Castles, Nelsons and Royal Scots

Good thread and an interesting one. Of course much work was done by Collett to perfect the Star design culminating in the Castle and Kings. It was well noted that the LMS trials with Launceton Castle culminated in there asking Swindon to build some for the LMS or loan them the drawings. Needless to say the GWR turned down the request so the LMS had to go round the houses and eventually secured William Stanier who of course brought all the details with him and doubtless were instrumental in the LMS designs of the Princess Royal and Coronation Princess class and the speeds and feats they achieved.

More of the Castle class can be seen on my blog at http://steammemories.blogspot.co.uk/

 

I'd suggest that this is one of those urban myths - or a case of wishful thinking! The LMS would be well aware that the GWR was empowered to build engines only for its own use; a major LMS constituent, the LNWR, had got itself into serious bother in the nineteenth century by building and supplying engines for the L&YR, and the injunction against it would still have been in force. The request for drawings of Castles is more probable although these would have been a basis around which the LMS would design its own engine. It would not have been a Castle - these engines would not fit much of the LMS loading gauge - and probably wouldn't have looked like one. The drawings which were supplied - and there is controversy as to whether they actually were - of the Southern's Lord Nelson class certainly didn't result in the LMS building a fleet of Nelsons.

 

I am sorry but you are telling me that the Southern Lord Nelson Class & Royal Scots, just happened to appear identical by accident, nothing at all to do with the Southern Region giving (selling) the LMS as set of Lord Nelson drawings?


Edit - I have just found the following quote from Rodger Hardinghams Lord Nelson book by the NRM.
"Sir Henry Fowler asked Collett to lend the drawings of the Castle class locomotive to the LMS so that the principals could be adopted for the proposed Royal Scot locomotive. Perhaps not surprisingly, Fowlers request was declined; but an approach to Waterloo for the Nelson drawings was successful"

 

Though a Nelson is four cylinder, and a Royal Scot three, so clearly Fowler used the drawings as a start, not as a blueprint.

H.A. Holcroft considered the designs as cousins, not brothers:

This is what Holcroft had to say about the Genesis of the Royal Scot, from the SR perspective: (Locomotive Adventure, part 1, page 141)

"One morning towards the end of 1926 Herbert Chambers, then chief draughtsman at Derby, called on Clayton [n.b. Clayton was ex-Midland, so presumably they knew each other well - TJ]. I was present and heard him say that he had been sent by Sir Henry Fowler to solicit Maunsell's help towards the design of some new 4-6-0 locomotives which had to be built in time for the Summer Service of 1927. The existing LMS 4-6-0 types were incapable of hauling the heaviest trains to schedule without double-heading, but a Great Western 'Castle' on loan had done so with ease.

The Motive Power Section of the Operating Department would not accept Fowler's large compound Pacific then in the making, which was ultimately cut up. They did not want the complication of compounding a Pacific or the use of more than three cylinders in a 4-6-0. There was no time to design prototype and try it out in service before proceeding with the batch. The idea which they had in mind was, broadly, to construct a three-cylinder version of theNelson, basing the design on the boiler and introducing as far as possible parts already existing on other LMS types.

What Chambers had come for was to ask for a complete set of drawings of theNelson. Maunsell acceded to the request, and a set was sent from Eastleigh direct to the North British Company in Glasgow, where the design of the new engine was to be developed in collaboration with Derby.

On March 2nd, 1927, Chambers called in with the preliminary drawings of the boiler for Clayton's comments. While closely following the 'Nelson' boiler, there were a few small departures. For instance, the boiler tubes and flues and superheater elements were to LMS stock sizes, the length of the barrel and firebox were slightly adjusted to fit in with the general design of the engine, and pressure was raised to 250 lb. per sq. in. Although theRoyal Scot, as the new LMS engine was named, and the Nelson could not be described as 'brothers', the family likeness might be regarded as 'first cousins'."

Tom

 

Tom, thanks for that response….. the other quote I found interesting was " the Royal Scots did their best work after Staniers rebuild as did the Nelson following Bulleids attention" perhaps this shows weaknesses in the parentage.

 

I don't know about that. The rebuild of the Royal Scots was a fairly extensive job compared to the work on the Nelsons, which were all fitted with Lemaitre exhausts and mostly re-cylindered with bigger piston valves. I can't imagine there was actually that much wrong with the original cylinders, since the three cylinders on the Schools were pretty much identical, so I suspect the main improvement was down to the Lemaitre, which made the boiler more tolerant of less-expert firing.

