Current and Proposed New-Builds

FWW did learn from his earlier Compounds and the Teutonics were good engines, 'best of a bad bunch' sells them very short. Having reached a certain success, he then moved to four-cylinder Compounds, and again improved with successive designs. These used rocking levers to drive the LP valves, but just before his retirement from ill health, he had drawings made to give independent gear to each cylinder. This was applied under George Whale, who is often wrongly credited with the development, which improved them much further.

FWW made enemies within the LNWR hierarchy, most notably Frederick Harrison (General Manager) and George Whale (Traffic Superintendent). The former went to Crewe to explain to FWW that in future he was answerable to the GM, not the Board. He left in a great hurry, not to return until a few weeks after FWW had gone. The fault with Mr Webb's engines was that they were too small to cope with the much increased train weights about the turn of the century; other engineers had the same problem. His simple engines could be thrashed to make up some of the slack, but the Compounds couldn't, which left Whale with some very awkward moments. Both held a grudge, and after FWW had gone did everything they could to besmirch his reputation. And if you wanted to progress on the LNWR, you didn't speak up for Frank Webb, who was in no position to do so himself.

 

I understand Webb's locos were deliberately small at first: Sir Richard Moon, the GM prior to Harrison, had strong views about trains weights which meant large passenger locos were pointless.
After Moon's departure, when trains weights rose rapidly, Webb engines didn't keep up. The same was true on many other railways of the period.

 

Nor quite if you're damning or praising Drummond, but if the former you're wide of the mark.
Dugald Drummond designed superb, powerful and robust 4-4-0s, 0-6-0s, passenger tanks, etc. which were at the forefront of development in their time.
The NBR and Caledonian stuck to the Drummond formula to the end, and it served them very well. His locos to the same principles on the LSWR were excellent, as were brother Peter's for the Highland.
Later on, both brothers struggled to adapt to the big loco/superheat era. As did many other good engineers! Peter nearly redeemed himself at the end on the GSWR.
If designing a disappointing 4-6-0 is ruinous to a CMEs reputation, you'd have to include everyone who ever designed one in Britain except perhaps Churchward, Urie, and Riddles*.
*Smith on the HR designed an excellent one, but it ruined his reputation anyway!

 

Clans would have been a great loco with Stephensons Valve gear on them. I'll get my coat...

 

I think Drummond makes a good case study in how it is too easy to take an overly loco-centric view of the role of a CME.

Just considering his LSWR output, the T9s, D15s, M7s and Black Motors were pretty reasonable; the double singles and early four cylinder 4-6-0s were awful, and there were various other variants of 4-4-0 that were a bit in-betweeny. The general consensus was that his new boilers for Adams locos were not as good as those they replaced (in stark contrast to Wainwright's transformation of Stirling's engines by reboilering).

As a loco designer, that's a pretty mixed bag. But then - Eastleigh. Faced with a cramped and outdated loco works at Nine Elms, he managed a move to a modern new facility while still keeping up with new construction and repairs, and seemingly without widespread industrial unrest. Compare with his neighbour to the east. And as the superintendent of the running department, he had a reputation for being a harsh disciplinarian - but also fair and compassionate where the circumstances warranted.

All of which is to show that, as with many CMEs of that era, to judge him just on his locomotives is to miss a significant part of the picture, and of his strengths.

Tom

 

Re D.D .... one word. "Paddleboxes"! His "double singles" could scarcely be described as outstanding either. Ditto the Railmotors, with either an integral or a separate steam loco. As mentioned, effective superheating had to wait for his successor too. His later 4-4-0's were good locos, to be sure, but frontline services over the principal longer routes needed something larger by then. All in all, a competent Victorian engineer whose more conventional ideas well suited that era, but a giant among engineers? Respectfully, IMO no.

Odd that while Drummond was among those many eminent engineers whose 4-4-0 concept with an extra driving axle added were most charitably described as "rubbish", it was the maestro himself, G.J.C, who managed to prove that just doing a cut'n'shut job on a successful 4-6-0 wasn't a particularly good idea either!

