Another possible GWS newbuild 4-2-2 Dean Single

Beautiful engines! Especially in S.E &C.R. livery

Knut

 

The B4x was really hamstrung by the decision to keep the original steam distribution circuit, which included a problematic choke point, although the official reason for halting the rebuilding programme midstream was alleged instability at speed. In the final analysis, the last of the originals lasted as long as the last of the rebuilds .... and all emerged from WWII completely shagged out in badly run down condition, latterly only being used in extremis, and replaced (along with much else) with Fairburn and Ivatt designs, in BR(S) days.

Of course, electrification had made inroads into the requirement for mainline passenger locos, most especially once the Arun Valley was sparked up in 1938 and though I've never seen it cited as a cause for the demise of so many Brighton locos, once OVSB earmarked the native 'works' for new construction, I've always suspected transferring maintenance of ex-LBSC locos to Eastleigh and Ashford played its part.

It's probably worth noting that, with so many Brighton turns well within tank loco capacities, tender locos simply weren't as 'in demand' as the Eastern or Western divisions. In pre-grouping days, that factor certainly seems to have contributed to the early demise of the Stroudley D2 (the tender version of the long lived D1) and logically, must've been a factor in the decision to scrap the (comparatively small and rather niche) B2x class.

(Edit was merely a spelling correction)

 

Once again,thank you for your informative post. Of course, after the grouping, locos were transferred between the different sections, but while Wainwright and Drummond 4-4-0s appeared in Sussex, the LB&SCR tender locos do not seem to have been tried out on the Eastern or Western sections. The locos which did move were tank engines, such as the E1s, rebuilt as E1Rs and the Baltics, rebuilt as N15X 4-6-0s. I've also seen pictures of D1s and D3s away from "Brighton" territory.

All fascinating stuff, but we do seem to have drifted rather a long way from a replica Dean Single!

 

A couple of D1s ended up in the West Country, for use primarily on the Lyme Regis Branch (before the arrival of the Adams Radials). They weren't a shining success in those very particular circumstances. I've seen a photo of one at Seaton Junction.

The early electrification of the Brighton mainline must have had some impact on early withdrawals of Brighton locos. In addition, they were air-braked, so transfers could only easily be made to the former LCDR section (which mostly didn't happen); or the Isle of Wight (which did, having had a decision to standardise on air braking within a geographically isolated area).

But given a declining need for steam locos anyway, the fact is that they tended not to be as good as their contemporaries from Ashford or Eastleigh, in either performance or running and maintenance costs. The SR had big fleets of all the normal pre-grouping types from four companies and with designs going back to the 1870s. For example, amongst the 4-4-0s, they preferentially got rid of the older Kirtley (LCDR) ones (worn out); the Stirling (SER) and Adams (LSWR) ones; of the newer Wainwright, Billinton and Drummond 4-4-0s, the Billinton ones went, partly because they were air braked, partly because - well, given. choice of T9, D1 or B2x, which would you get rid of and which would you keep?

Tom

 

Much to chew on there. Leaving aside Tom's well known role as Honourary President of the Harry Wainwright Appreciation Society , whilst the point about the Southern's retrograde (if understandable) braking policy is well made, I feel the comment concerning the relative merits of pre-grouping locos could use some corroboration.

Other than the almost incredible longevity of the Stroudley/Marsh A1x Terriers (as a remarkable exception to just about all received wisdom!) ....

The prime example has to be the N15x rebuilds, where a well regarded original design (Lawson Billinton's L class 'baltic tank') clearly fell short of the performance of the N15. Was it always a case of Brighton 'home bias', or did rebuilding adversely impinge on performance?

Beyond construction costs and the burden of maintenance of inside valve gear, I'm unaware of any criticism regarding Billinton's K class mogul ... and even then, subsequent expenditure rectifying frame issues on the Southern's 'group standard' U class throws such criticism into doubt. The sudden demise of the entire class in 1962/3 is generally acknowledged to have been the result of a book keeping imperative.

The Marsh C2x were certainly well regarded, steaming on to pretty much the bitter end and the 'radials tanks', D1, I1x and I4 classes all lasted well. I've seen a comment that (during WWII), transferred 'atlantic' tanks undertook work usually assigned to GW 'prairie' tanks with aplomb. Let's not forget the E1/R, working so far from home that they weren't even accorded the traditional Brighton classification E1x, so they can't have been that bad!

