45699 and 46115 have set a tone

Where do the SR Lord Nelson blueprints fit into this story? The way I remember being told about it, Fowler first approached Swindon, either to buy a few Castles "off the shelf" or to borrow a copy of the Castle drawings. He was rebuffed, so asked the Southern for the drawings of the Lord Nelson (briefly the most powerful British express loco), and Maunsell obliged. Presumably, those drawings actually went to North British, rather than Crewe or Derby, where they were combined with aspects of LMS practice to become the original Royal Scot design.

 

Good morning Steamage,

As you mention regarding the "Castle" request, the LMS were in a wee bit of a panic during 1926/7, to the point that a set of "Nelson" drawings were obtained from the Southern as a source of inspiration. The "Nelson" drawings apparently ended up at North British, but it appears that they were only used as a point of reference for the firebox, however, even with this component the layout and dimensions are very different. there is a reference in A. E Langridge's book "Under 10 C.M.Es" that refers to this episode in the design of the "Scots" as "The Waterloo fairy tale". Looking at a "Nelson" and a "Scot" it is very hard to see any area where there are similarities in design, apart from, perhaps the cab.

It is all a very fascinating story, thankfully, the "Scots" performed as intended "straight out of the box" and after re-building later in their lives took that performance to another level - fabulous machines!!

Cheers

Alan

 

Royal Scot will hopefully be out working next year.

I have always had a dream that once the Unknown Warrior is built we could do a "Tornado/P2" and build a second loco. My thoughts have always been either a fowler 2-6-4T as it would be an ideal engine for preserved railways or an original Royal Scot, called "Royal British Legion" which would link in very well with the National memorial engine. Weather either will happen i dont know but i can keep dreaming for now!

 

Frm a preserved railway point of view I would have thought a Fowler 2-6-4T would have wide support.

As an aside, ( and excluding the Patriot, Gav), I do worry about the future for the really big mainline steam recreations cometh the day in the future when steam is squeezed off Network Rail.

46118

 

The story about the Nelson drawings is covered in Holcroft's book about his time in the Southern drawing office - if I get time tonight, I'll look it up, but I seem to recall that when the request came from the LMS to use the drawings, they went straight to North British, rather than via Crewe / Derby etc, and North British worked up the design.

North British also somewhat bailed the SR out of an impending motive power crisis at around the same time, building a batch of King Arthurs (the "Scotch Arthurs") when it became obvious that the proposed express passenger 4-6-0 (what became the Lord Nelsons) wouldn't be ready for the beginning of 1926. Eastleigh were heavily committed rebuilding various Drummond monstrosities at the time.

Tom

 

One can be sure that the LMS staff would have been keen that the story they told minimised the amount of external influence on the design. It was certainly a monumental vote of no confidence in their own staff by the directors.

 

Tom: Subject to what Holcroft says, H. A. V. Bulleid in his chapter on Stanier comments: "The Chief Draughtsman ( at Derby presumably...) was Herbert Chambers, and excellent and exprerienced designer, noted for his heroic and successful effort in co-ordinating against time the design work between Derby Loco Drawing Office and the North British Loco Co. on the Royal Scot..." So it looks as though the original Royal Scot design was a combination effort between Derby and NB Loco.

Cox in "Royal Scots of the LMS" comments: " The initial diagram was prepared at Derby, and failing any response from Swindon to a request for detail drawings of the Castle, a full set of drawings for the Lord Nelson 4-6-0 was obtained from the Southern Railway. Although available for overall guidance, very little use was made of these drawings,except in respect of the firebox. The basic design followed established Derby practice in all details and in particular, the cylinders and long-travel valve gear were modelled from those of the 2300 class 2-6-4 tank which was being designed simultaneously in the Derby drawing office"

46118

 

Indeed, and that comes across in Langridge's tale of events. It is indeed ironic that it was probably another Scottish connection that was responsible for this situation - that being James Anderson - who was Motive Power Superintendent for the LMS at this time. Anderson imposed the Midland small engine policy onto the LMS, thus creating a major lack of suitable motive power, particularly for the West Coast main line. It wasn't until 1932 when Anderson finally retired and William Stanier arrived from Swindon that things finally changed and LMS motive power - the "Royal Scots" aside - finally caught up with the rest of the 20th century.

