Best & Worst Locos to Drive

According to another biography, Stanier, soon after his arrival, received a request from Anderson for a further batch of a particular type of loco, which Stanier placed in his Pending tray. After a while, Anderson asked him why he had received no reply to his memo. Stanier told him that he was waiting for him (Anderson) to tell him what duties the locos were to undertake so that he (Stanier) could provide what was needed. Stanier was more than capable of looking after himself, though the backing of the Board would have been a comfort.

Anderson was Motive Power Superintendent, a department under the Midland and early LMS systems independent of the CME. Among its functions was the provision of motive power, and Anderson had used this to bypass the CME. Fowler, who had been the Midland CME, was used to this and acquiesced; Stanier, more used to the normal system where the CME was responsible for ordering new locomotive stock, did not. It has been said that, once this particular situation was resolved, the two men got on well together, but Anderson retired at the end of 1932, a year after Stanier's arrival.

The 4F, despite current opinion, was far from a bad engine: it did its job and did it - fairly - well. The reason that the LMS kept building them was simple: attempts to design a replacement within an acceptable weight failed to happen until Ivatt produced his Class 4 2-6-0. Hence the last 4Fs appeared in 1941, nine years after Anderson's departure.

In Midland days the class had performed well, but things changed when they were allocated to other divisions of the LMS and were made to work much harder; that's when the problems arose. The axleboxes were marginal but just about adequate for the 4Fs in their normal condition; it was when fitted to larger and more powerful locos - the Garratts and Austin 7s - that the real issues arose. The 4Fs limited steaming ability meant that they weren't overloaded to any great extent on this class, but if the steaming rate were to be raised by a lot and greater power outputs delivered, the mechanical weaknesses would have been made more obvious and the failure rate would have increased in proportion.

 

While the M7s certainly were overdue a modern replacement by then, I think you undersell their very real capability. Holcroft found, somewhat to his surprise, that they showed up very well compared to the N class moguls on the 1:36 grades of the Ilfracombe branch, the main drawback being insufficient range for through trains. Later, when they were finally due to be replaced on the Bude branch, it was found that the Ivatt 2s couldn't keep the timings. After an interlude with Standard 3s, they were eventually replaced by Standard 4s. Not too shabby...

 

From other bits I've read about Stanier, I can well believe it.

I can't speak from personal experience, having never fired one - and, even if I had, it wouldn't have been with the sort of loads and tasks that the 4Fs were given in main line service. All I can go by is the people I've spoken to who did drive and fire them pre-preservation, and from my readings of autobiographies of enginemen who worked them - and they were all pretty scathing. The only point they all made in its favour was that the brakes effective, and predictable - which, I grant you, was a very important point with engines hauling unfitted goods.

But that's my point; as far as I can tell, even when their shortcomings started becoming very noticeable after grouping, Derby never made any attempts to try a few simple changes, to see if at least some of their failings could be improved. I grant you that some changes might have been so difficult or costly that they were out of the question - such as trying to squeeze in bigger axle-boxes, or changing to long travel, long lap valves; but trying a petticoat pipe could have been done by one or two fitters in a matter of hours, on one engine, and at minimal expense - and could even more quickly be removed if it didn't work.

With best regards,

Jack

 

You're very welcome!

 

Hmmm! About the only instance of these machines not being received with open arms then. Some footplatemen could be just as reactionary as some of their bosses.

One peculiarity of the machines produced by the brothers Drummond was a propensity for the marine big ends to run hot. Rather strange, for Stroudley's products were similarly equipped but don't seem to have the same trouble and there was a lot of Stroudley in the "Drummond" locomotive, certainly in the earlier types.

The later large Peter Drummond types were only cured of their heating troubles when the L.M.S. replaced the big ends with a cottered arrangement. See various works by David L. Smith.

PH

 

Reactionary, or practical?

 

Reactionary I fear. Plenty of examples over the years such as resistance to improved weather protection. Latterly, there was the response of Western Region enginemen to the "Britannias". Had the response been 100% unfavourable instead of nearly 100% then the locomotives could well have been the problem. However there is the little matter of Cardiff Shed. Here the crews liked their new steeds and got good work from them despite unfamiliar features such as left hand drive.

PH

 

I wouldn't put it quite that way. Yes, the ex-LSWR men of the Western section were often rather attached to Drummond's machines, but the Ivatts seem to have been well received on the whole, for 'foreigners'. However, the M7s are lighter than than the Ivatts while having an extra 2400lb tractive effort; they were quite handy for their size at load lugging on steeply graded routes. Where possible the SR used Standard 3s to take over the more difficult M7 duties.

 

Surely it would be more surprising if a basically conventional loco designed ca. 1950 was not somewhat superior to a design it replaced from more than half a century earlier?

As an aside: when there was a mass clear out of LBSCR passenger tank engines during the 1950s, they were replaced on the western half of the Central section by M7's coming from the western section; and on the eastern half by Wainwright H's. The former Brighton crews in the more westerly sheds who only had access to M7s quite liked them; however for those in sheds further east who came into contact with both the Drummond and Wainwright engines almost universally considered the Wainwright design markedly superior as passenger locomotives; and strongly resisted attempts to exchange their allocation of Wainwright H's with M7s. Where the M7s excelled in latter years was where their raw strength was useful, such as carriage shed piloting; it took the BR class 3MT to adequately replace them in that role, such as taking 12 - 13 coach trains from Clapham Junction sidings into Waterloo.

