Crimson Rambler

Sorry I don't know how to put in the necessary link but if you Google Railway Employment (prevention of Accidents) Act 1900 you will find the details. The first six pages can be largely disregarded it is the schedule of twleve items on page 7 that is important - and item 10 concerned the arrangement of tool boxes and water gauges on engines - tool boxes had to be accessible. David Tee told me it included to introducing water contents gauges on tenders. Crimson Rambler

The nature of the lines that engineers such as Stephenson, Locke, Brunel et al built affected the engines that ran on them. This, together with the way the operating people ran the railway, nudged the pre-grouping locomotive engineers consciously or subconsciously into designing engines that suited the characteristics of their railway. For example, the operators of flat routes invited their engineers to develop engines that could haul heavy, fast trains. This necessitated developing high horsepowers at speed which in turn demands a large steam circuit (and not just the valve lap) so the necessary large steam flow will not lose too much pressure on its way to and from the cylinders. On railways, such as the Midland, forced to haul their trains up steeper gradients than their competitors, the size of the steam circuit was of less importance because their engines tended to make their greatest effort lifting the train against gravity rather than overcoming air resistance. Although, an engine that has to haul a up a hill may still have to develop a quite high power despite pulling a lighter train, engine speed usually fell while cut-off was lengthened. Both of these factors tending to reduce the throttling the steam was exposed to, so a smaller steam circuit sufficed. Once a flatter portion of line was encountered the smaller circuit was large enough for the engine to pull its lighter train at as a high a speed as perhaps the more generously proportioned one. We may see this difference comparing a Midland express engine steam circuit with one carried by an equivalent LNWR engine. Both are essentially short-lap engines. While the lap fitted to the George the Fifth was originally 1¼ins because they were fitted with Joy valve gear (constant lead) at 20/25 per cent cut-off the port openings would not have been that dissimilar to those of a 483 class 4-4-0, which were fitted with Stephenson’s gear (variable lead). Thus, we may deduce most of the difference in performance displayed by the two classes was due to the sizes of their respective steam circuits. If a ‘George’ was working with say a pressure drop between the boiler and the steam chest of 15 or 20lbs, then in the Midland engine, the equivalent drop will have been 45 to 60lbs/sq in – hence why red engines didn’t produce high powers at high speeds. Another simple but crucial relationship that affected locomotive performance was the water consumption. Mr Rous-Martin described how a Class ‘T’ 4-4-0 Nº 2596, took the 9-30 am fast Scotch express weighing approximately 300 tons, from St Pancras to Leicester (99 miles) in 111 minutes 34 seconds - gaining nearly 1½ minutes on the booked time in the process. He observed the run could have been 2 or 3 minutes quicker but for shortage of water, which forced Driver Turner to shut in for the latter part of the journey to eke out the remainder. Horsepower estimates confirm there would have been precious little water left in the tender (5-10%) by the time the train had reached Leicester, as was confirmed by Mr Rous-Martin:- “Indeed, I was assured that even more could have been done had the locomotive been fitted with a larger tender, like the ‘2601’ and ‘2606’ Classes” This is enginemanship of a very high order, the more so when we remember tender tank contents gauges were not fitted until the railway companies were compelled to do so by the BOT in 1904. That rash of bogie ‘water carts’ which appeared at the turn of the century were the inevitable accompaniment to building more powerful, saturated locomotives. In the absence of water troughs, engines had to lug 20 and more tons of water behind them, in order to make non-stop journeys of 100 or 120 miles while pulling heavier and/or faster trains. LNWR engines running from Euston typically encountered water troughs every 40 miles or so thereby giving the crews ample opportunity to top up the tender tank. The knowledge that they would not run out gave LNWR enginemen the confidence to work their charges in a way that has whet the appetites of contemporary and later locomotive enthusiasts. The Drawing Office reflected this, by providing (for the day) good exhaust systems, generously proportioned internal steam pipes and large free gas areas through the boiler barrels, which supported high combustion rates. Finally, it was pointed out a 483 class 4-4-0 based on the power calculation was a Class 3 engine, so I thought you might like to see these two tables. The first gives the loads for the Special Limit trains, which were faster, between London and Leicester. The 483 4-4-0s were lumped in as Class 2 engines. The second table records one of these engines taking a Class 3 Special limit Load and gained 3¾ minutes on the way. At this point I feel I have said more than enough. Crimson Rambler

