Journal Institution of Locomotive Engineers
Volume 40 (1950)
Return to main file

Journal No. 213

Kreissig (Paper No. 490)
The design of light-weight rolling stock. 4-49. Disc. 49-91. Bibliography. 46 diagrams.
Author was Chief Engineer Uerdingen und Dusseldorg Carriage Companies. Discussion: W.A. Agnew (50-1); Stanier (51); W.S. Graf-Baker (52-4) noted stressed skin construction used by London Transport, even on the wooden bodies used on the District Lines. Stanier noted that it is not easy to design tube carriages because the doorways had to be wide leading to shear stresses and fatigue. E.S. Cox (54-5) noted problems of corrosion and for end loading quoted the Fairburn formula. Added that the passenger capacity and axle load of the original Southport stock was almost excatly same as then recent stock. T.H. Turner (55-6) noted problems od corrosion; L. Lynes (57-8) noted that light alloys are expensive and also commented on the design of wheel centres; Keith Hitchens (58-9) questionned the life expectancy of lightweight rolling stock. J. Koffman (written 59-65); R. St J. Preston and W.H.J. Vernon (written 65-6); R.S. Hall (83-4); G.C. Jackson (84) noted that considerable rouble had been experienced with all-welded bogies; A. Bonnères (85) recorded buckling headstocks; J.F. Thring (85) noted excessive vibration; W.F. Allen (85-6) noted corrosion; H.S. Stubbs (86) spoke about light alloys..

Birmingham 15 December 1949: E.R. Durnford (79-80); V.F. Dittrich (80-4): corrosion of steel Pullman cars and stressed importance of rust-proofing; J.W. Eling Smith (82); S.H. Morris (82); H. Lawton (written 82); P.K. Dewhurst (82-3)

Nock, O.S. (Paper No. 491)
The relationship between signalling and brake power in handling modern traffic. Joint Meeting with Institution of Railway Signal Engineers. Numbered separately.xvii pp.
R. Steadman (95-6) disputed Nock's claim that 80 mph was rarely exceeded on Coronation between York and Darlington.

Journal 214

Cook, K.J. (Paper No.492)
The late G.J. Churchward's locomotive development on the Great Western Railway. 131-71. Disc.: 171-210. + folding plate. 33 illus., 20 diagrs., 4 tables. .
This is the most complete professional source of assembled data on Churchward design. It begins by emphasising that Churchward took over from Dean some excellent locomotives, notably the 80 singles, the standard goods 0-6-0 (especially the most recent 200), and the several 4-4-0 classes and Aberdare 2-6-0s which continued to be constructed under Churchward. The evolution of the standard classes is examined closely. The initial six envisaged in 1903 consisted of the 2-8-0 No. 97;  the 4-6-0 No. 98 (the Dean/Churchward 4-6-0 No. 100) is regarded as a protype for this) and the 2-6-2T No. 99, and should have included a 4-6-0 with 5ft 8in driving wheels, but this did not materialise under Churchward. A 4-4-0 (No. 3473) emerged in 1904 and a 4-4-2T (No. 2221) in 1905. All had 18x30in cylinders and 8½ in piston valves. It was originally envisaged that there would be 9ft and 8ft long fireboxes, but the tank engines demanded two smaller fireboxes.
No. 98 incorporated features of American design, notably the cylinders cast in two halves and joined by a cast saddle. This demanded a separate front end which was joined to the normal plate frames at the rear. The boilers featured a tapering barrel, but initially this was restricted to the rear plate. On 4-6-0 No. 171 Albion the boiler pressure was increase to 225 psi. Cook is not very revealing on the purchase of the De Glehn compound 4-4-2s: he described their general dimensions (with the usual absurd Imperial units) and stated how they were tested against No, 171 Albion as converted to a 4-4-2 and that this led to Churchward designing his four-cylinder simpls..
In the discussion W.A. Stanier presented some anecdotal material (pp. 171-2) including his observations on Churchward's County class. whilst H. Holcroft (pp. 173-82) added a considerable amount of extra detail. W.F. McDermid (184) noted the difficulty of keeping steam pipes tight with high degree superheating; O.S. Nock (written 184-5); H.M. Le Fleming (written 185).

