Why didn't Britain do better......

[pete2hogs]

And what actual use would a loco that produced 4000hp sustained have been on a railway whose main revenue earner was shipped in 4-wheel wooden boxes tied together by chains? You are looking at the wrong end of the problem, I'm afraid.

I think in the main you are alluding to French practice, but to implement that on British railways would have needed a complete revolution in the way the loco departments were run and staffed. See some of Dick Hardy's comments on French practice.

The return on all the upheaval wouldn't have been sufficient, especially since most of the CME's from the 30's on could see that steam would be replaced within a 20year or so span - which it would have been but for WW2. Southern was already gradually electrifying, the GW and LNER had major electrification schemes, the LMS was building diesel shunters, and but for directorial advice (based on risk-avoidance in what was effectively a publicity-driven flagship project) the Silver Jubilee train on the LNER would have been diesel powered and we'd have had no A4's.

Although the steam powered railway of the 50's and early 60's was glorious, it was also an anachronism, an accidental consequence of 30's depression and WW2.

[DeCaso]

So, the V2 was designed to haul unfitted freight........

No. The LNER recognised the difficulties caused trying to run slow freight trains amongst high speed passenger workings.

The Deltic was introduced on the Eastern because more power was needed. Pity about relatively low power output compared with what steam offered. The Standard pacifics were an illustration of the lack of depth of tallent in the BR design team.

I am not writting about operating practice - though some of the high quality French crew training would have been useful. The question is "Why didn't Britain do better...?" The answer is that it should have. The knowledge existed but it was not used. Why would there have been an upheaval if locomotives offering much higher power outputs, requiring vastly less shed attention and far fewer overhauls were introduced? To say nothing of greater efficiency than existing types and lower economic life cycle costs than any alternative. The stage was being reached where boilers would never need removing from the frames throughout that long cycle thanks to the better understanding of water treatment.

There exists some good analysis of USA railroads. How many found their economic situation improved by dieselisation? The answer subtends to zero.

You can then turn your attention to the impact on countries in Africa.

Traction policy is not easy. The new box can hide a very poisonous chalice. It just does not show particularly quickly.

[drmditch]

Thank you all for a very interesting set of responses. I did note this morning, while browsing RCTS 8A with breakfast, that Doncaster did experiment with an automatic stoker on a J52 in 1936-38. The major problem reported was jamming with large size lumps.

There is however one other aspect which no-one has mentioned. The big 'private' - ie 'commercial' locomotive builders were providing very interesting machines for overseas markets. If I read correctly, prior to WW1 there was considerable (although probably unofficial and informal) exchange of ideas between the GCR at Gorton and Beyer-Peacock, and possibly between the NB at Cowlairs, and North British Loco . Considering the amount of British investment and engineering that went into South America and Africa, it's a shame that more effort was not put into improving the turnround and tare weight economics of the home industries.

What a shame that Gibb left the NER when he did!

(And yes, it was a shame that WW1 broke out when it did as well. Although I'm not sure how much of the damage to British overseas markets was due to German submarines, and how much to the inability of the UK to react to changed conditions after 1918.)

Could it be that the Derby-based arrogance which spoiled the design of the LMS Garrets was not unique in the British main line railways?

[Pyewipe Junction]

Another aspect to consider was the lack of intellectual competition among CMEs after 1923, when their numbers were reduced to four. No longer could a young aspiring engineer make his name by climbing the ladder from smaller to larger companies. This surely must have had a dampening effect on design. Bullied was very lucky to be offered the Southern in 1937 - and he took advantage of it with a vengeance!

[pete2hogs]

The fact is that the steam locomotive is basically and incurably inefficient. Tinkering at the edges does not produce a machine that can compete with diesel or electric, as even recent experimenters have concluded (Read 'the Red Devil' by Wardale and note his conclusions - here is someone with actual practical experience of applying the improvements).

The UK has particular problems both in type of traffic and in the available kinds of coal which militated against the slight improvements (if indeed there were real in-service improvements) that were available - most of them only achieve any results where locos can be worked at or near maximum capacity for long periods of time, or when applied to locos which had basic inefficiencies to start with.