The above is intended to illustrate my contention that Brighton classes suffered disproportionally from the loss of their 'home' maintenance base, perhaps understandably so, given the small numbers of most. Regarding the effect of electrification, before WWII and well ahead of nationalisation, with the secondary Wealden, Henfield and Horsham-Dorking lines being the only (non-branch line) strongholds of steam operated passenger services on ex-LBSC lines, the comparatively early demise of so many classes was inevitable (indeed, doubtless the process was slowed down by the advent of WWII) and that, had the pace of electrification on the Eastern or Western Divns matched that on the Central Divn, things would've been no different for purely (or mainly) passenger classes on either.

 

Why some locos survived and others did not is always going to be complex and nuanced: the air braking certainly counted against older LBSCR locos, particularly since the central section electrified first and it was then hard to cascade passenger locos elsewhere. They also - at least the larger ones - were more restricted in route availability, which meant if their original works dried up, they were harder to redeploy than especially the Chatham locos. But even allowing for that, the evidence is that they generally weren't as good as their near contemporaries.

The braking question incidentally, in interesting in the light of the fact that when the SR wanted to take bigger air-braked locos to the Isle of Wight, they chose the O2 even though they had to be specially equipped with air brakes, rather than the D3 that came ready equipped. It can't all have been down to serendipitous visits by Eastleigh officials in 1922 paving the way!

Going into specifics, as a general starter, a quote from Holcroft, in Locomotive Adventure, which gives an insight in to general repair costs:

"Another thing we were warned about on Brighton engines was the lack of interchangeability of parts between engine of a class. It seems that the chargemen - of the erecting shop in particular - had been allowed far too much latitude in the past in the way they carried out repairs and reconditioning of parts, so that it could not be assumed that any two engines of a class were strictly alike."
​

A cursory read of A.C. Perryman's "When steam was king at Brighton" bears out that picture.

For a more quantitative view, various figures.

Firstly on construction costs:
LSWR O2 class - in the range £1,485 - £1,660 across 60 locos built 1889 - 1894
LSWR M7 class - in the range £1,400 - £1,650 across 105 locos built 1897 - 1911
SECR H class - average of £2,380 across 66 locos between 1904 - 1915
LBSCR D3 - £2,450 each for the first batch of 15 in 1891; I can't find costs for the others.

Then, comparative repair costs of various passenger tank locos - these are relative to each other, rather than absolute costs. They come from a trial where running sheds took detailed records through 1928, at which point all these locos were about 20 - 30 years old. I've just included the 0-4-4T as directly comparable:

SECR (Kirtley) R1 - 94
SECR H - 96
LSWR O2 - 108
LBSCR D3 - 119
LSWR M7 - 120

The Brighton D3 costs 25% more in repair costs than the SE&CR locos; only the M7 is worse (and the Adams O2 a bit better).

Then on coal consumption, measured at the same time, coal lbs per mile:

SECR (Kirtley) R1 - 36.3
LSWR O2 - 36.9
SECR H - 37.2
LBSCR D3 - 39.3
LSWR M7 - 40.4

Again, the M7 is the worst of the bunch, and the SECR locos the best. (As a wicked aside: when the M7s supposedly wore out, Bulleid shouldn't have designed the Leader as a superior loco to replace them: he should have built more Adams O2s!)

What is clear from the above is that the LSWR locos had the edge on first cost (partly on account of being older, but much of that must be more efficient workshop practice). But the Brighton locos were most expensive to build; most expensive to repair and rather more expensive than the SECR locos in coal. The high build cost was undoubtedly down to general chaos at Brighton, but repair costs were those on shed. Whichever way you look at it, they compare badly with the Wainwright H and Kirtley R1, and not much better against the Adams O2.

Amongst the larger engines, these were the average miles between general repairs, in the period 1933 - 1939, for comparable classes:

SECR N - 83,009
SECR U - 84,295
LSWR S15 - 81,239
LBSCR K - 71,874

Something of the same story: lower mileage between overhauls inevitably means higher per mile repair cost. Holcroft, incidentally, thought the K class a good design, but less suited to passenger work than the N class. Incidentally, he also had somewhat trenchant words about the L class as built, in particular that the well tank was a source of perennial problems on shed. The rebuild was typical Maunsell, repurposing a loco that was structurally sound in economic fashion, but as rebuilt it wasn't up to the standard of a King Arthur. The E1R fits the same mould: an economic way to make a loco suitable for the ND&CJR, a railway that had to be run but that could never have justified new locos to run a service where frequently the train crew outnumbered the passengers. (There is a possibly apocryphal story from that line in which a train collided on a level crossing with a bus. The train was carrying driver, fireman, guard and one passenger; the bus a driver, conductor and no passengers!)

Tom