How were steam engines designed/drawn up/constructed?

[Peter C]

Have a read of the Wiki page for Andre Chapelon, who was one of the first (if not the first) railway engineer to use science rather than trial and error.

I'll have a read of that - thanks

With the team building the 47xx planning to use the boiler from an 8F, I’ve always found it interesting that the dimensions are so close that they’d be able to do that.
It made me wonder if other companies boilers were interchangeable with each other?

I expect, considering that there are only a set number of purposes for which a steam engine could be built, there are several engines where a boiler from one loco (e.g. GWR) fits with another loco (e.g. BR) because they will have been built for the same job and therefore have similar dimensions/details. I don't know though!

If you are interested in GWR M&EE organisation, workshop practice and locomotives, "Swindon Steam 1921-51" by K.J.Cook is definitely the book to get. Cook is one of the unsung heroes of GWR steam and his book shows you what went on at Swindon during that period, including welding in sections of fireboxes. The GWR had a reputation for being conservative but in their workshop practices they were quite advanced. This enabled to locos to run good periods between shops.

"Raising Steam on the LMS" by A.F.Cook, one of the RCTS LMS books, is probably the easiest to read book on boiler design issues and development but if you are interested in the design, development, modification and maintenance of LNER Pacifics then "East Coast Pacifics at Work" and "Top Shed", both by (my old boss) P.N.Townend are pretty good, written by a man who really knew his locos.

The standardisation that the GWR followed was fairly impressive. It allowed for reduced maintenance times and costs of repair - in 1950 WR had about 715 Standard No 1 boilers for the Stars, Saints, Halls, Granges and 28XX locos. The boilers were regularly swapped on overhaul (apart from minor work, a boiler usually takes longer to repair than the engine) and by having a common type, the boiler float could be kept to a reasonable minimum. As the fleet reduced, you could gradually run down your stock - by 1958 the total had come down to about 627 for 576 locos.

The value of this approach can be seen in other ways. When City of Truro was restored to traffic in 1957, it's existing old boiler was junked and 1921 built Standard 4 boiler 6025 (from 3185) was given an A repair (retube and partial restay) and put on City of Truro. Even since 1940, Boiler 6025 had been on 4 locomotives before it was put on 3440 in 1957!

I'll add those books to the list of ones to buy - thanks for the recommendation
The GWR's standardisation process is evident in every part of their locomotive design. All of their engines had the same GWR feel to it, and it came as a result of standardisation, which, as you say, gave the GWR considerable advantages in the running and maintenance of their fleet. @Cowley might be interested in the use of a Standard 4 boiler in City of Truro

https://www.steamindex.com/people/holcroft.htm has a lot of information on Holcroft, with links to papers in engineering journals, and an email from his grandson with quotes from him.

I'll have a look at that as well - thanks

Sorry for a late response (and long post)!

-Peter

 

[edwin_m]

I expect, considering that there are only a set number of purposes for which a steam engine could be built, there are several engines where a boiler from one loco (e.g. GWR) fits with another loco (e.g. BR) because they will have been built for the same job and therefore have similar dimensions/details. I don't know though!

It may have similar main dimensions but that's not really very useful unless the boiler can be swapped between locomotives of different classes. This isn't possible unless all the more minor dimensions are also similar, including the connections for the various pipes and fittings. There are also issues such as the cylinders perhaps being designed to work best at a steam pressure the boiler isn't able to provide.

 

[Peter C]

It may have similar main dimensions but that's not really very useful unless the boiler can be swapped between locomotives of different classes. This isn't possible unless all the more minor dimensions are also similar, including the connections for the various pipes and fittings. There are also issues such as the cylinders perhaps being designed to work best at a steam pressure the boiler isn't able to provide.

I completely forgot about the smaller bits which go into a boiler
You make some very good points and proves I've got lots to learn still!

-Peter

 

[ian1944]

There was a comment upthread about some parts being bought in at Swindon. I recall a statement from somewhere or other that the works took pride in being able to, and by implication did, make anything, e.g. doorknobs for company houses. Is there any evidence that they ever did actually construct an entire loco from raw material?

 

[webbfan]

There was a comment upthread about some parts being bought in at Swindon. I recall a statement from somewhere or other that the works took pride in being able to, and by implication did, make anything, e.g. doorknobs for company houses. Is there any evidence that they ever did actually construct an entire loco from raw material?