A modern steam engine would look more like the Leader than anything else, and would probably use a Doble style flash boiler. It would have to able to run in service for weeks on end without any more attention than refuelling, and it would have to be clean. No traditional steam loco could come anywhere near the availability of modern traction, despite the performances the LNER Pacific's put up in their last days against the Deltics. Heroic, but doomed.

Please don't get me wrong, I love steam engines, but let us not imagine anything could have been done to make them dramatically more efficient in UK circumstances, or could have prolonged their life beyond a few years at most. People tried, they were not blinkered, and almost all the overseas improvements available before steam in this country ceased to be developed were tested and found wanting. High pressure engines, turbines, condensers, Kylchaps, Caprottis, mechanical stokers, Giesel ejectors, Crosi boilers, Water tube boilers, hybrid steam/diesel and steam/electric, compounds in numerous forms, Gas producer systems - the last by the NCB but all the rest designed by or at least tested on the 'unimaginative' main line companies. Don't tell me our designers were blinkered or uncompetitive.

All either failed to achieve any improvement or were unworkable on cost grounds, with the one exception of the Kylchap which was eventually adopted and led to the aforementioned glorious sunset of the LNER Pacifics. (And some Jubilees very late in the day, it is alleged). And even then you get 'enthusiasts' who complain it spoilt the look of the engines!

Edit - tell you what - I'll give you a recipe for the ultimate British 20th century steam express engine - Bullied's Merchant Navy boiler in original condition with thermic syphons etc. on the chassis of Gresley's 10000 in compound form, with of course Kylchap and roller bearings throughout. That might have a high enough boiler pressure to actually get some advantage out of the compounding, although it would no doubt have had higher maintenance costs than a Peppercorn A1.

[DeCaso]

The problem with the steam locomotive is that nobody has built a really good one. Both Chapelon and Porta spent their time by and large modifying and experimenting.

You can write about overseas developments and say they were found wanting. Found by whom? And more importantly why?

The USA is viewed as the classic model of the replacement of steam traction. Not too long after the event some took the effort to look through the books to see what had ben achieved. The railroads were fundamentally in no better state. Worse, at that time no one thought about the real cost of the fuel being used. The supply of oil into the US is protected by a huge amount of defence expenditure. For every $1 the railroads pay for the fuel they use an extra $7 is taken out of the economy just to protect the supply. There is far more to the efficiency equation than just the thermodynamics.

The traditional form of the steam locomotive works. You to be unusually inept to produce one that will not function. Getting the best out of the concept is very hard.

In general terms you would want the welded steel bed equivalent of the cast steel bed. This would not be so dependent on the boiler offering extra rigidity and so this would open up the possibility of a water tube boiler. If you wanted to go beyond 20 bar as your W.P. you would have to. Gresley's choice of 30 bar approx. was well chosen. You would include:

1/ Fully integrated lubrication system - tried and tested.

2/ Roller bearings throughout - ditto.

3/ Franklin wedges - ditto.

4/ Multi-element packings - ditto.

5/ Multi-ring light weight, streamlined, diffuser fitted piston valves - diffuser aspect not tested yet.

6/ Cooled valve liners - tried and tested.

7/ Between the ring oiling on the valves - ditto.

8/ Carry over limiting combustion system - tried, tested, capable of further improvement

9/ Compound expansion - tried and tested.

10/ Interstage superheater - ditto.


This is just a start. Tinkering at the edges, you must still drive a Model T.

[pete2hogs]

Well, I'm not going to quote the information on all the tests! A good start might be 'prototype locomotives' by Robert Tufnell.

Gresley on the LNER tried many of the things on the above list, plus feed water heaters, exhaust ejectors, etc. In the end everything was rejected, by him or his successors. Because on testing the results simply did not back up the claims made, or the cost of maintenance offset any other savings. Gresley was also to the fore in devising better testing methods and in pressing for a centralised testing facility.

The OP was wanting to know why our railways were not more innovative, and I was pointing out that they can't be accused of not trying, or of being hidebound, with the possible exception of the GW after Churchward. Even the Southern, dedicated to electrification, made at least two major experiments.