A quote from Master Builders of Steam by H A V Bulleid gives an inkling to what was going on:

Theoretically the running side was responsible to the Motive Power Dept. for operation and to the C.M.E. for maintenance, but the latter was the weaker link. Stanier and Jimmy Anderson, the Chief Motive Power Superintendent, took to each other at once: but they did not always speak identical language. In assessing new motive power requirements, Anderson would express his needs as "so many engines of a certain (existing) type." Stanier took the first of such notes and placed it firmly in his" pending" drawer. Later he received a personal reminder that he had not replied. "No and I don't propose to," he explained, " I am trying to decide what range of new locomotives you need, and I can only do this if you will specify the numbers required and the duties they are to perform." Here he was echoing the heart-cry of all engineering designers trying to get at the facts, while the client, with most helpful intentions, persists in fogging them with opinions and masking them by omissions. But Anderson co-operated, and Stanier was soon able to start preparing outline diagrams of proposed engine types.

Of course, William Stanier was appointed to make up for a lot of lost time on the locomotive design side on the LMS and the rest is history, as we say. The overriding message here though, is the far reaching, corrosive and damaging power that one individual can wield, even in an organisation as large as the LMS. Sadly, this sort of thing still goes on today, especially in politics, just look what damage the self-serving Tony Blair and his cronies did to this country; apologies for that, but I couldn't resist the analogy!!

Cheers

Alan

 

You don't have to apologise for calling Tony Blair self-seving! He was (and is) an utterly despicable individual and the worst person to lead this country since the days of the Stuart kings in the 17th century

 

Re James Anderson, thank goodness he went. Incredibly he had proposed a 4-4-2+2-4-4 Beyer Garratt, effectively two Compounds back to back with extra carrying wheels, and low pressure slide valves, and weighing 200 tons, after the Scots were in service!
Dave

 

Another element to the Royal Scot story is the close working relationship which existed between LMS Derby and the NBL company in the specific role of providing short term back-up to Derby when that site couldn't produce locomotives at the rate required. Not only did the NBL build the first 50 Royal Scots but also (1923) 15 Jinties; (1924) 25 Compounds [1135-59]; 25 4F 0-6-0; (1926) 61 Jinties; 25 4F 0-6-0 [4382-4406] (1927) 30 4F 0-6-0 [4477 - 4506]; (1933) 50 Jubilees [5557 - 5606 - the first batch given that the last 5 Patriots 5552 - 5556 had been cancelled and re-ordered as Jubilees]; (1936) 73 2-6-4T [2545 - 2617]; (1939-42) 208 8F 2-8-0.

This role continued with diesel traction when Derby ordered Bo-Bo Diesel 10800 from NBL but set a minimum spec from which NBL both designed and built the locomotive; 10800 subsequently set the spec for the later Type 1 designs specified by the BTC.

Whilst it is fair to note that NBL built locomotives for other companies, including the GWR and SR, it may be the case that the animosity between Crewe and Derby prior to the arrival of Stanier and the LMSR headquarters being based in Derby with Crewe having a secondary role, led to the Derby decision to look outside LMSR resources for short term relief in locomotive building. Thus it may be the latter factor rather the lack of faith by Derby in its own resources that gave NBL the chance to provide well engineered locomotives at short notice.

 

Hello Fred,

From this distance in time, it is difficult to visualise just how big The North British Locomotive Company was and the capacity that it had to churn out locomotives. Most certainly they could fulfill that role of short term back-up as you describe Fred, plus the bonus of a speedy delivery, which was most certainly a requirement with the "Scots". North British were indeed busy at about this time with domestic main line orders, Tom has mention the "Scotch Arthurs" in an earlier post and shortly after the order for the "Royal Scots", the LNER dropped a design and build order onto NB in the shape of the B17s. Ironically, the B17 order stemmed from a dissatisfaction with the original proposal from Doncaster drawing office, plus, the resulting loco was a 3 cylinder 4-6-0!!