Langridge did comment that poorer quality oil and whitemetal had affected axlebox performance. I don't know when Churchward adopted them but an underpad was tested by Beauchamp Tower when he carried out his famous series of bearing lubrication tests in the 1870s, so they pre-date GJC. Incidentally he found it returned no better bearing performance than top oil entry. Stanier did introduce the oil between about 35 and 40 degrees down from the crown via a pair of grooves. It worked well enough with outside cylinder engines but wasn't so good on inside cylinder engines as their bearing load profile is different. In its last design the Midland introduced the oil at the crown via an elliptical groove with the intention oil could enter while the journal was stationary. The LNER also suffered from hot boxes on some important inside cylinder classes during the Second World War - from memory two were the J38 & J39 . The company prompted the development of a special oil that in effect replicated the older oils used pre-Grouping. Adopted and applied by the LMS to the G1, G2, 7F and 4F it resulted in a noticeable drop in hot boxes. For example in 1942 the G1 and G2 classes a hot box per engine every 8-9 months. By 1946 this had extended to 29 (G1) and 36 months (G2) respectively. But it has to be said this was really a partial return to previous practice because the poor quality whitemetal remained. Crimson Rambler

In Midland days the company's tank engines were not given formal power classifications, so the anomalies Stephen has found strictly apply to LMS and its application. It's possible the LMS may have used a modified curve but I don't have any details. It certainly extended it to encompass more powerful engines higher powers - maybe it altered the power boundaries? I do have somewhere the BR curve which it applied post 1948 to engines from the other three companies. Essentially I seem to recall the method was largely similar save that the free area through the boiler was included as this is an indicator of steaming capability. I will try and find it. Turning to another matter recently raised, the Midland knew a great deal about lubrication and bearings - arguably more than the LMS or Churchward. Deeley with his brother-in-law wrote perhaps the then definitive book on the subject - it was in print for a generation and went through several editions. He also served on an important lubrication committee during the First World War and invented a machine for measuring the 'oilyness' of an oil - an important property necessary for axlebox lubricants. The cheap oil used by the LMS which was deficient in oilyness, was one of the major causes of the axlebox heating that the LMS experienced with the likes of the 4F and other inside cylinder classes - another was substituting a cheaper whitemetal. The Stanier axlebox - despite what Cox might try and have you believe - only lasted longer between repairs because it was bigger - you have more space on an outside cylinder engine for longer bearings. The greater length meant there was more bearing area to wear away before the 'box needed repair. Deeley stated that longer bearings can cause problems on curved lines - interestingly when Cox had his way and gave the Britannia 4-6-2 class a stiff frame, he came unstuck on the Derby-Machester line. The Britannias on that ex-Midland line suffered from broken broken smokebox saddles and loosened frame stretchers. Crimson Rambler

One of the reasons the Midland introduced its power classification was to reduce loco maintenance - particularly boilers, which are apt to suffer if an engine is overloaded. Hence the introduction of train weight limits associated with the different power classes. The idea being any example of particular power class could be relied on to haul a train of weight appropriate to its class limit. When the Midland devised this scheme all of its engines were saturated - it didn't really start superheating until 1912 with the 483 class 4-4-0. Consequently any Class 2 engine had to be able to take a class 2 load - furthermore saturated or superheated they all had H or G7 boilers These had the same grate area so in effect the limit was the 32HP per sq ft of the saturated engine or, for a H/G7 boiler of 675 horsepower i.e. a class 2. I don't know when the power classification scheme was refined to include superheated engines. My suspicion, and it is only that, is that it was not altered until just before the Grouping. Maybe if the Midland needed more Class 3 engines it could have upgraded the '483's, but an advantage of them (and the LMS Class 2) staying in the lower classification was an even lower maintenance cost and something in reserve in service as the ex-G&SWR enginemen found. Crimson Rambler

