Why Brisith Locomotive seldom use new wheel arrangement

[Lancelot039]

Hello everyone, as a foreinger, I find some unique items in British steam locomotive. Why British steam locomotive seldom adopt new wheel arrangement such as 2-8-2 or 2-10-2. And many locomotive still use 4-6-0 wheel arrangement which is seldom seen in North America or other places after 1940s?

 

[delt1c]

There were many limiting factors, such as turntables , headshunts, RA, etc. Plus in the US heavy and longger trains were able to be run. The LNER tried the 2-8-2.

 

[krus_aragon]

That's an interesting question. Some possible reasons include:

• Small loading gauge. Because Britain was the first to build it's railway network, many of its tunnels and bridges are narrow and low. This limits where you can use a very large locomotive
• Few big railway companies. After the First World War, most of Britain's railways were grouped into four big companies. This meant you had fewer chief engineers who might choose to try a 2-10-2.
• Corporate Inertia. After the grouping, the amalgamated companies took time to settle down and decide what kind of policy ditrection to take. The LMS, as an example, decided to continue the policy of the Midland Railway, which was to have very small locomotives, and double-head heavy trains. In the late 1940s, with the nationalisation of the British Railways, the main objective (other than quickly rebuilding the war-damaged railways) was to design "standard" locomotives and rolling stock for the entire country (remember those narrow tunnels in many places). A lot of these were slight resesigns of existing (late grouping-era) locomotives.
• Not invented here. There's been a long tradition of discounting inventions from other countries, or even different companies, unless the benefits are obvious.

 

[edwin_m]

Britain is a fairly small country so the main cities are closer together than in many other places. This tends to make trains (both passenger and freight) shorter and more frequent. Along with relatively gentle gradients on most routes, there wasn't much need for a very large locomotive.

 

[RLBH]

Not to disagree with any of the other reasons, but there's another two contributing factors: brakes and couplings.

The British wagon fleet, of which perhaps half was privately (i.e. not railway) owned and much of the rest in a common-user pool, had chain-and-buffer couplings and hand brakes. This combination of features meant that trains could not be much heavier than about 1,200 tonnes - past that point, the couplings would break and the locomotive and brake van didn't have the brake force to control the train.

Since maximum train weights were fixed by the wagons, there was no benefit in larger locomotives - they'd only burn more coal to do the same job.

Ownership of the wagons being so widely distributed, there was no point one company upgrading its' wagon fleet alone, so meaningful modernisation had to wait until British Rail took over the entire railway network. It's noticeable that where interrunning wasn't an issue, the railways were quite happy to build much better wagons for their own use.

 

[Spartacus]

• Not invented here. There's been a long tradition of discounting inventions from other countries, or even different companies, unless the benefits are obvious.

Not adopting foreign inventions was often due to them being more likely to be patented, so they became quite costly to use, such as the Kylchap exhaust.

2-8-2 wheel arrangements weren't all that uncommon in Britain if you include the GWR tank locos, and even narrow gauge, but on the main line the LNER with their P1 2-8-2s found there was limited use in using really big freight locos as the loads they could move were often longer than the loops they could fit in, which caused problems with faster traffic.

Going bigger on the typically twisty UK railways brings in issues with wear and tear on both the locos and permanent way too, something the LNER reportedly experienced with the P1 2-8-2 passenger locos.

As has been stated elsewhere too, going any bigger would have meant wholesale rebuilds of depots due to even the biggest turntables not being big enough for anything bigger, and triangles or wyes being comparatively rare in the UK.

That's not to say that bigger locos weren't tried, the biggest being the LMS and LNER Garratt locos, though they were quite specialist and limited in numbers (the LNER only had one), and the extremely successful BR 9F 2-10-0, though there were others. Typically though freight grew to 2-8-0 size and express to 4-6-2 size, though just before WWII both the LMS and LNER had plans to build bigger express passenger locos which were both abandoned.

 

[Lancelot039]

There were many limiting factors, such as turntables , headshunts, RA, etc. Plus in the US heavy and longger trains were able to be run. The LNER tried the 2-8-2.

Thanks very much. And is it very difficult to upadate these equipments in UK? In my homeland, railway equipments used to be updated during 1950s to 1960s in a big scale to use larger locomotive.

 

[krus_aragon]

Going bigger on the typically twisty UK railways brings in issues with wear and tear on both the locos and permanent way too, something the LNER reportedly experienced with the P1 2-8-2 passenger locos.

That ties in with earlier points.