By contrast, the Scots had new cylinders, new frames, new boilers, new smokeboxes (much easier to keep tight). Both classes were improved, yes, but I don't think the basic Lord Nelson design was inherently poor.

 

Indeed. The main thing wrong with the Nelsons was that not enough were built! That had two impacts. The first was that because there weren't enough to fill a complete operational link, the duties had to be within the capability of a King Arthur, thus negating the benefit of the extra power that the Nelsons had. The second issue was that most crews didn't get enough experience on them to get used to firing them, particularly as the firebox was rather long and with a change of gradient on the grate that tended to cause the fire to burn out mid way along its length if not fired skilfully. By contrast, there were lots of King Arthurs (and also S15s which had the same design of boiler) so most crews were well versed in how to fire them. I suspect you are probably right that Bulleid's use of the Lemaitre exhaust had the primary advantage of narrowing the gap between "good" and "average" performance, rather than being an absolute improvement. It also probably made them less sensitive to poor-quality coal.

Tom

 

I expect the absolute performance available was improved by the modifications, but since all the jobs had to be within the capability of the Arthurs a further increase in absolute performance wouldn't really register. Whereas for the crews, if getting a Nelson now meant an easier day than an Arthur even if you didn't know them well, that would be very noticeable.

A lot of the noteworthy Bulleid performances on record are from the final years, after the Nelsons were gone (or the 1948 exchanges, where they didn't run). It would be interesting to know what they could have done in the same circumstances.

 

External appearance has little to do with it, and if you take a Midland Compound and scale it up, you will get something looking like a Royal Scot. The important characteristics are below the surface: number and size of cylinders, steam chest dimensions, wheels and axleboxes, tube and flue numbers and ratios, etc. Have a look at those more important aspects and the similarities with the Nelsons disappear.

 

Indeed, and Langridge states in his book - "Under 10 CMEs, Vol. 1" - "I see that the myth that North British built the 'Scots' from SR 'Lord Nelson' drawings......it is all untrue! .... The 'Scot' inside crosshead and four slide bars were pure MR Compound and the boiler a descendant of the MR Banker and the S & D large 2-8-0.... This interpolation into my story is just to try and prevent repeated fiction becoming accepted fact."

"....He would see how carefully the NBL designer of the "Scot" boiler avoided the notable features of the "Nelson" boiler, e.g. the curved GWR firebox sides and roof, the 2ft GWR style steam space above the firebox and the direct roof staying at the front-end, in favour of the LMS flat sides and top, , the 1ft 9in steam space and sling stays in the firebox roof. The one common feature would appear to be the 5/8 inch steel stays in the firebox sides. I hope this adds the final nail in the coffin containing the Waterloo tale....."

As you mention, there is a vast list of major components that are nothing like a 'Nelson' and were derived from several existing MR/LMS classes, including the 'Compounds' and 2-6-4t (Fowler). Coffin buried?

Langridge's autobiography is a rich and superbly detailed account of life in a railway works drawing office as seen from the very sharp end, covering his career from LSWR to BR. Wonderful reading.

Cheers

Alan

 

Absolutely agree! Superb reading for anyone with an interest in LMS steam, and with some insights into the early BR diesel program.

 

When you compare the Rebuilt Scots to the Lord Nelsons, they may look a little similar...
but an unRebuilt (as Built) Scot has little in common to a Lord Nelson.. well it shares similar Vac Pipes, Buffers and wheel arrangement I suppose..

Its like saying Bulleid Pacifics were similar to Britannias.. they were after they were correctly assembled as they should have been and looking like a real loco, rather than as they were originally designed.

 

Rebuilt light Bulleid pacifics were 'Improved Britannias' I would proffer.

 

Indeed, for anyone interested in how a locomotive design is created, start with these two volumes. Certainly, a lot of the, er, hot air, on this forum would be rapidly cooled by an absorption of just a smidgen of knowledge, wisdom and information available within these books; such as - who designed the Princess Coronations? - I'll leave you all to ponder that one, it's not whom you think it was!!!

Cheers

Alan

 

Well he was working in India when they were built so the most he might have done is to had a look at the drawings at the most and in those days the drawings would have to been sent by boat both ways.

 

I know the answer, but won't spoil your thunder by giving it. But in practice, the CME did not design engines as understood by most people. He had staff to do that; Eric Langridge was one of them.

