Bulleid rebuilds - Was it for the better?

BR didn't inherit that many classes of pacific, so I for one would be interested in knowing which ones you would deem worse - given that in other threads you've also maintained that the Thompson pacifics of various types weren't that bad either. That doesn't leave a lot of choice!

 

And I have spoken to SR drivers who preferred the originals. Seems opinion was divided even among footplate crews.

 

Perhaps my own phrasing was a tad simplistic in itself, but to describe any of the Pacifics as being "worse" that British Railways inherited (and then subsequently built) doesn't paint the whole story.

Certainly, there was nothing wrong with the steaming capacity of the Thompson Pacifics, and he (unlike both Gresley and Peppercorn) standardised on the double kylchap for all of his Pacific designs. Reading Cecil J. Allen and OS Nock further, there was nothing wrong with the Thompson Pacifics' capacity for high speed either with several notable performances recorded. Yes, the Thompson Pacifics are like the Bulleid Pacifics in a number of areas I dare say, including physically, in that they both shared 6ft 2in driving wheels, electric lighting and a number of other comforts and innovations (to Britain at the time in any event, if we discount the more developed work on the steam locomotive abroad) such as hopper ashpans and rocker grates that railwaymen would have been (and were) grateful for. To describe the Thompsons as exceptional machines would be inaccurate: they were not perfect machines but they were not unusable and most certainly were not incapable of the work asked of them.

There are some interesting parallels between Thompson's Pacifics and Bulleid's, with the key difference between the two being than none of the former's machines were ever as drastically rebuilt as the latter or withdrawn from traffic en-masse for any specific defects of any kind, yet are vilified beyond belief.

You ask me what machines were worse than the Thompson Pacifics: the best I can offer as a viewpoint is that I feel the class 6 Standards were as misunderstood and have been as unjustly treated as the Thompsons in the literature written since their passing. It is notable that people interested in railways tend to praise excellence to the hilt but denigrate and ignore anything below those exacting and high standards.

I find that Peter Townend's excellent books Top Shed and East Coast Pacifics at Work present the most constructive viewpoints on the Thompson Pacifics. His writing on 60113 in the latter is illuminating: many would have you believe that locomotive was an abject failure. King's Cross' shedmaster describes as an "excellent locomotive". Who would you trust - the man who worked with the locomotive in question, and alongside the other ex-LNER Pacifics, or Cecil J. Allen who in his book British Pacific Locomotives did his upmost to decry the rebuild?

If you are wondering what this has to do with the Bulleid Pacifics, it is the point that they too are perhaps misunderstood: with too simplistic viewpoints taken without looking at both sides of the story. With superior materials available in a world without war, would the Bulleids as built have suffered stretched chains and leaking oil baths? We will never know for sure but logic dictates probably yes - and then we wouldn't be having this debate.

I can say categorically, however, that there's no doubt in my mind that the finest Pacific locomotive in the country that British Railways inherited was the roller bearing Peppercorn A1 locomotive. High mileage, high performance and low maintenance costs. Exactly that British Railways needed and this is borne out by their survival into the 1960s and Tornado's exploits in the modern day.

 

You originally said that the Bulleids weren't the worst pacifics inherited so mention of the Clans is irrelevant - they weren't inherited. My question remains: if the Bulleids weren't the worst class of pacific, what was? They were the only one where the decision was taken to undertake a major rebuild on many.

 

The reverser did have its moments if not maintained properly. I'm not aware of major problems with it in preservation but that's most likely because there's time to give it plenty of TLC.

 

Did the hammer blow remain the same? The valve gear on the originals was smaller and thus had less mass so surely hammer blow was greater on the rebuilds. Would be interested to see actual figures.

 

The question of which was the worst is deeply flawed as BR "inherited" locos which had been deprived of maintenance during the war years and the ability to maintain depends on availability of the locomotives. I would suspect that the Southern lines would be hammered most of all hence there would be little time to undertake any "shakedown" maintenance. It can thus be argued that inherited Pacifics were not so much BAD but simply LACKING in regular maintenabnce - and it showed.

Referring back to Peter Townsend he admitted that fitting first Kylchap chimneys to the A3s then later the German windshield improved performances and most locomotives would also respond to tweaks in their design based on operating experience. In terms of Thomson's reputation it may be that he has been villified for (1) rebuilding the P2s rather than trying to solve their basic problems (2) selecting Gresley's FIRST Pacific to rebuild as the first of his new A1 Class and (3) insisting on placing cylinders between bogie and driving wheels rather than between the wheels of the bogie as he did on his B1 design; I'm sure this may have increased stresses on the loco frames of his A1 and A2 designs to their possible detriment over the longer term which modernisation cut short.

If you're talking about "rebuild" then consider the LMS where the Patriots / Jubilees / Royal Scots were designated to be fitted with a new "standard" boiler - surely a major rebuild ? In the event only 2 Jubilees; 18 Patriots and 69 Royal Scots were so modified but does this indicate a bad loco or simple improvements gained from experience of day to day running ?

 

Fair point but they weren't pacifics!

 

I stick by previous comments that there is little to be added to this matter that has not been gone over time and time before. One Parthian shot though. Bulleid pacifics were "odd" rather than successfully innovatory. For truly successful maintenance reducing innovations we need to look to North America with cast steel beds and roller bearings. For thermodynamic efficiency , France, where the technical education of such as Chapelon and de Caso showed through, was the place.

