Best & Worst Locos to Drive

Terry Essery's books on his time on the footplate (Firing Days at Saltley, parts 1 and 2) have some interesting comments about firing the 4F (the Midland "Big Goods"). It was very different to other MR goods engines.

 

[QUOTE Deleted [/QUOTE]

 

Very true I would suspect but I think "deeply reactionary" could be substituted for "conservative" in this case! The same operating department evidently wanted H.G. Ivatt to produce cosmetically updated "1P" and "2F" Instead he insisted on producing the 2MT.

Having spoken to present day drivers and firemen of one of the 2-6-2-T version it is clearly a machine which is a delight to drive and fire (and service) whilst being very economical. Read J.M. Dunn's account of how getting a 2MT turned the most cantankerous driver at his shed into a contented individual. Not nearly enough were made or survive today.

Paul H

 

I've read Terry's books and, to be honest, his opinions aren't in agreement with most, and probably all, ex-LMS men I worked with. This was at Edge Hill from 1973, after steam finished, but sufficiently recent to cause conversations and some arguments, especially if I was in the mess at the time!

 

Having given us the Crewe and Derby lowdown, any comments on Horwich locos? I've always though the later LMS cabs were rather Horwichian.
Second question - which CMEs had more footplate experience, and did it lead to easier to drive locos? I know Ivatt (father) had an operational background, for example.

 

In his book "Master Builders of Steam", H.A.V. Bulleid remarks that (his uncle) H.G.Ivatt did much footplating in his earlier career for the pleasure of so doing. Earlier jobs were in operating although he moved on to manufacturing and repair. Clearly he appreciated the problems faced by footplate staff.

PH

 

Interesting - I wonder how much of that was the tail end of the old LNWR/MR type rivalry that was part of the early LMS problem? Saltley being very much in the latter camp, Edge Hill in the former?

 

Horwich cabs were, for their time, above average: the L&Y was among the first railways to provide seats. These though were the 'bar stools' which stood on a pole rising from the floor, so not the best. Stanier provided seats which folded down from the cab sides and could therefore be folded up out of the way when not in use, giving quite a bit more room. You couldn't do this with the Horwich 'Crabs' or indeed, LNER and BR Standard seats, and while these were padded instead of the Stanier type's bare wood, the latter were more comfortable than first sight suggested, and didn't wear into holes in use. The layout of controls on the 'Crabs' was generally similar to those on Stanier engines, likewise with Scots and Baby Scots.

Terry's views on Midland engines or designs might well be valid as I can't recall the 8A men talking about them, but his views on the Stanier versus Standard types would have received short shrift at Edge Hill!

 

Sticking with LMS locos, Keith Terry in his book On the Footplate at Bushbury 1947-1962 was quite scathing about the footplate layout on the unrebuilt Patriots but his favourites were the rebuilt versions, and the two rebuilt Jubes. I'm guessing there was some LNW influence with the Patriots, it will be interesting to see how The Unknown Warrior gets on in the hurly burly of mainline running.

Dave

 

The Southern never seemed to have the old Company loyalties as on the LMS, the latter day discussions were about the relative merits of unrebuilt vs rebuilt Bulleid Pacifics. Talking to Bert Hooker and Fred Burridge many years ago both liked the unrebuilt as they were free running and there was no oiling up between the frames but Fred reckoned the rebuilds were stronger with heavy loads and both hated the steam reverser on the originals which could be unpredictable. I wonder if this is the reason they had a reputation for heavy coal consumption, did you just set the cutoff and leave it there? I think the crew comfort had the best of both worlds, a padded tip up seat.
My first railway memories are watching the Hither Green Class C run down to shunt Bromley North Yard and then return tender first later in the afternoon, the line ran on an embankment past my father's allotment. Tender first with a C in driving rain or in the teeth af a winter gale must have been a less than pleasant experience.

 

Not half as unpleasant as the same conditions on a Dukedog

Tom

 

Funnily enough one of my favourite books! Wish more footplate staff had written books like this.

 

R.E.L. Maunsell comes across as quite a pragmatic CME, not too proud to allow ideas from elsewhere if they were sound - a classic example being the Z class shunters, which synthesised both Brighton and Ashford practice to good effect. The fact that in Maunsell's time the loco department was always constrained financially probably helped that pragmatic view of things, the overriding principal being to do what worked, at minimal cost.

That said, there must have been some tensions early on such as about the important question of locomotive weight, witness the famous response by Jock Finlayson (the Eastleigh draughtsman) when questioned by James Clayton (Maunsell's personal assistant) about why a King Arthur had only about 80% of the TE of a Castle, yet weighed a ton more. However, whatever those tensions, they never seemed to be allowed to develop to dangerous levels, which must be to the management credit of both Maunsell and H.A. Walker.

Tom

 

Going back to the 19thC both George and Joseph Armstrong of the GWR had actually been engine drivers in their youth, in the very early days before much weather protection of any kind at all, and I've heard it said that was the reason why neither tended to fit much in the way of cabs to their locos.

Could be worse - she has the 'large' cab from around 1912... the original was a good deal narrower with bigger side cutouts and possibly (not sure about this) a shorter roof...

 

I think the only LNWR influence was the boiler, which was from Crewe's large boilered Claughtons (designed by Beames, I think). The chassis and 'motor' was from North British (and in my opinion based on various of their export locos as much as any Lord Nelson or Swindon influence).
Someone one here will know where the cab/footplate comes from!

 

I don't think it is just the cab - it always seemed a "cold" engine to me when running backwards (which to be fair on our line also tends to be when the loco is working less hard, so a smaller fire). I think it has something to do with the grate being quite low in the frames. so even with a decent fire, you seem to get less heat radiating back into the cab than on some other locos. I think - but haven't measured - the the tender height above cab floor is a bit lower than on a C, and certainly less than on the S15 or U.

Tom

 

Funnily enough, I'd have cited the King Arthur as the prime example of Maunsell not being too proud to take ideas from elsewhere. The SR needed express locomotives in a hurry at the time, and the N15 was clearly the nearest to what was required. So he didn't wait for his own design (the Nelsons) to be finished, he polished up what was available and got Eastleigh and North British cranking them out. It may have helped any tensions that Eastleigh ideas quite obviously continued to be used alongside Ashfordisms; when you come down to it a Schools boiler is a short N15 boiler and those distinctive bogie tenders are pure LSWR.

Of course, he wasn't the only one to do that, Gresley happily built (and further developed) GER N7s and GCR Directors, among others, sometimes for duties off their native systems.

 

That's exactly what I mean: rather than get his own design of front line express engine out with the associated timescales, essentially he used a solid existing design, just tweaked ("Ashfordised", in Holcroft's phrase). A different CME may have wanted to make a statement early in his tenure on a newly created company by designing such a prestigious loco from scratch, but Maunsell was quite happy to develop someone else's design, improving it in small but significant ways.

Tom

 

I would suggest that on the SR the Maunsell/Pearson/Clayton/Holcroft combination was quite complicated, but lead to many fantastic designs and re-designs. Something went a bit awry with the Q class 0-6-0, which has never been properly explained, Maunsell's last design.

Cheers,
Julain

 

edit