Isle of Wight Steam Railway Loco updates

One should note that there were two completely different balance schemes used on 56xx, Stroudley style and more conventional.

As far as the E1 is concerned, there appears to be so much pre preservation fabric missing that which form its rebuilt/restored seems of little moment. Better, I suggest, to think practically and consider utility for its future role. If in the future it becomes compelling to restore it to a different form, well discarding post preservation construction is no big deal.

 

"No right or wrong" I can agree with, though as I see it, you now seem to be adding a case for static preservation. Whilst for the sake of argument, that would be an equally valid starting point, I'm sensing a certain duality in respect of two mutually incompatible outcomes. I make no comment on the the relative benefits of either in this case but note these are emphatically NOT the reasons the loco now resides at Haven Street.

Not passenger work .... as their balancing was optimised for slower goods work! Something there did throw up one question in my mind, which is why the E1 was selected for IoW service when the G6 (the "goods edition" of the 02) would've reduced Ryde's spares inventory. Did the G6 class perhaps come with the 'out of gauge' higher cabs which dictated the choice of 02s suited to cross the solent? Or were the G6 (all of which were handed over to BR) just too useful to the Southern to be spared?

The G6 is a couple of tons heavier than the E1, but a couple of tons lighter than the 02, so wight seems unlikely to be the reason. Was it just a case of a class (the E1) in their original form being 'surplus to requirements'?

 

Quite possibly. That was certainly the reason why some were rebuilt as E1Rs for use in the South-West. Apparently, there were initially complaints from passengers about rough riding when travelling behind these engines; four were therefore rebalanced for passenger work, and the remainder were restricted to banking/shunting duties. However, I'm not sure what speeds they would have been required to run at on the North Cornwall line; AFAIK there were no complaints about 110 during her stint on the ESR (though I'm open to correcton on that).

 

If you look at the dates E1s were put up for disposal, it is clear that there were plenty of them surplus by time there was a need for additional locos on the Isle of Wight. They were all rebuilt at Eastleigh before going over the water, bringing them broadly into alignment with each other in terms of water feed arrangements in particular.

Tom

 

They were built exclusively for goods work - short distance turns, and shunting. (They were closely related to the D tank 0-4-2T locos; one significant difference being that while the D tanks had screw reverse, the E tanks had a lever reverse, which makes sense for a loco designed for shunting). They were painted goods green, had three link couplings and, originally, no air brakes (hand brake only), all indicating an intention for use only on goods trains.

In 1880, there was a sudden shortage in passenger engines, and nine E1s were upgraded to a passenger specification by adding a Westinghouse brake (and painting them Improved Engine Green!) Thus employed, there was a flurry of complaints about bumping and surging, while the crews also objected on account of the locos being difficult to fire and speed - both of which point to a loco surging significantly back and forth. By 1881-2, more D tanks had been delivered, allowing the E1s to revert to goods working, so the complaints died down, and no serious attempt was made to look at the balancing. For the rest of their lives, they remained primarily as goods locos, with passenger turns - while not unknown - being unusual.

Bradley notes that, rough riding aside, they had no difficulty keeping to the passenger schedules, so they were probably running at 40+ mph. Possibly, given the general square law relationship in balancing, it may well be what was a significant problem at those speeds is far less noticeable at 25mph.

Tom

 

Similar situation to WD 2-8-0s by the sound of it

 

Somehow, I'd quite forgotten the E1/R passenger turns on West Country branches. Bob knows how, my book collection must have a good two dozen shots of them 'the other side' of Barnstaple!

 

I find this an interesting debate, because it exposes the fact that, often in preservation, there is no cut and dry right or wrong, just different people's preferences and perceptions of what is the more suitable / appropriate course of action.