On 'modern' steam I mean no criticism, but I prefer the opinion of people who have actually tried these things. I agree that dieselisation did not bring all the benefits that were claimed, but in essence the steam locomotive as an everyday traction unit was doomed when the cost of labour became the most significant cost. I agree you could design and build a steam engine that would be more efficient and probably require less maintenance than anything so far put together in one package (even by the original De Caso), but I still do not think it would compete in modern conditions - availability alone would be a problem. What are you going to do with the ash? Modern traction units hardly need to go on shed except for periodic safety inspections.

[DeCaso]

Gresley did not have the finance to allow for full testing. The company that he worked for was never in a good fiscal state.

However the fact remains that the engineers working in the post war years were simply not good enough. If they had been good enough they would not have produced locomotives that lagged so far behind the standards that had been set pre-war.

As far as modern steam goes the ideas have been applied and tested and the results put into print by the engineers involved. Not by some regurgitator of received third hand misconceptions. Too many writers on railway matters simply re-hash the work of earlier writers.

So far as ash disposal goes have a look at what the N & W developed in the 1940s. Then imagine something very much better. You need to refuel a diesel locomotive and give it an inspection. So when you take your steam locomotive for coaling it is also replenished with lubricants and has the ash disposed of in short order. You run a fully integrated system. This is an engine with a pinhole or restricted hulson type grate that is also agitated to clear ash. The combustion system seldom if ever delivers clinker.
It could well be served by a single crew member. Today, you could automate the whole sevicing proceedure.

When costing exercises have been carried out on the relative balalnce of the options available some of the trickery and dishonesty involved has to be seen to be belived. In France it was stated that one electric locomotive could replace 3 steam locomotives. So it could if you included availability figures for locomotives that were 60 years old. The problem was that when you looked at the 141R they could only offer to replace two, sorry that's wrong -one. Mind you some things never change, the French off shore windfarms were sold by a company that conveniently ommited the environmental costs of producing huge ammounts of concrete.

Based on the level of subsidy, is there any case for the use of diesel traction in the States?

[Andy W]

I think that saying British locomotive engineers post war weren't good enough is a bit strong.

They were not masters in their own house as far as traction policy was concerned and subject to a large degree of commercial control over their activities. When you think they had to justify spend on such simple things as fitting roller bearings to axles then that gives an idea of the problems they faced. Of course after 1948 there was increasing political control of overall traction policy, culminating in the doomed attempt to generate a viable British private diesel locomotive industry.

The problem in Britain has always been the availability of capital on the railway to carry out "new ideas", not the engineering will to carry them out. Such capital that was available post war was generally expected to be spent on minor improvements to current thinking, not funding a step change.

[pete2hogs]

I am aware of the French PTB's embarrassment over the 141R's and more particularly 242A1, yes. They destroyed 242A1 as quickly as they could to avoid unwanted comparisons.

But I still don't see how you would replace, say a Pendolino (since you want to concentrate on express passenger) with something steam powered, using no more man-hours to service it.

For diesel powered freight trains (freightliners for example) running at respectable line speeds you may have a better case.

It is arguable that the whole BR standards issue was a waste of time, I wouldn't try and defend that exercise, and there is no doubt that both in the US and the UK (and no doubt many other countries) dieselisation was not properly costed, was undertaken prematurely, and certainly not compared with the alternative of replacing the old steam fleet with modern steam locos. But, frankly, that last had no hope of happening. The steam loco was seen as old-fashioned, and no-one, anywhere in the world, managed to stem the tide of fashion. That applies in pretty much every walk of life, not just in railway traction units!

[john coffin]

It shows a complete lack of knowledge of the period and economics of post war railways to complain about the inability of the engineers of the period.

