Isle of Wight Steam Railway

They were, (in the teeth of my general LSWR sympathies) right about electrification (or at least, less wrong)

 

In the case of coal consumption, how comparable are the 'lbs / mile' figures? Unless the load is (at least) similar, ditto the working, it is only a guide, surely? Indeed, I'm a bit surprised that the O2 and M7 are so close together, given that the M7 grate is approximately 50% larger than the O2.
Pat

 

They could certainly vary a lot. Bradley quotes figures for O2s on various duties in August 1911 varying from 27.9 lbs/mile ('Southampton Short Passenger No 1') to 42.0 lbs/mile (Weymouth to Portland branch). T1s didn't burn quite as little on the Southampton Short Passenger (about 30 lbs/mile), but were at 42.6 lbs/mile on the Meon Valley. So, to mangle an old excuse, it's not what you've got, it's what you do with it. It's interesting that the 1911 figures seem to imply lower average consumption than the 1928 numbers.

The O2s were probably punching above their weight in duty terms. While they may have been built as the small, light Adams tank engine and that was what kept them in service so late on in the face of encroachment by displaced M7s, Bradley gives a strong impression that in their early lives they would give a strong account of themselves if put on T1 or 415 duties. So they started being used in preference to those bigger classes, in particular the 415s. Perhaps it isn't surprising, since they were basically the final evolution of the Adams tank engine, just smaller.

 

I think you've probably identified the key issue in the choice of the O2s for the IoW. They could be made available in 1923. A couple of years later, large numbers of ex-SER and ex-LCDR tanks became surplus due to electrification to Orpington & Dartford, but the O2s had already become established as the standard type on the IoW. It is also possible that, because the O2s were slightly smaller and lighter than the other SR 0-4-4T types, that they were a better match for the track standard and other operating conditions found on the IoW.

The quote from Holcroft is very interesting. If spare parts could not be guaranteed to fit without a lot of adjustment, that must have extended the timescale (and cost) of maintenance and repair, and impacted on availability. It is also noticeable that, although Stroudley had favoured numerically-large standard classes, more variation arose under his successors. For example, did any other British Pre-Grouping company have four classes of 4-4-2T?

 

Because most of the reason why I got interested in Brighton machines was what people said, cause being born in 1985 means I never seen most of them. Now I don't believe some of it now. I had a number of articles scanned on to my lap top to save room (lots of magazines are storage hungry) but they got corrupted (nuts) so lost some of them now. However considering the D3s the reason I thought they were withdrawn early had been due down to the Brighton Regions being electrified earlier, then the last being wiped out due to in the early 1950's by the new LMS designed, and then Standard designed tank engines, which also nobbled those large passenger tank engines which weren't described as crap (i.e. the I3s and Js). No historian said they were expensive and less useful then other engines.

And then mentioning a certain 2-6-0 design which possibly should be mentioned in reflect of my past history on this forum. To quote Derek Cross of Locomotive Illustrated Number 37 (1984) The Larger Brighton Locomotives which is the only thing I could physically grab quickly: he describes the 2-6-0 design in mostly positive terms apart from the small number built (thus less noticeable), need careful firing and that they seemed to be 'under-rated'. Otherwise they were capable of doing all the jobs asked for them, didn't slip, and others have said they were reliable. "...they must rate as among the the best Moguls of them all, probably the aristocrats of the mixed traffic 2-6-0..." As was detailed to me back in June 2019 when the E class new-build was announced a seemingly huge list of flaws with their construction and operation, were outlined to me and as it turned one or two others (rather then the lots of people as I though in the years before) who had wanted a certain mogul, which was part of the reason why I so monumentally cross at the time. (Well that it was yet another express engine when nearly all of the new builds are express engines, but what ever I guess.)

Now lots of Brighton designs have been declared dead ducks. The C3, N15xs (after rebuilds), B4x, I1, I2, I4, and my personal hateful machine, the E2 tanks, have been declared to be rubbish. But were the others just the best of a load of rubbish? I just don't understand why it hasn't been mentioned before in literature.

Sorry for the thread drift lets go back to the Isle of Wight. Were at least they have a E1...

Edit: or is there something about the E1s I missed?

 

I had to look up the M7 grate area. Blimey, what did they need all that for?! (20.4sq ft, against 17 sq ft for a D3; 16.6 sq ft for an H and about 14 sq ft for an O2). To put that in context, the grate area of a Maunsell Q is scarcely any larger, at 21.9sq ft.

That said, there is no inherent reason why a large grate engine should use more coal on similar duties than one of smaller grate - if the work you do is similar, you need similar amounts of evaporation. Doing it off a larger grate just means a lower combustion rate per square foot - which does potentially help with avoiding losses through the chimney.

Tom

 

Yes, availability must have been the main factor in the transfer of the O2's. Given how unpopular the Drummond boilers fitted to the O2's were, its probably just as well that the M7's were never transferred.
Of course, in comparing Wainwright and Drummond, we are actually comparing Robert Surtees and whoever was DD's Chief Draughtsman at Nine Elms.
Pat

 

T.S. Finlayson at Eastleigh. A man who had, seemingly, been previously involved working for the Admiralty on battleship design ...

Most CMEs were reliant on their chief draughtsman of course, and that charge is often levelled more at Wainwright than some others. Against that, my understanding is that he was closely involved particularly in the boiler design of his locos, while Surtees was almost entirely responsible for the mechanical aspects. Of course, Surtees didn't have responsibility for the immediate problem of what today would be seen as the departmental aspects of a a huge corporate merger.

