Ernest Stewart Cox
Born Glasgow 1900. Died Berkhamsted 14 September 1992. The final chapter of Chronicles of steam is autobiographical in terms of his earlier life: the other books give some details of the remainder. Marshall notes that he was educated at Merchant Taylors School, Crosby and was apprenticed under Hughes at Horwich Works. His books, sometimes criticised by Rutherford in Backtrack, remain one of the greatest insights into locomotive development on the LMS and (for steam) on British Railways. Only K.J. Cook and Holcroft offer comparable glimpses. Cox was highly critical of Fowler and Beames, yet was equally stubborn in his own views on three-cylinder design (of which he may have been an inept practitioner) and of things non-LMS. The page on E.L. Diamond probably tells us much about Cox, and is a warning for future historians. There is a danger that Cox's view may be reproduced unchallenged.
On page 87 of Locomotive Panorma (Vol. 1) there is an interesting observation: "However, the old insularity was gradually dissolving and as part of the Royal Scot investigation I was sent, in November, on to the Southern Railway to ride the Lord Nelsons. It was now that I was able to meet Clayton and Holcroft who, sharing the same office at Waterloo, had so great an influence upon the trend of design on that region [sic]. Although these engines rode much better I am afraid that the expedition threw little light upon our own particular trouble." It was probably that Cox's own insularity was ending when he met people of the stature of Clayton, and possibly Holcroft who could be viewed as his equal, but had far greater experience. Thus future historians should take note of Cox's limitations, especially when he relates to the period outwith his own expertise. His remarks concerning Beames should be treated with caution. There is some evidence that he was careless in his citation of others: "E.W." Selby, for instance, rather than "F.W.". In this respect he is less reliable than Holcroft..
Perhaps the most damning evidence against the overall competence of Cox is that there appears to be no reference to Goss in any of his works (that is through examining the indexes to his books) and this may explain why boiler performance on some of the Stanier designs was far from satisfactory.
J. Hadfield wrote in 1948 "We have come to expect a good deal from any paper associated with the name of E.S. Cox, and are certainly not disappointed in the present instance"
Papers
Balancing of locomotive reciprocating parts.
J. Instn Loco. Eng 1942,
32, 2-37. Disc.:1943, 33, 218-36. 4 illus,, 11 diagrs.,
3 tables. (Paper 432).
British standard locomotives. J. Instn
Loco. Engrs, 1951, 41, 287-335. Disc.: 336-403 + 5 folding plates.
22 illus., 20 diagrs., 7 tables. (Paper No. 502).
Experiences with British Railways standard locomotives.
J. Instn Loco. Engrs, 1954,
44, 212-54. Disc.: 254-305. + folding plate. 4 illus., 31 diagrs.,
7 tables. (Paper No. 532).
Analysis of the performance of the locomotives in service and on
test: summation given at bottom of this page..
Locomotive axleboxes J. Instn Loco.
Engrs, 1944, 34, 275-317. Discussion: 317-40:1945, 35,
221-38:1946, 36, 171-6+ 3 folding plates. 21 diagrs., 8 tables. (Paper
No. 447).
A modern locomotive
history: ten years' development on the L.M.S.- 1923 to 1932. J.Instn Loco.
Engrs, 1946, 36, 100-41. Disc.: 141-70; 275-6. 9 illus., 14 diagrs.,
(incl. 9 s. els.), 11 tables. (Paper No. 457).
See also Locomotive panorama Volume 1
The history of the Institution of Locomotive
Engineers — the ten years to the Golden Jubilee. J. Instn Loco.
Engrs., 1960, 50, 682-6.
The remainder of the Institution's history was covered by
Holcroft
The contribution to railway engineering made by two Institutions: I. Mech.
E. [and] I. Loco. E.: 1847—1911—1969. Rly Div. J., 1970,
1, 35-61.
Survey of the contribution made by the two institutions to recording
the activity of railway mechanical engineering, especially within the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers.. Cites major contributors of papers beginning with
J.E. McConnell and John Ramsbottom. Unfortunately, the papers are not cited
in sufficient detail to be requested via the limited bibliographical resources
available in Nelson's County. Nevertheless dates are cited, such as Webb's
1883 paper on Compound locomotive engines. The activities of the Institution
of Locomotive Engineers are also surveyed.
with others
Cox, E,S. and Johansen, F.C. Locomotive
frames.. J. Instn Loco. Engrs, 1948, 38,
81-115. Disc.: 115-96 + 2 folding plates. 28 illus., 17 diagrs. bibliograpy.
(Paper No. 473)
Includes diffuculties experienced with Royal Scot class.
