A Nod To Brent - a friendly thread, filled with frivolity, cream teas and pasties. Longing for the happy days in the South Hams 1947.

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

I used to be fascinated by these engines running on the Tonbridge- Redhill line when I lived in Surrey as a lad.

Could you explain ARLE please for the uninitiated?

 

 

This is a question directed to 2ManySpams, but I hope he well not mind if I contribute the little I know from a GWR perspective.......

 

The following is what I have gleaned from "C.B. Collett - A Competent Successor" by J.E. Chacksfield (The Oakwood Press). It is C.B. Collett's (posthumous) biography. It is superbly researched and I found it very useful in understanding the man, his personal traits and the impact they had on GWR locomotive development. Highly recommended.

 

 ARLE stood for "Association of Railway Locomotive Engineers" and was a trade association intended to spread expertise and ideas within that profession. According to The National Archives it was created in 1890 and dissolved in 1946. 

 

I always imagined that the old railway companies were fiercely competitive, deeply secretive and uncooperative with one another. Then I read Mr. Chacksfield's book only to discover that they actually shared a lot of ideas with one another and co-operated on setting standards. The ARLE was the forum in which that happened. There were regular, scheduled, face to face meetings where the Chief Mechanical Engineers would present proposals and research papers.....to their competitors! Not only that, the respective CMEs would visit one another's Works under the auspices of the ARLE. In Chacksfield's book he recounts an ARLE visit by Gresley to Swindon in 1913. He was shown around a workshop by Churchward, Collett and Stanier (then still an employee of the GWR). "Gresley politely listened, noted and gave the general impression of aloofness, much to the concealed annoyance , particularly, of Stanier. Churchward appeared unconcerned at this, he knew full well Gresley was taking in much that he saw."

 

The scope of matters discussed at ARLE meetings was enormous, everything from rivets to safety vales to mainline electrification. There were those in the GWR who were keen to share with the other companies but Collett was not one of them! This is well illustrated in the story of the loan of 5000 "Launceston Castle" to run trials on the LMS between London and Carlisle in 1926. This was at the suggestion of GWR director Felix Pole who was a personal friend of an LMS director and wanted to "help out". The locomotive performed superbly. Surprisingly this was followed by a request that the GWR build 50 "Castle" class locos for the LMS! This was declined by the GWR because there was a long standing agreement between the British railway companies that they would not sell their products to one another. Collett also objected because of the disruption it would cause to the production schedule at Swindon. The LMS then requested a full set of "Castle" drawings. It seems it was Collet and not the Board of Directors who blocked this proposal - he did not want to share GWR technology with a rival. Having been declined by the GWR, the LMS then approached Richard Maunsell for a set of "Lord Nelson" drawings and he was happy to oblige. That was the genesis of the hugely successful "Royal Scot".

 

Collett's unwillingness to share ideas of his own or learn from the ideas of others was unfortunately one of his defining traits. Churchward had been hugely supportive of the ARLE and contributed greatly to it. Collett was a reluctant participant. As time went by his appearances at the ARLE became infrequent and the minutes of the meetings show he contributed less and less and the GWR became increasingly marginalised within it.

 

I hope this of interest....

 

Andy.

[Mallard60022]

[quote name="gwrrob" post="2827053"

 

Those Maunsell coaches are very subtly weathered and very tasty. I think his mogul engines appeal because of the jaunty angle of their cylinders - and their blinkers. More please!

May I suggest that you have a shufty at the U1's cylinder jauntiness. Excellent and quite superior to the humble N.

Interesting that the N was a 'universal' Mogul that was of a similar ilk to the GWR 2.6.0s and lo, the Midland and the LNER decided that they needed a go anywhere, do most things Mogul. The B1 was very successful and the Black 5 was ok but had naughty Injectors/Ejectors so I'm told. I like all of them and the last steam loco of BR I was hauled by was 45101 from Man Vic to Bolton in '66 I think it was.

As this is such a friendly thread and very diverse, may I ask the following? My 64XX Baccy Panniers require 6 Pin Decoders. Is there anyone that lurks here that uses DCC and has found the 'ideal' Decoder for their Baccy Pannier(s)? Thanks. I'd try a Hornby one but they are Baccy Loco's ! I'd try a Baccy Decoder but have been 'warned' about them!