Manchester 31 March 1950: Forsyth (187); Finlayson (188); Patrick (188); E.G. Smith (188); Metcalfe (188); K.R.M. Cameron (188) noted how up-to-date Churchward's designs were: more like "1938" than 1908

Meeting in Derby 13 April 1950: M.A. Henstock (194-5) noted that Churchward had decided that double admission valves were inefficient and opted for large diameter piston valves.and was surprised that Cook had stressed valve travel rather than lead (which Henstock considered to be a very important factor in smooth running:  Replying Cook stated that the reference to lead and valve travel must be taken relatively and to emphasise the importance which Churchward placed upon long valve travel. It should also be borne in mind that Walschaert and Stephenson valve gears have different lead characteristics) but both can be developed to give excellent results. The leads as quoted in the Paper remain the same to-day on the Churchward engines. On the Castles the lead has been increased from the 1/8 in of the Stars to 3/16 in. Henstock also queried the function of top feed trays and was informed. by Cook that they may have made a greater contribution to the condition of feed water than was really planned. Certainly around about 1939, admitting that shed boiler maintenance was at its best, really excellent boiler life was being obtained on the Great Western Railway, such that the chemists would say could only be obtained from fully softened water, but softening was not universal. Main line passenger engines were in many cases running three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand miles between boiler lifts.

E.A. Langridge (196-7) noted how Churchward had introduced high boiler pressures (225 lb) and stuck with them unlike other locomotive engineers: he considered that was indicative of excellent workshop practice and the ability to maintain firebox stays and tubes. He queried the cylinder layout of the four-cylinder locomotives: on other railways this layout had been tried but dropped due to the loosening of the cylinders

York Meeting: 19 April 1950: chaired by J.N. Compton who made some searching comments, notably on p. 203: in developing the King class, the very high tractive effort seemed to have been achieved by reducing the wheel diameter and increasing the stroke, and asked why it was necessary to go to 40,000 lbf tractive effort on what was a high speed passenger locomotive. Cook replied that the power was needed for the exacting services to Wolverhampton and over the severe South Devon banks. Compton then criticised the short stumpy boilers (a result of Churchward's seeking the maximum degree of standardization in throat plates, etc.) which must have led to difficulties on tubing because the shortness of barrels in proportion to gas area must affect the A/S ratio or hydraulic effect. One must have an enormous number of tubes, and that would lead to too much gas area. Cook avoided the specific question and implied that Churchward was seeking the free circulation of water. Compton's observations on the combining valve received a crisp response: The lubricator combining valve was controlled by the operation of the regulator handle. On opening the regulator, the combining valve was lifted which started the flow of oil and it was cut off again by the closing of the regulator without. interfering with the adjusting needles. The second steam supply from the manifold to the combining valve was for the purpose of completing atomization. Lastly he mildly attacked the sacred cow of the brake valve: it was rather similar to other types of combmed steam and vacuum, but embodied only a large ejector. This caused him to think that the Western type ejector must be rather heavy on steam when the locomotive was stationary. The vacuum pump, of course, replaced the small ejector when running. Cook agreed that when the engine was stationary and the vacuum pump was not operating, the large ejector was brought into operation to release the brakes. This is, however, required for relatively short periods. The economy by this system was extremely marked in 1922 when trials were carried out by a Committee on Unification of Brakes.

