Correct name of the Stanier 'Duchess' class

Hi All

Can anyone confirm what is the correct class name of the Duchess's? i have seen them called either :-
1. Duchess Class
2. Princess Coronation Class
3. Coronation Class

Neil

 

The correct name is the Princess Coronation Class.
The name "duchess" comes from enthusiasts in after they had been de-streamlined.

As ever wikipdedia is helpful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Prince ... tion_Class

 

Oh and the "coronation" comes from the first loco of the batch (No 6220 "Coronation")
Hope this helps.

 

We used to call them 'Semi's' which came about (I'm told) after the casing was removed on the streamlined engines, leaving a sloping smokebox. They all received 'normal' shaped smokeboxes over time, but to the Lancaster spotters, they were 'semi's' right up to the end in 1964.

 

Yeah.
Obviously 6229 has had to be made into a semi for restreamlining.

http://www.vintagetrains.co.uk/images/6229_bw3_v.jpg

 

Similarly on this theme is it really right to call them "Stanier" locomotives?

W.A. Stanier was on secondment to India at the time the Princess-Coronations were developed and really it was Thomas Francis Coleman (the LMSR's Cheif Draughsman of the Derby Drawing Office) who lead the project in his absence. Coleman previously served with Kerr Stuart, North Staffordshire Rly (Stoke works) and then to Horwich, Crewe and later Derby under the LMSR. He was also a severe critic of the Princess Royal class locomotives and took the opportunity to make sure things were put right on the Princess-Coronations!

Personally I am not one for hero worshipping the CMEs - they were were department heads who (by choice or by tradition) took the creadit from the teams of talented engineers who worked beaneath them, something abhorrant in today's working environment.

 

Yes it was artistry of Tom Coleman that gave the Stanier 'look', and he'd been a professional footballer with Port Vale!

Dave

 

Yes it is. 'Designing' the loco wasn't the CME's job; he would lay down the specifications for the Drawing Office to produce a number of possible solutions from these. They would then be narrowed down within the DO until a suitable outline design was agreed, and this would be presented to the CME for approval or otherwise. If approved, the design would go back to the draughtsmen, along with any comments and desired changes, to be worked out in detail. The CME would not personally sit down at a drawing board with his pencils, set squares, etc. and physically design the engine.

This was what happened here. Tom Coleman settled on two designs, these being produced by HIS staff, one of which was basically a somewhat modified Lizzie, the other the draft form of what was eventually built. Both of these were presented to WAS for a decision, and the Big 'uns were the result. Stanier ordered the design work to start, authorised the design that was built, and would, if it had all gone wrong, carried the responsibility.

Although loco design was possibly the most glamorous part of the job, it wasn't a major component of the CME's work. More time was spent on the accounts covering loco repairs, which were a major expenditure and had to be carefully monitered, as did coal consumption; C&W design and repair; machinery maintenance, etc. The role was more one of administration than of a hands-on engineer, since this latter would be delegated to underlings, although there is little doubt that WAS, and his fellow CMEs, would have taken the opportunity when presented to visit the workshops. But they were paid far too much to do that on a regular basis.

 

It should also be pointed out that it is the CME who takes the blame if things go wrong. It's his responsibility, so it should be his credit, whether or not he actually has a direct involvement in design.

I'm not sure that most of them were as remote from the process as has been suggested above - a lot would depend on the situation when appointed - Stanier for example was given a very different brief to his predecessors. There is the whole range from gentlemen like Fowler and Holden junior on the GER who relied on subordinates to make virtually all the design decisions within a broad specification, to people like Churchward, Gresley and Thompson who clearly had specific ideas about how things should be done.

Sir William I would suggest is somewhere in the middle, in that he established clear standards he expected the new designs during his terms of office to follow, but also left a deal of discretion to the drawing offices.

But nevertheless all the CME's were confronted with engineering problems they had to get solved - how well they - or the staff they directed - managed to resolve those issues has a direct bearing on how they were regarded both at the time and in hindsight. Unfortunately, perhaps, how good they were at man management or budget control tends not to attract our attention

Incidentally I always thought the streamliners were 'Coronations' and the 'naked' ones Duchesses.

 

There are official BR documents which show all three names in use.

Regards

 

Riddles in his preface to Jenkinsons "The Power of the Duchesses" does refer to the class as the Duchesses, but Jenkinson goes on to explain that the official designation was "Princess Coronation" later shortened to "Coronation" class. It was only after the first five appeared with Royal names that the "Duchess" theme was established, despite many of the later engines being named after Cities.

46118

 

Let's just call them Big Un's.

 

Yep!