Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,409
What was the exact purpose of these exchange trials and were any useful lessons learned from them?
The 1948 Locomotive Exchange Trials were organised by the newly nationalised British Railways (BR). Locomotives from the former "Big Four" constituent companies (GWR, LMS, LNER, SR) were transferred to and worked on other regions. Officially, these comparisons were to identify the best qualities of the four different schools of thought of locomotive design so that they could be used in the planned BR standard designs. However, the testing had little scientific rigour, and political influence meant that LMS practice was largely followed by the new standard designs regardless. However, the trials were useful publicity for BR to show the unity of the new British Railways. To record the locomotive performances, one of three dynamometer cars were included in the consist directly behind the locomotive (with a GWR, LMS and NER version being available).
LMS engines which operated over the Southern Region, where there were no water troughs, were paired with four-axled ex-WD tenders with larger water tanks. These were specially given LMS lettering for the occasion. Similarly, ex-Southern types used elsewhere were paired with ex-LMS tenders with water scoops.
Thank you. So, in effect, little useful was learned?The 1948 trials were used to test engines from each of the "Big Four" railway companies on other companies' routes, in order to try and find the best bits of their design which could then be incorporated into the BR Standards. BR had been formed that year.
Wikipedia says the following:
1948 Locomotive Exchange Trials - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
-Peter
You're welcomeThank you. So, in effect, little useful was learned?
I remember in G. F Fiennes famous memoirs he described how borrowed Battle Of Britain locomotives wiped the floor with the B1s he was used to. Yet when a few years later I started train spotting, B1s (61000 series) were still in regular use.
Thank you. So, in effect, little useful was learned?
I remember in G. F Fiennes famous memoirs he described how borrowed Battle Of Britain locomotives wiped the floor with the B1s he was used to. Yet when a few years later I started train spotting, B1s (61000 series) were still in regular use.
Through trains from the Southern Region to the Midlands and North regularly changed engines at Oxford. It's a route still used by Cross Country from Bournemouth to this day.I've seen a few photos of Southern Railway locomotives at Oxford, for example.
Ah OK - I didn't know that. Thanks! Makes sense for them to change there.Through trains from the Southern Region to the Midlands and North regularly changed engines at Oxford. It's a route still used by Cross Country from Bournemouth to this day.
Through trains from the LMS/ BR LM Region were also common at Oxford - even Eastern Region trains running through from the Great Central via Banbury, so a wide range of locos could be seen at this important interchange.Through trains from the Southern Region to the Midlands and North regularly changed engines at Oxford. It's a route still used by Cross Country from Bournemouth to this day.
Just because one locomotive outperforms another in terms of haulage power doesn't mean the lower performance one (in terms of speed) in inferior as an economic tool for hauling stuff around.Thank you. So, in effect, little useful was learned?
I remember in G. F Fiennes famous memoirs he described how borrowed Battle Of Britain locomotives wiped the floor with the B1s he was used to. Yet when a few years later I started train spotting, B1s (61000 series) were still in regular use.
He did (compare the Bulleid to B1's)........
But are you sure Fiennes compared the Bulleid with the B1s and not 3-cylinder B17s, which were the GE's principal express engine?
In the context of the thread the Spam Cans were not borrowed as part of the 1948 trials but to design an enhanced timetable ahead of the arrival of the Britannias to Great Eastern section. Spam Cans were again later borrowed to fill in for Britannias when axle issues (the axles 'went round faster than the wheels, which wasn't so good for the motion') were initially experienced before modification.To minimise the amount of faith about the capacity of the Pacifics - now named Britannias - we borrowed from the Southern for trials two Battle of Britain class engines. We took these Spam Cans out. On the first run with 400 tons behind us we topped Brentwood Bank at 56mph with the Can BLOWING OFF. What a change from B1s at 42 with the water bumping about in the bottom of the glass. On another we deliberately ran down the fire till we had 110 lbs. of steam only. The fireman then hurled Grade 3 coal into the firebox for 15 minutes until it was up to the firehole door. Such treatment would have killed a B1 or any Thompson or Gresley engine stone dead. The Can just ate it all ..... etc.
