2999: Lady of Legend

When I first read this quote around fifty years ago, it was actually to the effect that press commentary lead the GWR directors to ask Churchward why the LNWR could build three engines for the cost of two of his, which of course lead to the legendary statement that it was because one of his would pull two of theirs backwards. This ratio of some 30% less is a more realistic price for an LNWR engine rather than them being built for 25% of the price of a Star, which if memory serves correctly were coming in at around £2500 each at that time Of course whether GJC really said this, we shall probably never be sure, but there is little doubt that whilst they were good performers, an LNWR "Experiment" with only two cyilinders would not be the equal of a 4 cylinder Star, the design of which and quality of build was years ahead of the LNWR engine. That was amply proved in the trials with 4005, which resulted from this apparent board discussion. The Star was undoubtedly not a cheap engine to build, but its parts saw little change before the design was expanded to the Castle in 1922/23, and little changed throughout the build life of those either. The fact that recent experience with 5043 has proved that the Castles remained right up there in the world of 4-6-0's to the end of steam, bears out just how far in front the Star's were at the time of their advent in 1906/7, and it was years before other railways caught up.
Regards
Bob

 

When it visited Crewe, Polar Star's build quality compared with LNWR locos greatly impressed an 18 yr old Premium Apprentice by the name of Robert Riddles.

 

Quite ironic when considering the whole ethos underlying Riddles' Austerities!

 

I don't intend to defend Crewe against Swindon - especially as I think Whale and the younger Trevithick rather lost it after Webb's departure.
But it should be noted that the LNWR's cheap and cheerful locos were a matter of deliberate policy, not (just) of being no longer at the forefront of loco engineering.
From a shareholder point of view, if the cheap loco can do its job well enough for long enough, why build the expensive one?
Or put it another way - if a Star was a good enough design to (essentially, with incremental improvements) serve as the GWR's front line express type for half a century, during which time traffic gee much heavier, then it was overdesigned for the beginning of the century. The LNWR preferred to build a cheap loco which could, by being thrashed to the limit, just manage the traffic.
Derby meanwhile built engines which only needed to work moderately hard in normal service, and we're pampered and looked after. So of course Crewe engines were.cheap but heavy on coal and maintenance, while Derby engines were robust, rarely taxed in service, and cheap to maintain. This distinction between these two philosophies - both having some logic to them - is part of what early LMS loco development a bit messy at times.

 

The very considered post by @andrewshimmin reinforces a view I've held for a while, namely that Webb's compounding drive was aimed at merely reducing the coal bill rather than increasing performance, which simples of the day (witness the 'Precedent' class) could obviously manage perfectly well.

 

Webb was after more powerful and faster locos as well as more efficient ones. See his own account here: http://www.steamindex.com/magrack/pice.htm#138-406
While the Compounds were ultimately a completely distracting and unproductive technical dead-end, and the locos themselves were mostly nothing special, I think the whole episode doesn't deserve the pillory it normally receives. Most of Webb's design decisions can be defended when you consider the date they were made. A lot of the attacks on them rely heavily on hindsight.
I started another thread about Webb Compounds, so I propose anyone who wants to discuss them does so on there.
(rather than blaspheming in the hallowed cloisters of Swindon on this thread).

 

Stars Castles and Kings says , in 1906 the Locomotive Committee authorised the building of 10 4-6-0 s (Stars) at a cost of £3700 each.

 

dunno who the younger Trevithick might be ,however ..

the LNWR got astonishing mileages from their cheap locos . 2M miles from Jumbo Charles Dickens, and probably similar from others
the Teutonics were taking loads that were unmatched anywhere else - reliably.
cheap they may have been but they did the job until around 1900 , as did the 4-4-0s that followed .

the Stars were built for the future . GJC s basic design did the job it had been built for , for 50 years, and the basic design a further 10. whether they could be justified financially I dunno .probably yes , but British practice would have been very much poorer without them and their designer

the Derby products were pretty fragile . the original Kirtley designs were very good for their time ,as were those that followed ,while the loads were light , but they were not reliable on the ex LNWR lines .
I remember an ex Midland man telling me the men were frightened of bending the rods on the Compounds , but I remember a rail tour in the '60s which was planned for 3440 & 1000 .
3440 failed but the Compound did very well on its own

 

Different times mind. Circumstances dictated the building of cheap and simple locomotives to do a job. It was wartime. Many of the loco CMEs found this to the the case.

Given that the Riddles WDs continued in service throughout the globe in various climates for a good three decades after they were originally built I don't think we can be too critical of the approach Riddles took.

 

Indeed. Designed for a limited life, utilising a bare minimum of non-ferrous components, for straightforward construction and ready maintenance, the fact that the Austerities lasted pretty much until the death of steam was the irony I was driving at.

 

My apologies - I find it difficult to read people at the best of times let alone on the internet!

 

Fear not Simon. As the saying has it, it's not you ... it's me, as anyone who's ever met me could readily confirm!

 

...by swapping number & nameplates every time it went into the works!

 

The GWR and later London Transport seemed to have had the same design phillosophy, although several years apart. The GWR locomatives designed under the great GJC, were over designed, and were more powerfull than needed at the time, although increase in loadings would lead to the early designs, having to be pushed quite a bit towards the end of steam. What I am getting at is, as the GWR loco's were so much more powerful than other loco's in the early days of the 20th century, they weren't over taxed, and wear and tear was kept to a minimum, as they were well within ther power requirements.

Leaping forward about 27 years to the formation of London Transport, and the General Company for a few years before that. The prefered large powerful engines downrated, so that you wouldn't get the wear and tear of engines having to be trashed to get the same output. However at the time of the foramtion of London Transport, there were a few companies, that liked smaller engines uprated, to provide the same power output, this would obviously lead to more wear and tear

 

Indeed and we seem to be illustrating a circular argument here which relates to another accusation thrown at the GWR namely;

1900's - Churchward built locomotives that were overpowered and too technical and thus expensive - wrong apparently;
1930's & 40's - GWR didn't conceive 'new' locomotive designs as what they had, which evolved Churchwards original work was up to the job and thus reduced expenditure and enhanced shareholder returns - also wrong apparently.

 

My take on the GWR and Churchward is that they took such a massive leap forward in the early 1900s that they were head and shoulders above every other railway's locos at the time. They realised that this basic design was good enough for the rest of the company's independent existence so no real need to make much in the way of changes.

The other three groups then caught up with them

 

I don't think anyone has said wrong.
The whole point is, in such matters, there may be no *right* answer - or several.
The GWR went for expensive, powerful locos, operating well within their capacity, perhaps costing less to maintain, and meaning they didn't need to innovate much for the next several decades (in express passenger locos, anyway).
The LNWR went for much cheaper locos, used them at the absolute limit, which cost more to maintain, and meant they (and LMS) had to develop several larger designs as time went on.
Unless we know all the costs and revenue, and can do a Net Present Value for 1906 (or a Whole Life Cost), we don't actually know which company got the best deal.
It's very hard to compare different companies, as the loads, traffic patterns, difficulty of working the line, etc. are all important variables.
I don't have any info, but I would imagine, given population densities of the areas served, that the LNW had heavier express trains in general than the GW.
I know Essery and Jenkinson tried to find comparable info for the LMS and other companies on loco running and maintenance costs, and ended up giving up as, apart from the LMS, detailed info didn't exist. Not that the LMS got that from the LNW, it was a Caledonian/Midland thing.

 

So, its a gas works engine with a smaller cab and cut down tender. Whats all the fuss about?

 

Fuss? you wait until the first time she is exhibited next to Lode Star!

 

And hopefully with 2818 as well...