Phil

[St Enodoc]

May I suggest that you have a shufty at the U1's cylinder jauntiness. Excellent and quite superior to the humble N.

Interesting that the N was a 'universal' Mogul that was of a similar ilk to the GWR 2.6.0s and lo, the Midland and the LNER decided that they needed a go anywhere, do most things Mogul. The B1 was very successful and the Black 5 was ok but had naughty Injectors/Ejectors so I'm told. I like all of them and the last steam loco of BR I was hauled by was 45101 from Man Vic to Bolton in '66 I think it was.

As this is such a friendly thread and very diverse, may I ask the following? My 64XX Baccy Panniers require 6 Pin Decoders. Is there anyone that lurks here that uses DCC and has found the 'ideal' Decoder for their Baccy Pannier(s)? Thanks. I'd try a Hornby one but they are Baccy Loco's ! I'd try a Baccy Decoder but have been 'warned' about them!

Phil

TCS EUN 651.

 

https://www.tcsdcc.com/Customer_Content/Products/Decoders/N-Scale/EUN651/EUN651.html

 

Also fits the Kernow O2.

[Limpley Stoker]

May I suggest that you have a shufty at the U1's cylinder jauntiness. Excellent and quite superior to the humble N.

Interesting that the N was a 'universal' Mogul that was of a similar ilk to the GWR 2.6.0s and lo, the Midland and the LNER decided that they needed a go anywhere, do most things Mogul. The B1 was very successful and the Black 5 was ok but had naughty Injectors/Ejectors so I'm told. I like all of them and the last steam loco of BR I was hauled by was 45101 from Man Vic to Bolton in '66 I think it was.

As this is such a friendly thread and very diverse, may I ask the following? My 64XX Baccy Panniers require 6 Pin Decoders. Is there anyone that lurks here that uses DCC and has found the 'ideal' Decoder for their Baccy Pannier(s)? Thanks. I'd try a Hornby one but they are Baccy Loco's ! I'd try a Baccy Decoder but have been 'warned' about them!

Phil

I've always wondered why the cylinders on the U-1 and N-1 engines were at a conventional angle whereas the two cylinder types had the valve cylinder so prominent.

[81C]

I was adding extra weight to my 2-8-2T upon testing it the motion locked up, under the magnifier I could see the slide bars in the cylinders had come loose this happened

on a brand new Grange some time back, to me it seems a common fault with red box loco's so it might be worth checking your GWR loco fleet chaps.

 

 

 

Ben Collett

 

Edit---- my solution was to superglued the bars in place.

Edited August 21, 2017 by 81C

[The Fatadder]

Interestingly under Hawksworth this openness to collaboration seemed to return, such as learning from LMS boiler design in the design of the County and a proposal post war pre nationalisation to come up with a standard coach design across the big four.  

Not entirely sure how this would have worked for the GWR given it would mean sacrificing the advantages available from its more generous loading gauge, but would at least have made a lot of sense for cross country services I guess.  

 

Now this does lead me to wonder just how similar to the BR mk1 this standard coach design would have been, given the similarity in the body between the mk1 and the LMS designs and the BR1 bogies to GW designs.  I guess it would be the coupling / gangway which would offer the greatest source of argument between companies...

[81C]

Interestingly under Hawksworth this openness to collaboration seemed to return, such as learning from LMS boiler design in the design of the County and a proposal post war pre nationalisation to come up with a standard coach design across the big four.  

Not entirely sure how this would have worked for the GWR given it would mean sacrificing the advantages available from its more generous loading gauge, but would at least have made a lot of sense for cross country services I guess.  

 

Now this does lead me to wonder just how similar to the BR mk1 this standard coach design would have been, given the similarity in the body between the mk1 and the LMS designs and the BR1 bogies to GW designs.  I guess it would be the coupling / gangway which would offer the greatest source of argument between companies...