Because the UK was the first to build its (core) railway network, it was built when locomotives were still small and under-powered. These engines could not be expected to haul trains up significant gradients, so surveyors sought routes that reduced the gradients, even if they were circuitous. (The Liverpool & Manchester, London & Birmingham, and Taff Vale Railways all used stationary winding engines over inclines in their earlier days.) Curves were not an issue for these engines, because speeds were also relatively low.

As a result, the UK's railway network was built as a set of fairly level, but twisty lines. Level lines do not need as powerful a steam engine as steeper ones, and curvaceous lines cannot accommodate long, unarticulated locomotives.

 

[Lancelot039]

That's an interesting question. Some possible reasons include:

• Small loading gauge. Because Britain was the first to build it's railway network, many of its tunnels and bridges are narrow and low. This limits where you can use a very large locomotive
• Few big railway companies. After the First World War, most of Britain's railways were grouped into four big companies. This meant you had fewer chief engineers who might choose to try a 2-10-2.
• Corporate Inertia. After the grouping, the amalgamated companies took time to settle down and decide what kind of policy ditrection to take. The LMS, as an example, decided to continue the policy of the Midland Railway, which was to have very small locomotives, and double-head heavy trains. In the late 1940s, with the nationalisation of the British Railways, the main objective (other than quickly rebuilding the war-damaged railways) was to design "standard" locomotives and rolling stock for the entire country (remember those narrow tunnels in many places). A lot of these were slight resesigns of existing (late grouping-era) locomotives.
• Not invented here. There's been a long tradition of discounting inventions from other countries, or even different companies, unless the benefits are obvious.

Thank you very much. I wanna know why Midland Railway adopted small engine policy. Because small engines are more cost saving?

 

[krus_aragon]

Thank you very much. I wanna know why Midland Railway adopted small engine policy. Because small engines are more cost saving?

It also suited their type of railway lines: for much of the 19th century (e.g. before the Settle-Carlisle line toward Scotland) the Midland didn't have any steep gradients on their lines, so they didn't require high powered locomotives on many of their trains. Bulk freight (such as coal) isn't time-sensitive, so they could send a coal train with one small locomotive (fairly) slowly to London, looping it out of the way of fast passenger trains, and reduce their operating costs. Those trains that were heavy enough to require more power could be operated by two locomotives; labour costs were cheap in those days after all.

Other railways, such as the London & North Western, had similar cost-saving (profit-enhancing) policies: the London & North Western Railway's chairman Sir Richard Moon operated a policy that 40mph was fast enough for a long-distance express train, and going faster would waste too much coal. They were broken out of this mindset by competition on travel to Scotland via the East Coast route.

The use of small engines in the Midland, though, seems to have become part of the company's identity, and it was reluctant to change its policy as trains became gradually longer, heavier, and faster, leading to a situation where many passenger trains were routinely double-headed. Even after merging with the LNWR to form the LMS in the 1923 grouping, the policy still continued because they appointed the Midland's Chief Engineer to be their Chief Engineer.

There's a short summary on Wikipedia, but for further perspective you'll have to ask someone with more knowledge of the Midland than me. I'm more of a LNWR man, myself.

 

[Lancelot039]

It also suited their type of railway lines: for much of the 19th century (e.g. before the Settle-Carlisle line toward Scotland) the Midland didn't have any steep gradients on their lines, so they didn't require high powered locomotives on many of their trains. Bulk freight (such as coal) isn't time-sensitive, so they could send a coal train with one small locomotive (fairly) slowly to London, looping it out of the way of fast passenger trains, and reduce their operating costs. Those trains that were heavy enough to require more power could be operated by two locomotives; labour costs were cheap in those days after all.

Other railways, such as the London & North Western, had similar cost-saving (profit-enhancing) policies: the London & North Western Railway's chairman Sir Richard Moon operated a policy that 40mph was fast enough for a long-distance express train, and going faster would waste too much coal. They were broken out of this mindset by competition on travel to Scotland via the East Coast route.

The use of small engines in the Midland, though, seems to have become part of the company's identity, and it was reluctant to change its policy as trains became gradually longer, heavier, and faster, leading to a situation where many passenger trains were routinely double-headed. Even after merging with the LNWR to form the LMS in the 1923 grouping, the policy still continued because they appointed the Midland's Chief Engineer to be their Chief Engineer.

There's a short summary on Wikipedia, but for further perspective you'll have to ask someone with more knowledge of the Midland than me. I'm more of a LNWR man, myself.

Thank you very much. pretty interesting reply. I like LNWR compound locomotives. Hhh

 

[DelW]

Despite the limited size of British locos, six axle layouts were quite popular - mostly 4-6-2 for passenger use, and 2-8-2 and 2-10-0 for freight use. A few railways built 4-6-4 tank engines, but there was only one (experimental) 4-6-4 tender loco built. In general they were not very successful, and had gone well before the end of steam.