The story of the Highland "Rivers" (which I've mentioned as a suitable new build subject before) is enough to make anyone spit blood! The complete lack of communication between Loco and PW departments speaks volumes. Smith's 4-6-0 was evidently a pretty decent design which survived the onslaught of Stanier's modernisation until 1939. Two were resuscitated to be thrashed on double headed 16 coach 500 ton wartime troop trains to Stanraer and Cairnryan over gradients up to 1:54. Both survived the end of hostilities...... just! Not bad for the last couple of survivors of a half dozen non-standard locos.

 

Or,

...If you keep in mind they were GJC's answer for running a passenger service on a route hamstrung by the restrictions imposed by the LNWR on his superior 4-6-0s...

...And utilised the cost effectiveness of standard components and readily available technical developments of said superior 4-6-0's....(Ok, "cut and shut" will suffice for terminology!)

Put those two together and I'd say it was an excellent idea!


Granted they had refinement problems, but they lasted 20 years or so and certainly outlived the imposed restrictions that necessitated their inception.

(And they look good imho!)

 

Clearly Churchward himself was far from satisfied, for after building the first Counties he reverted to building double framed 4-4-0s for a while, though further Counties were eventually built after the adoption of the De Glen type bogies (which may or may not have helped).

 

Drummond (D) was certainly a giant, because stature is not just due to achievement, success or virtue! He towers over late 19th Century British loco engineering like a colossus, albeit a not entirely benign one.
I think it very odd that some loco engineers are typified by their successes, and others by their failures. All the best ones designed duds, and often the bad ones had flashes of adequacy, if not outright success. Peoples is peoples, after all, to quote Muppets in Space.
In D Drummond's case, evaluating him on the basis of some slightly rubbish 4-6-0s at the end of his career is disingenuous. Most peoples 4-6-0s were rubbish just then, as were most peoples railmotors. The long line of Abbotsfords, Jumbo's, Caley bogies, Greyhounds, suburban tanks, etc. are all fine achievements, and should be credited as such.
What is true of Drummond (both of them) is that they had their own school of thought in loco design, and made no compromise with what had gone before. Hence Drummond locos on the NBR, CR, HR and LSWR were so closely related they could have been almost from the same set of drawings!
But where there had been a strong loco tradition beforehand (Adams on the LSW, Stirling/Manson on the GSW, Stroudley/Jones on the HR) this was completely ignored by the incoming Drummond - for good and ill. And Drummond features appeared on all lines, regardless of whether feedwater pumps, steam reversers or right hand drive was anathema on that line. Hence the frosty reception of Drummond locos (or rebuilds) in some places.
As Tom says, Eastleigh was an amazing achievement.
Pretty much every good loco on the Caley and NB after Drummond left was in the Drummond lineage.
Real life is much more complex than simple good or bad, and engineering is nothing if not real life....mostly!

 

Well designed 4-4-0 locos certainly suited where traffic didn't overtax them and I'd even add a few to Andrew's Role of Honour, notably the superb GNRI S (especially rebuilt) and VS classes over the water and Mr Maunsell's outstanding "Schools" class here, all of which remained on top link services to the end of their existance and none of which had any steam powered successor.

Without wishing to cause any offence, my own view is that Drummond's output was most successful when, with the exception of his adoption front bogies, he adhered to Stroudlian principles. By fairly common concensus, his replacements for Adams' boilers weren't any great shakes, which can't be overlooked in any overall assessment. Like Collett, he was a first rate refiner and improver, whose locos were certainly superbly robust (I've noted the phrase "built like battleships" used with justification), but to claim greatness without any lasting innovations (I'd rate the Ashford steam reverser over the Eastleigh product) is rather overstating the case IMO.

D.Drummond belongs up there with Dean, Stroudley and Robinson, but comparisons with later 20th century engineers (thinking of Nigel Gresley, William Stanier, George Ivatt and Robin Riddles) become increasingly untenable with the march of time. As a primarily Southern and GNRI acolyte, it pains me to say so, but within the UK pantheon of pre-grouping CMEs the mantle of greatness is one I reserve for Mr G.J.Churchward.