I keep mentioing the LNWR. They were into standardisation of parts in Ramsbottoms time as CME and he left in 1871. Not sure about Swindon. Also Crewe works were one of the first (if not the first) to build/make as much as possible themselves. That included rolling rails from their own steel, and did anyone else do their own signalling equipment ?

 

[John Webb]

.....and did anyone else do their own signalling equipment ?

The Midland Railway were noted in particular for doing virtually all their own signalling equipment with a distinctive design of signal box and their 'tumbler-interlocked' lever frames especially. But we're deviating off a bit from loco building perhaps?

 

[coppercapped]

I keep mentioing the LNWR. They were into standardisation of parts in Ramsbottoms time as CME and he left in 1871. Not sure about Swindon. Also Crewe works were one of the first (if not the first) to build/make as much as possible themselves. That included rolling rails from their own steel, and did anyone else do their own signalling equipment ?

The Great Western Signal Works in the Caversham Road in Reading. Made everything from locking frames and all the gubbins, level crossing gates to signal posts and arms, finials and platform clocks.

I went round it as a schoolchild in the 1950s and my abiding memory is the smell of new sawn timber.

 

[MarkyT]

The Great Western Signal Works in the Caversham Road in Reading. Made everything from locking frames and all the gubbins, level crossing gates to signal posts and arms, finials and platform clocks.

I went round it as a schoolchild in the 1950s and my abiding memory is the smell of new sawn timber.

When I joined the Western Region in the early 1980s, there was still some activity in the works, fabricating custom signal structures, level crossing parts etc, but it was definitely running down by then. Memories of my works tour during my induction week include the tinsmith shop, making oil lamps for semaphore signals to a pattern that had probably not changed substantially for over half a century, and the Chief S&T Engineer's inspection saloon, resplendent in chocolate and cream, parked undercover with the works shunter, by then a Barclay 06. The site was sold off shortly afterward for construction of a new Royal Mail sorting office, and the remaining work first moved to a new site in Woodley I believe for a short time, then found a more permanent home in Swindon.

...most internal works capacity was taken up with periodic overhauls rather than new build; when locos were effectively taken to pieces and built back up again at overhaul, with the parts refurbished or replaced, there wasn't a lot of difference.

There was little difference between re-erecting a loco during a major overhaul and assembling one from new. The parts that went back onto a particular set of frames might not be the same originals either, even if reused, as they would be the refurbished ones from stock. Even main underframes could be exchanged as part of an overhaul if neccessary. Dad mentioned there was once an A3 that was built entirely new from parts already in stock and was ready to go back into traffic when the seriously damaged one it was to replace entered Doncaster works for dismantling. There were spare sets of frames and boilers already made for pacifics, and by the 1950s new boilers for both classes were all to the later A4 pattern.

 

[krus_aragon]

Ramsbottom was very insistent on standardization when he took over the complete LNWR. Webb followed same pattern, sometimes it appears as though he only built one engine as there were so many major components shared between the classes.

A prime example of which is Ramsbottom's DX Goods class, of which 943 were built!

 

[coppercapped]

At the time when the pioneer railway companies were being built and expanded one has to realise that there was a very limited supporting 'supply chain' for parts and components. It was natural that these companies tended to make much of what they wanted by themselves.

Obviously these pioneer companies used the expertise and staff of civil engineers for their way and works as these had cut their teeth on the surveying and construction of canals, turnpikes, docks and harbours - but locomotive and rolling stock builders were few and far between. In addition the steam locomotive engine was still being invented and developed so evolution was rapid with the result that standardised designs built in large numbers did not really play any rôle.

By the time of the 'Railway Mania' and afterwards the second generation of railways could fall back on the services of an increasing number of specialised locomotive builders and other suppliers so they tended not to have all-encompassing works.

 

[edwin_m]

At the time when the pioneer railway companies were being built and expanded one has to realise that there was a very limited supporting 'supply chain' for parts and components. It was natural that these companies tended to make much of what they wanted by themselves.

Obviously these pioneer companies used the expertise and staff of civil engineers for their way and works as these had cut their teeth on the surveying and construction of canals, turnpikes, docks and harbours - but locomotive and rolling stock builders were few and far between. In addition the steam locomotive engine was still being invented and developed so evolution was rapid with the result that standardised designs built in large numbers did not really play any rôle.

