10 most important / noteworthy UK steam designs .your views and why

Certainly, but then who can say what exactly happened after so many years? Either Kennedy or Stephenson lied about this, but with only fragmentary records surviving, we'll never know.

 

according to Graces Guide by 1848, Bury had built around 350 machines , over 100 of which were supplied to the L&B which ceased to exist in 1846 so it seems to be a fair statement imo

 

I wonder if the lists offered so far are taking too narrow a view of what is "noteworthy" and a "UK steam design".

Arguably the Garratt locomotive ought to have a place on the list. Arguments against: the two main-line types that actually ran in the UK were neither very successful, due to some poor detail design (at least in the case of the LMS ones) plus a lack of real need for their power (in most UK mainline applications of the time). Arguments for inclusion: A British invention, taken up and manufactured by Beyer Peacock, a British company. A really useful advance in design for railways that needed to run higher powered, heavy locomotives on narrow-gauge or lightly laid track. Offering a lot of scope for more efficient designs of boiler and other parts. Very successful and widely used in Africa and should have been taken up more widely elsewhere. And finally, in "The Red Devil" David Wardale concluded he should have chosen the GMAM Garratt (rather than the SAR's 25 class) as the starting point for a really effective modernised steam design.

Now to be really controversial - what about "Leader"? Not at all successful, granted. But a noteworthy attempt to tackle some real flaws (given mid 20th century economic conditions) in the classic Stephensonian layout. Bulleid tried to change far too much at once, and didn't have time or money enough to stand any chance of success, in the face of advancing dieselisation. But given more time and funds to experiment, it might have been possible to get further towards his concept of a double-ended, general purpose, steam locomotive with high availability and a better working environment for its crew.

In reality, the failure of "Leader" as built is also "important" - as it effectively closed off that potential line of development and experimentation.

Now, where can I hide?

 

Now a driving cab on the outer end of each power unit of a Garratt, with the fireman remaining in the stoking cab to control the mechanical stoker and boiler water feeds, would have been quite a logical development.

 

Just an aside, a few years ago I was working with Lawrence Donaldson down at Chatham, and He'd known an aquaintance of mine from an earlier life, small world isn't it?

 

I may well need to join you in hiding, as I think your post is a perfectly reasonable analysis.

I'd be looking for inclusion of a few other developments which occured this side of 'Leader' (and the 'Turf Burner' too). Automation of water and fuel management would be two key features, as would the ability for one driver to control two locos.

Although Bulleid's design was, by reasonably common consent, some way the wrong side of dreadful (and there's no excusing the weight imbalance due to that offset boiler!), the questions OVSB sought to answer were valid ones. Although I admire that gentleman for attempting to keep steam a viable form of traction, I honestly can't say the same of the rather unatractive styling of anything after the West Countries. OK, in the scheme of things, aesthetic considerations come way behind fundemental engineering issues, but for Bob's sake, did 'Leader' really need to be that fugly?

Now, which countries don't we have an extradition agreement with?

 

or maybe not --- around 130 locos were owned by the L&B IN 1846 , most of which were Bury type 0-4-0 and 2-2-0. but not all were built by E.Bury's company.
there were a few 0-6-0s which were not highly regarded , and the solitary Crampton , Liverpool.

edited with more accurate info

 

Why not look into the RCTS book Locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division? You'll get the gen about Edward Bury in there. Now available cheaply - check the RCTS website. OK, I wrote the book, but this ain't an advert: none of the money comes to me, nor ever did.

 

I think that deserves to be on a different list, for a different thread. "Locomotives which nearly killed the reputation of their designers"

That could go with the Paget locomotive, Fowler's Ghost, and several others...

 

Doesn't the Gresley GNR H3, later LNER K2 come in as an earlier example to the SECR Maunsell N class?

 

You know what folks, I think I'm detecting a theme in Simon's posts about 'Leader'. Can't be much more than 100% certain of course, but I don't think he likes it very much......

I always suspected Bulleid got the colour wrong .....

 

To be completely honest and in interests of transparency, I see it as the biggest waste of engineering time, materials and effort in British locomotive history.

Post-war, with austerity rife, when it was contemporary with Ivatt's LMS twins (10000 and 10001 diesel electrics) it was already an engineering dead end. Why they indulged Bulleid's whims is utterly beyond me.

You can make a case for his Pacifics but you cannot make a business case for Leader.

Don't get me wrong, railway history is richer because of it. But it accomplished absolutely nothing except a waste of everything the UK was lacking in (raw materials, money and time).

I'm no puritan but it frustrates me that it gets the air time it gets when the efforts of people like Hawksworth, Thompson, Peppercorn and Ivatt get overlooked largely.

 

Ok, so here are my ideas, only 8:

1. Rocket - modern prototype
2. NER E1/LNER/BR J72 - Did the job and didn't need altering
3. Festiniog Railway "Little Wonder" - established steam on the narrow gauge as practical and demonstrated effective articulation
4. GWR Star class - successful design leading to so many others
5. GWR "Firefly" class - established the use of interchangeable parts. successful design leading to others
6. War Dept Austerity 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 - Just did what they were supposed to do, boring cheap design but it got the job done
7. LNER V2 - the engine that wone the war etc etc, power and availability (though not without minor shortcomings)
8. Rebuilt Bullieds - Solid and reliable, I'd say

 

Won't disagree about that, but it reminds of the stranger in a country village in the wilds enquiring of a local on how to get to another destination some miles away. The local after trying to suggest several routes finally said - "It might be easier if you found another place to start from."

 

Sentinel locos and railcars - a different approach?

 

Sentinels, with separate engines driving onto 2 axles, though they were more a 1A-A1 than 2-4-2 (looking like reasonably conventional hot climate locos above the running plate) were given a fair crack of the whip on Egyptian State Railway. They were judged unsuccessful, although I've never seen any convincing reason why, as the engines were a proven design and the substantial loco type boiler looked plenty large enough for the job.

A late Sentinel unit from ESR awaits what ever it's future holds at Quainton Road.

 

I’d agree with the bulk of your post, but just to reply to this bit: firstly, I wouldn’t necessarily take witterings on a railway forum (or indeed in the specialist press of what is, in the end, just a hobby) as necessarily indicative of what is important, or what was important at the time.

More generally though, sometimes you learn more from failure than success. It’s one reason why railway operators spend lots of time studying accidents. So in the context of “Leader”, as a study in engineering, or management, or industrial and organisational politics, or any of the other fields we like to talk about and learn from, it potentially teaches you more than, say, the design, construction, financing and operation of 400 Thompson 4-6-0s that basically did the job, but in a boringly unspectacular way.

Tom

 

Normally I agree with what you say, Tom, but the learning in this case could have been achieved at a greatly reduced cost if only a single unit had been ordered.

 

I think Tom was referring to what can be learnt of those various aspects in retrospect, rather than what the management of the railway were apparently rather slow to learn at the time.

 

I’d agree with you from the then railway management’s point of view, but I was responding more to @S.A.C. Martin ’s comment about why Leader still generates much discussion now - 70-odd years later - rather than what could have been learnt in 1948. Ultimately “how did Bulleid get permission to get it built” is still an interesting question in management long after the technical details have become an irrelevance.

Tom