 The GWR built 2-8-0 loco's of a LMS design for the 2nd WW effort and maybe or did filch the boiler design which was used on the County class loco's

 

The GWR were well aware of this issue and were building coaches that could run on any of the other big four, similar with bellows adaptor plates were made so their coaches could be coupled to other companies vehicles, dates do vary as and when this was done a read of Harris's coach book is recommended I'm sure others might give more specific info.

[2ManySpams]

Interestingly under Hawksworth this openness to collaboration seemed to return, such as learning from LMS boiler design in the design of the County and a proposal post war pre nationalisation to come up with a standard coach design across the big four.  

Not entirely sure how this would have worked for the GWR given it would mean sacrificing the advantages available from its more generous loading gauge, but would at least have made a lot of sense for cross country services I guess.  

 

Now this does lead me to wonder just how similar to the BR mk1 this standard coach design would have been, given the similarity in the body between the mk1 and the LMS designs and the BR1 bogies to GW designs.  I guess it would be the coupling / gangway which would offer the greatest source of argument between companies...

I always think that the internal layout and external appearance (not construction) of the BR mk1 was most similar to Bulleid's coaches.

[81C]

I always think that the internal layout and external appearance (not construction) of the BR mk1 was most similar to Bulleid's coaches.

Specsavers for you Matey Southern indeed.  

[gwrrob]

[quote name="gwrrob" post="2827053"

 

Those Maunsell coaches are very subtly weathered and very tasty.

 

Aren't they just.

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by gwrrob

[81C]

Aren't they just.

 

90.jpg

I've the Maunsell one's they make a nice departure from the superior GWR coaches.

[gwrrob]

A few more especially for Bob then.  

 

 

 

[Mallard60022]

I've always wondered why the cylinders on the U-1 and N-1 engines were at a conventional angle whereas the two cylinder types had the valve cylinder so prominent.

Something to do with them being 3 Cylinder jobs I would say. More room for valves or whatever it is?

Phil

[john dew]

As this is such a friendly thread and very diverse, may I ask the following? My 64XX Baccy Panniers require 6 Pin Decoders. Is there anyone that lurks here that uses DCC and has found the 'ideal' Decoder for their Baccy Pannier(s)? Thanks. I'd try a Hornby one but they are Baccy Loco's ! I'd try a Baccy Decoder but have been 'warned' about them!

Phil

Hi Phil

 

I use Lenz Silver mini......cost a bit more but well worth it IMHO

 

Cheers

[2ManySpams]

I've always wondered why the cylinders on the U-1 and N-1 engines were at a conventional angle whereas the two cylinder types had the valve cylinder so prominent.

Interesting point of view because I've always thought of locos with vertically sided cylinders, such as the N Class, all Stanier's output, and the BR standards as being 'conventional' rather than the angled N1/U1 and GWR output. Suppose it depends what you grew up with / have an interest in.

[2ManySpams]

This is a question directed to 2ManySpams, but I hope he well not mind if I contribute the little I know from a GWR perspective.......

 

The following is what I have gleaned from "C.B. Collett - A Competent Successor" by J.E. Chacksfield (The Oakwood Press). It is C.B. Collett's (posthumous) biography. It is superbly researched and I found it very useful in understanding the man, his personal traits and the impact they had on GWR locomotive development. Highly recommended.

 

ARLE stood for "Association of Railway Locomotive Engineers" and was a trade association intended to spread expertise and ideas within that profession. According to The National Archives it was created in 1890 and dissolved in 1946.

 

I always imagined that the old railway companies were fiercely competitive, deeply secretive and uncooperative with one another. Then I read Mr. Chacksfield's book only to discover that they actually shared a lot of ideas with one another and co-operated on setting standards. The ARLE was the forum in which that happened. There were regular, scheduled, face to face meetings where the Chief Mechanical Engineers would present proposals and research papers.....to their competitors! Not only that, the respective CMEs would visit one another's Works under the auspices of the ARLE. In Chacksfield's book he recounts an ARLE visit by Gresley to Swindon in 1913. He was shown around a workshop by Churchward, Collett and Stanier (then still an employee of the GWR). "Gresley politely listened, noted and gave the general impression of aloofness, much to the concealed annoyance , particularly, of Stanier. Churchward appeared unconcerned at this, he knew full well Gresley was taking in much that he saw."