Apart from some general use of roller bearings in the UK, only Beyer Peacock made much if any use of cast steel engine beds. As for thermal efficiency, Bulleid's response to an engineman's criticism that his locomotives burned a lot of coal was, reportedly, "I design my engines to burn a lot of coal". The engineman was right!

PH

 

Hammer Blow - there is a comprehensive discussion on this subject umder Mutual Improvement Classes in 2007 and 2008. It is quite long and detailed so I would suggest not repeating the discussion here.

 

I take it that 46170 British Legion was not included in your 69 but which other Scot was not modified?

 

As I say, simply stating "worse" is simplistic on my part: perhaps the answer should be that there's no "worst" but there are lots of different Pacifics which did different work on different routes, differently.

I remain fascinated by Stanier's "Turbomotive" though and wonder whether this was another under appreciated locomotive in some respects. No hammer blow, smooth acceleration and ride apparently; granted, expensive to repair and costly turbines, but had there been others...who knows.

The interesting parallel between 46202 and the Bulleid Pacifics is one which had not occurred to me before - both experimental classes with costly components requiring renewal. Rather more of 46202 was disposed of in its rebuild, so I understand, than in the Bulleids'.

 

Unfortunately, the Second World War interfered with 6202's development. Interestingly, it was the only loco that ran with three crew members on the footplate.

 

Apologies - should read 70 as only 46170 retained an earlier boiler.

 

But the surely the Bulleids were more "innovative" rather than "experimental" ?

The Bulleids had several fitments that had been successfully proven on other designs [albeit not necessarily within the UK] but Bulleid was the first to initiate them on UK-operated locomotives on a fleet basis, whereas 6202 was built as an experimental loco which proved to be of value but not so cost effective as to be either continued or replicated hence its conversion to a more standard form. The rebuild of 6202 cannot therefore be considered as being necessitated by the failure of the original design. Perhaps the only parallel between the original Bulleids and the experimental 6202 was that both needed a level of maintenance that was becoming less available hence the need to rebuild to a design requiring less maintenance.

 

Bulleid's own son compared the practice of Gresley in having prototypes favourably with that of his father, saying it was a lesson Bulleid pere "never learned". In the same way the "Turbomotive" was worth a trial but the L.M.S. were not lumbered with a large class requiring extensive modification.

PH

 

Not what I said, to be fair. The parallel I made was simply that major rebuilding occurred for both classes and they both of course incorporated experimental (or as you say, innovative) components.

 

Were the rebuild needed? My answer would be yes.

A lot of Bullied's work was innovative rather than conventional. He left the Eastern region where he had worked with the great tinkerman Gresley who did most of his work specifically each time an engine came to be planned. Gresleys A3, was modified to be an A4, but his other engines like the B17, K4, D49 were more complicated than needed. You can see the NER influence of standardisation to begin with, starting with a standard cab, tender and smokebox before handing over to Doncaster who then added the valve gear, tweaked the frames, and kept adding inside motion. Its no wonder Bullied then went at decided to go further with different wheel design, boiler ideas, chain driven valve gear and whatever else. Some of this was an improvement, some was a step to far when it doesnt allow for change and to be as rugged as some of the kit on the railway at the time needed to be. Things like a reverser should have been sorted, the Q6 has one that works fine, other engines at the time had them fitted too. You compare other designers learning of the skills used elsewhere like Stanier from western practices and you can see that Bullied should have taken ideas from other areas to fit to his designs than use the equipment and tools of his home region. I think the S15 reverser with the Grosmont incident is a more recent tragic example of the fact that this kit has never really worked well.

The Southern region has always had poor engines in comparrison to others. The designs made were a poor copy of those used elsewhere, even asking for drawings was refused at one point. Really, despite advances made in electrifying their network for 3rd rail, its use of applying the best steam designs has always been a little beyond other regions. Others want to compare them with other regions but the comparrison isnt quite the same. The power of the Duchess to take on shap, nor was there need the tork and grip to start train loads of heavy minerals. It just wasnt something Southern engines really had to face. Distance wasnt something but for a few journeys to the west country, and here the class Bullied desinged probably get the most notority of all the workings the southern did. The others were left to boat trains and expresses, but the routes here werent as difficult as other regions. The region just didnt have the freight to shift or the heavy loads of the northern industries or welsh coal valleys and thus didnt have designs able to work these loadings. When WWII kicks off heavier engines flood in from elsewhere to cope with the demand that southern kit just couldnt pull.

Bullieds engines really show up during this point. The designs were there to plug a gap and work the bigger trains that emerged, faster and more accurately, but as many know the time needed to care for them proved the achillies heel. Instead the rebuild gave them a more rugged engine, more prone to taking a bump and absence of some TLC a bit longer than before. Think of a Southern engine and most probably plum for a Bullied Merc or WC/BB - that has to be the testament to the success of the design. Known, recognised workhorses that following the rebuild went on to become more reliable. Looking to the present day, more rebuild than original engines of these classes remain active on the network, while Tangmeres now known for being a regular perfomer, I think most steam engines are owing to the loving care and maintanence they all recieve. I think the rebuild did make them better engines, even in apperance, and while still prone to the odd slip, they became respected and liked by crews. They werent the worst nor probably the best, but at a time when they needed to get a job done they did, and people liked them for it. Thats good enough for me, even for a Southern engine.

 

Who's this chap Bullied you keep mentioning? Doesn't appear in any list of Southern CMEs that I've seen. You're not confusing him with OVS Bulleid are you?