Even at the time, the Midland's small engine policy baffled many. I have seen it suggested that the Midland treated its engines as pampered pets and didn't like working them too hard. They also persisted with using primitive bearings which limited the power and speed of their locos.

 

[30907]

One other thought. The point of a trailing axle on a tender loco would either be to reduce the axle-load on the driving axles (not usually necessary on UK main lines) or to allow a bigger firebox (commonly). A bigger firebox is only really needed with poor coal (not a big UK issue) or a correspondingly bigger boiler (which the loading gauge generally prohibited, as already mentioned). By then you are also needing mechanical stokers (tried on 9Fs, as were other late innovations like the Franco-Crosti boiler and ? Giesl ejector).

 

[Taunton]

I wanna know why Midland Railway adopted small engine policy.

When you find out, let Lord Stamp know. He was Chairman of the LMS in the 1930s, where the board were increasingly exasperated with this policy being continued by Fowler and others. In the end a little chat in a London club with Viscount Churchill, chairman of the GWR, caused Fowler to be given early retirement and Stanier to be transferred over instead of promoting an LMS man.

Why British steam locomotive seldom adopt new wheel arrangement such as 2-8-2 or 2-10-2.

Trailing axles are not good for heavy haulage. When power is applied, the locomotive will tend to tip upwards slightly in its pull against the drawbar, which is great for adhesion and power transmittal if you have driven wheels at the back, and is wasted if you just have trailing wheels there instead.

Not invented here. There's been a long tradition of discounting inventions from other countries, or even different companies, unless the benefits are obvious.

Not always so. Churchward was a voracious reader of professional journals about developments overseas, even sending his key engineers to France or the USA to check out and report back on developments, and he actually bought a few express locos manufactured in France with various different features to see how they got on with them. The 4-cylinder GWR express passenger locos had their value proved by these pioneer 4-cylinder French locos, whereas their compounding was found not worthwhile and not developed.

Gresley made a deliberate and well-publicised trip to Germany in the early 1930s to ride in the pioneer diesel Fliegender Hamburger from Berlin to Hamburg, but the LNER did not have the capital to invest in it so he devised the A4 to do the same with steam.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

In my homeland, railway equipments used to be updated during 1950s to 1960s in a big scale to use larger locomotive.

In 1955, British Railways decided to modernise, phasing out steam and relying on diesel and electric traction. So design and build of new steam locomotives ceased and all steam engines were withdrawn by August 1968.

 

[Spartacus]

It could be said that the Midland's small engine policy continued as late as 1941 when the last 4F was produced, despite there already being far more capable and modern engines designed for similar work. It's remarkable they went back into production in 1937 under Stanier after a gap of nine years.

 

[Lancelot039]

In 1955, British Railways decided to modernise, phasing out steam and relying on diesel and electric traction. So design and build of new steam locomotives ceased and all steam engines were withdrawn by August 1968.

Yes. After introducing new diesel loco, BR do not need to cosider equipment about steam engines.

 

[Lancelot039]

Not to disagree with any of the other reasons, but there's another two contributing factors: brakes and couplings.

The British wagon fleet, of which perhaps half was privately (i.e. not railway) owned and much of the rest in a common-user pool, had chain-and-buffer couplings and hand brakes. This combination of features meant that trains could not be much heavier than about 1,200 tonnes - past that point, the couplings would break and the locomotive and brake van didn't have the brake force to control the train.

Since maximum train weights were fixed by the wagons, there was no benefit in larger locomotives - they'd only burn more coal to do the same job.

Ownership of the wagons being so widely distributed, there was no point one company upgrading its' wagon fleet alone, so meaningful modernisation had to wait until British Rail took over the entire railway network. It's noticeable that where interrunning wasn't an issue, the railways were quite happy to build much better wagons for their own use.

Thank you very much. In this case, the speed of freight train is not allowed to exceed 25 or 45 mph? And in this case , the fright train brake was only controlled by steam brake of locomotive and hand brake of brake van?

 

[krus_aragon]

Not always so.

Certainly not. But sometimes, and not only in the field of railway engineering.

 

[edwin_m]

Thank you very much. In this case, the speed of freight train is not allowed to exceed 25 or 45 mph? And in this case , the fright train brake was only controlled by steam brake of locomotive and hand brake of brake van?

Some of the older ones were probably faster than that, and yes, that was the only form of braking that could be applied on the move. The train had to stop before certain steep descents for enough hand brakes to be applied on wagons to stop it running away down the slope. And stop again at the bottom of course to release them.