GWRSwindon At 50mph the engine will travel 5,280ft x 50mph or 264,000ft but considered over a minute this is equal to 4400ft/min. A wheel 6ft 8ins is equivalent to 6.666667ft diameter so the number of wheel revolutions made is given by (4,400/6.66667) X (113/355) where (113/355) is equal to pi. So the wheel is revolving at 210rpm. In that time the piston makes two strokes each of 28ins each. Hence piston speed is 210 X 28 x 2/12 = 980ft/min. Hope this helps. Crimson Rambler

Stephen your boiler pressure differs from mine - I think the Georges ran at 175lbs Incidentally put at its simplest for a two-cylinder simple engine the tractive effort formula becomes:- (cyl dia. x cyl dia x stroke x boiler pressure x factor from curve)/Driving wheel dia all dimensions in inches - hence :- (20.5 x 20.5 x 26 x 175 x 0.29)/81 = 6,846lbs = 3.06tons And the power developed is 6,846lbs x 50mph/375 (a units conversion factor) = 913 indicated horsepower Crimson Rambler

Dear All The following is a copy of the LYR curve the Midland used for its final power scheme:- It formed part of a series of articles on Locomotive Testing I wrote for a railway magazine - until the editor thought they were too technical and stopped it! The following explains how it was used:- Crimson Rambler

HMRS Journal Oct/Dec 2007 Vol 19 issue No. 8 contains a copy of an official Midland drawing of the match waggon for a 15-ton steam crane based at Sheffield together with an article by George Brodie describing how he built it based on a Slaters 19ft underframe kit. Crimson Rambler

David, with the discussion a little earlier on the Matlock Bath Model Railway you might be interested in this:- It was the printer's plate that I had made at work by the visual aids man Rhys from the drawing you produced. Although I was involved in assisting with the running of the museum layout fortunately I was spared the anguish that David (and one or two others) were subjected to. It was a terrible shame the layout could not be saved in its entirety as I think it was in several ways better than the then Derby Museum & Art Gallery layout. Still I suppose two good things came out of it - firstly its existence had prompted the formation of the MRS a year or so before and secondly I believe its high standard gave Mark Higginson the encouragement and impetus to promote the replacement of original Derby layout by the one in the Silk Mill. Hopefully it will not be too long before we can see it again. Crimson Rambler

Possibly the demonstrator was George Brodie - he was certainly doing just that at Doncaster last year. He had some excellent examples of different arc roof carriages built to the diagram book. Crimson Rambler

Yes, and I think he then went to Stratford with SWJ. The depth of the friendship is I think revealed by the name of one of Smith's sons who was elected a member of the Royal Society. The following is extracted from his obituary:- "Samuel Walter Johnson Smith was born on 26 January 1871, the second of the eight children of Walter Mackersie Smith and his wife Margaret Black, both of Ferry-Port on Craig, Fife. He died on 20 August 1948. Throughout his life he was proud of his Scottish origin. Of him it can be truly said that he lived a life of great intellectual distinction with humility and simplicity, characterized by an unfailing devotion to the service of his many pupils. The sense of loss felt by these and his many friends in the world of physics, will be tempered somewhat by their happy memories of his lovable personality. Smith’s father was a distinguished locomotive engineer, a keen advocate and pioneer of the use of high-pressure, compound-cylinder steam-engines for rail transport. His advocacy of such engines is set out with remarkable and convincing clarity in a pamphlet, Simple v. Compound Locomotives, published in 1892 (see Engineering, November 1906; Proc. Institute Mechanical Engineers, 1906). Mr Walter J. Smith (a brother of S. W. J. Smith) informs me that several three-cylinder compound locomotives, operating on Smith’s system, were constructed for, and used by, the Midland and Great Central Railway Companies. The operation of a simple type of valve enabled the engine to be operated either as a semi-compound or simple high-pressure engine so that increased power was made available when required. Two four-cylinder compound locomotives to Smith’s design were built by the North-Eastern Railway Company, but Mackersie Smith lived to see only one of these in service. Round about 1877 he was engaged as locomotive engineer to the Imperial Government Railways of Japan. S. W. J. Smith inherited his father’s love of science and his indomitable spirit of perseverance. Both were good golfers". For what it is worth I have the complete obituary in .pdf form from the Royal Society website but it is a large file. It is interesting that the author of this obituary who obviously met a surviving brother, Walter J , but this was not the one who became the Chief Loco Draughtsman of the Midland and later Works Manager of the GCR at Gorton. He, John William Smith, was the first son and born in 1866. I think he may have died by 1948, certainly I remember Phil Atkins remarking once that he had found no obituary for J W Smith. Hope this is of interest Crimson Rambler

