Mickey wrote: Another problem with the Kings was after the Kings were fitted with double-chimneys and had 'higher superheat' superheaters fitted there were more frame fractures amongst the class and because both the Castles and the Kings were both 4-cylinder locos mention was made that especially in the Kings case 'there was to many moving parts of machinery' crammed in-between the chassis frames which was basically 'rubbing against other moving parts of machinery' which inhibited or restricted there 'free running' at higher speeds because apparently the 'comfortable speed' of a King at speed was around 88mph and the comfortable speed of a Castle at speed was around 83mph as opposed to a Gresley A4 which would easily run at over 100mph!!.
I don't understand the comment about too many moving parts. All the GW four cylinder locos had derived motion for the outside cylinders, so the arrangement of cylinders and valve gear between the frames was essentially the same as on an inside cylindered 4-4-0.
Also the smaller wheels on the Kings should have given them a lower 'comfortable speed' than Castles.
I'm not to up on the technicalities of steam locos bill but Ron White who appears on theses dvds said that 'in his opinion' there was to much crammed in between the Kings frames and because of that 'metal was rubbing against metal' and possibly inhibiting there overall performance although Ron did say that the Kings rode better than the Castles which surprised some people.
G.W.R. chocolate & cream
Mickey
Last edited by Mickey on Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Difficult to understand why anyone would consider Ivatt building 4-4-0's for the GNR being anything to do with the prejudices, real or imagined of Patrick Stirling. Stirling built locos within the parameters that the traffic department set him, and it was really only in 1894/5 that double heading was needed for the trains that the singles were built for, until that time they had been more than adequate for the jobs in hand.
However, ti is wrong to suggest that Ivatt built the 4-4-0's originally for secondary services, that is plainly untrue and comes from someone who has not properly studied the evolution of locos under Ivatt. It must be remembered that Ivatt had lots of practice with 4-4-0's from his LNWR experiences as well as in Ireland, but also that when he joined the GNR, he found the track in bad condition, Brown and others have mentioned this.
He quickly evolved the Atlantic, and also soon moved on to a wide firebox to make them even better. it is certain that the small Atlantic was better than the L&Y ones built by his mentor John Aspinall, but they were built for a different route pattern.
It is also important to remember that Ivatt continued to build larger and more powerful 4-4-0's during his reign and some were used for main line work in parts of Scotland 30 years after being built.
It seems certain that there were for different routes advantage and disadvantages for the 4-6-0 type. the GNR was basically a main line railway whilst the GWR had lots of odd main line features in its routes down to Cornwall, the Exeter branch for instance, which probably precluded a longer loco from travelling. Indeed The Great Bear was very restricted in the routes it could work, whilst until BR times, the evolving 4-6-0's were pretty flexible.
During the 1925 exchanges, the LNER Pacifics could only go on certain routes due the problems of length and so on.
Finally, although the large Atlantic firebox was not a Wooton type, it still showed a remarkable ability to burn ever less perfect coal, so no wonder the GNR /Gresley evolved the basic idea, from another American type, the PRR K4 to burn lower quality coal. The GWR however, tried with its top line locos to keep to a particular coal type to ensure it worked in their fireboxes. No one ever complained about the firing problems on Gresley Pacifics that come out of the stories about some of the Robinson 4-6-0's, there may well have been some, but more I think with too heavy a fire rather than too light.
john coffin wrote:Difficult to understand why anyone would consider Ivatt building 4-4-0's for the GNR being anything to do with the prejudices, real or imagined of Patrick Stirling. Stirling built locos within the parameters that the traffic department set him, and it was really only in 1894/5 that double heading was needed for the trains that the singles were built for, until that time they had been more than adequate for the jobs in hand.
However, ti is wrong to suggest that Ivatt built the 4-4-0's originally for secondary services, that is plainly untrue and comes from someone who has not properly studied the evolution of locos under Ivatt. It must be remembered that Ivatt had lots of practice with 4-4-0's from his LNWR experiences as well as in Ireland, but also that when he joined the GNR, he found the track in bad condition, Brown and others have mentioned this.