 

[Taunton]

In this case, the speed of freight train is not allowed to exceed 25 or 45 mph? And in this case , the fright train brake was only controlled by steam brake of locomotive and hand brake of brake van?

Actually, there weren't particularly speed limits applied to unbraked freights before diesels came along. The driver was expected to apply appropriate skill for the train weight/gradient/signal sighting combination. And freight steam locos did not have speedometers. And it wasn't just braking capability, over an undulating road with loose coupled wagons if you didn't keep the couplings tight some tremendous shocks up and down the train could develop, at an extreme breaking the couplings.

If you want to read what it was like with such operations, David L Smith's books about the G&SWR are an absolute classic.

 

[DelW]

The train had to stop before certain steep descents for enough hand brakes to be applied on wagons to stop it running away down the slope. And stop again at the bottom of course to release them.

I can just remember watching that being done at Blackwell, at the top of the Lickey bank, around the late 1950s. And the squealing and banging as the train got under way again with the brakes set.

 

[delt1c]

Thanks very much. And is it very difficult to upadate these equipments in UK? In my homeland, railway equipments used to be updated during 1950s to 1960s in a big scale to use larger locomotive.

It is a question of expenditure v Return. Why spend money for no return
Incidently where is your homeland

 

[Lancelot039]

It is a question of expenditure v Return. Why spend money for no return
Incidently where is your homeland

China. China's railway system used 2-10-2 and 2-8-2 freight engines until 1990s on many main lines beacause lack of enough diesel or electric engines

 

[RLBH]

Gresley made a deliberate and well-publicised trip to Germany in the early 1930s to ride in the pioneer diesel Fliegender Hamburger from Berlin to Hamburg, but the LNER did not have the capital to invest in it so he devised the A4 to do the same with steam.

Not to mention the P2 being sent to France for testing under controlled conditions, with one Oliver Bulleid overseeing (I believe there's a case that they were as much his locomotives as Gresley's).

 

[341o2]

Thank you very much. In this case, the speed of freight train is not allowed to exceed 25 or 45 mph? And in this case , the fright train brake was only controlled by steam brake of locomotive and hand brake of brake van?

A traditional freight train could consist, in respect of continuous brakes, controlled by the engine, of braked wagons, piped wagons, which had the connections, but no continuous brake, or wagons without continuous brakes. As mentioned, all had a handbrake applied by guard or shunter Part of the guard's duties to note the makeup of the train and advise the driver. Speed determined by the lowest common denominator.

Apart from bulk freight, there was the traditional pick up goods, most stations had sidings or yards where a few wagons would be dropped off or collected.

 

[RLBH]

Speed determined by the lowest common denominator.

Worth noting that while a goods train might be timed to run at a maximum speed of 35mph/45mph/60mph, according to the proportion of continuous-braked wagons, it would be permitted to run at any speed up to the maximum speed of the wagons in the train. Class J mineral trains, however, were limited to 25mph, regardless of the wagons making them up.

 

[Taunton]

It could be said that the Midland's small engine policy continued as late as 1941 when the last 4F was produced, despite there already being far more capable and modern engines designed for similar work. It's remarkable they went back into production in 1937 under Stanier after a gap of nine years.

All four companies produced 0-6-0s to the end of their time, and they were in use to the end of steam. However, this was principally for local freight work, for which they were fine, except the LMS and its successors. An article in Trains Annual about 1961 described a night journey on a freight from Burton-on-Trent to Carlisle, a service which principally hauled beer wagons, where the loco, a 4F 0-6-0 from Canklow (Rotherham) shed, worked right through via Leeds. You would have expected at least a Black Five. The GWR may have produced Collett 0-6-0s fairly laate on, but they were never used on long haul freight like this.

 

[Bevan Price]

The Midland Railway engineering people liked using a minimum variety of standardised components. In some ways, that made sense, you did not need to stock lots of different types of "spares", which was costly. However, they failed to accept that - as locomotive sizes increased - components designed for smaller locos performed badly on large locos. The worst case was probably the 175 Fowler Class 7F 0-8-0s. Potentially, these should have been very good freight locos, but they were ruined by having components such as bearings designed for small , much lighter 0-6-0s. In consequence, they were very unreliable, expensive to maintain, and were withdrawn as soon as London Midland Region could get hold of enough ex-War Department 2-8-0s.

 

[talltim]

One reason suggested for the Midland small engine policy is that larger engines were too heavy for many of the bridges and culverts etc, and the they couldn’t afford to/wouldn’t spend the money to upgrade them.