 

Just as a matter of interest, was there a successful high powered 4-4-0 class with two outside cylinders. The Counties would presumably have been 4P.

 

Good question.... Having had a quick shuftie, the most powerful look to be Churchward's 38xx County Class (40 locos in service 1904-33 Drivers 6'-81/2" TE 20,530lbs) and the Highland Railway's "Snaigow" Class (2 locos in service 1916-36 Drivers 6'-3" TE 20,627lbs) by Christopher Cumming, both of which look to fall into the 3P category.

North America looks to have abandoned four coupled locos (barring the "Hiawathas" - the last US Atlantics and the Pennsy T1 - which don't really count, as they were twin 4 coupled units anyway) before the big engine age and no German design looks a likely contender. Can't think of anywhere else too likely to employ meaty 4-4-0s.

I'd imagine poor riding caused by excessive Oomph (sorry to use the technical term) as laid bare by the 38xx's put the kybosh on developing anything stronger with just 2 cyls.

 

KPEV S6 from Germany served in Belgium and Poland until mid fifties.
Seven feet drivers and very little fore and aft balance.
Powerfull and very economic.

http://www.locomotives.com.pl/Express Steam Locomotives/Pd5.htm

 

Nicely proportioned loco, though the caption for the very clearly sectioned 13.1247 looks a bit optimistic!

Unless my metric conversions are way off, it looks like a 3P (in LMS terms). IIRC, pretty much all the Prussian system (running across the North German plains and suffering a similar proportion of level crossings per mile - or kilometer - to the Great Eastern!) was very easily graded, allowing fast running with surprisingly small locos performing some impressive feats.

 

This would have been a Class 50, from which the Class 52 "Kriegslok" was developed. Whilst many 52s survived in East Germany, and many of them were very successfully rebuilt into Class 52.8 in the 1960's, the 52s in the west did not survive into the Railbus era.

 

i suppose there wasn't any need for more Counties at the time, they were built as a sort of lightweight Saint to do a particular job.

 

AIUI The sole reason for development of the 38xx was to operate the joint GW/LNWR route where 6-coupled locos were then forbidden, at the insistence of the LNW.

 

I really doubt that. Churchward's 1901 list of proposed types included a large wheeled 4-4-0 and a 4-4-2T, and the type (admittedly with inside cylinders) was the standard passenger locomotive of the time. To me it seems more likely that it was an unpleasant surprise when the standard front end turned out to be too much for the 4-4-0 chassis, but this was followed by the discovery that in practice all the secondary services could be run by 5'8 2-6-0s and 2-6-2Ts, and there was no need for 6'8 wheel four coupled locomotives at all.

Holcroft tells us that in 1910 Churchward was still considering 4-4-0s for secondary services, but had decided he was going to have to go back to inside cylinders, and wanted to go for inside cylinders and 10" piston valves above them. When that couldn't be made to work they created the 4300 2-6-0 (and the modern mixed traffic locomotive), and the GWR never built another new 4-4-0 design - or indeed any 4-4-0s at all after the last Counties in 1912.

 

I don't doubt the veracity of your case, but the reasoning quoted in my earlier post comes from folk with a far better handle on GW matters than me:
http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_440_county.htm
I'll leave you to argue the matter with them!

Certainly not any which were a completely new design, but rebuilds or not, the "Dukedogs" unarguably constituted a discrete class which didn't exist before 1936.... albeit hardly a major departure from the Dean classes from which they were created... one of which was developed from t'other in the first place. A thought just occured..... does that make the "Dukedogs" a product of the locomotive equivalent of incest?

Those offended by modern GW recreations from common components should note the practice is scarcely without long established precedent!

 

i'm with 30854, that was exactly the service I had in mind and as soon as the Halls were cleared for that route the Counties started being withdrawn.All gone by 1931 I think, within 3 years,