Repton

Gresley tended to do this by building small classes suited to a particular task. Other CME's preferred to have more universal locomotives. It is probable that the Southern locos would have survived in the North east as they were more suited to mixed traffic use.

The NER and LNER had lots of 'rusty coupling' locos (i.e. 3 link only) that could never be pressed into service hauling a passenger train. Such locos were far less common on other railways.

 

That's an interesting perspective and certainly does provide a contrast and reasoning behind why the Southern was organised the way it was. Yes a lot of the work was more linked to passenger, or lightweight fast goods that needed shifting, but it also shows how areas up north faced the same issues. Your point about Dunkirk and demand traffic is interesting but I'm sure any region would have responded well to the emergency and all regions also had holiday traffic - some of the routes of that here up north would have seen Southern designs collapse.

I'm quite sure that the complexities of operation that you mention were also faced in the North East. If you want to talk about gradients, try getting out of the Dock systems at Newcastle or Sunderland from a standing start. Even the Tyne Dock to Consett steel ran loaded uphill and came back empty, a task that no Southern engine could have matched. The issues of timetabling and precision also would have been replicated on lines such as those around Newcastle, Sunderland, York and Leeds where stations had complex junctions and restrictions on approaches caused by bridges and routes curtailing the amount of space in which to build approaches. But all this doesn't excuse the failure in design that makes Southern engines look 20 years older than contemporaries in other regions, nor does electrification fully explain how features being developed elsewhere such as the enclosed cab, the larger tender, the better build quality and engineering were trailing on engines like S15, Schools, etc.

My point is that while the traffic might have been different, the designs capable of doing whats required of them, I like to see engines capable of more than what they are required to do - some might point to Reptons work on the NYMR as evidence of that, but I always think its loadings are lighter and that it sounds at full stretch. In that way I really like North Eastern engines as they were capable but had strength to spare, and incorporated features and designs before other regions, or were simple but designed in detail and as a result were strong and built to last. Equally so, I like the evolution of design in the Western Region, where again, engines were more versatile and could do a number of duties. I think they often combined both speed and strength especially during the time Repton was designed and built. If you add that 20T then a B17 or Castle will demolish what a Schools can do.

I know I'm playing devils advocate (again!) but I just think Southern designs at this time are underpowered, dated and not built as well. No doubt others will think otherwise and defend a engine that's their favourite and their passion. But if that's what you like then fine - in many ways I like the responses to get someone elses views, but as Mike1522 said, "Variety is the spice of life."

 

Not sure if this has been posted. Shows test running and double heading from 30 July (not mine) :

 

I have to take exception with some of what David has just posted, tenders, an S15 on the SW div had bogie tenders, they needed them, from the docks to feltham, with maybe only one chance to fill up, Southern engines were designed to do a job, and that included the size of the standard southern tender, most of the routes were shared with fast commuter traffic, so they had to ensure they had enough to do what was expected of them, Same as every other region.

 

Actually the bogie tenders is a feature I'm rather envious of and think its a wonder why it was never developed or adopted by others, especially when it makes so much sense. Even some BR standard designs, like 9F would have benefited from incorporating that into some designs, however, the issue might be about the size and thus weight of the tender that you then have following and a lower tender still exposes the crew, alters the engine profile and causes drag at higher speeds, not that the latter matters so much on freight machines. The talk about fast commuter traffic again yet another well rehearsed discussion point - it means smaller lighter trains by comparison in order to keep time and keep speed. So aside from range, that kind of work would easily see a B16, Hall, etc do what you want your S15 to do...

 

the freight out of the main Marshalling yards at Feltham , was actually very heavy much of it being cross London transfer freight, Southampton docks was the importation place for much of what was imported into the UK, So much of the traffic you claim an B16 would haul better, originated from Southern ports i dont know what the average load was, but i do remember seeing photos of several S15's hauling very long freights , for sheer adhesion i would rate an S15 above an Hall, i can remember one one day at Ropley, when 70000 came down on a railtour, after the brit went to turn the return working ( 13 bogies) 70000 was piloted by 30506, which hauled the entire train, including 70000 up our 1 in 60 to Meadstead , when it came through Ropley, 506 was clearly doing all the work , i would like to see a hall , or B16 do that,

 

The Southern didn't have water troughs; hence the need for larger water capacity.