Carpenter (presumably G.W. pp. 202-3) refered to the De Glehn compounds, and asked whether, in view of the widely accepted idea that it was not possible to accommodate large low-pressure cylinders between the frames of British locomotives without undesirable reductions in axlebox bearing surfaces, any heating trouble had been experienced with the French engines, the last two of which had 235/8in. diameter low-pressure cylinders. He also wondered whether the valve design of the French compounds, which had slide valves, was less efficient than that of the Churchward 4-6-0s, which had long travel piston valves, as the thermal efficiency of the compounds was theoretically higher. Cook replied that he did not consider that there had been any particular heating problems with the French compounds as the pressure was limited in the low pressure cylinders. The engines ran well and were efficient, but did not give a free exhaust when worked heavily. Nevertheless, a drawbar pull of 2 tons was obtained at 70 mile/h.. Carpenter recalled that the efficiency of the similar Nord 4-4-2 compounds was greatly increased in later years when the front end was re-designed and a. multiple jet blast pipe fitted and queried whether further investigations into compounding had been made at Swindon following the Marechal trials between otherwise similar, compound and simple locomotives in 1912 on the PLM Railway. This part failed to illicit a response. Carpenter also asked whether it was originally intended to fit the 47xx class No.7 boiler to the "Castle" class engines, as this had had the same length between tubeplates and a larger diameter? It had occurred to him that the increased weight of the No.7 boiler as compared with that actually fitted to the " Castle" class engines, and consequently increased axle loading, might have been the principal objection to doing this. Cook agreed that this was so.

Newcastle Meeting 26 April 1950: R.W. Taylor (208) asked about frame fractures and small tenders. Cook gave a smug reply to the latter: the Churchward locomotives were so efficient that the coal and water consumption was low. Later longer trains and larger locomotives demanded 6 tons of coal and 4000 gallons of water. The frames did not suffer greatly from fractures: the 4-cylinder suffered more frequently, but mainly of a "minor nature" at the leading end. On the 2-cylinder type fractures tended to occur within the portion round the coupled wheels, but could be eased by attention to horn bolt spacing. Birkett asked why steel stays at bottom and copper stays at top of firebox and was informed that steel was cheaper and could be of smaller diameter in circulating area. Free entry of water to waterways was of paramount importance in Churchward's eyes.

Journal No. 215

Lund, G.H.K. (Paper No. 493)
Railway breakdown and rerailing equipment. 226-69. Disc. 269-303.
Kelbus ramps, jacks, packing, lighting, breakdown cranes (Cowans Sheldon, Cravens and Ransomes & Rapier), Kelbus rail anchors, cooking, protective clothing, French railways, electric locomotives. Includes specific mention of locomotive derailments which occurred near Maryhill, on West Highland line at Inveruglas and on Skinningrove zig-zag. Discussion: Stanier (pp 270-1) mentioned that as an Assistant Divisional Locomotive Superintendent on the GWR: 12 ton cranes were the highest capacity when he first had to deal with problem. Hydraulic jacks had assisted. In 1910 36 ton capacity cranes became available: a Ransomes & Rapier machine at Swindon and a Stothert & Pitt crane at Old Oak Common. In 1927 when in the USA he had come across the Lidgerwood steam winch. Cited earlier paper by John Baker (Paper 310 of Vol. 23.. Rudgard (271-2) described how he had re-railed Kirtley double-frame locomotives with 5 ton cranes. He also advocated issuing the men with beer. A.S. Gillitt (272-3) noted that the 10 ton oil jacks used on the Western Division of the LMR were easier to manipulate than the 20 ton type. There was a shortage of breakdown cranes in the British Zone of Germany. He also made observations on the re-railing of cranes. T.C.B. Miller (279-80) noted how the breakdown gang at Stratford used to live in houses adjacent to the depot and would be called out by bells in these houses. In his response to the discussion Lund (page 281) mentioned the difficulties in re-railing articulated rolling stock and the particular difficulty encountered with the C9 locomotives..