 

The scope of matters discussed at ARLE meetings was enormous, everything from rivets to safety vales to mainline electrification. There were those in the GWR who were keen to share with the other companies but Collett was not one of them! This is well illustrated in the story of the loan of 5000 "Launceston Castle" to run trials on the LMS between London and Carlisle in 1926. This was at the suggestion of GWR director Felix Pole who was a personal friend of an LMS director and wanted to "help out". The locomotive performed superbly. Surprisingly this was followed by a request that the GWR build 50 "Castle" class locos for the LMS! This was declined by the GWR because there was a long standing agreement between the British railway companies that they would not sell their products to one another. Collett also objected because of the disruption it would cause to the production schedule at Swindon. The LMS then requested a full set of "Castle" drawings. It seems it was Collet and not the Board of Directors who blocked this proposal - he did not want to share GWR technology with a rival. Having been declined by the GWR, the LMS then approached Richard Maunsell for a set of "Lord Nelson" drawings and he was happy to oblige. That was the genesis of the hugely successful "Royal Scot".

 

Collett's unwillingness to share ideas of his own or learn from the ideas of others was unfortunately one of his defining traits. Churchward had been hugely supportive of the ARLE and contributed greatly to it. Collett was a reluctant participant. As time went by his appearances at the ARLE became infrequent and the minutes of the meetings show he contributed less and less and the GWR became increasingly marginalised within it.

 

I hope this of interest....

 

Andy.

I think the inter-war period of Railway CME politics is fascinating. Reading around the subject you get the impression there was very much a 'gentlemans club' of senior folk. You can imagine boasting and point scoring going on but also a close knit community which knew time for privately owned railways was drawing to a close.

 

You can see in that environment how design info and research got shared. Also you get the feeling the the seniors had an eye out for career moves of their staff. I wonder to what extent the moves of Stanier to the LMS, Bullied to the SR, Holcroft iirc to the SECR and many others was agreed in high-backed leather chairs in smoke-filled, wood panelled rooms over a fine single malt?

 

You get the impression that many of the CMEs had the best interests of their staff at heart even if they knew the better opportunity lay elsewhere and meant them moving on. Very different times...

[brianusa]

Its getting dark here!

 

Brian.

[sjrixon]

Hi Phil

 

I use Lenz Silver mini......cost a bit more but well worth it IMHO

 

Cheers

I've always used zimo. Good price, amazing performance.

[2ManySpams]

Its getting dark here!

 

Brian.

Do you not have lights in the USA Brian? Oh hang on, you need the sun for solar power to work don't you. ;-p

 

I'm just waiting for Trump to state the eclipse is fake news....

[gwrrob]

Filthy moguls never offend on here.

 

 

 

 

I'm going to Steam museum , Swindon at the weekend if there are any photo requests. SWMBO has arranged this with my eldest daughter's help to celebrate our pearl wedding anniversary. I've said countless times on here how fortunate I am. 

[john dew]

Its getting dark here!

 

Brian.

Well it happened here....although really it was only partial......the heat went out of the sun beforehand and all the birds went quiet

[brianusa]

Well it happened here....although really it was only partial......the heat went out of the sun beforehand and all the birds went quiet

 

Likewise John, but thanks to local hype I was expecting more.  We're not that much North of the eclipse path but news suggested more but I did have to turn the light on to read the daily paper!.  Perhaps this is what as known as 'fake news' these days.  Earthquakes; now there's a natural phenomenon to be reckoned with although we haven't had  a bad one in ages fortunately.

 

Brian.

[Captain Kernow]

Just wondering how much of a partial eclipse we'll get here in the SW of England.

 

Oh, and was there an Association of Railway Signal Engineers?

[gwrrob]

The 64xx autocoach service leaves for Saltash.

 

[brianusa]

Just wondering how much of a partial eclipse we'll get here in the SW of England.

 

Oh, and was there an Association of Railway Signal Engineers?

The good Capt'n had an eclipse only a few years ago when his crew rushed into Cornwall and created havoc not seen since Poldark's days.  You couldn't even get a room at Jamaica Inn!

 

Brian.