By the time of the 'Railway Mania' and afterwards the second generation of railways could fall back on the services of an increasing number of specialised locomotive builders and other suppliers so they tended not to have all-encompassing works.

Was it really that simple? Most of the very early railways relied on the products of Robert Stephenson's Newcastle factory. Building in the railway's own works came a bit later, perhaps the GWR started the trend (having hired Daniel Gooch from the Stephenson "family firm")? But by the time of the Grouping most of the companies built their own, and the many other builders mainly relied on export business plus occasionally supplying the home market when the railway works were at capacity.

 

[MarkyT]

Was it really that simple? Most of the very early railways relied on the products of Robert Stephenson's Newcastle factory. Building in the railway's own works came a bit later, perhaps the GWR started the trend (having hired Daniel Gooch from the Stephenson "family firm")? But by the time of the Grouping most of the companies built their own, and the many other builders mainly relied on export business plus occasionally supplying the home market when the railway works were at capacity.

Similar things happened in signalling. The Railway Signalling Company set up business in Fazakerly near Liverpool in 1881 and the L&Y used their equipment exclusively for the next decade after which they started manufacturing their own at Horwich works, initially based largely on the RSC designs, who concentrated on developing other UK and overseas markets.

Signalling | LYRS

www.lyrs.org.uk

From 1881 until 1889 the Railway Signal Co. was responsible for virtually all the new signalling work on the L&YR. The firm was founded in 1881 by George Edwards, the former Signalling Manager of the Gloucester Wagon Co., who set up his works next to an L&Y main line at Fazakerley near Liverpool. The designs of signal boxes, signals, lever frames and associated apparatus built by this company set the standard for L&Y signalling and were adopted (with, initially, very few changes) by the L&YR itself when it began its “in-house” production of such equipment.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Remember that until 1841 there wasn't even a standard screw thread in existence.

 

[coppercapped]

Was it really that simple? Most of the very early railways relied on the products of Robert Stephenson's Newcastle factory. Building in the railway's own works came a bit later, perhaps the GWR started the trend (having hired Daniel Gooch from the Stephenson "family firm")? But by the time of the Grouping most of the companies built their own, and the many other builders mainly relied on export business plus occasionally supplying the home market when the railway works were at capacity.

I wasn't specifically writing about locomotives, but generally about all the other stuff that the railways needed as they grew. Certainly concerning the Great Western at the beginning Brunel bought locomotives from several suppliers, but based on a common set of requirements/specifications. The works at Swindon opened in 1841(?) and the first locomotives were built there a couple of years later.

But as the companies got bigger they had needs for all sorts of things, harnesses for horses, carts, platform trolleys, fittings for track and crossing work and much of this they made themselves in their own works. By default this led to standardisation within each company in both the way the things were made and the the things themselves which led eventually to a 'house style'.

As Grumpy Git pointed out in his post above, the first national screw thread was standardised in 1841 by Whitworth, but individual companies often had their own standards before then but these were geographically localised or only used in one industry. The concept of standardisation was not new, but the concept of national standardisation was.

Clearly the number of locomotive manufacturers increased as the size of the railway network grew from the 1840s onwards but as the railways increasingly combined and merged the original works came to supply the bulk of each company's needs. I think we are in violent agreement on this point!

 

[Bevan Price]

The Midland Railway were noted in particular for doing virtually all their own signalling equipment with a distinctive design of signal box and their 'tumbler-interlocked' lever frames especially. But we're deviating off a bit from loco building perhaps?

The Midland (and Derby Works in early LMSR days) became a bit over-obsessed with standardisation, and used parts designed for Class 2F and 3F 0-6-0s on larger locomotives - for which those parts -, e.g bearings, valves, etc., - were totally inadequate. The LMS Class 7F 0-8-0s ought to have been brilliant freight locos, but turned out to be poor and troublesome and had very short lives (for freight locos). The LMS Beyer Garratts were also ruined for the same reason, but fortunately Fowler managed to block the use of inadequate components on his Royal Scots and 4MT 2-6-4 tanks.