It gets tiresome when people insist on pontificating when the obviously don't understand how drawing offices evolve new designs. The original Ivatt 4-4-0s were no more than E1s with bogies, and could not have been expected work anything other than secondary services. The subsequent classes were given the usual Doncaster increases in boiler and cylinder sizes. There is nothing in the design of any of the GN 4-4-0s that suggests that they were intent ended to be anything other than incremental developments of the Stirling 2-4-0s, the fact that they could be used, on occasions, in other roles not withstanding.
The first Ivatt 4-4-0s were certainly no more than bogie versions of Stirling's 2-4-0s, and they did do a lot of secondary work, but in their youth they were very much main-line motive power, and January 1902 Rous-Marten recorded one of them taking the Up day 'Scotsman' out of York at the head of 338 tons. The rostered replacement on from Grantham was a pair of singles.
Can anyone comment on whether Ivatt contemplated using the C2 (small atlantic) or Q1/Q2 boiler on a mixed-traffic 4-6-0?
This would appear to have been a possibly logical alternative to his large-wheeled 0-6-0s, before ideas of pony trucks, wide fireboxes or conjugated valve gear set in among the design team.
Presumably (and this is speculative) if this was thought of, it was rejected because the GNR didn't need a 'fast goods' loco of this size that would be restricted to main lines only, and preferred something with better adhesion and a shorter wheelbase that could fit into more of the existing marshalling yards / sidings?
We know Ivatt contemplated a wide-firebox, large-boiler 2-6-2, so perhaps he already had his mind on larger things.
It could have been a Doncaster rival to Gorton's 'fish engine' B5s already mentioned upthread, which also had a shallow firebox and a small boiler and were successful enough.
I just wonder if it was not so much the choice for 2-6-0s which put a roadblock in the way of the development of 4-6-0s on the GNR, but the choice to build the J1s and J2s; I'm not aware if many other railways pushed the 0-6-0 format into this direction, although I think Deeley on the Midland experimented with a 6' 0-6-0, presumably for very similar traffic and reasons.
Fascinating comments Bill, but wrong as usual. In principal,we are all pontificating about why and whether the GNR should have or could have had a
4-6-0 at any time up to Gresley introducing the Pacifics. It is more important to think that he seems not to have considered a 4-6-0 before them.
As for Ivatt, one has to look at the circumstances surrounding his appointment, then subsequent move to the GNR. Before Stirling died, his works manager, John Shotton had also gone, thus when Ivatt took over he had a new works manager, and this has a dramatic effect on the way in which the Drawing Office began to work. The last 2-4-0's were ordered before Ivatt arrived, and actually 10 of them were delivered with specifically Ivatt features
AFTER the first 4-4-0 was delivered, as a Mainline Passenger locomotive, not as a secondary locomotive. It was an attempt to understand what was needed to replace the Stirling 8ft Singles which had begun to need to be double headed to haul the new trains, particularly those with Clerestory Bogie carries.
None of us here, I believe, worked at Doncaster in steam days, let alone 120 years ago, so we can only speculate. I was lucky to work quite closely with Malcolm Crawley on the GNR tender book, and learnt a lot about the drawing office procedures that were traditional at Doncaster up to the end of steam design there, since he worked in the BR DO. I have also talked to others who spent a lot of time studying and asking questions just before the end, and since my interest is in pre 1911 locos and pre 1905, I have a pretty clear grasp of the various details and evolutions. I also know that there were specific teams that created the details, but the Works Manager and the Loco Engineer, passed down the information they wanted incorporated.
What we are all forgetting and ignoring is the financial state of the GNR at the time Ivatt started working there. The mainline track needed upgrading
and the company was involved in considerable expenditure developing new lines particularly in the coal areas, thus the Loco Department had to evolve many things rather than take a completely new, and at that time, unproven in the UK step to a 4-6-0.
