Quote from: chrism on April 19, 2025, 07:08:47 AMAn approximation for the value of Pi is 22/7.
95 days from when I originally posted it is 22nd July, sometimes jokingly referred to by mathematicians as "Pi Day"

Yes - although a matter of dispute - since "they" of the "other date format" school of maths ( or as they would say math ) worship Pi on the 14th of March.... major international conflicts have been started over lesser controversies....

Quote from: Bealman on April 19, 2025, 07:20:10 AMActually, that reminds me... I'm having a pie for dinner tonight 

Steak and ale pie for me last night too. Can't beat farinaceous vittles!


https://youtu.be/1Vc4JJ8C4N0

Mike

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 90


Hello Chums

Compounding - A Simple Approach -

'Second Compound Era' from 1890 to 1922 - Interesting Developments:

We have discussed Mr Ivatt the Elder and Mr Churchward's work in comparing compound and simple-expansion locomotives, with no appreciable advantage obtained from the increased complexity required by compounding. We also noted a general interest in the subject, with Mr Ivatt's tests on the Great Northern being a result of his Board's desire to try a compound locomotive on their railway.

We now return to the North Eastern. TW Worsdell ('TW') retired in 1890, as his health was not what it might have been, and was succeeded by his younger brother, Wilson Worsdell who had been his deputy. Wilson Worsdell had been on the NER as Assistant Mechanical Engineer since 1883.

Between 1886 and 1890, TW had built many two-cylinder compound locomotives on the von Borries-Worsdell system.  It is worth noting that, after his retirement in late 1890, TW continued to serve the NER as Consulting Mechanical Engineer until early in 1893. Although the NER continued to build compound locomotives for the three years after TW's retirement, questions were beginning to be asked. TW had projected a coal saving of 12 1/2% and it became clear this was not being achieved in practice.

In October 1893, after TW had departed from the scene, the Locomotive Committee of the Board instructed Wilson Worsdell to conduct comparative trials and report on the performance of the compounds.

Vincent (later Sir Vincent) Raven and Ramsay Kendal, described by the Locomotive Committee as competent engineers, undertook the work and reported in time for the committee's meeting on 14 April 1894.

The report, endorsed by Wilson Worsdell, was fair, but it was clear the compounds were not showing sufficient savings in coal consumption to offset their higher repair costs. The compound goods engines were liked by enginemen for through goods work but were 'unhandy and slow' for other purposes, especially shunting and mineral traffic.

After considering the report at its meeting, the Locomotive Committee, 'Decided not to resume the building of engines on the compound system'.

Conversion of the compounds to simple-expansion began with the 'J' Class 4-2-2s in 1895 and continued until 1910 when the last compound 'C' Class 0-6-0 was dealt with. The relatively slow pace of the conversion programme is, I believe, evidence that TW's two-cylinder compounds were not bad locomotives.

**

It appears that Wilson Worsdell was no enthusiast for compounding and, between 1890 and 1893 he introduced four new classes, totalling 70 engines. The most notable of these was the 'M1' class 4-4-0 of 1892. No. 1621 has happily survived. There might be some confusion here as this class was later reclassified as 'M' by the NER.




[NER 'M1', later 'M', 4-4-0 No. 1621 relaxing at Shildon]


There was then an interesting development. A lone two-cylinder compound version of class 'M1' was built in May 1893. This was NER No. 1619 and was initially Class 'M'. Philip Atkins, in his excellent Edwardian Steam,¹ states that this locomotive was built at the insistence of the NER Board.




[The two-cylinder compound, No. 1619]

Following the decision of the Locomotive Committee, mentioned ante, Wilson Worsdell continued building new simple-expansion locomotives and commenced rebuilding  the compounds. It appeared that the compound era on the NER was drawing gradually to a close.

Then, in 1898, No. 1619 was severely damaged in a collision.

**

Time, now, to introduce the Smiths - father and son.

Walter Mackersie Smith was born at Tayport and, after serving an engineering apprenticeship in Glasgow, joined the locomotive department of the Edinburgh & Glasgow Railway (E&G). William Stroudley had been Works Manager at Cowlairs since 1861. The E&G's Locomotive Superintendent was William Paton and he allowed Mr Stroudley a considerable amount of influence in locomotive design. Mr Paton retired and was succeeded as Locomotive Superintendent in 1964 by Samuel Waite Johnson. It appears Mr Johnson reigned in some of Mr Stroudley's activities and something of an atmosphere ensued.




[WM Smith]

Dugald Drummond had joined the E&G's locomotive department in 1864 and was a strong supporter of Mr Stroudley. In 1865, Mr Stroudley was appointed Locomotive Superintendent of the Highland Railway and Mr Drummond followed him to Lochgorm as Foreman-Erector and, later, Works Manager. C Hamilton Ellis has left us a vivid account of Mr Drummond's departure from Cowlairs.³

Whilst there was evidently bad feeling between Mr Johnson and the Stroudley/Drummond camp, he and Mr Smith got on well. So much so that, when Mr Johnson became Locomotive Superintendent of the Great Eastern Railway in 1866, Mr Smith went with him to Stratford.

Following the death of Matthew Kirtley in 1873, Mr Johnson left the Great Eastern and became Locomotive Superintendent of the Midland. One source mentions Mr Smith being at the Midland but I've not been able to corroborate this. What we know is, in 1874, Mr Smith made an interesting move when he became Locomotive, Carriage & Wagon Superintendent for the Imperial Government Railways of Japan.  He returned to Great Britain in 1883, joining the North Eastern Railway and eventually becoming Chief Draughtsman at its Gateshead Works.