A lot of the discussion has been focussed on what is 'right' from the 'perspective' of 110, which is a fair perspective, especially as (as has been reiterated several times) 110 is the only E1 left, and is very much not the engine that was built by the LBSCR all those years ago. What has been discussed less is what is 'right' from the perspective of the IoWSR. If we look at their needs and objectives firstly from a purely practical perspective, they need a locomotive that is capable of running their heritage passenger services to an adequate degree to carry enough punters to pay the day to day bills and put money in the kitty for longer term projects such as restoration and maintenance of locomotives, rolling stock and infrastructure, and any future developments they may wish to undergo. From that perspective, the E1 is probably not the best option - it requires a huge amount of work to get it to an operable condition, and is not a 'more suitable' locomotive for the day to day running requirements than locos like the Ivatts or Austerities that the line has. Of course, the decision-making process behind getting the mammoth-restoration loco that is the E1, rather than another random Austerity or alternative mid-sized 0-6-0 tank that might take less effort to restore, is the connection of the E1 class to the island. Given that most of the loco will need replacement during its return to operation, and (I am assuming) returning it to 'LBSCR original' condition will not cost a significantly different amount of money than restoring it to 'IoW condition' or 'Industrial condition', the 'right' choice from the IoWSR perspective is arguably to restore it to the emotionally-connected IoW condition, as the prospect of an IoW condition E1 back on the IoW will have been a huge attraction and part of the reason for choosing to put significant amounts of money into its restoration. This then may also have the secondary benefit of attracting more enthusiasts to ride on the railway because of the prospect of creating a scene that looks closer to the ever-more distant past, something the IoW has always been at the forefront of as far as appearances go in the preservation world.

Of course, the question then is, how different is IoW condition from LBSCR condition or Industrial condition, and how many people would notice the difference? Would it look significantly different that putting an IoW condition in improved engine green looks significantly not quite right? Mention has been made of the boiler pressure difference between original (140psi) and IoW (170psi), but would it arguably not be better to restore the loco to 170psi regardless of the condition it's being restored to as a higher boiler pressure allows for more punch from the engine, and being able to use fuel a little more efficiently? It also gives the crew a little more wiggle room for pressure in the case of a very bad day! I'd argue that change is probably not going to be noticeable unless you get into the cab and peer at the pressure gauge. This is also opening the door about how far should we go to look to recreate something 'original' - does it just have to look right enough, or do the unseen things have to match to properly make the difference?

 

I take it that the boiler is designed and stayed for 170 psi.

 

If it's the Bagnall boiler from it's industrial days, my understanding is it's on the clapped out side of "extremely tired".

I only recalled this a couple of days back, but I used to have a small glossy A5 softback book(let) on this loco, long before it's return to steam as B110. We're going back over 35 years ago and these days TBH my memory can be pretty awful on events of 35 hours ago! What I do recall was in that publication by folks who were trying to drum up support to save it from it's siding in a colliery was about the non-original pattern boiler and mods made above the frames to accommodate it.

To the best of my recall, it seemed to be considered more as a crude industrial rebuild based on an E1 than the actual last surviving E1. We're speaking here of the same mindset which lost us Ben Alder and W31 Chale. "If it isn't close enough to original condition, we've got other priorities". Money (as well as somewhere secure to keep it) was as big an issue then as now, more so as the bulk of our obsession didn't enjoy charitable status and there was no such thing as 'Gift Aid'.

Point being how much attitudes change. Plus, back then, I don't even think I knew anything beyond 02s and Terriers had been shipped to the IoW by the Southern!

 

The existing boiler is I believe life-expired, so presumably any rebuild would require an entirely new boiler which, if my understanding of current regs is correct, would essentially need to be designed and certified afresh.

As for the originals, the boiler history is, inevitably, complex. The original loco's designed by Stroudley, had boilers pressed to 140psi, 15.3sq ft grate area, 856sq ft heating surface, 160 * 1.75" tubes; three rings with the dome on the rear ring, Salter type safety valves above / behind the dome.

From about 1881, starting with loco No. 153, boiler pressure increased to 150psi, which seems to have been achieved simply by adjustment of the safety valves. Some, but not all, of the older boilers were increased to suit as they went through the works. Oddly enough, it seems not to have been a popular change with the crews, who believed (erroneously?) that the change increased their coal consumption and therefore decreased their fuel bonus.