 

[edwin_m]

The Midland (and Derby Works in early LMSR days) became a bit over-obsessed with standardisation, and used parts designed for Class 2F and 3F 0-6-0s on larger locomotives - for which those parts -, e.g bearings, valves, etc., - were totally inadequate. The LMS Class 7F 0-8-0s ought to have been brilliant freight locos, but turned out to be poor and troublesome and had very short lives (for freight locos). The LMS Beyer Garratts were also ruined for the same reason, but fortunately Fowler managed to block the use of inadequate components on his Royal Scots and 4MT 2-6-4 tanks.

There's a fine line between standarisation and stagnation. Arguably GWR steam locomotive design was stuck in the 1920s and it was Stanier on the LMS who developed it to its logical conclusion. However it's probably also true that the GWR had all it needed from its locomotives by that time, whereas the pre-Stanier LMS locomotive fleet was mostly inadequate for the duties they were being called on to operate by the time he joined.

 

[TheEdge]

There's a fine line between standarisation and stagnation. Arguably GWR steam locomotive design was stuck in the 1920s and it was Stanier on the LMS who developed it to its logical conclusion. However it's probably also true that the GWR had all it needed from its locomotives by that time, whereas the pre-Stanier LMS locomotive fleet was mostly inadequate for the duties they were being called on to operate by the time he joined.

The GWR settled on something that worked and just stuck with it, tinkering as and when something special was needed.

 

[webbfan]

The GWR settled on something that worked and just stuck with it, tinkering as and when something special was needed.

Perhaps, but when Stanier was shown and accepted that higher superheat temperatures resulted in much better performance he let them know at Swindon, but they ignored the information. Bet Churchward would have tried it. Sticking with something that works without giving improvements reasonable consideration is stagnation.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps, but when Stanier was shown and accepted that higher superheat temperatures resulted in much better performance he let them know at Swindon, but they ignored the information. Bet Churchward would have tried it. Sticking with something that works without giving improvements reasonable consideration is stagnation.

Did this result only in better performance or was there some other benefit such as less coal use or using a smaller locomotive to do the same job? If only better performance then I'd argue the GWR didn't really need it.

 

[Watford West]

If I remember rightly Stainer started his working life at Swindon. I assume that there would still have been (in modern parlance) some networking going on?

 

[webbfan]

If I remember rightly Stainer started his working life at Swindon. I assume that there would still have been (in modern parlance) some networking going on?

He did indeed start and continue for many years at Swindon. He would have been in line for next CME except he was getting too close to retirement age and the current incumbent wasn't due to retire for a few years. The LMS offered him the post (they wanted an outsider to end the old companys rivalry) with the approval of the GWR Chairman.
There may well have been networking, however get the impression that Stanier liked to do certain things in a more formal manner, so wrote to someone at the GWR explaining his experiences with superheat.

Did this result only in better performance or was there some other benefit such as less coal use or using a smaller locomotive to do the same job? If only better performance then I'd argue the GWR didn't really need it.

When the Princesses were first tested with Euston to Scotland and back - the reason for their introduction - it was obvious that although they managed they were not performing as well as should. Stanier had been warned by his LMS staff that higher superheat temperature should be employed, being a brilliant manager as well as a good engineer, he accepted this suggestion and tried it. First with 24 instead of 12 superheat elements and then 36 (should check those numbers though), Princesses performed much better ! They were now a success as opposed to just managed.
Not and engineer or Physicist ... higher temperature makes better use of expansive properties of steam. Results in less water/steam used and hence less coal required. Less coal means significant cost reduction. Sure other benefits.
GWR using anthracite (faster/hotter burning) were able to get good enough performance at lower superheat temperature. However they would have used less coal and so reduced costs - am sure some tests were done during BR days with Kings (or similar) and expected improvement proven. However like many ideas in BR days it wasn't followed up.

Hello
I've found myself reading more and more about steam engines recently, particularly those built at Swindon by the GWR. Whilst reading through various books by O. S. Nock, Cecil J. Allen and others, I've learnt a bit about what different bits of engines do, and how engines can be made to perform better by a driver, but I haven't learnt much about how the engines were actually designed (by this I mean how they were originally devised and drawn up by the likes of Collett, Churchward, Hawksworth, etc.). Hopefully people on here can answer my questions!
.....