Piston valves and the Midland - the influence of the North Eastern's Walter Smith and SWJ's great chum! Crimson Rambler

Yes the design of Wainwright's engines is mostly attributed to the Chief Loco Draughtsman Robert Surtees but perhaps it should be mentioned that Wainwright did know a little about loco design he had previously served as a locomotive draughtsman under Whitelegg of the LT&SR - to be honest perhaps not the best mentor! Followed by a period on the MS&LR. Crimson Rambler

Yes it does but to be perhaps pedantic, it was the SE&CR D class that resembled the Johnson 4-4-0 since the 1808 Class and their sisters preceded it! Interestingly, Harry Wainwright, born in 1864, had served an apprenticeship on the Midland under T G Clayton. John Marshall records that Wainwright started his apprenticeship at 14 – while this is perfectly feasible to my mind it leaves precious time for the period he also apparently spent at Worcester Grammar School, St Andrews Derby and Central Technical College London. Be that as he may, he was at Derby when the Master, as Jack Braithwaite used to refer to SWJ, was in full flow. Crimson Rambler

For years I made great use of ILL - Inter Library Loans - to obtain all sorts of railway and other books. Initially the cost was £1 then the local clowncil put it up to £5. Needless to say demand dropped off - one unintended consequence being people could buy a copy of many of the desired books off the web for not much more! Not content with that however some years ago CCC arbitarily stopped the service altogether. Good old Ceredigion County Council - if it serves a useful purpose I've yet to find it! Crimson Rambler

Another little peculiarity of the Johnson small 0-6-0Ts concerns the cutting away of the platform between the cab handrail pillars. Only some engines were affected and while I see Summerson mentioned it in a caption he made no further reference to it. It appears though there was rather more to this. In effect the engines that had the cut-away were narrower in their overall width. The step plate was set back sufficiently from the outside frame so that the edge of the steps protruded no further than the edge of the platform. At this point it becomes interesting if you like the minutae of Johnson engines! The Class N had the cut-away, as did some of the Qs - including all of the backless Sharp Stewart built ones - plus also it seems all of the 1377 Class built with low cabs and boiler mountings. The 1337 class had platforms 8ft - 4ins wide and were 8ft - 9ins wide over the steps. The Class N and the Q had platforms 8ft - 3ins wide and were that width over the steps as well. Finally the Class Qs not given cut-aways still seem to have retained the 8ft - 3ins width which I suspect may have given some of their crews barked shins as they climbed on board. Was this narrowing simply an SWJ aesthetic change or did certain engines need to be narrower? As the cut-down engines forming the 1552 and 1982 series engines were of this type then possibly it was the latter. Happy New Year to you all. Crimsin Rambler

Stephen My reasoning was, as the LMS was more recent than the Midland we might establish more easily why the LMS did it. Regarding the "...APLE & Co" and "...?NETWO.." I just assumed they were wagons as Kentish Town had a large back to back coaling stage and they were standing on the road behind but if you think not, then I am happy to yield to your greater knowledge on wagons. Improved visibilty when shunting is the usual reason for not fitting the backs but I suggest that then begs the question why (as far as I know) were all of the 50 very similar engines - 10off 1121 class and the 40off Class Q built by Stephenson - given cabs with backs yet many of them were destined for yard work. Regarding the improved visibility that having no cab back would confer is perhaps only really applicable when the engine is working with open wagons - vans and carriages would essentially defeat it. In support of this latter point I offer the photo of No 1389 on page 36 of Jack Braithwaite's book. Crimson Rambler