In reality, the CME would be requested by the Traffic people to provide a given number of engines to power specified traffic over given routes; he would then issue draft specifications to his design team, which would draw up a number of sketch designs meeting the requirements. He would consider these and order one or two of them to be developed further, before specifying which would be the basis of the new class and detailed design would begin. He himself would not sit down at the drawing board and scheme out, say, the cylinder layout. As far as I know, the only CME who might do this was Sir Nigel Gresley, and that was because it was something he enjoyed. It wasn't part of his job description (to move the terminology forward several decades) and he probably hadn't the time to do it very often. George Hughes would also regularly sit with his young draughtsmen to discuss the jobs they were working on, and despite his being a true gentleman, it must have been a terrifying experience for them! Ultimately, though, it was the CME who would sign off the drawings and be held responsible if the design proved a failure, as WAS came close to discovering when over a hundred brand new Class 5XPs failed to deliver in 1934!

The role of the CME is largely misunderstood as one of designing new engines. He was the Chief Mechanical Engineer, which probably included Electrical, and was responsible for all the mechanical fittings on the railway. This would include rolling stock, outdoor machinery (turntables, coaling plants, water columns, dockside cranes owned by the railway, etc.); even the lifts in railway-owned hotels would fall under his remit. Of course, he wouldn't go into the erecting shop and start adding parts to a set of new frames (although Henry Fowler was known to climb into a firebox and sound the stays; again it was just something he enjoyed doing!). In practice, repair and maintenance were far more important aspects of the CME's job than new design, but new design of locos is far more interesting to the enthusiast so receives far more coverage, rather distorting the image.

P.S. Although WAS was in India at the time these engines were designed, two drafts had been submitted to him prior to departure: one was a slightly modified Princess, the other modified to a far greater degree. He surprised everyone by choosing the latter, with the result we all know.

 

I believe that Tom Coleman was heavily involved in the drawing of the Duchess. It was his inspiration that the power could be increased under the mask of a "streamlined Princess". My father spent time in the drawing office before the second war because he broke his arm and could not carry out the work in the various shops and knew him. He also spent tim in the drawing office after nationalisation. Tommy Coleman had been heavily involved in the de-greatwesternising of the 5X (Jubilee) and making them a successful locomotive (or most of them, some remained terrible to the end while others such as Galatea was exceptional taking her train up the Lickey incline without the required banker). He was involved in the boiler alteration of the first two 5X's, the complete rebuild of the Royal Scots to their taper form using the same boiler used on the 5X's and the rebuilding of the Baby Scots. He was instrumental in ensuring the successful design of the Black 5 and the Stanier 8. He was instrumental in the boiler sizing of the Brittania and the alteration of the boiler of the BR 5 enlarging it slightly over the Black 5 even though he did not stay on working for British Railways. He would ask his draughtsmen why they had drawn things in a certain way and would know what worked and what would not. He was the man able to put on paper what Stanier and Ivatt were wanting.

 

Returning to this and the similarity between some Southern and LMS locos, you need look no further than the SR L1 and LMS 2P. But again it was all in appearances, probably due to James Clayton's move between Derby and Eastleigh: the 2P was an awful thing which would neither pull nor run, while the L1 was a cracking little engine. Appearances can be deceptive!

 

I would add the D1 and E1 4-4-0s, nominally rebuilt SE&CR locos but I'm not sure how much of the original remained. I think they had the same boiler as the L1 and I can remember, as child watching them from our local Park at Grove Park thrashing up to Knockholt Summit with Kent Coast expresses from Charing Cross or at our other spotting location at Bromley South on the line from Victoria.

 

Quite a lot - the frames, wheels, bogie, boiler barrel and most of the motion remained from the original locos. The tenders were basically unaltered except for having tool boxes fitted. They had new cylinders of the same diameter, but incorporating piston valves rather than slide valves, and the firebox was new, along with a superheater and new boiler fittings based on the N class boilers. Amazingly, all that was done without significant change in weight (the rationale for the development was to develop more powerful locos for weight-restricted ex-LCDR lines, so weight was a driving factor).

Incidentally, they were clearly SECR locos - the drawing for the E1 was completed in November 1917, and the loco entered the works for rebuilding in November 1918, with all the E1 class being delivered to traffic between February 1919 and September 1920. The D1s were delivered in two batches, the first in 1921 - 1922, rebuilt by Beyer Peacock (except for two done at Ashford); and the second batch in 1926 - 1927 rebuilt at Ashford.

Tom