I have always understood that the top level of the new BR CME’s department was heavily weighted towards the LMS. Riddles himself was a long-serving LNWR/LMS employee, but with a useful period in the Ministry of Supply. It seems that they were already set on continuing LMS practices and the exchanges were little more than a sop to give the impression of taking into account the views of the other three companies. No doubt, had something useful become apparent its lessons would have been incorporated in future designs, but it was unlikely that anything would: there were only four CMEs and all kept up with the others’ designs and ideas (Bulleid being full of them).
Although, I'm sure the petulance and intransigence of the CMEs and their favoured flunkies played a part in rendering the exchanges as largely publicity exercises, I have read somewhere that a useful output of the swaps was learning how sensitive some locos were to different coal types. The most obvious one was Swindon designs' performance being particularly dependent on anthracite, which in 'real' GWR days was an obvious choice of fuel as most anthracite came from south Wales.Riddles was just wanting to continue LMS practice; apparently in the late 1930s he only reluctantly got on with Stanier, who was regarded as an interloper in the LMS hierarchy, and Stanier eventually shuffled him sideways to an invented senior position in Scotland, giving the heir apparent position to Fairbairn instead. Notably Riddles gave all the BR Standard express loco design and production jobs to his old mates at Crewe.
The Britannias were initially put, on arrival on the Western, onto the Cornish Riviera, apparently at 222 Marylebone Road's instruction. At least one dropped a fusible plug going over the summit at Dainton. It was a shared duty between Old Oak and Laira, the latter doing the Up service on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, lodging and and returning the next day. In days when management staff still worked, though at a lesser pace, on Saturday mornings, Riddles would apparently gather together a few seniors to be impressed, and get a taxi over to Paddington mid-morning to see it depart. An inspector hot-footed over when the bigwigs were seen to arrive, to stand between them and the Plymouth loco crew, just in case "Mr Riddles, Sir" asked the crew what they thought of the Britannia, and received a frank reply ...
Did you think those then modern class 5 engines should have been scrapped to be replaced with class 7 engines while other much older engines were retained ?Thank you. So, in effect, little useful was learned?
I remember in G. F Fiennes famous memoirs he described how borrowed Battle Of Britain locomotives wiped the floor with the B1s he was used to. Yet when a few years later I started train spotting, B1s (61000 series) were still in regular use.
Anthracite? I thought the GWR used Welsh steam coal, which is not the same thingAlthough, I'm sure the petulance and intransigence of the CMEs and their favoured flunkies played a part in rendering the exchanges as largely publicity exercises, I have read somewhere that a useful output of the swaps was learning how sensitive some locos were to different coal types. The most obvious one was Swindon designs' performance being particularly dependent on anthracite, which in 'real' GWR days was an obvious choice of fuel as most anthracite came from south Wales.
Anthracite? I thought the GWR used Welsh steam coal, which is not the same thing
A bit off topic, but anthracite burns pretty smoke free was used to fuel kitchen car ovens in the pre propane gas era, though it needed a forced draft to reach the right temperature.Anthracite (and trust me , I know a bit about it with a father who did 44 years down an anthracite mine , (and ended up as Duty Manager) , is not loco fuel - slow burning and pure carbon almost. Great for brewing and slow combustion.
The 1948 "trials" were a total waste of time , but great fun for enthusiasts etc. Nothing to be proved really.
I didn't then and don't now have a strong opinion one way or the other. I do think in a period when new locomotives are being supplied, it makes sense to scrap existing locomotives with the worst cost/performance ratio.Did you think those then modern class 5 engines should have been scrapped to be replaced with class 7 engines while other much older engines were retained ?
Anthracite (and trust me , I know a bit about it with a father who did 44 years down an anthracite mine , (and ended up as Duty Manager) , is not loco fuel - slow burning and pure carbon almost. Great for brewing and slow combustion.
The 1948 "trials" were a total waste of time , but great fun for enthusiasts etc. Nothing to be proved really.
I suspect it gets autocorrected without people noticing.A minor point and I admit to being a bit of a pedant - do you think we could spell Mr Bulleid's name correctly?
If it's of German origins it would be pronounced bull-eyed, - but with names many invent weird ways to pronounce them for all sorts of reasons and the chastise those who didn't guess right first time.I suspect it gets autocorrected without people noticing.
What's the correct pronunciation, anyway? Bull-eed? Bull-eyed? Something else?
I suspect it gets autocorrected without people noticing.
What's the correct pronunciation, anyway? Bull-eed? Bull-eyed? Something else?