The last six engines were turned out under Billinton, with a number of modifications. Amongst those was the boiler, which was pressed to 160psi; more, but smaller, tubes (207 * 1.625"); 1,006sq ft heating surface; 15sq ft grate area; dome on the middle ring (which visually puts in notably further forward).

A number of spare boilers were ordered for D tanks and E tanks under Billinton (until then, locos normally kept their own boiler through overhauls, which reduced workshop throughput of overhauls). Those spare boilers were largely similar to those fitted to the Billinton E1s, except they had a manhole cover over the firebox.

The next set of boilers was to replace originals by now well and truly worn out. These were supplied by various external manufacturers; they were broadly similar to the Billinton boilers but with a couple of tubes removed, reducing the heating surface to 997sq ft. More noticeably, the dome moved back to the rear ring.

Under Marsh, more boilers were ordered. Clearly Marsh had different ideas about such things: tube layout was back to a smaller number of larger tubes, and the working pressure went up to 170psi while heating surface dropped to 946sq ft. The significant visual difference was that the safety valves were changed from the typical Stroudleyesque spring balances to Ramsbottom valves mounted over the firebox. The barrel was now two rings (rather than three) with the dome on the rear ring.

After 1908, further reboilerings were done at Brighton; those boilers were basically the same as the Marsh pattern ones, but grate area seems to have crept up to 15.5sq ft, while the number of tubes fell from 180 to 174, with a corresponding drop in heating surface. Without seeing drawings, it's hard to see what is going on with the change of tube layout: possibly something as benign as replacing tubes at the edges of the tube bank with additional washout plugs and / or longitudinal stays.

In 1911, one D1 (No. 79) and one E1 (No. 89) were fitted with entirely different boilers of larger diameter. These had 15.6sq ft grate area; 200 * 1.75" tubes; 1,053.5 sq ft heating surface and working pressure 170psi. The two locos were classified D1x and E1x. The cost, and perceived unsteadiness at speed (including a ban on passenger workings) prevented any other locos being similarly converted. When the LBSCR needed more heavy shunting engines, the result was the Billinton E2 rather than converting old Stroudley E1s. No. 89 (by then 689 in the duplicate list) had its firebox condemned in January 1930 and, with no spare boiler available, it was rebuilt back to conventional E1 form.

When BR drew up engine diagrams of the remaining E1s, they were as follows:

• "Isle of Wight" engines: 170psi, 15.5sq ft grate area, 174 * 1.75" tubes, 924 sq ft heating surface
• "Mainland engines" 160psi, 15.5 sq ft grate area, 199 * 1.625" tubes, 977 sq ft heating surface

The Isle of Wight engines were clearly carrying the Brighton series boilers from the later Marsh period. the difference in heating surface I suspect is down to a different formula for calculation. The Mainland engines appear to be based on the Billinton-pattern boilers, but with a loss of eight tubes.

So, as is typical on engines of the period, not a simple story - and that is before you get to vagaries of water feed, chimney design, hand rails, water filler spacing and myriad other details.

Tom

 

Let's put a sock in all this.

Completely unexpectedly the IOWSR received a substantial bequest with an express condition that it be used to produce a replica of W2 "Yarmouth". It proved possible to acquire 110 and to receive confirmation that her use as a basis for W2 would meet the terms of the bequest. This will save a deal of money and there will still be a degree of Stroudley about her which would not have been so had it been a total new build.'

There was an article about some of the technical issues in, I think, ''Backtrack''.

 

Many thanks for taking the trouble to post such a comprehensive explanation Tom. Much appreciated.

I singled out that above para, as my impression has always been the works situation, if not responsible for R.Billinton's demise, certainly cannot have helped a jot. To judge by what I've read in biographies of the two Billintons and Marsh, it sounds as if there's potential for at least one volume just on LBSC loco repairs!

