Railway History Books: Suggested Reading

At the time I understood the provision of a 4-4-0 was over concerns, that if the Night Ferry
with a heavy train was running late and lost its path through suburbia, it might experience
major delays and water could become an issue with one loco and heavy working.

The NF, if on time, ran past the end of the School Grounds, before morning assembly, in the early 50s.

OVSB in his paper to the I.Mech. E. 14/12/1945 “Some Notes on the Merchant Navy Class Locomotives”
opened his remarks as follows:
QUOTE “ When the design of these engines was taken in hand it was required that they should be able
to work trains of greater weight than then allowed and at higher speeds. Passenger trains of 550 to 600
tons had to be regarded as probable in the near future. Average start to stop speeds of a mile a minute
on short runs such as to Dover and of 70mph on longer runs to Exeter etc, had to be provided for, with
a maximum limit of 90 to 95mph. END QUOTE

It has regularly been stated that the MNs were designed to haul 600tons at 70mph average. I do not
think that is what the above quote actually says but the SR PR machine might well have been happy
for any such interpretation ?

Michael Rowe

 

Hi Michael

All grist to Simon's mill. I thought it was a WC because MNs were prohibited on the diversion route. Maybe both stories are true.

Dulwich College I presume. I was standing at Dulwich cricket club where the LBSCR viaduct crosses the SECR.

Peter

 

Yes, I was a ‘boarder’ from 1950. If you were quick one could sprint at morning break to
also see the Down Golden Arrow and get back in time. . On moving to upper school (1953)
compulsory PT by the Quad, at break time, prohibited such escapades. Also one would
not wanted to have been seen indulging in such juvenile behaviour.

Michael Rowe

 

Dulwich boys! I went to the not a million miles away Eltham College. I was always most disappointed that we didn't get a Schools class name...

 

Kings Wimbledon calling here… Nameplate and presentation model both in the school’s hands when I was there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not me gov, my auntie lived on Burbage Rd and I got farmed out there in the summertime. At the establishment just down the road from @35B. Definitely no schools class name!

 

There is a counter question which is - why did they build so few?

At the outbreak of the war, the SR had about 1,800 steam locomotives (down from about 2,200 in 1923). Even assuming an average lifespan of 40 years, they should have been replacing 45 locos per year.

Bulleid's plan had been to have five standard classes: what became the Merchant Navies; Light Pacifics; Q1; Leader and a 350hp diesel shunter. Between 1940 and 1950, he built 185 locos (140 pacifics, 40 Q1s, 3 shunters, and 1 (+ 1 unfinished) Leader. At normal replacement rates, he should have built ~ 450 locos over the same period. So, in the counterfactual that the war hadn't intervened, even allowing for further rollout of electrification reducing the required number of passenger steam locos; and anticipated higher availability meaning you didn't need a strict 1 to 1 replacement of old locos with new, there should still have been at least twice as many locos built in that decade as actually were. Coupled with that, elderly 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts should have been scrapped much quicker than happened in reality. So the war changed things, but without the war, there should have been far more Bulleid locos, and many of those would have been pacifics.

Of course, following that counterfactual, the locos being replaced by pacifics would primarily have been Victorian and Edwardian 4-4-0s, and after a while had things continued pre-grouping 2-6-0s. You could ask whether the power of a pacific was needed just to replace a T9 or Wainwright D/E, but it is a truism that whenever a class of loco is introduced to replace an old one, more power is always provided: it gives you scope to increase carriage per seat weight (= comfort) and accelerate timetables (= speed). (Same happens even if you change traction type, hence why 2,000hp class 8 steam locos got replaced by 3,000hp diesels and then in some cases 5,000hp electrics).

Hence my question - not so much "did he build too many" but "did he build enough?" The real question was whether the high degree of standardisation was right. Bulleid thought he could make do with four standard steam locos (plus a diesel shunter). Riddles ended up with 12 standard designs, which gets frequently questioned as too many, with layers of duplication. The right answer might be somewhere in between - but if you agree withs standardisation, then that means a small number of classes and therefore inevitably many of those will be built in large numbers. The light pacifics in particular really could sensibly cover anything between a T9 / D15 / D1 / E1 / L1 /Mogul / Schools / King Arthur - that's quite a wide range and large number of locos that ultimately could have been replaced by a multi-year build programme.

Tom

 

An excellent post and it's one of my starting questions on Bulleid. I personally think he didn't do as good a job as Thompson in terms of looking forward, and certainly the build numbers are significantly lower (albeit we are comparing apples with oranges in terms of LNER to SR, the former being more than double the size in locomotive numbers and route mileages significantly higher too).