For the 18 months or so after VJ day, the railways and the country were only too happy to forget 6 years and war, and just struggle through. The railway companies had two problems, trying to get the track back to something resembling usable, second how to re employ the demobbed soldiers and get rid of the women workers, they certainly had little or no money to develop new technologies or adapt them to older locos.
After the election of the Labour Government of Atlee, Nationalisation was soon on the cards, and so there was no point in the big 4 trying to develop new things, because they had no idea of how the new organisation was going to be managed or organised. At this time England was more skint than it is now, and they were going to spend loads of money developing the NHS and many other things. At this time it is better to compare Railways to Shipbuilding post nationalisation. We were then still the largest shipbuilders in the world, but that soon changed because of the over unionisation of the yards. But at least the shipyards produced export income, railways did not. To get a greater understanding of the impact of post war economics, look at the car companies, without creating the XK 120, Jaguar would have gone out of business, because they could not get steel or aluminium. All the best engineers post war went into cars and the aero industry, where there was no political interference. By 1951 with the new conservative government, eyes were being turned toward making road the preferred medium of traffic and goods movement, go watch the Titfield Thunderbolt to get a better understanding. why develop new loco technology when no one was going to pay for it? The Standards were a vanity project.

Paul

[pete2hogs]

Whether the standards were worthwhile (given those who designed and built them expected them to serve for at least 20 years - why they thought that is debatable, but they did) is not really the issue.

WW2 had exposed the fact that we had a lot of very old - and some newer -locomotives that were difficult to maintain. The desire of every war time and post-war CME (except maybe Hawkesworth) was to mass produce easy to maintain locos to replace as much of that stock as possible. Bullied of course went about it in an idiosyncratic way, but even he intended the majority of his improvements to reduce maintenance. (they didn't, but never mind.)

By the time there was spare capacity and cash for experimentation, we were literally within months of the plug being pulled on steam, here and right across the Commonwealth, by the 1955 modernisation plan. After that, as I said above, steam was condemned everywhere as 'old fashoined' and such further developments as there were were almost all killed as soon as they saw the light of day, Porta's work on the Rio Turbio being the single exception - and even that was allowed to fade away.

However, I do not believe that any of the developments would have 'saved' the conventional steam engine. They could have prolonged its life by a couple of decades, at best.

If we were using steam at all now it would be in something much more like the Leader (though certainly not in detail conception!) or Jawn Henry on the N&W, and it would almost certainly be confined to long-distance freight.

[john coffin]

I agree with a lot of what Pete has added, but maybe the most important point is that realistically, the steam engine as a concept was dead by the time HNG introduced the Streaks. This was really the last throw of the dice. At the same time, behind the scenes, the whole world was preparing for a war of some magnitude, remember at this time, the Spitfire, and Hurricane were being developed, and Malcolm Campbell was making his land speed records.

There was no money to develop and evolve steam engines dramatically. The UK railways were under the thrall of the mining unions in many ways, much of the freight was coal, and all the locos ran on it. The evolution of Diesel and Electric was pretty slow and erratic, and indeed I can remember as a teenager in the 60's travelling in Fodens with those slow old Lister engines, and the amazement we all felt when the Scanias and Volvos first came over from Sweden later in that decade. At the same time Austin Healeys were being sold as sports cars yet had an engine designed for trucks inside it!

The war allowed the massive development of the diesel engine quickly, and post war all the companies like Armstrong Withworth, of GEC wanted to continue the evolution, hence their providing the various test items we are all so fond of, but it still took time for them to understand the dynamics of running a diesel or a diesel electric on the rails. Look at how long it took the Deltics to become reliable. Also interesting to think that the Deltics lasted such a short time, some even less than the Standards.

Staffing was the death knell of steam, and yet it is only relatively recently that "firemen" were deleted from the modern railway. No sensible kid really wanted to start a 40 year career as a cleaner in 1960's, when you could work for a car factory and earn more money, and come home without the need for a full bath every day. Neasden was to me much less appealing than Luton and the Vauxhall factory. Not knocking those who chose the steam route, but it took a long time to get from engine cleaner to driver, even then, and by then the likelihood was you would never drive a steam engine, so what was the point

Fluidised beds and other things could have improved steam engines incrementally, but not enough to overcome the need to remove the fire every day, and clean the tubes and the smokebox, and then get rid of the crud. So don't knock the engineers, they had to work with a very small cheque book on technology that had not really evolved since Richard Trevithick and the George Stephenson had made it run on rails. As I have said elsewhere tenders were always an after thought, I mean how difficult is it to package coal and water?
Whilst it took until the 1890's really for anyone to care about the drivers, let alone the passengers!!

