Journal Institution of Locomotive Engineers Vol. 43

Main file

Journal No.231.

Den Hollander, F.Q. (Sir Seymour Biscoe Tritton Lecture).
Efficiency in the choice and application of locomotives. 12-28

Marsh, S.W. (Paper 518)
Recent developments in the use of rubber in railway engineering. 30-83.

Robertson, A.S. (Paper No. 519)
Limitations of acceleration and braking with electric traction. 85-149.

Journal No. 232

Bond, R.C. (Paper No. 520)
Organisation and control of locomotive repairs on British Railways. 175-216. Disc.: 217-65+5 folding plates. (incl. 2 col.). 6 iIlus., 4 diagrs., 11 tables.
Main aim is to increase locomotive availability. Defines the classification of repairs into "heavy" and "light". Selection of locomotives for repair. Includes mileage/overhaul statistics for several classes as shown below.
AVERAGE MILEAGE BETWEEN PERIODICAL REPAIRS OF PRINCIPAL REGIONAL TYPES OF LOCOMOTIVES

A period in months since previous shop repairs was laid down for each class which, casualties excepted, had to elapse before locomotives were considered for shop repairs. This period was based on past experience, having regard to the nature of the service and the annual mileage the locomotives were running. Typical periods laid down for the then new BR standard locomotives were as follows:-

Class 7 4-6-2 —15 months
Class 6 4-6-2 —18 months
Class 5 4-6-0 —24 months
Class 4 4-6-0 —28 months
Class 4 2-6-0 —30 months
Class 2 2-6-0 —36 months
Class 4 2-6-4T —28 months
Class 3 2-6-2T —33 months
Class 2 2-6- 2T —36 months