Thompson's new standard classes were A1, A2, B1, J11, J45, J50, K1, L1, O1, Q1. Nine classes of steam locomotive plus the hoping to be standard EE styled diesel shunter. There was also the aborted D class (I am still finding new things out about his ideas even today!) based on the D15s with belpaire boilers, and a push to standardise on boiler types across the rest of the fleet.

There's definitely a lot that can be compared and contrasted between Thompson and Bulleid, for sure. I don't think it's in the latter's favour, actually.

 

The question that's left hanging here is the role of both the SR diesels and the Raworth electric locomotives. If we look at Bulleid's progress without considering the wider factors in SR motive power policy we're in danger of missing an important dimension.

 

I agree but I wonder if that makes much difference in all honesty.

Sorry, back on topic: I will add the books in this weekend to the main post. Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

 

The question I would ask is could the light pacifics operate the trains at a lower cost per mile than the locos you have listed above

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

Yes indeed. SR steam locomotive policy (1923-39 and particularly post 1932 ) was surely always
within parameters set by the capital demands of new electrification projects. The outbreak of War
in 1939 instantly changed everything. Not only were electrification projects halted, so effectively
was new steam locomotive building unless it accorded with Wartime requirements ( eg the
requirement for the Merchant Navy to be a mixed trafic loco.).

Without the War electrification would have proceeded apace.

The following from the “Report of the Committee on Proposed Extensions of Electrification “
( February 1946) Chairman A.Raworth Chief Electrical Engineer ( Ret’d) might interest.

QUOTE Introduction: The committee was appointed by the General Manager on 31st August
1944 to study and report upon:-
(A) The completion of electrification of the Eastern and Central Sections of the Railway.in
conformity with Board Minute B2542 March 1942
B) The complete electrification of the Southern Railway as far west and including the line
from Salisbury to Bournemouth. END QUOTE.

In all probability, without WWII electrification east of Salisbury to Bournemouth might
well have been accomplished by 1950.

Certainly the difficulties on the Oxted lines in the late Forties ( worn out I1X, I3, Qs drafted
in etc ) would have been avoided. ( Although I have to add the introduction of the 2-6-4 tanks,
both Fairburn and Riddles, took some time to achieve any improvement , )

In 1940 I suggest ( without WWII) 30 MNs 110 WC/BB plus Q1s and the Leaders would have
been sufficient West of Salisbury and Bournemouth to replace the pre 1923 locos and offer
service improvements. Whether an ideal mix of motive power is another question,

WWII not only halted planned electrification it did not permit Bulleid to build additional
steam locos to meet the changing circumstances.

Michael Rowe

I have been reading the report ( it is years since I last read it.) The following numbers
are relevant wrt Tom’s observations re the size of the steam fleet.

QUOTE “During the 12 months to September 2 1939 the number of steam locomotives
required to work the traffic within the two areas under consideration was 1,020 and
1,350 respectively. These locomotives, which are of all types and ages would be
displaced by electrification END QUOTE
( the two areas are SE and Central Divisions. and all East of Salisbury Bournemouth

Michael Rowe

.

 

One would hope that newly built modern locomotives would have much lower overhaul and general maintenance costs than pre group survivors, which was the key cost in running steam locomotives. Whether Bulleid's particular designs would have fulfilled that hope is another question.

 

As intended - clearly yes, otherwise they wouldn't have been authorised. As delivered - perhaps not.

I think with any CME, there are two questions to ask: was their policy sensible, and did they successfully deliver their policy? In hindsight, his locos didn't deliver higher availability and utilisation as planned. But you have to assume that he didn't set out to build locos that didn't;t meet their design requirements.

I think a lot of discussion about Bulleid focuses on the second question: why didn't his locos work as planned. But there is less emphasis on whether - through the lens of someone faced with what he inherited in 1938 - the policy objectives were sound.

Tom

 

I think I had better start up a Bulleid thread before we go too far down the Bulleid route on this thread…!

 

I Submit its time to split this interesting discussion on SR Policy into a new topic!

 

One step ahead of you Jim

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/o-v-s-bulleid-the-southern-enigma.1422871/

 

It's @Jamessquared's third law of NatPres - all threads eventually discuss the Leader.

Tom

 

Have we ever had a thread discuss the different livery potential of the Leaders? Come to think of it, have we ever had a thread on the modifications to be made to a new build to make them work successfully?

 

I'll save Tom typing it out again national-preservation.com/threads/new-build-steam-strategy-coordination.561494/page-6#post-1265077