-Peter

In that case you may have read OS Nock in Steam Locomotive Allen and Unwin 1957 p 62 in which he writes about Ramsbottom's achievents including the quote "Ramsbottom's pioneer work at Crewe is the pattern on which later large-scale standardizations schemes have been based ...".
Re-read this by accident, wasn't looking for it - honest.

 

[Watford West]

Thanks for the update on Stainier Webbfan. I didn't realise that he had been at the GWR for quite a while - I thought it had only been a brief stint.
Slightly off the subject, but interesting anecdotally, when Stainer retired he bought a house on the main Chorleywood road. This is only a few miles from my home, and a bit of research identified it as a large white house! Not earth shattering, but it was fun finding out!

 

[Peter C]

Apologies for not responding to any posts recently - I have been reading posts but on my phone and keep forgetting to get onto my laptop and respond!
Thanks so much for all of the really interesting replies - I won't make a massive response going through all of them because that would be a bit silly considering how much I've missed.
I've got a lot more books to read thanks to everyone on here - and that's a good thing. I'll look into getting them and seeing what they have to say on the subject.

-Peter

 

[coppercapped]

A general comment on degrees of superheat...

...for what it's worth!

Some years ago the Institute of Physics published a book on the physics of the processes which occur in motor car manufacture and operation. It was quite fascinating and covered such subjects as the development of carburettors, quick drying paints (surprisingly this was the key technology which enabled the mass production of cars - previously oil paints needed a couple of days to dry which rather slowed up production process!), batteries, gear design and so on.

The subject which has relevance to this thread is lubrication, specifically that of pistons and valve gear which were subject to high temperatures. Early oils formed hard carbon deposits very easily which meant that engines had to be 'de-coked' on a very regular basis. Both mineral and vegetable oils were tried but neither was satisfactory. The first big improvement occurred because of the accidental mixing of two different oils which extended the period between 'de-cokes' because the oil was stable to higher temperatures. This development happened in the early years of the twentieth century and the pressures for improved engine performance during the First World War drove developments in the oil industry.

So, when superheating was being developed before the First World War the maximum temperature that the steam could be allowed to reach was below the temperature at which the oil lubricating pistons and valves would coke. After the First World War oils stable to higher temperatures became more widely available so cars could run at higher compression ratios, i.e., hotter, and higher degrees of superheat became feasible for locomotives.

Unfortunately I only borrowed the book and I can no longer remember the exact title - it was something along the lines of 'The physics of motor cars' - but it definately published by the IOP.

 

[Bevan Price]

There's a fine line between standarisation and stagnation. Arguably GWR steam locomotive design was stuck in the 1920s and it was Stanier on the LMS who developed it to its logical conclusion. However it's probably also true that the GWR had all it needed from its locomotives by that time, whereas the pre-Stanier LMS locomotive fleet was mostly inadequate for the duties they were being called on to operate by the time he joined.

One has to remember that, following the world's financial problems in the 1920s, industry & rail traffic stagnated for at least 10 years. As you suggest, the GWR probably had enough locos to cover most needs without much new build. In fact much of what GWR built around that time included a lot of Pannier tanks - some with government financial assistance - to replace much older locos. It also built 4-6-0s - e.g. Halls and Castles to replace 4-4-0s that were too small for typical train loads, and / or getting old.

The LMSR was in greater need of new locos, to replace old locos, and also to replace unsuccessful designs that were inefficient / expensive to run -- even if some were relatively young; these included the L&YR 4-6-0s, and the LNWR Claughton 4-6-0s, which both remained inadequate despite several attempts to remedy their faults.

The LNER also needed to replace a lot of old locos at that time, but could not afford to do all it might of wanted to do - industry in the North East had suffered particularly badly, and freight traffic / revenue was much reduced. True, they managed to build Gresley Pacifics, V2s and some 2-8-0s and 2-6-0s, but they also staggered on with some elderly 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s that might have been replaced earlier than actually happened - if they could have afforded.

 

[edwin_m]

One has to remember that, following the world's financial problems in the 1920s, industry & rail traffic stagnated for at least 10 years. As you suggest, the GWR probably had enough locos to cover most needs without much new build. In fact much of what GWR built around that time included a lot of Pannier tanks - some with government financial assistance - to replace much older locos. It also built 4-6-0s - e.g. Halls and Castles to replace 4-4-0s that were too small for typical train loads, and / or getting old.

