10 most important / noteworthy UK steam designs .your views and why

How about the GCR Robinson 8K for inclusion in the list? Important part of the first World War when it was designated the standard type for ROD, and subsequently used by three of the big four.

 

It seems better in two ways than the Gresley arrangment: driven from behind the valves, so not affected by valve stem expansion; and symmetrical. But it does have even more pivot points.

 

Interesting loco. Round about 1928, Maunsell was trying to get out a loco for secondary passenger usage, capable of 350 tons / 55mph. They started out by trying to make 3/4 of a Lord Nelson, with 3 cylinders, Belpaire firebox and conjugated valve gear. From the line drawing I've seen, give or take a conventional SR three axle tender and slightly different cab design, it would have looked not dissimilar to that model of Holcroft's (which I assume is from about 10 years earlier).

The project didn't progress as it came in too heavy and the Belpaire firebox made the cab too wide for the Hastings Line; further development by substituting a round-top box and sloping the cab sides (plus of course three independent sets of valve gear) resulted in the Schools Class.

Tom

 

All true. But my point was not a criticism of the 9F, but an observation of them as a one off in design terms, neither anchored in what preceded them nor leading to further developments. As such, I don’t regard them as “important”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To be fair, I overlooked the Western and based my comment on the Coronations being replaced by the EE Type 4s, before top link steam left the WCML.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

All British steam locos are of interest to me...you guys invented them after all but in the build up scheme I have to give a shout out for the Kings & Castles. Many of the engines mentioned in this thread I have never seen moving. They certainly have their place in British steam development. A King or a Castle at full stride is my choice. Reason is the technical advancement of those machines and I can see them in action, four cylinders roaring! As with Rocket ushering in the age of steam, my choices were at the top when the diesels took over.

 

I'm not sure that's a good comparison. The EE Type 4's certainly appeared on WC services, but I don't think they were up to Duchess train loads or level of performance. In any case, it's a very different line from the EC.

 

Queensland decided on 3'6" for reasons of a projected 25% saving on construction costs compared with standard gauge. It's inception however, was more as a necessary tool to develop and connect a fledgling state with sparse population and vast distances rather than an outright profit making organisation so in that respect some different criteria altogether.

Is there a cost comparison for broad gauge vs standard?

 

Same reason Cape Colony adopted that gauge. The first railways were standard gauge, and were converted to Cape gauge by around 1882.

 

By the time the EE Type 4s were making serious inroads into the Pacifics' diagrams, there was much deceleration, at least south of Weaver Jct., due to the electrification process. This effectively masked that the diesels could not match to original Pacific timings, so was very useful to the Operators in making a non-comparison.

 

The project did progess in the end, only not in standard gauge

 

Was that the one LBSC built?

 

I may be an LNER nut but that is a very good list. I might have merged the Star/28xx family and included the Maunsell 'N' as being the first really modern midsize mixed traffic engine.

Someone else put a word in for the now largely overlooked developments on the L&YR, but there is no single class that really deserves to be on the list. I suppose another near miss would be the original inside cylinder 4-4-0 on the NBR (The 'Diver' that went down with the Tay Bridge) which was parent to a whole dynasty of similar but gradually enlarged locos on many many railways.

 

I couldn't decide which of 224 and Abbotsford to include in my list.

 

Although 224 was the first, Abbotsford was the real progenitor of the classic British inside cylinder 4-4-0.

 

LBSC did not build it but did describe it in the Model Engineer magazine on 17 June 1966 ; there is also an earlier reference to it in the ME by LBSC on 24 April 1958. The model was built by Roy Donaldson who worked at Ashford railway works, initially as a draughtsman and then rising to a senior level. He was also a first class model engineer and built a number of 3 ½ inch gauge locomotives.

According to LBSC’s article Harold Holcroft, who was a design engineer with the Southern Railway, got out the drawings and Roy built the loco. Harold Holcroft was an expert valve gear designer and he set out the valve gear for the model which is of a radial type, based on the Baker gear, with semi-conjugation for the centre cylinder. Apparently the valve gear works very well. The boiler is also quite unusual as it has two stages. There is a Chapelon feed heater in the front of the boiler barrel; the top feed delivers water to a separate chamber which then spills over into the boiler.

The article also notes that the tender was fitted with a water scoop and the hand pump was operated through a slot in the frames. Roy has a continuous track in his back garden with curves of about 15 feet radius so the locomotive was specially built to traverse them. His workshop was in the front room of the house, so that the family had to live in the back room. He could be seen operating his lathe through the front window. He was a prolific model engineer and also built a Black Five, Great Western County 4-6-0, an inside cylinder Armstrong goods, a North Eastern R1, a Tich, a Mona and a Metropolitan 4-4-0 tank.

Roy lived in Willesborough, Ashford, Kent (about half a mile from where I live). I spoke to my father who was a friend of Roy’s and he told me that he drove this loco on Roy’s track on one occasion. He had a minor accident with it when he emerged from between the garage and the fence to find that Roy’s wife had put a tray of tea on the track in front of him. The engine was not badly damaged but the tray of tea went flying and Roy’s wife’s cigarettes were cut in half; she had to smoke stub ends for the rest of the afternoon.

Roy sold the engine to R F (Reggie) Hanks who also had the County and the Armstrong. Reggie Hanks had been trained at Swindon and was later Chairman of the Western Region of BR.

Roy’s son, Lawrence, is still involved with steam as he works at the Kent and East Sussex Railway and he recently gave me a letter from LBSC to Roy Donaldson, a scan of which is attached. This confirms that Harold Holcroft designed most of the loco.

The engine originally had "Holcroft" nameplates.

 

Over a year before Daniel Gooch joined the GWR in August 1837, such a scheme of interchangeable standard parts in engines built by different companies had been set up on the London & Birmingham Railway. Its originator was Edward Bury, and orders were placed for 36 identical engines from six makers between June 1836 and February 1837. These were all delivered in 1837-8, and many others followed, almost all of them before the first of Gooch's Fire Fly class.

 

Bury def had his eye to the main chance . he became ,in effect the 1st CME for the L&B , and then made sure that most loco orders were placed with his own company . - nice work if you can get it . -
he only wanted 0-4-0 s when even in the early 1840 s the railway needed more wheels ,but the standard 0-4-0 suited his pocket very nicely.
when the LNWR came into being he removed himself to pursue his other interests ,very successfully ,as it happens . he was highly regarded .

 

Yes, that's the usual tale, from Clement Stretton and many of his copyists, down to W. V. Awdry. But it is simply untrue to say that most of the standard L&B locos were ordered from his firm.

My point was merely to give Bury precedence in originating the first standard interchangeable parts scheme.

I might also mention the claim of James Kennedy, Bury's partner, that George Stephenson had seen Bury's Liverpool with its inside horizontal cylinders, and said his son Robert had "taken a fancy" to the arrangement, the result being the Planet. Robert later denied this, but then he would, wouldn't he?

Liverpool like almost all subsequent Bury engines, had inside bar-frames, a great advance on all the complex wood & iron outside & inside frames hitherto. From Bury exports to the USA, bar-frames became standard over there.

McConnell's Bloomers have been mentioned. Their design was a straight lift from a Bury, Curtis & Kennedy design of 1848, except it was on Beyer's plate-frames - plus a lot of fancy brasswork.

 

Well, yes, he would, especially if it was true.

Roberts Stephenson was the leading loco engineer at this time, and while many men are credited with an original idea, all this means is that it was this this man who got the idea into production. Others might also have been working along exactly the same lines.