W1 Hush Hush Livery before rebuild

[silver fox]

May have done, if steam had lasted longer/the trial had been a sucess, the W1 spent more time in the works/being picked back up off points, than it really did running!

[sng7]

That is a good point and they never got it right

[silver fox]

Done a bit of work using yeadons, and counting leap years, it had a life of 10287 days, and counting all the days in the works, I worked out the following, which might interest some people!

Entering service 21/06/1930 – Cut up 01/06/1959
It had a life of 10287 days
By the time it came out rebuilt it had been out for 1927 days out of 3060 days
And after rebuild it was out for 1165 days out of 7227 days

Including
29/05/1933 – 13/06/1934 – in works for 380 Days
10/07/1934 left the works 16/07/1934 back in!
21/08/1935 Not repaired at Darlington, stood in the paint shop for 420 days, before working to Doncaster for rebuild, coming out 820 days after Darlington didn’t repair it!
Also included is the derailment at Peterborough Westwood Junction on 1/9/55, even though it only got in to the works on the 21st, and came out 16/12/55, which gives an extra 15 days!

So overall by my reckoning it was in use for 7175 days out of 10287, and out for 3092 days

I was wrong, it was in use more!

[giner]

Hi soupdragon,

I, too, was intrigued by the Movietone News guy in the photo, so I did some digging. If you go to Movietone's website (you'll need to register and sign in), then do a search, you'll find tons of newsreel clips. I couldn't find the subject in question here, but there's plenty of other railway footage, all in that unmistakable Movietone News style, that'll keep you occupied for hours. Have fun!

http://www.movietone.com/

[giner]

Hmm. That would have looked great. Might have been even better in garter blue.

What y'all think?

I agree. Do we have any Photoshop whiz kids on here to do that? It all comes under 'artistic licence' doesn't it?

[Blink Bonny]

Basically, the Hush-Hush was an experimental design with a high-pressure water tube boiler built to evaluate the boiler. It was a 4-6-4 because there was insufficient space on the Pacific chassis to take the large firebox that the design required.

The water tube boiler is standard fitment in things like ships, power stations and other industrial applications requiring steam. It can generate large amounts of steam very quickly. Instead of the 3-4 hour timescale required for a medium locomotive with a firetube boiler. a water tube boiler can raise steam in minutes. The boiler had been used in the USA with contradictory results and Gresley, innovator and experimenter that he was, wanted to see if it would work. Theoretically, the water tube boiler had a great advantage in thermal efficiency over the firetube boiler so this could potentially be converted into coal savings.

In practice, it was a failure. The engine was plagued by steaming problems caused by poor draughting and internal leaks from the tubes. The engine was re-jigged several times, spending nearly all its life as high pressure engine either under repair, awaiting repair, undergoing modifications or awaiting modifications. Its coal consumption was rather higher than that of the Pacifics, sealing its fate. However, unlike the LMSR's 6399 Fury the engine, so far as I am aware, never had a boiler explosion and did actually enter revenue earning service.

The rebuild was not all that it seemed. Smaller than standard valves meant that it never had the real high-speed potential of the externally very similar A4s but that larger firebox meant that the driver had all the steam he needed for hard work. The fireman was less happy with the extra work required to feed that larger grate, let it be said.....

[richard]

The longer footplate also didn't help the fireman's job...

Richard

[redtoon1892]

Came across this post card at a boot fair.

[mick b]

Hi

Post war version
















Mick

[Blink Bonny]

Wow.......

[Blink Bonny]

The Hush-Hush was very much an experimental locomtive, built to test the Yarrow water tube boiler to see if it was OK to use on a railway engine. After all, marine boilers had been of the water tube type for some years when the idea was put to Gresley. It is also a fact that water tube boilers take far less time to heat up than fire tube boilers and produce more steam when they are up to temperature.

The project failed for two reasons:

Firstly, a railway locomotive frame is a very hostile environment. It sways, shakes, rattles, rolls vibrates and flexes as the loco passes along the track. This had a very detrimental effect on the Hush-Hush's boiler, causing the tubes to work loose. It proved impossible in service to keep the boiler steam tight internally in service conditions. Indeed, after a fortnight on the Flying Scotsman, the engine spent several weeks in Darlington Works having the bits that had worked loose re-tightened.

Secondly, the shape of a locomotive boiler is wrong. Power station and marine boilers tend to be square in shape, allowing an even distribution of heat internally. A locomotive boiler has, because of the nature of the beast, to be long and relatively thin, meaning that the front of a water tube boiler built for a locomotive is much cooler at the front than the back. This is not a problem for a fire tube boiler because strong convection currents are set up within the relatively large body of water contained within it which distributes the heat more evenly. With a water tube boiler, such water convection has a more limited effect because of the smaller bodies of water available so differential expansion wrought its damage. Allied with this was a problem with insufficient superheat available despite much tinkering.

Looking at this, it is unsuprising that the engine was rebuilt into something a little bit like an A4 but retaining its 4-6-4 chassis which allowed for a bigger firebox to be incorporated. It also, for some reason, got smaller piston valves which limited the high speed running ability somewhat. The longer cab made it unpopular with firemen. Many driversused to refer to 60700 as "A Sunday stroll for the fireman," swiftly ducking a lump of well-aimed coal as they did!

The compound chassis, by comparison, was a roaring success!

[Eightpot]

Recently published book throws a lot of new light on 10000. Example - it was actually based in Darlington works, which is why it was seen there so much. Even had a special building put up to house it. Main problem appears to have centred around the steam pressure reducing valve for the auxiliaries (brake ejectors, injectors, etc) - it never did function properly on the move, they gave up on it in the end. Funnily enough, no mention of steaming problems through air leaks.

[Blink Bonny]

The problem was not actually air leaks, more water and steam leakage internally in the boiler.

Incidentally, according to the Railway Magazine, the boiler was in use at Darlington as an SB until the closure of the works.

That book looks interesting. 'Sa funny thing, once the W1 gets a hold of you, it won't let go!

[richard]

Durham County Library have a photograph of the boiler in "stationary" mode at Darlington during a shed rebuilding. I investigated the cost of copyright with a view to including it on the website but decided the fee was too much for the photo in question.


Richard