Robertson, A.S. (Paper No. 494)
Trends in electric traction. 304-25. Disc.: 325-36.
The thermal balances of steam and electric traction were compared. Noted the satisfactory nature of the control gear used on the Liverpool to Southport rolling stock. Included AC electrification; the mercury arc rectifier and the Weir Report. Discussion: Hull (328) queried the effect of third rail electrification on ATC. Marshall (332) queried the effect of nose-suspended motors on tyre wear and stated that the heat loss through cylinders was 5.8%

Journal No. 216

Thompson, W.T. (Paper No. 495)
Rolling bearings – their contribution to modern rolling stock design. 343-80. Disc.: 381-424. (Paper No. 495).
Author employed Railway Technical Division, Skefko Ball Bearing Co., Luton. Self-aligning ball bearings were first applied by Gresley to return cranks of Walschaerts link motion on GNR locomotives in 1916. Cited paper No. 317 by P.A. Hyde and report by E.L. Diamond.Lomotives for iron and steel works, Iron & Steel Institute, March 1947 wherein shows advantage of roller bearings on ingot cars. Discussion: G. Hally (p. 385) noted that Metropolitan Railway had fitted some trains with roller bearings, once fitted "one could forget about them. J.J. Johnston (p. 387): Drumm battery electric railcar introduced in 1929 had been a success: it had a 21 ton axle load and could attain 55 mph. In 1939 the three Irish Queen class locomotives were fitted and had a 21 ton axle load. K.R.M. Cameron (p. 398) noted that a Royal Scot tender equipped with rolling bearings could be pushed by two foremen in the erecting shop.

Gammon, C.A. (Paper No. 496)
Standardisation and design of goods and mineral wagons as applied to British Railways. 425-65. Disc.: 466-85; 701-9.
Included an assessment of cast irn versus cast steel for axleboxes; axleguards; bearing springs,; drawgear (rubber springs: steel and rubber versus all rubber); Buffers, brakes. Discussion by E.S. Cox (466-7) noted that Pugson regretted that he could not be present (the absence of Pugson makes Riddles choice of his rolling stock "expert" even more bizarre). Stanier (467-8): When he was on the Great Western Railway, the late Churchward built a 40 ton bogie coal wagon, but he found that the tare of the 40 ton-wagon was greater than the tare of two 20-ton wagons, and it was very restricted in the places it could serve, and so naturally he built 20-ton wagons. On the Cornish Riviera Limited they had measured the quantity of oil placed into the axleboxes, and the sealed boxes were run for eleven months - care was taken to examine the boxes adjacent to the engine to ensure that water had not breached the dust shields. Queried the change to oil-hardened plates from water-hardened: danger of mixing the two. T. Hornbuckle (471-2) that Clayton, Carriage & Wagon Superintendent of the MR had constructed 80,000 wagons to one design at a cost of £65 per wagon. These 8 ton wagons were mass produced at Derby Works. B.C. Bean (702-3) commented on the advantages of bogie stock (and observed that it was better suited to the freight then being carried by road) and on rubber drawbar and buffer springs and their use avoids damage to the headstocks. Discussion Glasgow Meeting 13 December 1950: F.J. Pepper (703) noted the value of rubber springs and the author in his response (p. 708) noted that rubber springs lasted for at least ten and possible fifteen years. See also Simpson: Specially constructed railway wagons (Volume 44 Paper 533)..

Carling, D.R. (Paper No. 497)
Locomotive testing on British Railways. 496-530. Discussion 530-91.
This was a beautifully written paper and surveyed all the testing equipment available at the time: the GWR dynamometer car; the Swindon locomotive testing plant; the ex-North Eastern Railway dynamometer car, and the counter pressure locomotive; the ex-Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway dynamometer car; the LMS gas analysis car (described by P.Lewis-Dale, Institute of Fuel 1936) and the two self-weighing tenders. the "new" LNER dynamometer car fitted with Amsler hydraulic equipment, the "new" LMS dynamometer car and its associated mobile testing unit and special tender. Obviously, the Rugby testing station is also described. On page 521 and Figures 26 and 27 there are details of the famous comparitive tests between a 2301 Dean Goods 0-6-0 with an unmodidied LMS Ivatt class 2 2-6-0. Discussion: Bond (531-3) made reference to Rugby testing station. T. Henry Turner (535-6) noted that Ivatt had read a paper at Doncaster in 1897on the chimneys of locomotive engines in which he had examined chimneys from twenty companies; Cox (536-7) the LMS had borrowed the LNER dynamometer car to calibrate the Crewe and Horwich cars and had noted the accuracy of the LNER dynamometer car, he also observed that the class 5 and 5X "had considerable variety of boiler proportions". A Reidinger (540-3) refered to D49/2 and class 5 45218 (the later being equipped with special piston valves which gave five different values of lead. The author's reply stated that in both cases the steaming rates had been increased. Tuplin (555-6) proposed a circular test track with a two mile diameter.

