LSWR H16 tanks

Your aversion to smokebox wing-plates perhaps mirrors my general aversion to what I consider to be superfluous streamlining cladding, which in the days before aerodynamics was adequately understood was primarily a stylistic accoutrement. At the risk of heresy I find the rebuilt Merhant Navy's a far more attractive and purposeful looking machine. Streamlining was a statement of intent, fitting the period much in the same way that domes and valve covers sculpted to look like classical, Ionic columns were a moral statement in early Victorian times. They were a statement of the kind of moral ordering that machines could bring upon society.

As to smokebox wing-plates I can take them or leave them. I would say they tend to look better on smaller engines and I couldn't imagine many early Scottish engines without them - they almost seem to go with the territory and I find the variety of early Stirling brothers, Smellie, Wheatley, Connor, Brittain designs endlessly fascinating. As a big engine for its time, which had wing-plates, a Jones Goods is a very good looking engine in my opinion - taking all the right stylistic cues of Stroudley and applying them to a larger engine. And Stroudley (and Billington after him were masters of sculptural elegance in my opinion). As to the LSWR F13, Drummond was an interesting fellow but I don't think poor Dugald could design a successful or attractive large engine however hard he tried. It's interesting to note that the Drummond family exercised a familial style much in the same say the Stirling family did at the GNR, H&BR and SER. I'm quite partial to James Stirling's and Cudworth's designs for the old SER even if they weren't always successful machines.

If I were to pick designers whose work I find the most pleasing aesthetically, I'd say Samuel W. Johnson of the Midland, W. Stroudley and R. Billington of the LBSCR, John G. Robinson of the GCR, and George Whale and C Bowen-Cooke of the LNWR. Also both Adams and Wainwright designed some beautiful looking machines. Sculpted chimneys and domes, the proportional relationship between the boiler fittings and the leading wheel, high splashers and brass beading, and flush smokeboxes where each rivet is flush with the cladding are pleasing elements in my opinion.

Anyway diversity of taste is good and should be celebrated!

 

An interesting an astute observation. I suspect the writing was on the wall for steam a lot earlier than the decision to phase it out given the experiments and moves toward electrification in the early part of the century. If wars hadn't intervened, the relative pre-grouping companies would have no doubt continued to amalgamate into larget entities organically and the moves toward electrification would have proceeded unhindered. While steam perhaps would've still persisted until the 1960's I think we would've seen electrified mainlines by the 1940's.

Apologies for 'derailing' (no pun intended) this thread. My two cents: a H16 would be a worthy build candidate if using existing parts doesn't jeopardise the surviving S15's.

 

Hi everyone, newbie here.
I came across this thread by accident as I'm building a H16 in O gauge and have to point out a few things. Notwithstanding all the S15 spare parts, a H16 project is not going to work using S15 frames or a boiler. Firstly, the two classes had different wheelbases, so the frames and motion parts are out. Secondly, the S15 class used the N15 designated bolier, and the H16 used the G16 type, which is 1' 9" shorter between tubeplates, as well as being of a smaller diameter. The firebox ashpans were also different, that of the H16 having to clear the centre axle, whilst that of the S15 had to rise to clear the rear axle.


It's a nice idea though.

 

Holy thread resurrection, Batman! Etc.

Lancastrian 8F raises an interesting point which triggers a synapse in my head. Were/are not the Urie and Maunsell N/S15s different in the boiler department? I rather seem to recall that the Maunsell types used a larger boiler than the Urie types - and that this was in length as well as diameter, with a commensurate change in wheelbase length...

...but if this was/is the case, how has the ex-825 boiler been made to fit on a Urie chassis?

I may, of course, be talking utter tosh. It's all vaguely half-heard stuff, half-remembered.

And yes, as my username suggests, I rather like big Southern tanks. If a Feltham tank (be it H16 or G16) were proposed to be built, I wouldn't say no. However, while I am an enthusiastic advocate of the new-build movement, I think it would be ill-advised to launch anything more than a study group at present - with a whole raft of new-builds likely to emerge around 2018-2020, it might be better to think of around then... something of this marginal interest is unlikely to attract massive funding support in the way the P2 and Patriot have done - but, if well managed, it could avoid the fate of the L1, J39, Dean Goods and suchlike groups, which did have a whiff of the Hornby catalogue about them.

 

Dimensionally, the Urie and Maunsell boilers were the same, though the pressure was raised on the Maunsell series and they had the Maunsell pattern superheater. In later years I think the Urie boilers were essentially bought up to Maunsell spec in that department, and the boilers were fully interchangeable between all the classes.

You might be thinking of the Schools boiler, which has basically the King Arthur firebox, but is shorter between the tube plates.

Tom

 

What I do distinctly remember are the more outright visible differences: the running plate on the Maunsells stays at the same level from ahead of the cylinders to the cab, whereas the Uries drop down behind the cylinders a bit - and that the Uries carry rather taller chimneys than the Maunsells...

It's interesting how similarly Maunsell and Urie were thinking, and how the two essentially came together under Maunsell after the Grouping.