Tom

 

Most accounts rate an H as having an advantage over an M7. According to some an "average" M7 in its latter days, with an inexperienced fireman, was barely capable of timing a two coach local. Who will ever know for certain.

PH

 

There is a big difference between being an effective machine and being user friendly. The LNWR Super Ds are a case in point: the Traffic people liked them as they did the job well (hence their long lives), but most enginemen loathed them. I could quote Jim Carter here in a conversation with me, but there'd be an awful lot of asterisks!

As said, they worked well enough on the Midland, so the design was already twelve years old when it was foisted on to the rest of the LMS. And it did the job. Fitters might have tried attaching a petticoat but why should they, they weren't the ones sitting in the loop trying to bring the fire around! And unofficial modifications were very much frowned on if discovered by the CMEs department, however effective.

While many things could in theory have been done to improve things, they would be neither easy nor cheap. Fitting better axleboxes really means bigger axleboxes, and that means major changes to the frames. And in the end you still have a 1912 vintage 0-6-0 which was already doing its job adequately. From an accountancy point of view (and that was important to the Traffic people) it would be better to leave the 4Fs alone. And looking back, I have to admit they had a point. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' and the 4Fs weren't very broke! Admittedly, I never had to coax one along praying for some steam, but neither did the CME, who had other, more urgent problems.

 

The M7 can be, at times, challenging for the fireman. The locomotives, in BR days often had a file wired onto the blast pipe to sharpen the exhaust and this did help them to be freer steaming. The M7 requires 2nd valve and careful handing of the reverser to ensure that the steaming becomes rapid and the driver manages the reserver setting to avoid priming. Once everything is in tune, the capability of the M7 is truly remarkable. The strength of 30053 is astonishing, once everything is alright on the boiler side, the locomotive will storm up the Swanage Railway with 6 coaches no problem.
The M7 is a bit of an art however and to get it truly right, it does take a good bit of practice, soul searching and at times down right acceptance that you are going to have to fight her, but once you have made up it, its a truly satisfying, engine mans locomotive.

Having been on both the O2 and H tanks I would suggest that the M7 is by far the more fussy of the 3 classes. The O2 is very forgiving and free running machine. The H tank is a good machine, very strong for its size, robust and free steaming with the excellent ashford reverser.

I wouldn't say however that the H tank has the edge over the M7. The M7 is markably more powerful and thus more useful. The H tank is doing heavy work at the Bluebell but the M7 is doing heavier at Swanage.
The O2 is in a class of its own really and quite difficult to compare.

All three classes are remarkable and I would say that there really isn't a bad apple amougst them. The southern did 0-4-4 tanks extremely well.

 

Have to say as a complete layman this thread is fascinating, just out of intrest there are a few engines I wouldn't mind finding out a bit more. One for our SVR correspondents, what's 43106 like? I know Mr Ivatt designed it for ease of use so is it easy to use? Again biased towards the SVR but what's a 14xx like? Having heard the stories about them racing the Jubes and getting up to ahem high speeds they seem to go a bit! One for @Jamessquared what was 33001 like? That's somthing I wouldn't mind seeing steam again! I could go on but I'd best leave it for now!

 

Sticking a piece of metal round the inside of the top of the exhaust pipe ,call it what you like, is not always a good idea ,it can increase back pressure on the exhaust from the cylinder ,plus blow out the joints on the exhaust pipe soon after exiting the cylinders.
In my younger days living on the Midland main line with 4Fs working the fast Burton on Trent to Sommers Town /St Pancras beer trains ,along with Crabs ,I can never remember one coming of a train with a hot bearing, the same for the Coalville to Wellingboro coal trains .Coalville drivers weren't noted for hanging about, the Depot only had one 8F to its name ,with all of the main line work being done by 4Fs.

 

Anyone on here have experience of driving the foreign locos that are knocking about in the UK:

S160 - Seems to be about 5 over here now. GCRN are overhauling theirs atm IIRC, keighley has 1 & greg wilson has a pair that are based on the churnet valley. 5197 visited bury back in 2007 for a war weekend, unfortunately the air compressor on the smokebox door packed up. So it ran with a p-way mobile compressor strapped to the tender earning it the nickname 'the burger van'!!!

Certainly have plenty of grunt & are immensely loud.

The nene valley have a polish 0-8-0 tank which seems popular with the loco crews & is quite happy handling load 6.

Never seen it but have heard the kent & east sussex railway have a swedish loco.

Plus keighley did have a 0-8-0 american tank that's now moved onto the ribble railway at preston. Nene valley also have some belgian steam locos sadly none of which are running & don't know if they ever will.

 

Norwegian actually. NSB376.

 

Cheers wenlock, I'll have to take a mooch down there & see if it's working. The foreign locos are quite interesting beasts.

 

The Norwegian is part of the current serviceable fleet, indeed it worked a wedding charter Pullman on Monday.

Obviously it is not in use every day, sharing with the yank, pannier, Charwelton and the terriers which are also currently in ticket.

 

I never got the chance; it was before my time.

Tom

 

Bummer Then again would it be like driving Oliver's finest but without the leading and trailing wheels?