V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

That's not "evidence" - what has he based his statement on? What quantitative measures are in place for that statement to be made?

It is not enough to quote a secondary source - what is behind what he said? Is there evidence for the design being poor? Any reports, any statistics?

 

You are doubting Bill Harvey, an expert in steam locomotive construction. The fact that the drawgear was changed immediately for the pre-existing LMS design should be evidence enough.

 

Not good enough evidence I am afraid, the draw gear was changed on the Britannias - was it changed elsewhere on other designs? Was it isolated incidents or was it a “campaign change” - i.e. across the company and its rolling stock?

Your response is far too defensive. Asking for evidence isn’t “doubt” - it’s academic. Wide ranging statements need to be backed up by evidence.

 

You are acting like a little child because someone has found fault with your beloved LNER. Grow up!

 

I hope when you’ve calmed down a bit you will see that I am not asking for anything more than any other scholar or historian would do.

The point about challenging what’s been said is for analysis. Asking not just why but also can we evidence this.

Evidence based approaches are absolutely key to addressing some of the general claims made by writers. Too often in railway history we have seen general statements made by writers. No one is infallible.

For my own part, I want to know what the evidence is for the statement so that if I need to, I can revise my views accordingly.

The draw gear on LNER locomotives was not one single design that remained static for decades, there are many variations amongst the different constituent companies and as such evidence for the statement you have quoted is needed to place it into context and understand it better.

 

I would expect this issue would have been discussed at one of the locomotive committee meetings held during 1951/52

 

We know that Bill Harvey wrote that a thing happened. What we don’t know from the passage linked is what went into that decision, and how it was balanced.

That’s about the evidence trail, not about trust. We know from a lot of what Simon’s done that conventional wisdom, including first hand accounts from those who dealt with various LNER designs, gives an incomplete and to some extent misleading picture of what was actually going on.

That’s no disrespect to Bill Harvey or anyone else, but the normal historical process of sifting and testing evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Simon, see "Under 10 CMEs, Volume Two: C. E. Fairburn to J. F. Harrison 1944 to 1959" by E. A. Langridge, page 106. Oakwood Press, 2011

 

Thank you, I will go look it up.

 

I understand LMS locos had the drawbar and then safety chains as a backup between the loco and tender. When the Britannias were first build they decided not to bother fitting the safety chains and only rely on the drawbar, However, there was some incident somewhere on the London to Norwich line early on in their life where the Engine and Tender came apart on a passenger train due to the pin or drawbar failing and the loco split from its tender and train. Fortunately the crew were fine as the cab goes over the top of the tender so they didn't fall out and were able to stop.

Cant recall where I read about it (probably a railway mag) or which loco it was, but it led to a hasty modifications to them so it wouldn't happen again, presumably going back to LMS practice by fitting safety chains in case of failure as had been the previous practice.

 

It’s a well recorded incident, it was in August 1957 and involved 70012 John of Gaunt. The loco broke away at about 70 mph near Diss, the severing of the vacuum pipe brought the engine and train to a rapid halt it left the loco with no brake, it was finally stopped by using the reverser. There was a similar incident a few months later but the broken pin only dropped out as the train came to a halt at Liverpool St.

 

Not chains but two solid, although thinner, bars. Did the same job though.

 

Something Stanier brought from Swindon?

 

I don't think so; the Horwich Crabs were the same. I don't know about Derby or Crewe though.

 

Derby M.R. and L.M.S. 0-6-0s were fitted with them.

 

As an aside I was fortunate enough to have corresponded with Bill Harvey in the 80s and he told me that his book 60 Years in Steam had about 70 thousand words but he had actually written about 200 thousand. I wonder what happened to the unpublished manuscript?
Dave

 

Should be brought the tender and train to a rapid halt, As stated the locomotive had no brake as it was not possible to isolate the steam conection to the tender brake.

 

The same thing happened on a St Pancras to Manchester central train somewhere near Chapel el Frith, about 1960 .Can't remember the loco number ,I'm going from memory .It was doing about 70mph at the time .The steam brake on the loco does work in situation's like this but only at very reduced pressure.

 

From 1954 a Klinger stop cock was fitted to the tender brake steam supply just below the steam brake atomiser, which was positioned in the driver's pedestal. So it would be possible to shut off the steam supply in the case of a split between the loco and tender. That, of course, would be dependent on the loco being fitted with the stopcock.