Comment on other's papers
McClean, H.G. (Paper 454)
The mechanical design of the latest class F high-speed electric locomotives
of the Swedish State Railways. 336-65. Disc. 365-77.
E.S. Cox (369-72) spoke about Bissel trucks and Cartazzi axleboxes.
Spencer, B. The development of L.N.E.R. locomotive design, 1923-1941.
J. Instn Loco. Engrs, 1947,
37, 212-14. (Paper No. 465)
Remarked that if it was possible to do so without disrespect to the
memory of a great locomotive engineer he would like to say that he had always
thought that Sir Nigel Gresley's policy of applying the three-cylinder design
to almost every type of locomotive was a little inconsistent. Where the power
required was greater than could conveniently be provided by two cylinders,
the three-cylinder arrangement was, of course, logical and suitable; but
for medium and low powers it was very difficult to see what advantage could
be expected from it. Mr. Bulleid had referred to the question of the turning
moment, which had always been put forward as the principal advantage of the
three-cylinder system, but which in practice and by common observation did
not give any great advantage. So far as acceleration was concerned, he himself
had never seen any test results to show that three cylinders could offer
anything more than two, and so long as a percentage of reciprocating weights
were balanced the three-cylinder engine was certainly not without a hammer-blow
effect. On the L.M.S. they had a very modern design of medium-size three-cylinder
2-6-4 tank engine, and also a larger number of two-cylinder engines of exactly
corresponding design. When those three-cylinder engines first came out their
work was carefully examined, but under no heading was any advantage whatever
found from the three-cylinder system of propulsion in an engine of that size,
and all further construction had been with two cylinders. He also commented
at length on balancing three cyclinder locomotives..
British Railways standard steam locomotives.
London: Ian Allan, 1966. 218pp. + 41 plates (incl. 1 folding). 70 illus.,
31 diagrs. (incl. 25 s. els.), 42 tables. Bibliog. (footnote references).
Chronicleas of steam. London: Ian Allan,
1967.
Mainly autobiographical: also highly damning of certain locomotive
types, notably those from the Caledonian Railway, especially the 956
class.
Locomotive panorama. London: Ian Allan,
1965/6. 2v.
Vital sources of internal information both relating to the Stanier
period on the LMS and under Riddles on British Railways. Volume 1 covers
the period of Hughes and Fowler and is similar to his
Instn Loco. Engrs paper A modern locomotive history..
Speaking of steam. London: Ian Allan, 1971. 128pp.
Extracts, with extensive commentary, from papers by Webb, Hughes,
Churchward, Bowen-Cooke, Fowler, Gresley, Stanier and Bulleid. Inevitably
includes extracts, and other material relating to other engineers not
included.
World steam in the twentieth century.
London: Ian Allan, 1969. 191pp. + plates.
Experiences with British Railways standard locomotives.
212-54. Disc.: 254-305. + folding plate. 4 illus., 31 diagrs., 7 tables.
Presented in London on 17 March 1954; Manchester on 24 March 1954;
Doncaster on 8 April 1954; Derby on 14 April 1954; Newcastle-on-Tyne on 22
April 1954; and Glasgow on 28 April 1954
Analysis of the performance of the locomotives in service and on test. On
page 246 rectification of lack of pre-compression on rubber drawbar springs:
graphs show the effect of modifications to No. 70004 whilst working Golden
Arrow before modification on 3 June 1952 and following modification on 14
July 1952.
At the end of the paper Cox summarised what he believed had been achieved
and the general state of the art of steam locomotive development. The steam
locomotive appears once again to have attained an almost uniform level of
potential efficiency. This point had been reached in the later designs of
the former Companies, and the B.R. locomotives working over the same temperature
range and following the same basic design, equal but do not materially exceed
the possible achievements of their immediate predecessors. It would indeed
be surprising were it otherwise, for seven out of the twelve standard types
are in essence the designs of former Companies altered only in detail, and
the other five follow the same school of design in different dimensions.
This is not to belittle the cumulative effect of small gains due to refinements
in detail, but the data set out in this paper emphasises the close identity
in efficiency between simple expansion locomotives working in the initial
temperature range 670°-750°F. in spite of the widest possible
difterences in general arrangements. Whether twin or multi-cylinders, large
or small wheels, wide or narrow grates, through considerable variations in
back pressure, and either British, German or American design, a minimum steam
consumption of 13 to 14 lb. per ihp-hour encompasses the lot, and boiler
efficiencies at normal rates of working are closely alike. Especially interesting
are the German results where an entirely independent post-war design has,
as was the case with Britannia, endeavoured to express the best which was
attainable in the conventional form. In spite of considerable differences
in some features often thought to be very important, the end result in minimum
steam consumption is very similar.
