GWR four-cylinder arrangement?

I sort of the agree with the comment about keeping your dreams to yourself but there does seem to be a trend on this forum for passive aggressive attempts (from some quarters more than others!) to shut down comments such as yours. This is after all a DISCUSSION forum so aren't people be prepared to give others the chance to opportunity to put their views forward? You don't have to read them!

 

'Best' is a word rather open to interpretation; you need to specify from which point of view they were 'Best'.

As you say the Compounds had their weaknesses and the main one was size - or lack of it. They were more than big enough for the (relatively) short trains on the Midland with its policy of lightweight but frequent trains, but attempts to introduce this system on the West Coast lines failed due to a lack of paths to accommodate the extra trains. As a comparison, a Compound (rated as Class 4) might leave St Pancras with a heavy train made up to 300 tons. A short walk away a LNWR George the Fifth (rated as Class 3) might leave Euston loaded to 400 to 450 tons, and that happened on a daily basis. The Claughtons and Dreadnoughts certainly had their weaknesses too but ultimately had the shear size and steaming capacity (not a Compound's strong point) to shift the heavier loads.

The Dreadnoughts' main problem was that it was never intended for high speed, long distance, non-stop running: that didn't happen on the L&YR. Instead they were intended for shorter runs with intermediate stops and restarts often against severe gradients. However good the Compounds might have been, they would not have done that on a day-in, day-out basis, or possibly at all. The Dreadnoughts' other issues were high coal consumption and mechanical weaknesses, particularly hot boxes. The former was cured, as it was on other LMS classes, by substituting multi-ring valve heads for the original Schmidt single ring and also eliminating the ball valves in the heads intended to give free running. Even Stewart Cox, who hated everything L&YR (he had been a Horwich apprentice!), reckoned they could be made good and reliable both easily and cheaply, but by that time the Stanier era was beginning and Dreadnought withdrawals had already begun.

The Claughtons were designed for the WCML and were fast and powerful - on a good day anyway. But their performances were inconsistent. Their excessive coal consumption was cured by the same multi-ring valve head conversion but their reliability and repair and maintenance costs were terrible, and there was no easy cure. The LMS eventually 'rebuilt' them with three cylinders, known for obvious reasons as 'Baby Scots', although definitely not by officialdom.

The Compound was a good intermediate express engine but nowhere near the answer to the LMS's needs for express power, even in 1923. This is shown by the introduction of the Royal Scots only four years after Grouping, an engine 23 tons 14 hundredweight heavier than a Compound.

 

If that is aimed at me, then I have no problem with discussion, I just happen to think that Mr Hermod should build a loco if he wants to experiment, rather than butchering historical locos.

 

I don't disagree, in terms of butchering a preserved loco but, in reality, he's only talking about his dreams and if he really wants to go ahead I think we all know what reception he'd get! If you thought the idea of using a Castle boiler to kit-build a 47XX was heresy then..........!