Consideration was given to the different practices adopted by the pre-nationalisation companies. Examination of locomotives coming in for overhaul was considered to be very important. The limits of wear were considered. The provision of spares was very important, especially boilers. Costing and efficiency were significant. Discussion: Opened by R.A. Riddles (pp. 217-18) who criticised the 85% availability target and considered that it should be much higher. Noted Bond's contribution to workshop efficiency in Scotland. Stanier (218-19) noted how efficiency at Crewe had been greatly enhanced through the new erecting shop instigated by Beames.
K.J. Cook (219-20) was strongly critical of Bond's statement: that "The wide variations in mileage at which individual locomotives of the same class require attention in the works, to which reference has already been made, clearly preclude the use of average mileage between repairs as a satisfactory basis for determining when the locomotive should be sent to the works." That, Mr. Cook, suggested, was an illogical statement. Provided there were the fundamentals of accuracy of repair and close tolerances, for which basis accuracy was necessary, then the mileage basis should become and was the only really logical basis on which to make the preliminary selection. He was rather perturbed to see that so many engines of certain main line classes required general or intermediate repair at considerably less than 40,000 miles. He suggested it was due to the fact that there was fundamental inaccuracy. If the basis particulars of the locomotive were dealt with with real precision, then if the engine fell down before it ran to within a very close distance of the specified mileage figure there was obviously some definite cause. From his own experience he could say that where engines were repaired with basis accuracy and close tolerances, it had been extraordinary how closely they ran time and time again and right throughout the classes to their average mileage. In his view there were at least four reasons, three of which were quoted in the Paper, that could be put forward to suggest that mIleage was really the correct guiding basis for repairs. Mr. Bond had referred to the measure of making good wear and tear, and that measure was the mileage run; unit cost was expressed as cost per mile, and it is also stated that the costs of maintenance and mileage between repairs were related to design features as a guide to future policy and practice. He suggested that that was the simplest method in which to make the selection and the very first question, without exception, which was asked by the Shopping Control was: - what was the mileage since the last repair? If engines were accurately repaired he suggested that the mileage was the best and simplest method which could be used. Under "Provision of Spares" the Author stated: "At one works" — he was probably referring to Crewe — "where the trouble was particularly acute, the problem was met by building one spare set of frames complete with cylinders, dragbox and stretchers for each of three numerically large classes of locomotive, with outstanding benefit to the progress of repairs at a time during the late war when every locomotive was needed for traffic." According to English parlance he did not think that that was" playing cricket," as it affected days under repair and it did not appear that the argument that it had, been sound financial policy to provide spares to that extent held good!
J.F. Harrison (220) mainly noted that the main loss in time was through shortage of materials in the erecting shop.
R.A. Smeddle (220-1) said he was interested to, see on page 181 the statement that the frequency of repairs was today governed as much by the mechanical condition of the locomotive as by the boiler. To some extent it depended, in his view, on which region of B.ritish Railways was being discussed. In some regions it was found that boilers lasted longer between repairs than in others. If one was fortunate to obtain a large mileage out of the boilers, it was almost invariably found that there was trouble with worn tyres, loose axle boxes, etc., although the latter had to a great extent been cured by the by the fitting of manganese-steel liners to the boxes. That was proved on reference to Table IV where a great improvement is shown on Class 4 and 5 engines as a result of the use of manganese-steel liners. If the boiler would hold out, as apparently it did on regions with water softening, then it was a great help to securing greater mileage between repairs. On the subject of mileage, he was interested in Table III where the average mileage from general repair was said to be 64,268 miles. Surely that was rather low. He extracted the Western Region's figures and found that the mileage was 80,000 and average time in months from general repair 41. It therefore appeared that the mileage was slightly lower on some of the other regions. The higher average on the Western Region might be accounted for by the attempt being made to put the best into the repair of the engines. He had worked on three regions, but was not so familiar with the LMS, or Crewe, and in his view the quality of the repairs at Swindon had a great influence on the mileage which it was possible to obtain there between general repairs and between general and intermediate repairs, the mileage between the two being approximately the same. The statement on page 188 that the smaller the number of days taken to repair each locomotive, the lower will be the number of engines at the works was interesting. The aim was, therefore, to complete the repairs in the shortest possible time. He suggested that it might be better to put it round the other way and reduce the number of engines in the erecting shops. That was done at a works with which he was previously associated. Weeks were being taken to repair the engines so a number were taken out of the shop and the reduction in the number of days as a result was surprising. With regard to the staging or belt at Crewe, at Swindon there was similar staging of repairs. The pits are arranged transversely with a traverser in the middle and engines were moved to the various positions by means of overhead cranes.
R. Arbuthnott (221-3) from the private locomotive manufacturing industry commented on the huge improvement wrought by the use of manganese steel axlebox liners, and asked why they had not become universal, and also asked what improved boiler boiler and was informed by Bond (230): better water quality, higher standard of shed maintaenance, and improvements in design: ample water spaces, larfe radii in the bends of firebox plates and steel or monel firebox stays.  
E.S. Cox (223-5) added very little apart from noting that the use of manganese steel axlebox liners had increased tyre life and that some modern designs were excessively complex (he was presumably refering to multiple cylinders).
H.H. Swift (225) noted that a system of progressive repair had been introduced at Ashford and that this had led to a 10% improvement in productivity.
I.C. Forsyth (225-8 (3 illus.) described a welding repair method adopted at Crewe for fitting a pre-assembled front-end onto the Princess Royal main frames, which indicated that trouble was experienced through the cylinders working loose and fracturing..

Dymond, A.W.J. (Paper No. 521)
Operating experience with two gas turbine locomotives. 268-336.
Brown-Boveri gas turbine locomotive No. 18000 and Metropolitan Vickers locomotive No. 18100. Discussion: Sir William Stanier (pp. 292-3) made pertinent remarks on the gas turbine locomotives, and the difficulties encountered with operating the steam turbine locomotive on the LMS (reproduced in section on Stanier)

Journal No. 233

Reed, Brian (Paper No. 522)
Running tests of a 500 h.p. diesel-mechanical locomotive.. 366-411.

Morgan, R.E. (Paper No.523)
The development of the Farnboro electric indicator and its application to the steam locomotive. 412-21. Disc.: 421-5. 6 diagrs.
Also reviews locomotive indicator development in general.