It was not always thus and a good deal of thinking on the subject is based
on conditions which no longer obtain. In 1923 and for some years afterwards,
the difference in the performance and efficiency of the products of different
designers was very real. Where steam could only get into the cylinders with
varying amounts of difficulty, and exhaust was hampered by different degrees
of obstruction, where freedom of gas flow and the whole draughting mechanism
was less well understood, then the most interesting differences occurred
in locomotive results.
Re-reading of Gresley's classic paper [not stated which] reminds us of how
valuable three paths for the steam flow instead of two were to such locomotives
as the old NER Atlantics, subject as they were to serious internal obstruction.
Other engineers found it necessary to provide fine graduations in coupled
wheel size in relation to speed which led to the idea that certain locomotives
were more suitable for particular geographical areas as indeed they were
then. With more knowledge and better materials these and other similar
conceptions have sunk back into irrelevance.
Churchward of course led the big step forward which has brought the locomotive
to its present state of relative equality. But the pupils have sat at the
feet of the master, whose familiars have in turn sat at the feet of the pupils
in the matter of superheating and a few other small matters and now all have
attained an equal state of grace, in all essentials, even if not as regards
brass-beaded splashers. Any "back to Churchward" movement would seem therefore
to be dictated more by the heart than by the head.
Compounding still offers a further reduction in steam consumption of up to
16 per cent, as the SNCF results indicate, but at a cost in complexity and
loss in availability which not only would be unacceptable in this country,
but which was partially abandoned in France in the last phase of steam in
post-war reconstruction. Further rearrangements of simple expansion without
condensing have led nowhere. The "Merchant Navy" engine has produced performance
equal to the best in the British tradition, but with a loss in efficiency
which is clearly seen in the figures quoted in this paper. The drastic changes
of the Leader could not be made to achieve even revenue earning operation.
The construction for British Railways of a single series of steam locomotives
can thus now be supported in a manner which it could not have been formerly,
on the grounds that little is to be gained from mere diversity. Controversy
naturally surrounds this question, however, the more responsible part of
which is concerned lest in exchanging four lines of development for one,
something valuable might be lost.
In January 1948, the former Companies had very little in the way of new steam
design on the stocks. Apart from the "Leader" at Brighton which was already
well in hand a class 4 2-cylinder 2-6-0 at Doncaster and small light weight
0-6-0 tank and tender engines at Swindon represents all. It can be claimed,
but not easily supported, that more advance would have been made for steam
had each regional office worked upon further versions of the previous standard
than has resulted from their working together on the B.R. series. This latter
has at least retained efficiency and performance at its present best level
and has reclothed the locomotives in a mechanical form capable of highest
route availability, of quantity production and of eventual reduction in stores
stock. To do this has required the making of a number of jigs and patterns
and the overcoming of some teething troubles, non-recurrent events which
together cost only an infinitesimal percentage of steam locomotive building
costs over, say a three-year run.
In the future, therefore, it would seem equally valid to harness the resources
of the design staffs to the further advances which seem still open- to steam
traction, amongst which may be quoted:
1. The gathering up of different sources of waste heat in the boiler -the
"Crosti" boiler now under design is an example of this.
2. Higher superheat at low rates of working.
3. Abandonment of the piston valve to solve at once both lubrication and
steam leakage problems.
4. Better understanding of adhesion, and its control under operating conditions.
5. A further onslaught on the unreliability of small details.
6. Continued attack on wearing parts for improved mileage between repairs.
CONCLUSION
We are undoubtedly entering upon the last phase of steam traction in this
country. Its disadvantages have been sufficiently publicised, and this paper
does not underplay this aspect. On the other hand, while it lasts it has
certain good features which it serves no useful purpose to 'ignore. These
are that it can be overloaded to stalling point without doing itself injury,
that its defects are easy to diagnose and seldom expensive to rectify, that
it is cheap in first cost, and, in a coal bearing country, is nearly as cheap
in fuel costs for many duties as its much more efficient and high priced
rivals. The liquidation of 19,000 steam locomotives is bound to take a number
of years, and in the meantime a certain amount of new construction will be
justified by the traffic needs. Against this background the BR series of
locomotives have made a modest contribution to our knowledge and have in
a general way achieved what they set out to do, as
listed in the original paper*. The Author sees no future whatever for
marked increase in the temperature range which alone could raise the general
efficiency level, but which requires increased space and weight which is
not available, neither does there seem any promise in novel arrangements
of the conventional ingredients. There remain, however, a number of useful
refinements capable, if proved, of application both to existing and to any
further new locomotives, which can raise the level of achievement within
the “ Stephensonian ” concept, to its optimum value, and there
is hard cash in pursuing this matter, even when the number of steam units
becomes reduced to a fraction of its present value.
2008-12-05