I find it is the little things that re-activate interest more than anything else.

Edited February 21, 2013 by coachmann

[New Haven Neil]

Plus one on that, Coach!  The crews call her 'the weaving shed' due to that noise!  As an (one time) engineer I am closely attunded to the sounds machines make, and find many locos can be identified by sound alone.  Peter Handford can take the blame for that one!  I can identify exactly which neighbour is going to work by the sound of their cars.....

[robmcg]

I know that much discussion here has been about the quality or otherwise of various designs, with regard to bearings in particular, and it has been very pleasant to read.

 

My reason for symathising with any small engine policy may be partly to do with my first experiences of steam when I was 4 years old in 1955 when trains over the New Zealand 1-in-15 Rimutaka Incline were hauled by 4 or 5 H-class 0-4-2T locos placed between every third carriage on passenger trains, surmounting a 3 mile grade with Fell centre rail and with tunnels at walking pace.  I remember it vividly.

 

Thus I can enjoy the thought of a 15-total pre-WW2 LMSR express with three engines ready for an attack on a grade (even if one engine was just returning somewhere...)   apologies this pic also in a Hornby thread, of all places... 

 

 

Rob

[jwealleans]

Back to posts 64-67 and the question  of royalties from patents taken out by Gresley.  I've now found the letter, printed in The Gresley Observer No. 156, Sprint 2012.  It is HNG's appointment by the Great Northern Railway dated August 10th, 1911.  The relevant section reads:

 

"... the Locomotive Engineer not to receive or claim from the Company any royalties on patents taken out by him or in which he may be interested, and which may be used by the Company on their plant or stock or otherwise; it being clearly understood that all patents taken out by him or in which he may be interested and which may be used by the Company during his service with them may still be used by them without payment in the event of his leaving the Company's service."

[Ohmisterporter]

That type of contract clause is the norm, although I didn't know it went back over a century. It make NG's insistence on conjugated valve gear more puzzling when the disadvantages of with it were known. Thomson adopted Walschaerts gear for the inside cylinder of his locos when he took over, and although Peppercorn reverted to the Gresley style in some things, conjugated valve gear wasn't one of them. 

In defence of Gresley I must add that he designed and built his locos pre-war, when shed maintenance to the required standard was available. 

[jamie92208]

Back to posts 64-67 and the question  of royalties from patents taken out by Gresley.  I've now found the letter, printed in The Gresley Observer No. 156, Sprint 2012.  It is HNG's appointment by the Great Northern Railway dated August 10th, 1911.  The relevant section reads:

 

"... the Locomotive Engineer not to receive or claim from the Company any royalties on patents taken out by him or in which he may be interested, and which may be used by the Company on their plant or stock or otherwise; it being clearly understood that all patents taken out by him or in which he may be interested and which may be used by the Company during his service with them may still be used by them without payment in the event of his leaving the Company's service."

That makes sense. The GNR and it's successors got free use of the patents but HNG got the £50 per loco for the overseas sales such as the 90 to the Union Pacific.

 

 

Jamie

[Rifleman]

A couple of stories may shed a bit of light on Derby's small engine policy, and their engineering design work.

 

Some years back, I visited the Churnet Valley Railway, shortly after reading a biography of Sir William Stanier. I got into a discussion with one of their loco staff about a section in the book dealing with Anderson's iron grip on loco design, and what happened at a meeting between Stanier, Anderson and Stamp. According to the book, it was agreed between them that, in future, all design and engineering decisions would be left up to the CME, and that the Operating Dept. would simply advise on what sort of train loads and timings the engines were required to be handle.

 

Now, having dealt with characters like Anderson in my own experience in engineering, I found the biographer's suggestion that "Anderson had agreed to this" very hard to believe. After all those years of giving orders to the CME, that he would just quetly let go of that power? No chance! I strongly suspected that Stanier was well aware of the internal politics in the LMS, and - knowing that Stamp was hard-pressed to find someone who could take on the job - Stanier gave Stamp an ultimatum; "keep Anderson out from under my feet or find someone else as your new CME."

 

As I was discussing the 4F, and its failings, with the CVR man, I mentioned reading this account, and my doubts about it. The CVR man, smiled, and said:

 

"Funny you saying this; we had a visitor last week who came in for a chat - a very old guy, who was working as an apprentice in Derby drawing office when Stanier took over."

 

And the story he told me was this. Stanier was brought into the D/O one day, and introduced himself to the staff in a very courteous manner. He explained that, as he was from Swindon, he only had limited knowledge of the way Derby worked, and said that - for the time being - he wanted to see every drawing before it was issued to the works, and go through it with the relevant man, in order to learn about their engines.