Bond, Roland C. (Presidential Address)
Years of transition. 439-63 + 4 folding plates. 15 illus., 7 diagrs.
This address surveys the post 1923 period in broad economic/technological terms. It reflects the policies of Bond's former chief  (Stanier). Bond examined six experimental locomotives:
1. Armstrong-Ramsay Condensing Turbine Locomotive.
2. Beyer-Ljungstrom Condensing Turbine Locomotive.
3. Schmidt-Henschel High Pressure. LMSR 4-6-0 6399.
4. High pressure compound with water tube boiler. LNER 4-6-4..
5. Non-condensing Turbine Locomotive. LMSR 4-6-2. 6202.
6. Simple expansion 0-6-6-0 "Leader" Class. Southern Rly:
Of these locomotives the most successful was, I think, the LMSR condensing turbine locomotive No. 6202. It ran 439,931 miles in earning service; and although fuel economy was limited to that which could result from a reduction in heat losses compared with a reciprocating engine working between the same temperature and limits, dynamometer car tests showed a saving in coal consumption of approximately 7 per cent. Certain mechanical troubles were experienced and the availability record of the locomotive was not As a result of the experience gained over a period of 15 years, decided to convert this locomotive to 4-cylinder simple propulsion...

Micklethwaite, N. (Paper No. 524)
Distribution of fuel on British Railways with regard to coal and coke. 464-75.

Compton, J.N. (Paper No. 525)
The design and construction of steel fireboxes. 475-96.

Journal No. 235

Vandy, W. (Paper No. 526)
The production of steel wagons. 502-59.

Ell, Samuel O. (Paper No. 527)
Developments in locomotive testing. 561-91. Disc.: 591-633; 729-34 + 4 folding plates. 2 illus., 19 diagrs. Bibliog. .
Based on tests with King class 6001. Discussion: J. Fore (730-1) recorded that an LMS 4F 0-6-0 had been modified at Swindon with an improved blastpipe and chimney and that on tests on the North Wales main line the maximum continuous steaming rate had improved from 12,000 to almost 21,000 lb/hr. D. Patrick (731) asked whether Goodfellow Tips had been evaluated..

Tuplin, W.A. (Paper No. 528).
Some questions about the steam locomotive. 637-65. Disc.: 665-714: 1954, 44, 167-73. illus., 10 diagrs. 3 tables.
Most of this paper, including the monumental, but mainly destructive commentaries by Carling, Ell and Holcroft are considered on the Tuplin page and are not repeated here. An outsider's (but a professional engineering outsider) view of locomotive development. The paper is interesting in that all of Tuplin's views more widely aired in several books and many magazine articles were subjected to scrutiny by professional locomotive engineers (thus the response is especially interesting).

Tuplin argued that the extra weight demanded for stronger boiler plates invalidated the "advantage" of adopting higher boiler pressures. The following Tuplin criteria were subjected to Tuplinesque scrutiny by Carling:.

(a) The higher temperature of the water means higher temperatures in all the main components and this can affect the copper firebox and copper stays appreciably as that material begins to lose strength as the temperature rises above about 300°F.
(b) The higher temperature and pressure of the water accelerates any chemical action of its impurities on the boiler.
(c) The thermal stresses in critical parts of the firebox wall may be increased by the effect of the greater thickness.

A key feature of Tuplin's paper, and one debunked by Ell was Table III best speed ranges on page 647 wherein the best speed range in terms of boiler/cylinder capacity and the best speed for valve performance were listed together with their overlap if any: there was alleged to be none for the GCR Director class, and only the range 50-59 for the King class: the latter was clearly perceived as a red flag by a bull by Ell!

Two cylinder designs were advocated as against the use of multiple cylinders: if multiple cylinders were adopted then he favoured the layout employed on the B16/2. Favoured narrow fireboxes and the absence of trailing axles. Cited Goss (this got him into a lot of trouble) to advocate the use of simple front ends as aginst multiple blastpipes and chimneys. He made a number of comments on the ergonomics of cabs and the operation of firehole doors.

Discussion: H. Holcroft (665-8) opened the discussion and on page 666 (when well into his response) Holcroft noted that: "In the Paper much prominence was given to thermal efficiency per se. To the locomotive engineer, however, thermal efficiency was only one factor of many and it had to be considered with due regard to all the others which went towards the making of optimum power. It might well be that in the end some sacrifice of thermal efficiency could be beneficial in producing the most suitable motive power unit. Holcroft was highly critical of Tuplin's assertions concerning low boiler pressures: "such engines were amiable and reliable machines but most lethargic" Holcroft was also highly critical of Tuplin's observations on firing methods, on superheaters, and on lost motion in valve gear due to excesssive clearances (and cited his own measurements to show that was not the case).

