Sir William A. Stanier, FRS

You would have thought that without the massive reciprocating forces, thinner and lighter frames would be perfectly adequate. Would it have been a case of the frames already being in stock ready for the third loco in the class? Or, did they think that without four massive cylinder castings and four sets of motion the loco might be a bit underweight (thinking about adhesion)?

Dave

 

I base the theory on that the three, 62oo/01/02, were ordered at the same time to the same design, the decision to build 6202 as a turbine engine came afterwards, but it was specified to be similar to the other two. Using thinner plates would cause all sorts of problems - not insurmountable - in construction as all the cross stretches aft of the leading coupled wheels, which were presumably the same - would need to be longer to give the frame plates the same overall width. There was also a huge hole cut in the LH frame in particular where the turbine shaft passed through, so some decent metal around it would seem desirable.

 

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

If anyone is interested and hasn't read the four part Engineer article the links are here:

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/d/de/Er19400419.pdf
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/c/c4/Er19400426.pdf
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/2/2b/Er19400503.pdf
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/8/8f/Er19400510.pdf

It shows photographs of the loco with smoke deflectors, which I didn't know she carried.
Also 6202 is described as having shown unusual reliability and giving very little trouble. At the time of writing (the article was published in April 1940) she had covered approximately 300,000 miles, equating to 60,000+ miles per year. So dividing 400,000 by 20 and getting 20,000 is clearly over simplistic.

We may never know whether it was an engineering cul-de-sac or a missed opportunity due to wartime priorities, although the LMS had four pre-war years to develop the concept and didn't. This has whetted my appetite to find out a bit more on the loco, does anyone know if there is a book? From the above articles the loco did seem very promising, performances equivalent to a Duchess, no mention of more than four of the six nozzles being used at any time and getting the job done even when the boiler pressure had dropped to 160 psi.

Dave

 

Well found Dave, very interesting reading. It may be of interest that one of the ljungstrom turbine locomotives is preserved in Sweden and is occasionally steamed, although I am not sure of it's present status.

Cheers,

Alan

 

It was an excellent find, Mate, and thank you. That's my reading for the rest of tonight sorted!

 

Has there ever been more than 2 operational at once ?, was there a point where Lizzie, Maggie and Hamilton were in ticket at the same time ?.

 

The article about 6202 is of great interest. There is some resemblance between its enclosed gearbox and Bulleid's oilbath valvegear, apparently without the latter's problems.

 

46201, 46203, and 46229 were used on a tour to Holyhead. All three were lined up together for photographs at Llandudno Jct. If I remember correctly 46203 was used Crewe to LJ. and 46229 was used to Holyhead and back to LJ. 46201 was used from LJ to Crewe. It was a long time ago and the only thing I remember for certain is 46229 use.

 

That would have been between about 89-93? Lizzies ticket expired in 93, and Hamilton and Maggies tickets went in 96 I'd love to see 46203 back in action she's a lovely piece of kit. I have a pic of me in her cab aged 8, really made an impression on me!

 

Tuesday 13th April 1993. 6201 Crewe to the Junction, 46229 there to Holyhead and back, 46203 back to Crewe.

 

Thanks for putting me right and knowing the date of this tour.

 

Deleted

 

Trouble is the way the group work, it seems likely it will be Maggie OR Sutherland operational at one time, unlikely to be both, plus with Lizzie starting a new ticket, I suppose the demand would be for a sole Duchess instead of a 2nd Lizzie.

 

Im sure I've seen somthing about 46203 steaming again some point in the future.

 

Not quite so! A little time before he died, Peter toldme that when he went to look at 6243 at Ince, they had started cutting up the tender and part of the tank had gone. In those days something like that was too much to contemplate repairing, and so it was that he sadly gave up on the idea. As the rest of the class had been quite quickly despatched, it seems unlikely that there would have been a replacement surviving tender elsewhere. How time change with the preservation "industry" routinely replacing tender tanks in their entirety!

regards
Bob

 

Deleted