(As an aside, there is a postcard reproduced in Klaus Marx' book on Wainwright showing a D class, annotated in Surtees' own hand: "SE&CRly designed by RR Surtees 1899". So no doubt what Surtees felt about the arrangement!)

We are getting somewhat off topic, for which I apologise as the prime culprit.

Tom

 

Just for the record (OT I know) but Jock Finlayson was a Urie appointment (he came from NBL), as a result of promoting the previous incumbent to succeed him as Works Manager. (And the little one said 'roll over'!)
Pat

 

Ah, mea culpa!

Tom

 

Well, if you are going to run into Pompey...
If the M7s were that bad, they wouldn't have lasted - I wonder if the grate tells a story? - is big firebox helpful for the duties they ended up doing?

Returning to one of the issues highlighted above - I am reminded of RR having to re-draw the Merlin to allow Packard to mass-produce it for Mustangs - the shift from craft to mechanisation is by no means clear-cut, and you can imagine small companies like the LBSC continuing on a craft-build basis compared to eg the Midland, as there is no gain in standardisation. The grouping is then a nasty wrench to small operations.

 

Delated cause I'm being a bad tempted sod as normal

 

Don't take it so hard dude

I think that there was definitely a cult around Stroudley, who produced some very good engines in his day which were straightforward, steamed well and had a clear family resemblance between a few standard classes. They also looked modern and sharp against some of the old fashioned Craven era stuff around at the same time.

What followed Stroudley though appears to have been some rather average locos which would not have been awful, but were not exactly cutting edge. There were some good engines in there, the K class for example, and the Marsh atlantics. Plus they were extending electrification.

The Brighton suffered from having a larger loading gauge and air brakes, which also made it that much more difficult to move the engines around in Southern days.

You have to admit though, the LBSCR had style!!

 

Although an over simplification the ratio of total evaporative area to grate area offers a
comparison, The Classes had boiler dimension variations throughout their long
lives but the following I think are good approximations
O2 - 71.3
D3 - 69.5
H - 66.3
M7 - 58.5

The M7 was rated at 175 psi vs 160 in the others ie c 2% increase in enthalpy
( saturated water at 175 psi and 160 psi, 351 and 344 BTU/lb respectively )

I think the larger grate may have been because Drummond originally
envisaged the M7s being used on express passenger duties, including
Plymouth Exeter but the idea was abandoned.

Later they undertook quite lengthy non stop runs eg Brookwood to
Vauxhall. Allen included details in RM Vol XLIII. Number 129 with
215 tons ran the course in 29 minutes 54 seconds, maximum speed
67 at Esher. Clapham Jct (24.1 miles ) was passed in 26-29.

Michael Rowe
.

 

So....... The Isle of Wight Steam Railway undertook a filming job 13 months ago on 2nd January 2020. Nothing too unusual about that except that the IWSR gets few filming jobs due to being on on offshore island.

This particular one was for an Indian Telugu language film. After some pandemic related delays the film "Ninnila Ninnila" (Just Like You) staring Ashok Selvan, Nithya Mennen and Ritu Varma is being released on 26th February.

The trailer is available now on YouTube .

If you blink you'll miss the railway scenes but keep your eyes open at 13 seconds for the steam railway followed by a glimpse of Ryde Pier Head station on the electric railway.

Hopefully there will be more railway action in the full film but viewing it in the UK might be problematic.

Nick

 

From experience with 30053 at Swanage, it really does need the grate capacity! She can be pretty temperamental but also a lot of fun to keep going nicely all day. That and the T9 are my favourite engines of the home fleet, perhaps 563 will join it! Incidentally, 563 has a similar size grate to the M7, but the heating surface area is slightly bigger.

 

It appears to be a general feature of Drummond's work, both in Scotland and on the LSWR, to use proportionately large grate areas.

I believe that the M7 boiler, grate and cylinders were common with the C8 and K10 4-4-0s and the 700-class 0-6-0s (as originally built). The subsequent Drummond T9 and L11 4-4-0s had grates a foot longer, further enlarging the grate area but leaving the boiler barrel unchanged. This was the opposite of what McIntosh was doing in Scotland with the Dunalastair evolution. Strange thing is that Drummond and McIntosh both appear to have been successful!

Getting back to the O2s on the IoW, it has been recorded that those with replacement Drummond boilers steamed less well than the original Adams boilers. Apart from the safety valve position, can anyone say what precisely was the difference between the Adams and Drummond boilers to cause a change in performance?

 

You get the sense it is a railway designed to appeal to Hamilton Ellis and appal Cecil J Allen in equal measure!

Tom

 

Was Cecil J Allen appalled simply because it went to Brighton?

 

One reads that Drummond boilers on Adams engines suffered badly from priming only a few days after washout. A colleague reckons the dome-mounted safety valves are the problem, due to pushing the regulator down the dome and nearer to the water level. I wonder if the difference may, in some cases, be the water legs of the firebox. Some Adams boilers, e.g. the Jubilees, were 3" wide at the foundation ring. Mr. Drummond (and Mr. Urie, subsequently) used 2", I believe. Wouldn't this make the boiling water in the hottest part of the boiler froth a lot? However, not all Adams boilers were as generous, from what little I can glean from the GA copies I have (courtesy of the OPC & BRWR venture of about 'ahem' years ago). It occurs to me that Scottish water is generally soft, and Mr. Drummond's ideas seem to have gelled during his Cowlairs and St. Rollox years. Maybe he could not, or would not, allow for the chalky water that so much of the South-East suffers from?
Going back to the matter of the grate areas, perhaps Mr. Drummond chased the last square inch to the detriment of overall performance?
Just the wandering thoughts of a non-engineer, I'm afraid.
Pat