I also remember DFT referring to them as open cabs - incidentally David was not the only one to be admonished by the MR loco guru not to refer to them as 'half cabs'! But I also recall teasing DFT if they were open cabs and the others were double or closed cabs what were we to call the cabs fitted to the Class Q engines Nos 2248-2252 built by Sharp Stewart and allocated to Kentish Town? These engines were fitted with cabs that had no backs! Why they were built like that is not clear - but possibly because the five engines were originally destined for working in east London over some of the Great Eastern's branches with restricted height loading gauge might be significant? Was the open rear intended as a means of escape for the crew? Of course what might destroy this hypothesis is why did two Class A (1102 class) engines (Nos 1126 and 1139), which were built with double cabs have the rear portions removed? No 1139 was a long-time Normanton engine while the other had for years been a resident at Derby - however No 1126 (later No 2258) was orginally a London area engine. Coments and observations welcome. Incidentally turning to locomotive coal matters - the bottom photo p145 of Essery & Jenks Vol 1 gives three different PO wagons containing loco coal at Kentish Town. The LMS branded some of its wagons 'Loco Coal Only' - presumably was that for the same reason the Midland did it. Crimson Rambler

Dear David & Caley Jim In a year or two you will look back at your three-throws and wonder what all the fuss was about - especially if at the time you are struggling with something else! Fascinated by the example of the interlaced three way point - although it is a logical extension of an ordinary point. I believe the Scottish companies (and the NER?) made quite considerable use of pointwork sleepered in this way i.e. maintaining it through the crossing, whereas while the Midland for example commonly used interlaced sleepers on points, the crossings were usually (always?) laid on through timbers. As far as I know the Midland did not use interlaced timbering on three-throws - that's code for me so far not having seen any piccies to the contrary! Crimson Rambler

Earlier today I found some longtime mislaid 4mm scale models so for the amusement of all, below appear a couple of poor quality piccies (bit dark) of yet another K's Kirtley 0-6-0 this time in Midland red (with abysmal lining) and converted to 18.83. I can't remember when I did that but it was before I made the point it is standing on. The latter I know existed in 1981 so the gauge conversion would have been then or a little earlier as not long afterwards I went to O gauge followed quickly to S7 (S4 for the hamfisted!). The kit was a present from my father just after he had finished working on the film The Anniversary starring Bette Davies. As a fifteen year old I was able to build the engine and tender but the chassis completely defeated me. That was made for me by Beatties in Southgate and was of course OO. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all. Crimson Rambler

In MHO the 7ft - 6ins slide valve Spinners were the best lookers! Crimson Rambler

Spelling names was never my strong point!! Billinton was indeed recomended to the LBSC board by Stroudley sometime before he died. RB had been S's Head Draughtsman - appointed in late 1872. The two engineers enjoyed a deep friendship. Indeed it appears Stroudley persuaded Billinton to go to Derby. Of course Stroudly, SWJ, Drummond and as you point out WMS were all at Cowlairs together in the early 1860s. SWJ as Loco Superintendent, Stroudley as Works Manager, one of the foremen was a young Dugald Drummond. I guess WMS was a draughtsman (carriage or loco?). He went with SWJ to Stratford in 1866 as the GER's carriage & waggon designer. Before he joined SWJ on the E&G he had spent 1½ years at Neilsons! I read in an I Loco E paper that Drummond had to pay royalties to W M Smith for use of cross tubes. Whether that is true or not I don't know - it might be something to explore sometime. However WMS did hold British patent 6118 of 1897. This shewed several arrangements of tubes one of which (or something very similar to it) was fitted to NER No 1619 – his three-cylinder compound that became the prototype for the Midland ones. WMS was very highly thought of in Japan I believe he was given an award by the emperor (but not personally!). He arrived in Japan in 1874 and was appointed the first Loco Superintendent/CME of the Imperial Government Railways at Kobe. He also instructed engineering students. He returned to Britain in 1883. I'm far from being alone in thinking that Japanese locomotive representation Northroader has posted has more than a passing resemblence to a Midland/Smith/Johnson Compound. Certainly more in my view than Smith's later pair of 4-cylinder componds for the NER. The interconnections between nineteenth century locomotive engineers, their working colleagues/railways and their families is quite fascinating. Many years ago, I thought about producing a sort of ‘family tree’ to illustrate the various connexions as I learned them but gave up – this was long before I could use a computer drawing package. I couldn’t determine a layout that would work which would enable the inevitable changes to be made without massive redrawing. Crimson Rambler