What we love is the nostalgia of steam, but few of us would be happy to work 8 hour shifts maintaining it these days. Yes I do know about those heroes who work on the preserved railways.

Paul

[DeCaso]

What appalls me is the sheer lack of understanding on the part of the engineers working for BR of what was possible and worse their inability to realize that they had been left well behind.

I am not taking aim at a Pendolino, just yet, but a high power output essentially mixed traffic locomotive that would totally eclipse the best efforts of any class 5 diesel was easily achieveable.

Once you have developed a locomotive including in the design the very best of practice a number of factors come into play. What you have produced will have greater availability and will need less fueling and lubrication stops. Tie this in with being able to work much tighter timetables and being capable of working at maximum output for long periods and you need fewer units. The design is such that apart from taking on consumables and swiftly disposing of waste products it will seldom have to stop working. This is a machine that will run 100,000km without you having to be concerned about valve rings, steam packings, bearings or much else. Fewer and mainly smaller maintainance facilities, fewer engines, less staff. Sound familiar? This is not a machine that spends hours on shed, it is not difficult to keep in service. You could keep the fire in an A4 for two weeks, so why would you want to take the regressive step of having a locomotive that needed it removed daily? Why would you believe it was necessary?


What is needed is the realisation that what was offered here as the best that could be achieved in the 1950s was no such thing. Porta built his metre gauge 4-8-0 in 1948 it gave a glimpse of what was undreamed of by UK engineers. Unless you believe it was all lies and deceit.

The A4 was something of a blind alley so far as futher development was concerned but it gave the company a high speed locomotive that was superior to the best that newer forms of traction could then offer. Even in the 1960s they were still capable of matching many of their potential replacements so far as performance on the track was concerned. But mechanically they were not advanced enough ditto thermodynamically. Strange to say that even today one of the survivors when allowed to perform still comes over as rather impressive.

This perhaps emphasises the notion that post war we should have done a great deal better.

[john coffin]

Whilst I understand your frustration, I think you miss the whole point of the evolution of most engineering until about the mid 1960's. If you believe the conspiracy people, most engineering improvements were devised by the end of the First World War, and then bought up by the Oil Majors, and General Motors, and hidden.

Plainly this is and was not ever true, although certain elements might have been.
Look at the time it took to evolve and develop fast spinning car or lorry engines, or even motor bikes. Hondas of the 1959 were looked at as something as a miracle when they first appeared at the TT, because of the way in which they produced power. They were competing against British bikes designed pre war.

What you and many tend to ignore is the inhospitable working conditions within a steam engine. Coupling and connecting rods needed oiling/greasing every day
as the rest of the valve gear and pistons, it was not until after man went to the moon that we had proper high temp lubricants that lasted for more than a day.

Roller bearings are no more oil tight than plain bearings unless properly encased, and that is difficult in a steam engine, as Bullied found out. The firebox and boiler heat up and expand at a different rate from the rest of the loco, and if you have ever worked on mid 50's cars or bikes, you will know how difficult it was to make sure the joints were oil tight, paper gaskets are not much use in that kind of heat.

Steam in the 50's was the last gasp of an old technology, and was not capable of being developed as you suggest, it was not economically practical, not least because of the old fashioned tools and equipment in the various works around the company. As a relevant anecdote, when Norton Motorcycles went bust in the early 60's it was found that some of the machine tools went back to the start of the company in around 1906, and yet Manxes were still winning in UK motor cycle races. Indeed evolutions of it still do win.

The CME's had no money, and little support from the ultimate boss, Her Majesties Government and in particular, the Treasury, so what they actually did was heroic and incremental, because it was all they could afford. Don't slag them off for not going down a blind alley. It is also worth remembering that at this time, the whole coal industry was going into decline, and once the clean air act was passed, it was a race to try and find a newer cleaner fuel. It was almost impossible to make a coal burning steam engine of conventional design burn clean all the time with quality of coal that was being made available in the mid 50's.

Paul