Several times between Stroudley's death and the advent of Lancing C&W, the small facility at New Cross must've been all which stood between the company and complete chaos

 

(Probably should go to another thread).

Another long and complex story, for which I think Billinton became the scape goat for problems that were deep-rooted.

From around the formation of the LBSCR, and when Craven became Locomotive Superintendent, locomotives were primarily sourced from external builders, with the sheds being responsible for repairs: that was in common with most railways at the time. By the late 1840s it must have been apparent that in time, the LBSCR would need to construct its own locomotives, and Craven recommended a green-field site at Horley for a new locomotive works, roughly equidistant between London and Brighton. As such, that would have mirrored other railways which were constructing new works in green-field sites at the time, e.g. GWR at Swindon, SER at Ashford, GJR at Crewe etc.

The proposal was turned down, and instead the existing sheds at Brighton were gradually enlarged to be able to undertake construction as well as repairs. The first locos to be constructed at Brighton were produced in 1852, though I believe that at that time, major castings still had to be procured from external suppliers as there was no large-scale foundry.

The existing site was very constrained, not least by a large mound of chalk that had been dug out when the station was built and dumped immediately north. Craven proposed to remove that mound to create more space, but the Town Council objected, feeling that a mound of chalk was preferable to ugly factories. Craven then revived his plan to move the whole workshop to Horley - which in hindsight was what should have happened. The Town Council, fearing the loss of employment in what was by then the major employer in the town, relented and agreed to removing the chalk mound and expansion there, preserving the jobs.

It took many years for that to be completed, so the primary beneficiary was Stroudley, under whose regime the running shed was moved to the site of the chalk mound, allowing the workshop to expand into the old running shed areas. The NLS has a 1:500 map showing the arrangement in 1874, early in the Stroudley era, with the "Engine Running Shed" where the chalk mound had been, with the "Locomotive and Carriage Factory" physically separated on the eastern side of the main running lines to London. The two running lines behind the loco works further constraining the possibilities of expansion at the site, ran to Brighton Upper Goods Yard.

The site was already cramped and awkward to work by the end of the Stroudley period, but things worsened under Billinton as the locomotive fleet grew both in number and size of locos; and the workshop begun to fail to keep up with the backlog of repairs - the loco fleet increased from 410 to 535 under Billinton, and the works was typically constructing 12 new locos and overhauling 40 - 50 per year at that time. Billinton's plan to have spare boilers further increased the amount of space needed for additional boiler shop usage, and his plan to mitigate the situation was massive: the works was expanded directly over the top of the two lines running to the goods yard on a series of massive piers. Even so, workshop practice was still inefficient, requiring frequent shunting over the mainlines: by this period, the paint shop had moved to the west side of the lines, so any newly overhauled loco had to be tripped across the mainline to reach the paint shop. Given how busy the lines were, that was a time-consuming process, just one of the little inefficiencies in the layout. It was not unknown by the later LBSCR period for new locos to emerge in traffic in undercoat to meet the summer peak, then return to the works in the winter for final painting.

Throughout the LBSCR's existence, it was also common practice to store out of use locos at country stations until there was space to receive them in the works, Horsted Keynes being one such station used, with frequently twenty or thirty locos stored there until they could be towed to the works for repair.

From Billinton's period onwards, there was board-level discussion about what to do, but the board prevaricated. Eventually, Carriage and Wagon maintenance was moved to Lancing, but it seems that discussion of that plan dragged on for years, and it didn't finally happen until shortly before the First World War; it was probably needed at least twenty years earlier. Billinton thus seems to have borne the brunt of complaints about locomotive availability, but he was inheriting a problem not of his making. Nonetheless, he was forced to retire, and the board bought in D.E. Marsh as the new locomotive superintendent. Marsh had been the workshop manager at Doncaster under Ivatt, and it seems clear to me that he was primarily engaged as someone to sort out the workshop situation, rather than as a locomotive designer - his original designs for the LBSCR generally not being very good. Unfortunately, the main thing he achieved in workshop terms seems to have been to have stirred up resentment in the workforce. Brighton suffered from - relative, presumably, to e.g. Doncaster - a higher cost of living which drove demands for higher wages, and sources of alternative employment. Thus, even within the restricted site, the works couldn't always run at full capacity for want of staff, either because ether company couldn't afford to employ a full complement, or staff left, or due to industrial action. That era was not an especially happy one.