C.C.H. Wade (668) commented on firing techniques and the limits of endurance for firemen.

R.G. da Costa (668-71) was highly critical of Tuplin's observations on superheating, and in particular Tuplin's attempt to relate grate area to superheater surface and temperature; Tuplin's interpretation of Goss's observations on unconventional valve gear which da Costa considered had been made prior to what da Costa stated were "substantial improvements" in the design of valve gear, especially in poppet valves.

S.O. Ell (671-4) see Tuplin page.

Pelham Maitland (674) recorded that in a large number of instances where the boiler pressure had been raised there had been an immediate and, in aggregate, appreciable saving in coal consumption. On firing engines with wide fireboxes, the technique of firing to the four corners of the firebox and little elsewhere produced one outstanding feature. It tended to the more thorough combustion of the coal than otherwise would be possible, because the draught did not tear the fire to anything like the same extent as with a narrow firebox. That was a feature on which he would like the Author's comments-the tearing of the fire in a narrow firebox as compared with a wide firebox.

A. Hood (674-6) noted that Tuplin queried whether boiler designers set themselves targets regarding weight per unit of heating surface. So far as the private builder is concerned the answer was an unqualified affirmative inasmuch as the weight limitations imposed by the clients' specification set the target. Only those closely acquainted with the subject appreciate fully what these limitations mean, particularly when restrictions are placed on the. weight per foot run of wheel base as well as on axle loading. In the remarks on fireboxes Tuplin made no comment on firebox volume: it has been argued that much of the merit of the narrow box is derived from the ratio of volume to grate area being good, and the more general adoption of the combustion chamber seems to substantiate this. In fact it has been claimed that the narrow box is practically the ideal shape when dealing with oil-fired locomotives.

With regard to the comparisons of boiler weights, as given in Table 1, it may be suggested that a much more equitable basis of comparison might be to make this in terms of evaporation per hour from the various boilers. This would bring into play the division of the heating surface between the firebox and tubes. Such a comparison might be made either on the basis of any agreed rate of evaporation from the firebox and tubes or preferably on the basis of the recently published data on locomotive testing issued by British Railways.

The comparisons. made in the Paper are only fair if the locomotives are designed to the same ratios of fireboxes and tube surface. In a recent locomotive built in this country for overseas the total evaporative heating surface is in fact less than in a previous design, and the tube heating surface is some 4% less, yet the new design has permitted an increase of 40% in the firebox heating surface.

The concepts of "nominal speed," "specific speed" and " specific. effort" are highly interesting, but whether there will be general agreement with the conclusions which Tuplin derives from his analysis is open to question. Nevertheless, the argument put forward is worthy of close study.

There is probably no more debatable point in locomotive design than front end proportions, and also nothing which can so influence the performance of the locomotive in service, yet it would still seem that the only guide is experience based on previous designs, for despite the fact that the American Master Mechanics' proportions have been known for many years, it would seem that even in the USA there was nothing really standardised, at least tliat is the conclusion arrived at after studying the results of the front end experiments made in the University of Illinois, and Johnson seems to confirm this in his book on the Steam Locomotive.

While the Author's criticism of the 4-6-2 type on the basis of weight transfer may, perhaps, bear analysis for locomotives on British Railways, it cannot be applied to locomotives for railways where the permissible axle load is a limiting factor. Would the Author. faced with the problem of providing for a large boiler on a passenger locomotive, prefer to use a 4-8-0 with all it involves in the way of extra rods and resistance in preference to a 4-6-2 if the 6-coupled engine gives all the ,adhesion necessary? , As regards mechanisms one can readily agree with Dr. Tuplin when he says" the less of it the better," so why not go all the way and adopt servo motors which would put the steam locomotive driver on a par with his opposite number on other forms of power? .

The Author had referred to ash chutes for smokeboxes. Two past applications of this idea sprang to mind. Paget's 2-6-2 engine of 1907 had used such a chute, sealed at the top by a simple flat-seated plug held by its own weight in the top of the chute and with a long-lifting handle. Even simpler was the device used by F. W. Webb on his" Precedent" and 3-cylinder compound passenger engines, consisting of a chute tapering down to a rectangular hole about 6 in.x 2 in. quite open to the atmosphere! No attempt at sealing was made, but the front plate of the hopper was extended some inches below the back plate and turned over to give a crude ejector action due to the air stream when running forwards. He was not aware of any complaints of the steaming of the" Precedents," but would be reluctant to see such a device applied to modern locomotives!