The LMSR was in greater need of new locos, to replace old locos, and also to replace unsuccessful designs that were inefficient / expensive to run -- even if some were relatively young; these included the L&YR 4-6-0s, and the LNWR Claughton 4-6-0s, which both remained inadequate despite several attempts to remedy their faults.

The LNER also needed to replace a lot of old locos at that time, but could not afford to do all it might of wanted to do - industry in the North East had suffered particularly badly, and freight traffic / revenue was much reduced. True, they managed to build Gresley Pacifics, V2s and some 2-8-0s and 2-6-0s, but they also staggered on with some elderly 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s that might have been replaced earlier than actually happened - if they could have afforded.

Can't disagree with that. My point was more that the GWR's new build locos were to existing designs or with only minor variations, which suggested those designs were seen as good enough to meet their needs. I don't believe the Pannier design changed significantly from the late Victorian era until the final post-war batch came along with outside cylinders. It's an interesting debate whether Gresley should have concentrated on bread-and-butter designs rather than the top flight Pacifics.

 

[341o2]

Thanks for the update on Stainier Webbfan. I didn't realise that he had been at the GWR for quite a while - I thought it had only been a brief stint.
Slightly off the subject, but interesting anecdotally, when Stainer retired he bought a house on the main Chorleywood road. This is only a few miles from my home, and a bit of research identified it as a large white house! Not earth shattering, but it was fun finding out!

Bulleid apprenticed on the LNER and was promoted to assistant to Gresley before accepting the post of CME on the Southern

 

[geoffk]

Can't disagree with that. My point was more that the GWR's new build locos were to existing designs or with only minor variations, which suggested those designs were seen as good enough to meet their needs. I don't believe the Pannier design changed significantly from the late Victorian era until the final post-war batch came along with outside cylinders. It's an interesting debate whether Gresley should have concentrated on bread-and-butter designs rather than the top flight Pacifics.

And the Collett 0-4-2 tanks of 1932 were a throwback to the Armstrong era. Only the LMS designed and built locos specifically for branch line work, and then only just before nationalisation (the Ivatt 2-6-0s and 2-6-2 tanks.) You could add the Collett 0-6-0 of 1930, which was a new design. The Southern was investing heavily in electrification and new steam design was limited to express classes (Lord Nelsons, Schools and Bulleid pacifics) plus the Z class tanks, while under Gresley new LNER designs were for main line duties, even his 0-6-0s and 2-6-2 tanks which were among the heaviest of their wheel arrangement. Branch lines had to soldier on with 19th century 4-4-0s, 0-6-0s, 0-4-4 tanks and the like and fortunately many of these were built to last and gave little trouble on the road.

 

[edwin_m]

And the Collett 0-4-2 tanks of 1932 were a throwback to the Armstrong era. Only the LMS designed and built locos specifically for branch line work, and then only just before nationalisation (the Ivatt 2-6-0s and 2-6-2 tanks.) You could add the Collett 0-6-0 of 1930, which was a new design. The Southern was investing heavily in electrification and new steam design was limited to express classes (Lord Nelsons, Schools and Bulleid pacifics) plus the Z class tanks, while under Gresley new LNER designs were for main line duties, even his 0-6-0s and 2-6-2 tanks which were among the heaviest of their wheel arrangement. Branch lines had to soldier on with 19th century 4-4-0s, 0-6-0s, 0-4-4 tanks and the like and fortunately many of these were built to last and gave little trouble on the road.

Then again the GWR's extensive use of railcars was a more forward-looking approach to branch line traction than that of either the LMS or the LNER. It's got to be questionable why the LMS and later BR built new designs of small tank engine when railcars had essentially proved themselves for local passenger, and local freight could have been handled by a derivative of the 0-6-0 diesel shunter.

 

[randyrippley]

Then again the GWR's extensive use of railcars was a more forward-looking approach to branch line traction than that of either the LMS or the LNER. It's got to be questionable why the LMS and later BR built new designs of small tank engine when railcars had essentially proved themselves for local passenger, and local freight could have been handled by a derivative of the 0-6-0 diesel shunter.

because coal was available in the UK, oil wasn't - it had to be imported