One small correction if I may – and its one I regularly used to get wrong when he was alive! There’s only one 'e' in Btraithwaite but two in Tee! As an aside, I think we often overlook the contribution Robert Billington made to Midland (and by default S&DR) locomotives. From November 1874 until January 1890 he was SWJ’s chief locomotive draughtsman – Head Draughtsman he was originally termed. He was the man who interpreted SWJ’s requirements, delegated the work to the various draughtsmen and would have been largely responsible for the finished design together with whatever input the Master made. Thus, during those 15 years he took the ‘rough SWJ’ design such as the Class A 0-6-0T or the 0-6-0s, 4-4-0 and 0-4-4T produced at Stratford and refined them in accordance with SWJ’s wishes into the classic Johnson designs. After all the first of the 4-2-2s with that delightful ‘one-piece’ chimney appeared in the closing hours of his watch. He also would have been responsible for the various rebuilds applied to Kirtley engines. One can idly speculate how Johnson designs might have panned out had W M Smith who was at Stratford with SWJ had not gone to Japan in 1874 and instead joined him in Derby. We might surmize that Thomas Iveson, during his ten years that followed RB’s departure largely refined, honed and where necessary enlarged the existing SWJ designs. His one major piece was the 2606 Class was in effect a 60 Class fitted with a Belpaire boiler. By then J W Smith (W M Smith’s son) had joined the Derby team as a draughtsman arriving I understand when SWJ wanted to adopt Smith piston valves. Following TI’s retirement JWS became Chief Locomotive Drauightsman and the Johnson Edwardian image had its full flowering with the big 4-4-0s. Crimson Rambler

To answer your question, the evidence concerning the introduction of the reverse curve connecting the splashers is as follows:- I was told Neilson introduced it by Jack Braithewaite - the doyen of Midland locomotive aesthetics - I could claim his friendship along with that of David Tee who supported the theory. The curve first appeared on the batch of 6ft - 9ins 2-4-0s Nos 1502-1531 built by Neilsons. These engines were never given a class letter designation but were always referred to as 'Like O.232' i.e. they were similar to the corresponding Derby built engines. An early photo of No. 1527 in as-built condition appears in Summerson Vol 3 p10. Conversely the corresponding Derby built engines were to two GA drawings 79-1194 for Nos 1400-1409 (O.232) while engines Nos 1472-91 (O.273) were to GA 80-1376. As-built photos of the first batch shew a flat section as do similar condition photos of O.273. I have never seen the GA for the Neilson batch - long ago I was told it didn't exist so cannot present absolute proof but GA 80-1376 shews the flat section. If we accept the opinions of two of the most knowledgeable recent Midland locomotive enthusiasts that Neilsons did indeed introduce the reverse curve then it can explain the presence of a flat section on the next batch of Derby built passenger engines - 4-4-0s Nos 1562-71. According to Essery & Jenks (Vol 2 p86), the 1562s were the last Johnson passenger engines built with the flattened centre section. Possibly that piece of information either came from or was confirmed by David Tee. Once Derby adopted the reverse curve it was then applied retrospectively to 'flat topped' engines as they went through the works. Most likely I believe when they were re-boilered (rebuilt in Midland parlance) which possibly explains why it took about 20 years for the last of the 'flatties' to disappear. Incidentally James Johnson resigned from the GNoSR in Aug 1894 to join an engineering firm in the West of England - Scottish Locomotive History 1831-1923 - by Campbell Highet p149. Crimson Rambler