He felt he must join issue with the Author on the subject of regulator operating mechanism. Whatever -the torque might be on the shaft to operate the regulator, the pull at the cab to overcome it would, of course, be the same if the mechanical advantage of tire existing and proposed linkages were the same. However, the weight of the operating rods alone on the" Britannia" boiler was of the order of 70 lb., and in view of the damage caused to them by cleaners standing on them, etc., he did not see that they could be lightened satisfactorily. Did the Author seriously suggest that the direct pull necessary to a~celerate this mass in opening the regulator would permit anything approaching the present sensitivity? He thought the Author should be copdemned to an eight-hour shift shunting with an .engine so fitted! In conclusion, he felt that drivers would rebel at the Author's suggestion to bring the cab window back close to where they sat. One thing that was very necessary in case of emergency was complete freedom of movement in the cab, and criticisms of the BR standard cab layout which had been voiced dealt with the driver's sense of being" boxed in " by the grouping of controls round him. With the proposed arrangement, the driver would be risking his skull even to tie his bootlaces!

Mr. P. R. Saunders (678-9) wrote that the Author pointed out that a 4-6-0 locomotive, partic,ularly one with a high drawbar, would be better in some circumstances, such as starting on an up gradient or on an irregular track, than a 4-6-2 of similar nominal adhesion. The implication of this part of his Paper was, he assumed, that it was sometimes preferable on this account, to build a 4-6-0 rather than a 4-6-2, both engines having the same weight for adhesion. He would suggest, however, that 4-6-2's were only built when it was absolutely necessary from a consideration of the work required of the locomotive in other circumstances. The 4-6-2, with a larger firebox and boiler, would have a superior performance at speed, when maximum adhesion was not required, and may yet have a greater availability. In any case, Professor Tuplin's calculation of the weight transfer that took place would appear to be in some error. Since the coupled wheels were separately sprung, and the trailing axle had greater loading than the leading axle, this weight distribution among the coupled wheels exerted a levelling moment on the frame which was neglected when only the overall transfer of weight from the bogie wheels was considered. A calculation, taking that into account, showed that the transfer from idle to coupled wheels for a BR Class 5, 4-6-0 when the drawbar pull was 12 tons at 3½ ft. above" rail level was less than 1¾ tons, rather than 2½ tons.

W.O. Skeat (679-81 written communication) see Tuplin page

M.A. Henstock (693) argued that the reserve available with higher pressures was appreciated by the footplate crews; he noted that the LMS used nickel steel for some its boiler plates to reduce weight; he commented on eddy currents above the brick arch; and noted the problem associated with short connecting rods: heated bearings and crosshead wear. He did not understand the criticism about the" Patriots" and the" Royal Scots," they certainly have the same wheel diameter and cylinder sizes, but the tractive efforts were far from comparable, the first being 26,520 lb. and the latter 33,150 lb. This seemed a very big difference by which to compare a locomotive. The L.M. Region 2-6-0 Class 5, parallel boiler engine with a pressure of 180 lb./sq. in. and tractive effort of 26,580 lb. could be compared with the 2-6-0 Taper Bqiler Class 5 which bad a tractive effort of 26,288 lb., these two locomotives were, in his opinion, far more comparable to bring out the points that the Author was trying to make. Regarding the diagram showing the fire hole door, as he did not understand how it worked he asked if the Author would be good enough to give an explanation.The inward opening door was not a new idea. All the former L & Y Rly. engines had inward opening" flap" doors and one of the main disadvantages was the frequent renewal of this type of flap which burnt away very rapidly.

The diagrams of the regulator operating rod reminded him of what all designers should avoid, a "one view" scheme. The arrangement shQwnin the elevation looked no doubt feasible, but if the plan view of the boiler and rod had been shown a different picture would present itself, due to the rod having to pass the widest part of the firebox and 'be straight in the plan, t~e shaft at the multiple valve header would have to be extended considerably to line up the lever with the operating rod; this overhang was very undesirable on account of wear taking place and causing the gland packing to leak even more than at present.