Certainly all things locomotive at the LMS until 1932 were a trifle awry, to say the least and as you have pointed out, throw in the rivalry between Crewe and Derby and it is a wonder any progress was made, heaven knows what the cost of all of these machinations were. Eventually, nine years after the grouping, things changed on the LMS, Anderson retired, Stanier arrived and lots of time was made up with the design and building of some superb locomotives.

Credit where credit is due though, those involved with the creation of the "Scots" had their work cut out and they had to do it quick, the final creation turned out to be a success despite all of the things that could have gone wrong - proper engineers in those days!!

Cheers

Alan

 

This is what Holcroft had to say about the Genesis of the Royal Scot, from the SR perspective: (Locomotive Adventure, part 1, page 141)

"One morning towards the end of 1926 Herbert Chambers, then chief draughtsman at Derby, called on Clayton [n.b. Clayton was ex-Midland, so presumably they knew each other well - TJ]. I was present and heard him say that he had been sent by Sir Henry Fowler to solicit Maunsell's help towards the design of some new 4-6-0 locomotives which had to be built in time for the Summer Service of 1927. The existing LMS 4-6-0 types were incapable of hauling the heaviest trains to schedule without double-heading, but a Great Western 'Castle' on loan had done so with ease.

The Motive Power Section of the Operating Department would not accept Fowler's large compound Pacific then in the making, which was ultimately cut up. They did not want the complication of compounding a Pacific or the use of more than three cylinders in a 4-6-0. There was no time to design prototype and try it out in service before proceeding with the batch. The idea which they had in mind was, broadly, to construct a three-cylinder version of the Nelson, basing the design on the boiler and introducing as far as possible parts already existing on other LMS types.

What Chambers had come for was to ask for a complete set of drawings of the Nelson. Maunsell acceded to the request, and a set was sent from Eastleigh direct to the North British Company in Glasgow, where the design of the new engine was to be developed in collaboration with Derby.

On March 2nd, 1927, Chambers called in with the preliminary drawings of the boiler for Clayton's comments. While closely following the 'Nelson' boiler, there were a few small departures. For instance, the boiler tubes and flues and superheater elements were to LMS stock sizes, the length of the barrel and firebox were slightly adjusted to fit in with the general design of the engine, and pressure was raised to 250 lb. per sq. in. Although the Royal Scot, as the new LMS engine was named, and the Nelson could not be described as 'brothers', the family likeness might be regarded as 'first cousins'."

Tom

 

One things strikes me about the above story, and that is the evidently friendly relations between the CME's departments on the SR and LMS at that time - certainly at the "Lieutenant" level of Clayton / Chambers - in contrast to the GWR who seemed much more reluctant to closely share the secrets of the Castle. Presumably, the fact that the GWR and LMS were in direct competition on certain routes, whereas the SR and LMS didn't compete (and indeed, were allied via the S&DJR), coupled with the Midland background of James Clayton, presumably made co-operation less problematic between SR and LMS, relative to co-operation between LMS and GWR.

Tom

 

All in your humble opinion of course.

 

Both subjects of this thread will be running in the mnr 30th may to 1st June inc. according to railway mag April edition.

 

Or how about a rebuilt patriot? Early BR apple green, as per 45540
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/MAINLINE-37-...00/s/ODU1WDEwMjQ=/z/GNUAAOxyVLNStHQ~/$_35.JPG

One can but dream, hehe

 

These two will be joined by either the 8F or Black 5 for three days, 30th May - 1st June. WCR have agreed to bring a few extra coaches, so looking forward to seeing the Scot on a rake of maroons in the heart of Norfolk.

 

Just Curious, How Far north can a Jubilee or Scot go? Would locos like 46115 and 45699 be able to traverse the routes to Dunrobin Castle and/or Kyle out of Inverness. How about the line between Inverness and Fort William, the Oban Line, Mallaig etc.

 

If there isnt enough MR /Derby bashing here for some of you i recomend 'Life and Times of a Duke' - McGinty MJ lots of speculation as to how the Derby despicables were still trying to trip up the Horwich and Crewe usurpers right upto the end of steam....