Off-topic, does anyone know how/why Maunsell got the Southern job over Robert Urie and Lawson Billinton? I know Urie was not a young man, but Billinton was 28 years his junior (and 14 years Maunsell's). How would Billinton have done in the job, one wonders? I rather think that fruit-farming's gain was a loss to the Southern Railway - he had already, as one of the youngest engineers in the country, created two notably fine classes of locomotive (the L-class 4-6-4T and the K-class 2-6-0), and one undistinguished one (E2 0-6-0T) which inadvertently became an icon - and possibly the most famous exctinct steam locomotive class in the world... not, it has to be said, that many (if any) of Maunsell's locomotives could be called less than fine - all seem to have been conspicuously successful, with one exception that was arguably used as a scapegoat for poor permanent way, given that it worked fine on the ECML...

 

I read somewhere that the reason for appointing Maunsell rather than Billinton was that Maunsell was in his prime whereas Billinton was considered a bit young. Manusell also was fully up to speed on contemporary developments, being aware of Churchward's innovations on the GWR, for example. The best evidence that the SR board made the right choice is to compare the performaces of the 4-4-0s they rebuilt. Maunsell's D1 and E1s (rebuilds of the Wainwright D and E classes) were among the best two-cylindered 4-4-0s ever to run in this country. A few lasted until the end of steam in Kent. I have an old LP of Southern steam which includes highlights of a run from Victoria to Chatham behind E1 31019 driven by the late Sammy Gingell of Stewarts Lane. It is a really remarkable performace, including 80mph through Farningham Road. While I agree with you about the appeal of big Southern tanks, a D1 and E1 would come very near the top of new build schemes which, if some serious group were to propose, I would be happy to support financially.

By contrast, Billinton's rebuild of his father's B4 class (the B4x) was not really successful. The locos were known to be poor steamers and were gone by the early 1950s. Admittedly, there was less for LBSCR locos to do on their home turf following electrification of many LBSCR main lines in Sussex, but the SR motive power people never tried moving them to another section, whereas some T9s were used on Kent Coast trains and a few F1s migrated to the Western section where they performed with distinction on the Waterloo-Reading services. In short, the fact that the B4xs spent their last years pottering about with stopping trains on the Oxted line whereas the D1s and E1s were working front-line express trains even after the arrival of the Bulleid Pacifics sums up why Maunsell got the job rather than Billinton.

Having said all that, Billinton did do well with the K class. However, Maunsell's Ns were better still.

 

Understood! I was under the impression that the B4X's problem wasn't poor steaming (the boiler was that of the K-class, a fine steamer), but rather that the short-travel valves choked up the front end, so you couldn't actually use the steam. The Baltics had rather the same problem - awesome power (faster-accelerating than a Maunsell Arthur) but had to be pushed down hills and were very heavy on coal. The general view among LBSCR drivers seemed to be that the Arthurs had the better front end, "but I can't get out of Victoria to Clapham in five minutes like I could with the Baltic!"...

All that said, how much of this, with the aid of modern technology (the P2SLT showing the way forward), could be fixed? Long-travel valves on a Baltic?

 

Billinton was also quite hands-on practical, this must surely be unique? A fairly large scale working model (of a K class), built by the CME responsible for the original 1:1 prototype...

Just looking at the Baltics I can't imagine those hidden steam chests were very big; I suspect the valve events weren't the only thing restricting free running at speed.

 

I've heard about this model. What scale is it, and where is it?

 

It's 9 1/2"g and was with Mike Palmer at Station Road Steam. Ray.

 

What a beautiful model!

Tom

 

Do any photographs of it exist?

 

Yes, in the web page that @8126 linked to in the first place!

Tom

 

Err... I'm not seeing a link? Maybe just my browser?

 

http://www.stationroadsteam.co.uk/stock pages/5410/index.htm

Tom

 

Ah, thank you. What a beautiful model it is. Well, at least one Billinton-built K-class survives... sort of... would love to see it scaled up to full size. Rather more useful for the Bluebell than a Craven 2-4-0 I'd have thought.

 

Useful for what though? Even if it doesn't haul very long trains I bet people would come a lot further to see a Craven 2-4-0 in action than a Billington K class - and film companies a lot more likely to book it.

Most CMEs would have come through the shops on an apprenticeship though surely. They might not have had the desire to do such things as a hobby in later life, but they would all have had the skills.

 

K-class highly significant as a WW1 era loco that survived half a century in service with minimal modification and was still in good nick when withdrawn for accounting reasons. Also well capable of hauling 5/6 well-loaded Mk1s (or period stock) at 25mph up any gradient all day long. Their tractive effort is broadly the same as that of a Black Five, although of course the 5MT's somewhat bigger driving wheels will give it a greater turn of speed. They were highly regarded to the very end. Also, one was nearly saved by the Bluebell in its early years (same story with the H2). Craven's locos were built in myriad classes of often one or few examples each, all judged failures, and probably have less haulage capacity (without major internal mods) than a Terrier. All were rapidly withdrawn by Stroudley, and so they have not only long since passed from living memory, but also probably were never photographed...