Standards - a Gigantic Waste ?

That too, though really it was wartime conditions and the resulting lack of maintenance that was the reall problem. P Townend reckoned the conjugated gear was not a significant problem on the top shed locos - they might get rough, but they kept moving - not so with the centre eccentrics of the Peppercorn/Thompson locos which if they went, stopped the loco. (Top Shed, second ed.)

 

No they didn't. All cylinders drove the middle axle; divided drive means that the outside cylinders drove the middle axle and middle the leading. This permits the cylinders to have the same inclination.

There are consequences thought. If the middle engine has the same length coupling rod as the outside engines it allows all three engines to have the same lap and lead but (and its a big but) the consequence is that there is a weakness in the front of the engine, because the three cylinder blocks don't overlap. All Churchward and Collett four cylinder locos had this problem as did the 'Lizzies' and the Thomson pacifics. The solution is to shorten the centre coupling rod which then demands that the lap and lead of the centre engine has to be different to the outside. So far, so good. But ... if the middle engine, with its shorter coupling rod, then drives the middle and not the leading axle, there is an issue because inclining the motion and cylinder (with its different lap and lead to the outside engines) to access the middle cylinder causes the valve events to go astray. This caused the higher fuel consumption of the Peppercorn pacifics which made them so unpopular.

I hope I've explained that OK, sorry if I haven't.

Regards

 

The point has been made by others that a simpler way to achieve this would have been to carry on building more Big 4 designs.

 

One of the big successes with the Brits was on the Liverpool street to Norwich services which they turned around which has been well documented over the years.

 

Er - what? The Peppercorn A1s (according to almost all sources across the board, from the timekeepers OS Nock, Cecil J.Allen, to Peter Townend and DW Winkworth) were the most economical express passenger locomotives British Railways had.

 

While I have not read very much about the political and economical background to the post-war planning of the nationalized railway it seems to me that it was the ill-conceived modernization plan that made the Standards, and some other post-war builds, a waste of money.If you reckon the economic life of a steam locomotive in more modern times to be 30 years [yes I know many earlier types pottered on for a lot longer than that] then the majority of post war built locos would have become life expired in the early 1980s not 1968. Instead BR produced a proliferation of different types many of which were a total failure - the North British Type 2s, the Metrovick CoBos, the BTH and NB Type 1s, the Clayton Type 1's, the 'Baby Deltics', the Type 14 'Teddy Bears' [maybe they were ok but there was no work for them] plus a perplexing number of DMU types. Add to this the radical switch from diesel hydraulic power on the Wester Region. And why produce the different types of larger type 4 and 5 designs? One can only assume that this was an effort to spread the work and develop expertise among the number of different suppliers who existed at that time perhaps for political as well as economic reasons. Strange to look back now from a situation where the majority of our freight is moved by one type of loco produced in North America!

Much of the work performed by the less powerfull types of diesel could have continued to have been performed by the Class 2 and Class 4 steam locomotives allowing time for more exhaustive testing of diesel types. I recall in the mid 60's seeing coal trains being powered through areas rich in coal by pairs of lower powered diesels when modern 9Fs were being withdrawn. One could also argue that long distance passenger services could have been powered by more modern pacifics pending electrification while allowing for one proven class of diesel [the Deltics?] plus some HSTs to serve the two main north south routes instead of perpetuating the heavy Sulzer and EE Type 4s.

Of course the other 'wild card' has been the lack of political will to introduce a proper integrated transport system that kept much freight traffic off the roads as the disappearance of the smaller wagon load freight caused the lack of need for lower powered motive power be it steam or diesel.

 

I'm at a loss to understand how timekeepers can offer a view on the fuel consumption of a locomotive. Firemen had a universal view that they were less economic than the A3 and A4 and (IIRC) the loco exchanges of 1948 make it clear that the 'Duchess' class where the most economic of the large pacifics.

 

The Thompson and Peppercorn pacifics had divided drive. Please read RCTS Locomotives of the LNER Part 2A.

 

I have a copy of DW Winkworth's book on Bulleid Pacifics and Cecil J. Allen's book The Locomotive Exchanges in front of me, where the statistics for coal and water consumption for the various trials and in the former, the work of steam locomotives on BR through the steam era are given.

Pages 55, 56 and 57 of the former book show the figures for average water and coal consumption over the course of the 1948 trials. The A4 Pacifics tops the list with the Duchess third for water consumption (behind the Royal Scot) and the A4 tops coal consumption too (with the Duchess second). The average evaporation rate of lb of water per lb of coal figures shows the Duchess was a considerably less economical machine than any of the other locomotives tested, bar the Bulleid Merchant Navy.

The Duchess was nearly 2lb-1lb heavier on fuel consumption on every region tested, including its own where the Royal Scot was by far the most economical locomotive.

