46203 Princess Margaret Rose

Re: 46203 Princess Margret Rose

Either one suits me, but just to clarify, I was thinking of 46201. I suppose its not too much of a stretch to regard the 60xx class as the prototype Princess Royal, having similar wheel diameters and four cylinders, but that is where the comparison generally ends...

 

Re: 46203 Princess Margret Rose

I think the similarities between the Kings and Lizzies go a lot deeper than that. Stanier took more of Swindons ideas with him to Crewe than a few drawings on the back of a fag packet.

 

Re: 46203 Princess Margret Rose

Amongst the more important items Stanier brought with him from Swindon was the axlebox design, which all but eliminated hot boxes, previously a scourge on the LMS. The leading bogies ('French' bogies to LMS men, and themselves copies of the bogies fitted to the Atlantics purchased from France for comparison with Churchward's latest designs) were also wise investments. He also brought a lot of boiler details: taper barrel; Belpaire firebox with curved as opposed to flat sides; top feed. Not all Swindon practice worked well on the LMS and, famously, low-degree superheat and smokebox regulators were soon abandoned, as were vacuum pumps (although these were also LNWR standard fittings) and trickle sanding.

6200/1 were among the first of Stanier's engines built for the LMS and although not copies of the Kings, were probably more GWR influenced than his later designs, when he had found out what worked and what didn't.

 

Thanks for that, saved me a job!

 

Brilliant stuff! Not to mention a greater attention to standardisation. Freed from Swindons shackles he, it could be argued, took Churchwards ideas to there ultimate destination.

 

Oooops........

 

It's only fair to point out, though, that quite a number of the GW features proved troublesome and were thrown out. It's really Tom Coleman's team's brilliant synthesis of GWR and LMS (mainly Horwich) practices that revolutionised the LMS - the Black 5's, the 8F's and the Duchesses as the crowning glory.

 

Maybe unfair...
at that time, the GWR had a full house of relatively new designs, having cleared house of a lot of older Victorian ones. Being the only 1 of the big four not amalgamated it was already standard some what and didn't have competing influences of all the new merged companies. (Proof if anything that competition is a good thing)... it rightly didn't need to invest at that stage in time.. and probably influenced why Stanier and no doubt others) saw opportunities elsewhere ? plausible ?
In the same vein of the big 4 Southern seemed to be the most backward at the time and probably was why OVB fought so hard for his pacific investment's during the war ?

 

All of these things go in cycles. It was probably more cost effective for the GW to develop their superb designs. Eventually a company with a greater need for big improvements like the LMS was bound to overtake them. Rather like F1, Red Bulls current reign won't last forever. Like in F1 the finest engineers are highly prized and can be tempted to move teams.


As an aside to this 'Stanier' was once asked why his 'Coronations' had such big wheels. "Nothing to do with me, that was down to them publicity men wanting more speed" came the answer. It would be interesting to know exactly how much influence the CME of all the big four actually had on the final loco designs. Probably many unknown superb steam locomotive engineers that have never had the recognition!

 

The CME was responsible for ALL mechanical engineering on his railway, not just loco design, and this included repair and maintenace even more than design and new build, including rolling stock. The CME was responsible for all this, but didn't physically carry out the actual repairs or boiler washouts.

As far as engine design goes, he would receive a requirement from the Traffic Dept for a specified number of locomotives to carry out specific (although possibly varied) duties over a number of routes. From this, he would draw up a draft specification from which draughtsmen would produce a number of outline schemes for his approval. The CME would then choose one or possibly two to be worked out in greater detail. Once an acceptable specification was agreed, the CME would order detailed design to be undertaken and the working drawings to be produced. These would then be signed off by the CME to allow metal to be cut / forged / cast / etc. It is highly improbable that the CME himself would sit behind a drawing board, but if all went pear shaped (and the steaming problems of his Class 5XP 'Jubilees' must have come close), he would be held responsible and could very well pay the ultimate price.

Sir William's principle assistant, and the man who did much to direct his design teams, was Tom Coleman, ex-North Staffs Railway and possibly one of the most under-rated men from that era.

 

If you are talking about quality of steam design, then I suppose the Southern may have been backward in a few instances, but these, such as the 0298 and 0415 classes were exceptions to prove the rule that the company may not have been as backward as at first it seems. It can be argued that until about 1930, when Maunsell started introducing what turned out to be small classes of locomotives (Z, W, N1, and arguably the point at which it became 'backward', V class excepted), and despite the fact that the pre-Grouping classes in operation spanned several different types, there were plenty of locomotives within each class to merit them being called standard (the Drummond 4-4-0s were generally similar in everything but cylinder and wheel diameter, and the different boiler sizes could be found on other classes, eg. T9 is the same as that found on the M7 etc.). This was also helped by the fact that there were still three works in operation with the necessary equipment to produce the spare parts needed to service the locomotives.

The Southern was operated on a fairly similar basis to the LNER in terms of being split into almost self-contained sections, with overall policy determined at Waterloo. There was certainly a feeling of 'if it ain't broke, why fix it?', with many designs still capable of remunerative service, and that it was only increasing loads on certain routes that dictated the construction of larger locomotives. However, even this had been established on the LSWR prior to Grouping, and this was why the N15 became effectively the first 'Group Standard' passenger locomotive for the Southern. It certainly got its money's worth out of its steam fleet...

 

Re: 46203 Princess Margret Rose

Well, I don't know if anyone here has recieved the next Steam Railway Magazine. They are going to be doing an article on this locomotive.

 

It's not due out until about the 10th of November.

 

Re: 46203 Princess Margret Rose

 

Re: 46203 Princess Margret Rose

If we're going into that degree of complexity, it was the way that the engine's weight was transferred to the bogie via spherical bearings into sliding cups that was imported from France and gave the GWR and LMS engines their riding characteristics.

 

Re: 46203 Princess Margret Rose

Indeed but the weight transfer arrangements are not the same. The French atlantics had individual leaf springs for each axlebox, transferring weight through the bogie frames, whereas the Princess bar frame bogie transfers the weight direct to the axgleboxes through the equalising beams which contains an inverted leaf spring, the bogie frame taking no load. There is a diagram on the 1951 Weedon accident report on Railway Archive.