Ivatt and his work has been overshadowed by his following Stirling and preceding Gresley, both of whom in their time were exceptional engineers, and
Ivatt had to deal with the new world, where the GNR was no longer regularly the fastest railway in Britain, and also it is important to remember that Ivatt was ex LNWR along with Aspinall on the L&Y, and Gresley, so the directions taken were different. His experience was with 4-4-0 types and he would have built on that. An Atlantic is a logical development of that whereas a 4-6-0 was not for passenger work. Remember the first British 4-6-0's were for goods work, both on the GW and Highland.
I have seen no evidence on the drawing or other lists of Ivatt considering using the C2 boiler on a 4-6-0 type. I think in part he was put off by the problems that the bought in Baldwin 2-6-0's had given him, and wanted to stay with a formats that he was comfortable with.
Actually the comments of Wainwright remind one of the fact that conjugated motion was new to Doncaster when first introduced during Gresley's time, there was no previous experience, so people had to learn new things introduced by their CME.
Paul
Mickey wrote:I...when it comes to british locos I virtually like them all!...
If you are of a sensitive disposition, first put on your thickest beer goggles. Then google 'Kruger locomotive GWR'.
There's a bit at the front that looks slightly like Stratford's S69, so that's alright. It's a thoroughbred Frankenstein's monster after that though.
Wainwright wrote:...Lawson Boskovsky ...
So that's where Huxley got that from, never made the connection before. (Brave New World - recommended to any who have not encountered it - closer to present realities than many would care to admit.)
If you're of a sensitive disposition look up the B15s on this site if you must, but do NOT - repeat, NOT - scroll down.
kudu wrote:If you're of a sensitive disposition look up the B15s on this site if you must, but do NOT - repeat, NOT - scroll down.
Yeah a bit of a 'ugly beast' kudu that NER B15 in original form ex-works I presume and with that outside valve gear it makes it look a bit like a L&Y Hughes 4-6-0 Crab!.
I assume that the B15 horror was the one with Uniflow cylinders. I'm not going to look at the monstrosity.
I think the first 19 B15s were good looking locos, only to spoilt by the 20th.
The Hughes Crabs did create an impression of power, as did several other of his locos, eg. Dreadnought 4-6-0s, Baltic 4-6-4Ts, and large boiler 0-8-0s.
I won't any comment about the Dreadnought 4-6-0s, other than they had a reputation of being "miner's friends" like the GCR 4 cylinder 4-6-0s.
I'm with Bill on this. H A V Bulleid in "Master Builders of Steam" makes clear that the Ivatt 4-4-0s were derived from Stirling 2-4-0s and built for the same purpose. Unlike Gresley's grandsons who were born after Gresley's death H A V would have been about twelve when Ivatt died. "Master Builders of Steam" also has a Preface/endorsement by both Oliver Bulleid and H G Ivatt respectively the son-in law and son of H A Ivatt. Paul mentions Doncaster drawing office and it would of course be here that the CME's design preferences would be incorporated into design. From what H A V wrote a firebox uncompromised by a closely located driving axle - in effect a continuation of the Stirling Single and his 2-2-2 designs - was favoured and the resulting Atlantic was in effect the Stirling Single with a much enlarged boiler and firebox and two driving axles. As an aside the average piston speed with a 24in piston stroke and 6ft 7in wheels is much the same as a 28in stroke and 8ft wheel.
Ivatt was on friendly terms with Sturrock and it is possible that it was Sturrock's design philosophy of large boiler and indeed his experience of with wide fireboxes on the GWR that planted the seed that germinated into the large Atlantic. Once this path was taken moving to six driving axles became impossible within any length constraints. When Gresley became CME he could technically have moved to a 4-6-0 but it would have taken a very brave man - unless he was Edward Thompson- to have told the Directors that a complete renewal of the express locomotive stock was required. To Gresley's great credit he sought to improve the Atlantics, which he did magnificently. When it came to eventually designing a new express locomotive, design and operational experience would appear to have re-enforced a decision to go again for a wide firebox incorporating six axles meant a Pacific.
amazing how long it takes you to find a book when you are rebuilding your library!!