 

Two days later, one of the draughtsmen knocked on his door, and went in to show Stanier a set of drawings he had completed. The draughtsman later told his colleagues that Stanier started going through the drawing with him, noticed a certain aspect of the job, and asked the draughtsman why he had chosen to do it that way, rather than two or three other ways he could have done it. The man told his colleagues he was taken flat aback by this question, and - when he'd got over his shock - said:

 

"Well - we've always done it that way, Mr Stanier!"

 

Stanier looked at him a bit thoughtfully, then carried on looking over the drawing. Coming to another feature of the design, he asked the same question - and received the same reply. After the same thing happened about half a dozen times or more, Stanier decided he'd heard enough.

 

Picture the scene in Derby D/O, in January, 1932. The draughtsmen quietly working away, slide rules slithering, pencils scratching over the paper - despite the Great Depression, they still had their 'jobs for life' at Derby, God was in his heaven, and all was right in the world. And then the lid blew off Hell!

 

According to the way the old Derby apprentice told the story, there was a near explosion in Stanier's office, and he erupted into the D/O with the horrified draughtsman in tow. Calling all the staff together, he read them the Riot Act - if any of them so much as DARED to tell him that they had designed anything in a particular way because "we've always done it that way, Mr Stanier" he should ensure that he brought with him his letter of resignation "which I WILL accept on the spot!"

 

The CVR man said his impression was that, on a quiet day in Derby, you might still be able to hear the echoes!

 

Can you imagine any threat more dire, to a staff member on the railways in 1932, to be threatened with dismissal? Mind, in fairness to Stanier, the old boy said that, if you told him you'd decided to do a job in this way, for thios reason, and not in that way, for that reason, Stanier was perfectly happy with that - and, if he did decide to over-rule you, and tell you to do the job another way, he would always do you the courtesy of explaining his reasons for doing so. He didn't mind a draughtsman making a judgement with which he disagreed, as long as the man showed that he was using his judgement, and his brains - and not simply blindly copying what had been done before - but, even so, it was four weeks before another drawing left the D/O!

 

As regards the effects of Anderson's interference, the Garratt never lived up to expectations for the reason that Anderson, against all the advice from Beyer-Peacock, pig-headedly insisted it being built with the same strangling 'short travel, short lap' valve gear that hampered the 4F - and with the same hopelessly under-sized axle-boxes, too.

 

Another example of Derby's policy of the blind following the blind was in the 4F's smokebox. Terry Essery told me that he once went to visit the Keighley & Worth Valley Rly, on a day they were running a 4F. The loco crew asked him if he would like to have a go on the shovel, and he said:

 

"I should have known they were up to something - their faces were so deadpan!"

 

They were, indeed! Terry told me that, even on the hard pull out of Keighley, the engine kept blowing off, and he said he'd never known a 4F steam like it before. At the end of the run, he asked the crew:

 

"Right - what have you done to this 4F?"

 

Grinning like Cheshire Cats, they took him to the front of the engine and opened the smokebox door - to reveal a petticoat pipe! A feature that was never in any 4F. Terry asked them how they had worked out the dimensions, angles, and so on - and they laughed and said that all they'd done was to borrow the petticoat pipe from another engine having a full rebuild:

 

" . . and we just rigged up some brackets and put it in, just to see what would happen; works a treat, doesn't it?"

 

They'd got the idea from comparing the 4F smokebox with that of a Jinty. The Jinty, with its slide valves, has the boiler quite low, allowing for a decent depth of chimney, with only a short distance between the blast pipe and the bottom of the chimney; result, a good draught on the fire and a free-steaming engine.

(having fired a Jinty on the Kent & E Sussex Rly, I know that to be a fact!)

 

The 4F, with inside piston valve gear, has to have the boiler mounted much higher, and only has room for a very short chimney - made worse because the gap between the blast pipe and the chimney is much greater; result, a lot of the exhaust steam misses the chimney completely, and goes bouncing round inside the smokebox - so the draughting is poor, with steaming to match.

 

As Terry said to me:

 

"Think of all the needless labour they could have saved the firemen - and the tonnage of coal they wasted - all for the lack of a petticoat pipe. And they built over 800 of those 4Fs, without ever bothering to try what those lads at Keighley worked out in a couple of days!"

 

Jack

Edited May 10, 2014 by Rifleman

[talisman56]

Good God, what part did TB play in the Midland's 'small engine' policy saga?

 

Gordon

 

He gets blamed for *everything* nowadays...

[Black Sheep]

According to E.S Cox, who worked in the Derby drawing offices from 1925-7 the Midland had, "Adopted the American plan of separating the Motive power department in part from that of the CME., and making it responsible to the Operating department" This suggest that the two departments were more likely to make motive decisions before consultation with the CME, which might in part explain the top heavy civil engineers faction.

 

 

Dick I would seek out "The Gresley influence" by Geoffrey Hughes.

This is what I've picked up, that the operating department used to try and tell the CME what to design, up until Stanier responded with 'no, you tell me what your motive power requirements are and I'll design to meet that'

 

He then penned the princess and duchess