From comments I have heard and what I have seen, the S15 and V are both free-steaming, economical locomotives, well up the task (Repton needs a good profile keeping on the wheels to maintain grip on steeper bits!) and well respected. The cabs can be a bit exposed, but @The Black Hat's beloved NER and most LNER locos don't have full height tenders either and I would certainly not describe NER footplates as universally 'ergonomically designed'! The Southern tenders do have tender sheets, even if certain 'men of steel with wooden brake blocks' declined to use the one on 841 many years ago in an April blizzard (seemingly triggered by a 'weather treadle' north of Levisham each time they were running tender first, apparently!)

I have seen, heard or had explained no indication that they were poorly built - in fact, 'robust' would probably be the sense I have of them. In fact, from my experience, the extent of surgery necessary to Maunsell designs at overhauls seems a little less than on some newer locomotives from various companies, although no doubt some might say that was due to the 'easy life' they had had!

So what if the designs weren't 'cutting edge' - 'KISS' is something which British designers and engineers seem to struggle with, but can be a very praiseworthy approach!

May I also suggest that to compare the 'rush hour' in any northern city to that into London generally and the Southern terminals perhaps in particular does nothing for credibility - just look at the different quantities of rolling stock deployed on such duties today!

Steven

 

Nearly all of that I disagree with, but just on the point about designs being dated. I realise appearance is to a degree subjective, but here are two locos (examples of both of which happily still survive in preservation), one of which was first built from 1913, the other from 1917. Which one do you think prefigured the designs that were being built by BR 40 years later?





Both were undoubtedly capable locos for the job they were designed to do, but only one of them could be described as dated ...

Tom

 

You're not really comparing like with like though, in that one was a very basic heavy freight plodder and the other a sophisticated fleet-footed maid of all work. A better comparison might be between Raven's B16 and Urie's S15, and although the NER engine looks slightly more Victorian than its LSWR equivalent there isn't really a lot to choose between them aesthetically.

 

That's what it all really comes down to. David has no experience of B16's other than what he sees and reads in books. Even I only have memories of them and no real experience. However, I do have practical experience of a Q6, Q7, J27, B1, K1, K4, S15 and a Schools and I can say that the S15 will knock the socks off all the LNER locos in steaming and will put up a good challenge in haulage capability. Apart from the lack of a decent seat, it is also more of an engineman's loco to drive and fire. Its low height tender is no different to that on the J27 and certainly more user friendly than the NER tenders. You also have to bear in mind that tender locos were generally designed to operate in the forward direction and the cabs of the Maunsell S15's were perfectly adequate for this. That's why turntables were provided in an awful lot of places.
The S15 is a damn site easier to oil up than the rest, as well!

 

Another way of putting Steve's point is that if you want to decide which is the more modern design of the S15 and B16, which had the outside Walschaerts valve gear universal in the later days of steam? I'm also interested by his championing of the B17s - lovely looking engines, but most of what I've read suggest that at best they were indifferent. To imply that one of these was the equivalent of a GW Castle is even dafter, the Castle was the equivalent of an early Gresley pacific, and I never, ever seen anyone suggest that the B!7s were anywhere near to being the equivalent of one of these! - and I'm an LNER enthusiast pointing that out!

 

There were a good couple of articles by Dick Hardy in Trains Illustrated in 1960. As Stratford Shedmaster he had first hand experience, apparently the frames were weak and they could be very rough riding. Not Sir Nigel's best design but they were a compromise having been built down to a weight suitable for the weak bridges on the GE section.

 

Your right about comparing Q6 against S15 - which is why I mentioned B16 instead, but I'd say the exact opposite about the next comparison. That the S15 with the half cab looks dated, smokebox chunky, layout looks blander, smoke deflectors look crude. Only the tender looks interesting, but being bogie it reduces the height as length is needed to accomodate the wheel base underneath. By comparison, Ravens B16 looks more capable, with better build quality (no big rivets around smokebox, better door layout, cab with roof over footplate, larger tender supporting range and profile) and even more so when the motion and cylinder layout was modernised.