Looking at the point to point timings for each run shows that the Duchess was not the best performer either. Looking at the figures printed in front of me by two well known time keepers, who had access to all of the facts and figures of the time, it is clear the Duchess class was the least economic of the large Pacifics during the trials. What is more incredible is how much the smaller Royal Scot outperformed the Duchess across the trials.

On page 48 of DW Winkworth's book, there is a table for 1951, with the average mileages of each of the major express locomotive classes shown. He suggests this is indicative of the steam era on BR. The average mileage for a Peppercorn A1 was 93,363 miles and this was around 6000 miles more than the next in the list, the Western Region Castle (87,424). The Duchess was 8th with an average of 73,188 miles.

You mention firemen as proving your point. Would you mind pointing to their evidence please for further analysis.

 

You have to cast your mind back to post war austerity, not an oil based economy but a coal based one, numerous non standard life expired designs little built in WW2. Ivatt (&Riddles) had done a lot of good work on self cleaning smokeboxes, outside gear etc, Ivatt had the 12 standard engines the LMS needed, including the diesel shunter and a 2 outside cylinder pacific. The Duke, was a later indulgance. From the other perspective, diesels cost an absolute fortune at the time, and British industry couldnt have supplied, and we operated a protectionist economy. It got Britain building again, and in that purpose was fulfilled. Decisions made in 1948 had very different circumstances to 1955. The decision was a correct political one at the time. Imagine in 1948 if they'd just built a high speed line north for more than is spent on the entire network and neglected this instead?

 

Erm..... How are lap and lead affected by the length of connecting rod, especially on a Walschaert valve gear loco? I'd be grateful if you could explain?

 

I would also imagine that experience from the war influenced the ideology of standardisation.
Afterall, looking at Germany with over 6000 BR 52 2-10-0's and BR 42, 44 & 50 built also in the 000's.
Even the mainline express locos (Class 01 and 03) were built in vast quantities.
The CMEs would have undoubtably looked at German practice to learn the benefits of bulk and economy in their thinking to build a standard fleet.

 

Originally Posted by Orion

Seems easy to me, but Riddles wanted to have a complete range of engines that bore his name. All down to conceit!

David,

I was very fortunate to meet Robin Riddles many years ago at Bridgnorth when "Britannia" was based on the SVR and had a lengthy conversation with him about his time with British Railways and his role as CME. He was very forthcoming about the many complicated issues that had to be addressed regarding the loco fleet as it stood in the late 40's, early 50's and the role of the design teams in formulating the "Standards". Mr Riddles was very generous with his time, considering I am merely a layman in terms of locomotive design philosophy, but, as a gentleman, he did come across as very unassuming considering his former status within a large, nationalised industry. I most certainly did not see any overblown "ego" that can sometimes be seen with a person who has enjoyed "status".

Having met Mr Riddles, I am struck by your opinion that he is - or was - conceited, I can only assume that you knew another side to the man or you worked with him professionally. The human side of the railway industry tends to get glossed over in our worship of the machine; there could well be a story here of great interest, perhaps you could tell us more?

Cheers

Alan

 

I've read your comments and checked the Winter 1960-61 Combined book. The numbers D1500-D1512 were allocated, but not yet built. The book states "Peak" class; for particulars see D1-D199 so who knows what might have been.

 

The numbers D1500 - 13 were allocated to the last batch of Class 46s which were never built. The electrical gear was instead used on the new Brush type (Class 47). Source: David Clough 'BR Standard Diesels of the 1960s', page 122.

 

I have the summer 1960 Combined Volume and D1500-D1521 are described as Co-Co Deltic 5. Beneath this is a note about the prototype Deltic which includes a statement that an order for 22 Deltics has been made to be numbered D1500-21.

 

For Orion, who still seems to be of the opinion that the Peppercorn A1's ans A2's did not have divided drive. This site has a very clear cross-sectional drawing of Tornado's inside motion. Illustrations | modelling models finescale bespoke custom commercial bambrick studio.

QED

Alternatively, ask anyone connected with Tornado, including myself.

 

Thank you for that, I stand corrected.

 

Where the Peppercorn Pacifics differed from the Thomson variants is in the length of the con rods. Thompson went for equal length con rods on all three cylinders but Peppercorn opted for a shorter one on the middle cylinder.

 

That's true of all of the Thompson Pacifics except the unique A1/1 Great Northern, where (surprisingly, and perhaps in acknowledgement that the previous equal length con rods were unnecessary) the con rod for the middle cylinder was shorter than the outer two.

Peppercorn, as you say Spamcan, reduced the length of the con rod on the centre cylinder, and inclined the centre cylinder accordingly to compensate for this change, and to allow the bogie to be positioned in the more traditional position, ala Gresley.