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