B17s were my suggestion merely because it was an Eastern region design at around the same time. I realise that overall they are indifferent and probably would have turned out more like a supped-up B16 if it were not for the weight restrictions. This was made in reference to a comment about the Schools being one of if not the best express passenger engine at the time, including 4-6-0s and thus I think the Castle would soon make the Schools regret the challenge. To compare against the S15, I think the Hall would be a comparison or the 28xx, likewise B16.

Steve's insight into his practical experience is interesting, but I'd pay the price for a little extra graft in preparation for power and ability on the route if it was my call. Its why I think putting up a challenge doesn't cut it, and Id want an engine that can muster the strength and ability with no issues. I think B16 would have been very capable. Ravens Q6 is an excellent example of KISS with detail, where internal motion to valves helps with control, steam reverser makes operation easier, and its weight all on driving wheels makes it grip well. It gives me confidence that B16 would have been similar in its ability for its purpose.

 

I'm not sure that looks have much to do with anything if you are discussing capabilities of loco classes. Looks aside, because we all have our own opinions on that, and no one with a railway group bias is ever going to agree with anyone not co-aligned, (although I will agree with anyone about the Kruger....)

Moving on...
Comparing locomotive classes in terms of performance is kind of pointless in a way because no two classes were ever conceived within the same design parameters. You might put two different locos on the same train (something like the 1925 exchange trials for instance), and come to some conclusions I suppose, but even then one will be doing something further away from what it was designed for than the other, even if it is only a small difference - and then the further you get away from the same train scenario the more things get silly.

You could possibly compare one locomotive production centre with another by looking at their body of work at a given point in history but even then the story of each is so complex and each has its high and low times (or ever so slightly less high! ) but it is still not going to work all that well because of regional design perimeters. There are lots of design constraints that are easy to overlook - better in my view to like what you like, but try to understand and come to appreciate the others for what they are.

 

A little extra graft in preparation? I'm guessing there can't be many people who would rather oil up or maintain three sets of inside Stephenson valve gear rather than two sets of outside Walschaerts. Even the GWR weren't backwards enough to shove that much moving metal between the frames!

Also, if the B16s were so wonderful, why did two subsequent CMEs think it was necessary to rebuild a third of the class? The S15s, once refined, lasted another 40 years without any real modifications.

 

I'm guessing that an S15 and Repton will have been (or soon will be) part of the North Yorkshire scenery for as long as they belonged to either the SR or BR.

They do the job well and long may they continue to do so.

Many years I just happened to be on the platform at Pickering as the WD 2-10-0 brought the train in, a very happy looking Cliff Brown got off the train went over the Bill Carr, the then GM and said "Well Bill, we've decided to bring Repton here too."

A lot of people were sceptical as to how a 4-4-0 would cope on the Moors, but it didn't take long for Repton to win them over.

Sawdust.

 

2863 Everton working the 09:05 Swindon to York in 1937. Loaded with 215 tons it was booked to pass Steventon in 18 1/2 minutes. It managed 17 minutes and 30 seconds with a maximum speed of 88 mph. With 295 tons it managed a maximum speed of 82 mph and a time of 18 minutes and 42 seconds. One of the best recorded Castle performances was with 5029 loaded to 235 tons. It is credited with a time of 16 minutes and 45 seconds and a maximum speed of 95 mph. 2863 may not have equalled the best that the larger GW machine could achieve but it came very close to their average standard of performance. It is a pity that there are not more logs of the performances of the B17s on this particular working.
Though not without problems the class could perform very well. When in good condition on the old GE lines they were not so far short of the standards expected of the Britannia class as one might be lead to believe.

 

The experience with the first attempt to take 7 unassisted up the bank was why I remarked on a good tyre profile being needed but, AFAIK, the loan to the GCR was while work was completed to raise the axle limit of the NYMR for the heavier Class V and subsequently various well known, more local Pacifics! Without Repton, not sure what priority would have been given to that work and hence the NYMR probably has a lot to thank that loco for, as well as it performing perfectly well once its regular use was not an issue.

A few years back, I had a couple of very nice March Sundays with Repton on the Esk Valley line! At least one NYMR driver would very much like her to have the chance to stretch her legs further afield on the mainline.................

Steven

 

I think it was discovered that the tyre profiles were "foreign" once they were turned to the correct UK profiles all was good.

Sawdust.