At the Derby meeting (page 577) the Author reported on further trials on the class 2 2-6-0 with the Western Region's dynamometer car, and he had seen a photograph of that little engine attaining the summit of nine miles of 1 in 300 gradient at 40 m.p.h., in 41 per cent. cut-off, with regulator full open and a load of 15 coaches; this was with the existing cylinders but with the revised chimney.

Journal No. 218

Shields, T.H. (Paper No. 498)
The Giffard centenary: a survey of locomotive injector development. 597-649. Disc.: 649-73.
Comprehensive review including patents. Began with showing the boiler feed arrangement (pump) for a Caledonian 2-2-2 of the Crewe type on the Caledonian Railway. Then explored the development of jet instruments via Venturi (1797), Nicholson (patent in 1806), the Marquis Mannoury d'Ectat, Benoulli, Euler and Bourdon with patents in 1848 and 1857. Also pre-dating Giffard's invention Andrew Barclay and his draughtsman Alex Morton were working on jet condensers from 1854. Giffard's patent 1665 dated from 23 July 1858 and an extract from it is reproduced on pp. 601-2. Samples of the injectors were supplied to the Paris representatives of Sharp Stewart and R. Stephenson, but only the former successfully asembled the device (aided by John Robinson) and this was fitted with to a ballast locomotive with the assistance of James Cross of the St Helens Railway in 1859, and subsequently to a freight locomotive. Robinson and Cross conducted experiments to establish the effects of temperature and vibration. Ramsbottom fitted an injector to a Problem class 2-2-2 in 1860. Sharp Stewart obtained the British rights and continued to manufacture injectors until the firm moved to Glasgow in 1888. The US rights were obtained by William Sellers of Philadelphia: the device was first fitted to a Baldwin locomotive for the Clarksville & Louisville Railroad in 1860 (incidentally the rapid uptake of Giffard's invention should be of interest to those studying technological innovation). In 1864 Andrew Barclay was involved in litigation concerning infringement of the Giffard patent. The first modifications were patented by Gresham & Robinson (2784/1864) and Gresham (3169/1867)..
Discussion: Cox (651-3) noted that tests were performed on injectors by British Railways (but types were not identified in Paper); Holcroft (653-5): In Maunsell's day on the Southern Railway a special point had been made of the simplicity and reliability of injectors and their accessories. The injectors were located behind the foodsteps to the cab where the cones could be got at without having to uncouple pipes to do so. He entirely disagreed with the Author about his views on the best positions of clacks and injectors.
Darlington (666-9)
Glasgow (669-73): The Chairman, C.D. Hanna (669-70) noted the connection between the Robinson family from J. Robinson's 1860 IME paper and the death of C.H. Robinson, a Director of NBL, in 1940; G.W. Phillips (670-1) noted his experience of the exhaust steam injector c1909 with Ivatt Atlantic superheated boilers fitted to Nos. 1452-61.

Riddles, R.A. (Presidential Address)
Nationalisation and the mechanical engineer. 675-94.
Main theme was standardization and some case was made for retaining steam traction. Noted that the Southern Railway and the LNER had Chief Electrical Engineers and that this was not so on GWR and LMS. The table below compares the cost of steam with other forms of motive power.

Noted that standard coaching stock was all-steel, exploited welding, had Buckeye couplers and Pullman gangways which held the train together in the event of accidents. Resistance to end-loading was doubled. Largely evaded the wagon problem except to note the vast intake of private owner wagons many of which were in a very poor stock and had to be scrapped..