The load required to open the pilot valve was 250 pounds and by the existing arrangement there was 'no chance of the rods being moved by anyone or anything from outside the cab.

If the Author's scheme could even be adopted, the chances were that this could result in the regulator being opened other than by using the handle in the cab, which would be very undesirable, especially when the engine was being serviced at the sheds, due to the possibility of the regulator being opened by some unauthorised person, cleaner, etc.

The Author unfortunately had not given anything concrete on which the designer could base a design for the smokebox; the diagram of smokebox proportions was like most, it fell short of giving the blast pipe cap diameter, or anything on which to base it for a given locomotive, the distance from the tubeplate and also the height below the centre line of the smokebox; these were the figures the designer had to search for, and how elusive they were.

D.R. Carling (694-8) see Tuplin page.

W.G.F. Thorley (698-9) noted that Tuplin stated that the object of superheating was to ensure that, despite the drop in temperature of the steam as it expanded in the cylinder, it did not become saturated. Could it not be said also that the superheater provided also a valuable addition to boiler steaming capacity inasmuch as the volume of steam was increased by its use? It would be recalled that the first two "Princess" class Pacific locomotives of the former LMS Railway had 32-element superheaters fitted in place of the original 16-element apparatus after only a short period of service, and the steaming was improved thereby. The Author had said in the discussion that the firebox volume was increased at the same time as the additional superheating surface was provided and therefore the value of the latter could not be assessed accurately, but in this connection it was pointed out that the number of elements had been increased without increase of firebox volume in both the Classes 5MT and 5XP locomotives of the same railway, as 'compared with the original arrangement and the steaming had been improved. The superheater had the advantage that, provided the flue tubes were kept reasonably clean, its efficiency remained unimpaired as the boiler scaled up internally; also it was sometimes able to evaporate water during periods of priming, which would be carried over into the cylinders of a saturated engine.

The Author recommended a 3-cylinder engine having the inside mechanism as readily accessible as that of the two outside cylinders and the B16/2 4-6-0 Class of the former LNER was instanced as an engine which nearly gave the desired feature of being able to be prepared without the use of a pit. It appeared, however, that in these circumstances the driver would have to pass between the trailing bogie wheels and the leading coupled wheels to gain access to some of the inside oiling points and this was a practice which could not be officially countenanced.

Mr. Thorley considered that the Western Region practice of lifting the flap plate between the application of each shovelful of coal, as mentioned under "Firebox" in the Paper, was brought about more by force of circumstances rather than by any conviction of the enginemen that it was the correct thing to do. Whilst such an attitude of mind on the part of the latter was a very good thing to encourage, the fact remained that if an engine would steam freely with the flap remaining down between consecutive shovelsful, then the flap remained down.

Meeting in Glasgow, 26 January 1954: A. Hood: (704-5): noted that the first Merchant Navy class boiler was designed and built in Glasgow, and at the request of the customer a second edition of the boiler was designed and constructed which proved to be approximately 2 tons lighter than its predecessor. This was a typical example of the designer's art which reduced the weight of the boiler yet maintained its original output. J. Campbell (705) emphasised that higher boiler pressures provided "ample reserve capacity. Considered that the inertia effect in valve gears noted by Tuplin could be used as an argument against conjugated valve gears. E.F. Clark (706-7) N. McKillop (707-8) noted that "the difference in performance was fantastic" with the higher boiler pressure Gresley Pacifics (A1 to A3) and "very much less coal was burned".

Meeting in Newcastle-on-Tyne, 24 February 1954. F. Johnson (712) noted that lower pressure boilers required a higher weight of water. C.H. Swan (712) noted that the B16 class little end bushes had a short life due to the short connecting rods. He also considered that Tuplin had advocated many former NER features: inward opening firehole doors (the Blades firehole door); inward opening cab windows, and the Raven fog signalling apparatus!

De Sousa, C.H. (Paper No. 529)
The design of Indian Railways passenger coaching stock for greater comfort. 715-24.
The principal conditions which militated against comfortable travel in India were: climate, dust, noise, inadequate accommodation and lack of amenities,, and by implication the misuse of such amenities, notably wash basins and lavatories. The author considered that insufficient attention had been paid to the Indian's wish to sit with their feet tucked up.