Finally I have sorted out my copy of the HAV Bullied book, and have read the Ivatt section a number of times, and frankly cannot agree with Pebbles.
My take is that Ivatt had from his Irish sojourn become convinced that 4-4-0 locos were an ideal starting point for the new traffic levels on the GNR,
and also not too big a step, but to suggest that they are a direct evolution of the Stirling 2-4-0 is to misinterpret what is in the book.
Remember although HAV was the son of one major engineer and grandson of another, he did not work at Doncaster, he was only 12 when his grandfather died, so I do not think he would have had too many contemporaneous conversations about engine evolution. I agree about the evolution of the 4-2-2 towards an Atlantic, but also disagree about the idea of the GW and wide fireboxes based on the old fashioned ideas of Sturrock who was never
able to create a wide firebox on his locos. Ivatt was more influenced by American practice.
sorry to but in but the topic of this thread has stirred a memory in me.
an RMweb user by the name of Matthew Cousins has made this rather convincing cut'n'shut of a C1 into a 4-6-0 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... t-hitchin/
makes a rather handsome engine I think. I'm rather tempted to give a model of it a go
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905
I will attempt to respond to Paul last posting on this issue.
During he GNR period there appears to have been an engine/tender wheelbase restriction in the region of 48ft for mainline mixed traffic/passenger engines. Apart from the GNR Atlantics this seems to have been a design factor in both the LNER K2s and those K3s equipped with GNR tenders. I wonder if this goes some way to explain the constricted layout of the GNR Atlantics.
Ivatt's first Atlantic appeared in 1998, but during 1899 Ivatt was a member of a party that visited America. It is quite possible that from this visit he appreciated that his Atlantics could be improved with greater boiler capacity; the problem was how to achieve this within the wheelbase constraint. By adopting a wide firebox Ivatt could also incorporate a longer boiler thus achieving his objective. It is said that Wilson Worsdell was also influenced by American practice but maybe not being so constrained stayed with a narrow firebox; in doing so however his engine was significantly longer. Whilst the Vulcan Compound initially had a similar heating figure to the Large Atlantic this was by virtue of its Serve tubes, once these tubes were replaced its heating surface was reduced by 30%.
I stand to be corrected, but the only general use of a wide firebox on railways in this country prior to Ivatt's appears to have been those on the GWR Broad Gauge engines. Whilst Sturrock never used a wide firebox during his time with the GNR, he would have been familiar with and worked on the GWR variety. If Ivatt's thoughts had lead him to examine the possibility of a wide firebox, which would have been a radical departure from GNR experience, who better to discuss this with than Sturrock. Certainly the curved sides of Ivatt's firebox are similar to those on the GWR engines. At the end of the day who knows?
Turning to Ivatt's 4-4-0s. Stirling appeared prepared to go to some lengths to avoiding using bogies. I think I'm correct in saying that his Singles and the 0-4-4 tanks were his only engines so equipped. Indeed this aversion to bogies extended to his designing eight wheeled rigid based coaches. I'm sure that any new CME would be constrained by the work of his forbearer and the design office he inherited. This is evident in how Edward Thompson played with Gresley's box of Meccano. So the case would have been the same with Ivatt. Whatever Stirling's plus points he was heading down a cul de sac with regards to boiler power. If bigger boilers were to be used then some way of accommodating them was required. In the case of Ivatt's 4-4-0s page 128 of "Volume 3a RCTS GNR Locomotive History", states that they were logical developments of the 2-4-0s. Page 149 of my copy of GF Bird's 1903 print makes essentially the same point. There is an almost seamless evolution from Striling's earliest 280 series 2-4-0 through his 86 series and 206 series to Ivatt's 1061 series - this last series possibly urgently needed or using up some existing materials - then metamorphosing into Ivatt's 4-4-0. There is no denying that Ivatt preferred a leading Bogie that does not however challenge that his 4-4-0s didn't evolve from the 2-4-0. From what I have gleaned I don't believe that H A V, the son, grandson and nephew of eminent engineers was saying anything that wasn't to some extent self evident and in the case of Bird's contemporary assertions a long standing understanding.
