Boilers & Accidents

Maybe it gave Mr Riddles an excuse to design and build 71000?

 

IIRC there was a past thread that included quite a lot of info about the damage to the locos.

 

There are some pretty sobering pictures in here, notably of 45637 (page 26)

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Harrow001.pdf

See also http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=108

Tom

 

Thanks for posting this, as you say a very sobering set of pictures, I am going to take the time to read the report in its entirety tonight, although macabre, its lets us know how things were done in the past.

 

Thank you for that kind comment, much appreciated. Jimc, I think this is the material you're think of; it was posted on the LMS forum - which has now died following a long illness.. I still have the original but am not sure it would fit on here, or if it would be wanted.

The Up Fast platform starter was an 'intensified' light on a semaphore signal. Lieutenant Colonel Wilson mentions this, but does not seem to take it further. I would agree that it is a possibility, but like every other possibility has no hard evidence to support it.

We seem to have wandered a bit away from boiler explosions. Can't imagine how that happened!

 

Some of the MoT reports were, quite frankly, awful, but this one was very thoroughly investigated and well written. It is well worth the read, but there is a tendency to overplay this accident's contribution to the provision of AWS. The testing started the week following the accident and all equipment was already in place. It would be a further six years before it began to be installed over the entire network, and there were still stretches without it in the 1980s.

 

I remember that fascinating article on the LMS forum by 2968, it was very good. The gist of it seemed to be that 6242 and 6202 suffered similar amounts of damage and both were borderline total losses but as the Duchess was one of a class of 38 and they were needed for the West Coast main line it was repaired whereas 6202 was a kind of hybrid one off it was scrapped, thus allowing 71000 to be built to plug the gap

 

Ah yes, here's the post with the links to those very worthwhile pieces.
Standards - a Gigantic Waste ?
The LMS Forum does seem to be up, but not very active.

I think that piece ought to be posted somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

 

At the risk of going even further off topic (who - me?) and dabbling in matters of an LMS persuasion: Harrow and Wealdstone was October 1952, and 71000 was outshopped in April 1954, so that gives 18 months to gain approval, complete any remaining design work and build the loco, during the whole of which time the running department were one class 8P down - the ostensible reason for authorising construction.

Given that, could Crewe have built an Ivatt-spec Duchess in significantly less time? Doing so would at least have given a proven design and simplified the issue of spare parts held on shed. Or would that have been politically unacceptable?

Just curious - not my core area of expertise so I don't know what the nuances were in the decision.

Tom

 

The delay may well have been down to Steel shortages which we're generally slowing things up 1953 onwards. Taken that an order for more Britannias and Clans to a revised frame design was made at around the same time and (sharing a considerable no of components with 71000) may help to explain the preference for 71000 over another Duchess. That order was subsequently cancelled* with the Duke (no doubt given the highest Priority) sneaking through by the skin of its teeth... (* or in the case of 72010 considerably delayed ).

 

They could, I suppose have reused parts of 6202 to build another Princess Royal?

 

Wasn't 6202 a bit of a hybrid? Not quite a Princess Royal not quite a Princess Coronation?

 

Yes it was. It had the Duchess front end with the cylinders in the same position as on one, but the Princess wheels which were 6 foot 6. Also the Princess cab. The running plate was stepped to clear the cylinders rather than straight

 

May I add a couple of observations. firstly, Robin Riddles retired from his railway post in 1953 upon the abolition of the Railway Executive, therefore, he would have had little, if any input as to the fate of 6202. I think that by this time, Riddles could see what was coming from the politicians and the effects that it would have on the railways.

As for condemning 6202 and the building of 71000, I refer you to pages 154 to 158 of volume 2, "Under 10 CMEs", by E.A Langridge. Langridge states that the insurance money recovered from scrapping 6202 funded the construction of the new Pacific; how much money, he doesn't say. He also states that it was J.F. Harrison, the then Chief, who instructed him to draw up the new engine (71000) on Gresley principles for the engine parts, that is, 3 cylinders, but without the conjugated valve gear. He also describes the various compromises that had to be accepted in the design of the boiler for 71000

the above from ragl on thr lms forum gives an interesting insight . maybe Harrison wanted to see if the LNER could build a reliable Pacific . (oops - did I say that ?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a couple more observations -- the signals I referred to were situated on the London side of the road bridge . the reason for their extraordinary height must have been in order they could be sighted by a crew on the up line , but they were not (I think) ever mentioned in the report . which incidently was rescued from a rubbish bin by someone who realised its significance.

apart from the need for AWS . one other product of the accident was the superb actions of a black !(notable in those days) nurse , who attended the site with staff from the then US airbase at Northolt . she had the wit and strength of character to set up a triage for the injured . her actions saved many lives . it was the first time such a system of evaluation of injuries had been used in this country ,and as we know is in general use now .regrettably , I do not recall her name , but she died quite recently , having attained a good age .

a memorial is now affixed to the station entrance .only took 50 years ! sic.

trains were running thro on the slow lines later that day , which seems astonishing now , but I guess the wartime spirit of "carry on" still prevailed . how times have changed

 

I have never understood why shy was not fitted with a double chimney.

 

They get a brief mention:

16. All the stop signals at Harrow are semaphores, and the Up Fast Starter (No. 42) at the London end of the platform has an " intensified " electric light behind the spectacles, as its arm is not very conspicuous against the background of the road overbridge.

Abie Sweetwine.

 

Wasn't the boiler reused?
I am certain there is a c0mponent on 46203's tender which is stamped 6202.

 

The tender finished up behind an 8f I believe @LMS2968 knows more about this than me!

 

It did indeed. Although I have the number somewhere, it eludes me at present.

All the boilers, including that from the 5X, were repaired and went back into traffic. 6202's was, as far as fitting it went, a standard Class 1 Princess boiler, but internally had 40 instead of 32 superheater elements. It had been used on other class members during World War II.

 

Did BR really insure its locos against damage? With x000 locos on the books, and with what seems to be a well spread risk, I am surprised they did not self-insure.