By SR days, the unsuitability of the works was ever more of an issue, and a general run down occurred through the 1930s; probably had it not been for the war, the works would have shut by 1940. The war was a saviour, and new loco construction recommenced (having ceased round about 1930), right up to 80154, the last loco built at Brighton. One consequence of the run down of the works is that in the SR period, former LBSCR locos increasingly had heavy overhauls at either Eastleigh or Ashford, such that a variety of LSWR and / or SECR features appeared on ostensibly Brighton locos.

Looking at the whole history, both the site constraints and the labour situation led to problems at the works. However, there were two opportunities squandered. The first was to construct the works at Brighton in the first place, rather than Craven's suggestion of Horley. That was probably forgivable given the state of knowledge in the late 1840s, though as Ashford, Swindon etc show, new works on greenfield sites were already being built at the time, away from the physical constraints of building in major cities.

The second was the prevarication right through the Billinton era in addressing the problem afresh. In that regard, it should be noted that the newly-formed SE&CR rapidly concentrated all loco construction at Ashford (ex-SER) and stopped new locos being built at Longhedge (ex-LCDR) in central London. The LSWR similarly, in the same era, stopped building locos at Nine Elms and opened a new workshop at Eastleigh. By contrast, the LBSCR prevaricated for almost two decades, and when finally they moved, it was only the Carriage and Wagon shops that moved, leaving the loco workshops with the same cramped site. I don't believe that can be solely laid at the door of the respective CMEs; I think the boards of that period also must take some of the responsibility.

Tom

 

I seem to recall that someone was arguing a while ago for the E1 to be restored to Stroudley condition, in order to justify it being painted in Stroudley goods livery (which I think was a dull olive green).

Well, that seems to settle the argument. The E! will presumably be restored to look like this:

https://railway-photography.smugmug...ley-E1-locos-on-the-Isle-of-Wight/i-mhvWbGR/A

I believe that the engine in this photo is carrying a Marsh-pattern boiler but has a Drummond chimney fitted during an overhaul at Eastleigh.

 

The Drummond chimney doesn't really do anything for the good looks of the loco - it is nonetheless a useful illustration of how, with the run down of Brighton, the old engines increasingly picked up foreign design elements.

Tom

 

Some years ago an O2 chimney was sent from Havenstreet to Cranmore to be used in place of the colliery chimney. It came back with the loco and is very likely to be used in the rebuild.

I think that the colliery chimney is still at Cranmore.

 

Indeed, that is basically what we are trying to achieve. The plan is not to rebalance the wheels which appear to be Stroudley originals with wrought iron spokes like terriers.

Given that a new boiler, new tanks, a mostly new bunker and an air brake system are all required most of the upper parts of the loco will be new. A lot of research is being done to ensure as accurate as possible a representation of an Isle of Wight E1. Nothing would stop the boiler being replaced in the future with an earlier style one but that is unlikely to happen while the locomotive is the IWSR's custody.

 

I support 100% what the IOWSR are planning to do with the only surviving E1.

A new boiler that is in any event required to be of the type as used on the E1s when transferred to the IOW.

I am bemused by talk of rebalancing. Firstly, Ryde Works could never have taken the wheels off the axles and turned them 180 degrees and pressed them back on, as seems to have been suggested. They didn't have the kit to do this.

What may have happened is increasing the balance weights as you can see on all the preserved Terriers. We know the E1s on the IOW worked 'The Tourist' passenger diagrams, so they couldn't have been that bad.

For the rebalancing proper you need to look up Harold Holcroft's 'Locomotive Adventure" particularly volume 2 chapter 13.

Cheers,
Julian

 

New build industrial E1 anyone?