This has been one of my favourite threads on this forum. I think the B13s were an example of Edwardian elegance but it seems that footplatemen were not convinced that the 4-6-0 was in any way an improvement on their beloved Atlantics and so apart from the Summertime extra trains the poor old B13s were relegated to fast goods work and the occasional passenger turn making them a fairly succesful mixed traffic loco.
Hi interested in the area served by 52D. also researching colliery wagonways from same area.
I do not try to pontificate, but look at all the data that is available, and seek to interpret the data. This is an interesting thread, but many people have not looked at the situation on the GNR during the relevant period. Also many of us may not have looked at the whole picture.
I was surprised to find that the yanks had been using so called 10 wheelers since before the GNR was actually up and running, ie 1847, so you do wonder
why it took until 1894 for Jones to look at it for the Highland railway. My feeling is based on GNR practice in that the UK did not have really good quality steel available for coupling rods, certainly the last locos produced under Sturrocks regime, the 2-4-0's were troubled with broken rods, and Stirling rebuilt them as 2-2-2's. American trains of the period were running much more slowly than UK passenger ones, hence their ability to run 4-6-0 for so long. What surprised me more was why it took until 1888 for the yanks to produce the first 4-4-2 passenger loco, and the name Atlantic only became used in 1894 after a more successful loco had been produced to run to Atlantic City.
Ivatt did not join the GNR for more than 3 months after his appointment, and we do not know why that happened, no contemporary commentator has ever made any reference to it, but we may assume it was to do with his Daughters and their lives in Dublin, during that time, the man who had been Stirling's loco accountant Matthewman had been in charge, during this time he ordered a number of basically Stirling designs, but an unfinished order
was for 10 2-4-0. These were cancelled by Ivatt almost immediately he arrived, and a different order for 4-4-0's was put in place. At the time Ivatt arrived, the Stirling singles were becoming overwhelmed by the increased traffic and the dramatic growth in carriage size and weight to such an extent that the needed to be double headed, something which was not allowed until almost the end by Stirling himself. Thus was Ivatt's first task to produce a locomotive type for use on Primary Services, but at the time he joined the GNR there were two problems, one Pebbles has referred to, length of turntables, but the second more importantly, was the state of the track, thus any loco bigger than the Stirling single needed to offer some advantages.
Many observers thought that actually the last Stirling 2-2-2's were better than the 8ft Singles, so it is not unreasonable to assume that Ivatt wanted to improve on them.
Ivatt came to the GNR with the idea that a 4-4-0 would be a useful loco, and with which he had some decent experience, also with a better bogie type than that on the Stirling single, and yes Stirling only used bogies on two types of locos, tanks and the 8ft Singles. The goods loco types were being served by the Matthewman ordered 0-6-0ST's and the J4's with the large 3850 gallon tenders that were originally designed for the last Singles, so a first line passenger engine was necessary, and until the Atlantic's were produced almost 4 years later, that is what the D4 did. Certainly another 10 2-4-0's were produced based on the previous Stirling design, but with Ivatt mods, ie cab, spring position, boiler and firebox data, but that route was a dead end.
However, to return to the original question, why did the GNR not use 4-6-0's my research suggests that a major reason may well have been that a major revenue stream for the GNR passenger division was the Leeds route, and there were massive size restrictions on locos going their using the GNR route, indeed I understand that until some time in the late 30's the Pacifics were route restricted as was certainly W1 10000.
Remember that when Churchward built the Saints, he had both 4-4-2 and 4-6-0's built to check them out, and he always said that The Great Bear was a complete waste of time, money and space.
Were there some common design features between the 2-4-0's and 4-4-0's definitely but still more Ivatt than Stirling.
