LMS tenders

I may have missed something glaringly obvious here, but apart from possibly financial/newbuild reasons, why does it appear that so many LMS engines carry tenders that were narrower than the locos themselves, it does not appear to be a safe scenario.

 

As a guess, an attempt to improve visibility for the crew when moving tender first?

 

I agree with Charles' explananation above, but can you please elaborate on why you think a narrower tender would not be safe?

Keith

 

The tender was designed from a basic Midland and matched the Midland cab width. This with a slight redesign became the LMS Standard type, and was fitted to all new design of LMS locos from 1923, which included the Crabs and Royal Scots, which had a greater cab width. The tender was replaced as the Standard type from 1934, when Stanier introduced his 4000 gallon type which matched the new cab width.

As for dangerous, no. There were doors between the loco and tender so no danger of enginemen falling out, unlike on a GWR engine which had nothing more than a chain. But draughty? Yes, especially when running tender first. Improved visibility when so running was coincidental.

 

Hi Keith, it was that in all the photos I have seen, I surmised there was a gap as I did not recall seeing the doors between loco and tender as described by LMS2968.

Chris

 

Ah right, I must admit that a lot of the photos where I noticed the narrower tenders would have been from that earlier time, thanks for the explanation.

Chris

 

Still better than the GWR's Dukedogs which were turned out with tenders wider than the cabs.

 

Funny you should mention that, there is a piece on one of (I think) Harold Gassons (GWR fireman) books where they find themselves on the footplate of a non GWR loco (again off the top of my head I cannot remember what it is) and there is much joking that the crews on other railways apparently need doors to stop them falling off the footplate.

 

Yes, I had that book, and I think it was about the 8Fs being built at Swindon.

Joking apart, the doors did a lot more than keep drunk firemen in the cab! They also reduced the draughts across the footplate, especially if the rubber extensions at the bottom were in place. For some reason, the GWR did not regard any sort of crew comfort or convenience as important. For instance, access to the smokebox door involved walking past the cab and along the running plate as there were no footsteps at the front end. On the other hand, masochism seemed to be rife among GWR crews and they resented any improvement in working conditions: when J.G. Churchward fitted a roof extension to No. 111 to help keep the rain off, they complained at being closed in!

 

I can’t remember who said it now but there was a saying, ‘on the railways there are two ways of doing things, the Great Western way and the wrong way’, which I think sums up the GWR quite well.

 

I believe it was Duck. But he did, ironically, have the benefit of doors.

 

My Father told me that the loco crews would pinch the rubber extensions from the bottom of the doors to re-sole their boots.

Regarding the lack of front footsteps, NER H class 1310 at the Midleton Railway is also lacking front steps so it is necessary to edge along the narrow ledge beside the side tanks to get to the smomebox or tank fillers. This is strange as a quick check in Ken Hoole's Illustrated History of NER Locos shows that most other locos from the Worsdell era onwards had front steps.

 

Mr Worsdell wasn't at his best when he designed the Class H. (OK, he probably didn't design it but he signed all the drawings.) The cab is so small that, if the fireman wants to get from his side to the drivers side, it is easier to get off the loco, walk over to the other side and climb back on. Those of less than slim proportions have no chance.

 

The piece de resistance has to be the 56XX tanks where there is absolutely nothing to stand on in front of the smokebox, other than the buffer shank and coupling hook. No idea why it was designed like that, other than the possibility that the guy responsible had never set foot outside the drawing office into the real world of locomotive operation.

 

When I did cleaner turns on 5619 at the NNR I seem to recall that somebody had cut some wood to fit over the buffers so you had something slightly more solid to stand on while working in the smokebox.

 

Not even enough room for the middle lamp iron on the bufferbeam either - that has to stick out above the coupling hook.

 

I understand that Gresley regularly came down from his office at Kings Cross to see off the prestige expresses and got to know all of the Top link drivers by name. Is that why his Pacifics were fitted with upholstered bucket seats while down the road at Euston they had to make do with a bit of wood?

 

I remember Talyllyn driver Roy Smith telling me of a footplate trip on a Castle, and the driver spending time stuffing newspaper into the gaps between cab front and firebox sides, which was obviously of more concern to him than the general al fresco loco tender interface.

Same problem of course on the Southern USA tanks, which the railway fitted with "modesty panels" which could (can) be swung down to stand on.

 

If only that was the limit of the ergonomic problems with the Dukedog tender .

Tom

 

I think a ride on almost any pre-war footplate would soon show that ergonomics wasn’t the science that it is today