Mr Smith was a gifted engineer - C Hamilton Ellis memorably wrote, 'W.M. Smith was what in later, especially aeronautical, phraseology would have been termed a boffin...'² In 1887, Mr Smith introduced his design of piston valve. Earlier attempts at piston valves had been unsuccessful and Mr Smith's was to transform locomotive performance. But, it's not for piston valves that he is mostly remembered.

WM Smith's son, John Smith, completed his apprenticeship at Gateshead Works and then worked for a time, under his father, in the Drawing Office. He left the NER in 1891 to join his father's friend, Mr Johnson, on the Midland, working on the development of piston valves. He rose rapidly in seniority, becoming Chief Draughtsman in Derby Drawing Office in January 1901.

**

Back to 1898 and NER two-cylinder compound 4-4-0, No. 1619, damaged in a collision. Mr Smith had devised and patented a three-cylinder system for compound locomotives. Unlike Mr Webb's three-cylinder system on the LNWR, with its massive 30-inch diameter LP inside cylinder, Mr Smith used a 19 in x 26 in inside HP cylinder, exhausting into the two 20 in x 24 in outside LP cylinders. Ironically, as we have seen, this was similar to the arrangement Mr Webb initially proposed using.

Mr Smith's system allowed for the LP cylinders to take live steam from the boiler, at a reduced pressure, for starting and when climbing a steep gradient. This was called 'reinforced compound working'.

No. 1619 was rebuilt in 1898 as a three-cylinder compound using the Smith system. Presumably Wilson Worsdell was minded to allow Mr Smith to test his system. She worked successfully in this form and C Hamilton Ellis described her as, 'a superbly beautiful engine'.⁴ In this form she was later reclassified '3CC' and the 'M1' class took her original classification of 'M'.




[As far as I'm concerned, C Hamilton Ellis got it absolutely spot-on. No. 1619 after rebuilding as a three-cylinder compound. 'A superbly beautiful engine.']

It is understood Wilson Worsdell wasn't much in favour of compounding and his truly excellent 'R' class 4-4-0s of 1899 were simple-expansion engines. Sixty were built and the class performed magnificently on top express passenger work until his 'V' Class 'Atlantics' were introduced in 1903.




[NER 'R' Class 4-4-0 No. 592 by Union Mills. How we miss this SuperSpiffing range of models.]


Although the three-cylinder compound type wasn't perpetuated on the NER, No. 1619 later gave good service on passenger duties away from the East Coast Main Line, being shedded at Leeds, Hull and, finally, Bridlington. She was classified 'D19' by the LNER and was withdrawn in 1930.

**

However, this isn't the end of the Smith three-cylinder compound system. It's not even the end of the beginning. No. 1619 was to be the first of a long line - just not on the NER.

At Derby, Mr Johnson took a great deal of interest in Mr Smith's system, no doubt encouraged by John Smith. Authorisation was given in 1900 for Mr Johnson to build five three-cylinder compound 4-4-0s.  The first two, MR Nos. 2631/2, were completed in 1902, with the final three, equipped with a modified reverser, appearing in 1903 as Nos. 2633-5.

On their introduction, these were the heaviest and most powerful 4-4-0 to have been built for service in Great Britain. They performed very well, especially on the Settle & Carlisle line.




[Midland Compound No. 2634 of 1903]


Mr Johnson retired at the end of 1903, after thirty years of service on the Midland.

We'll discuss what would then happen in the next part.


¹ Philip Atkins, Edwardian Steam, Page 97.

² C Hamilton Ellis, The Engines that Passed, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1968, ISBN 04 385044 8, Page 71.

³ C Hamilton Ellis, The South Western Railway, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1956, Page 165.

⁴ C Hamilton Ellis, The Engines that Passed, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1968, ISBN 04 385044 8, Page 71. CHE included a splendid drawing of No. 1619,  leaving Bramhope Tunnel, on page 72.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Toodle-oo

John

Quote from: Train Waiting on April 22, 2025, 09:19:06 AMWhat we know is, in 1874, Mr Smith made an interesting move when he became Locomotive, Carriage & Wagon Superintendent for the Imperial Government Railways of Japan.  He returned to Great Britain in 1883, joining the North Eastern Railway and eventually becoming Chief Draughtsman at its Gateshead Works.

This is most interesting... I take more than a passing interest in the British influence on the birth of Japan's railways - and I now feel a need to research Mr Smith's time in Japan.

Of course there is much UK origin railway history hereabouts. Nearby to where we live is No 110 ( originally No 10 ) supplied by the Yorkshire Engine Company in 1871. This is on display in the foyer of a JR East owned hotel at Sakuragicho which was the original Yokohama Station located at one end of the first line in Japan which ran from Shimbashi in Tokyo to Yokohama:



And of course just up the hill from us is the grave of Edmund Morel who is generally regarded as the father of Japanese Railways, having been invited in 1870 by the Imperial Government of Japan to advise on setting up the railways. The JR companies maintain his grave and hold an annual ceremony of thanks there every year.

Fascinating write up on Morel can be found here: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=vzcP4L8dwFoC&lpg=PA48&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false

Further on British locomotive engineers in Japan. To quote an article in the Japan Railway & Transport Review of March 1994 - "Dawn of Japanese Railways" by Eichi Aoki:

"By 1880, there were enough capable Japanese engineers to replace foreigners in most key posts except in designing steam locomotives and bridges where foreigners continued the design work until the 1890s. They included Richard Francis Trevithick and his brother Francis Henry Trevithick, grandsons of Richard Trevithick the inventor of the steam engine. They were both locomotive engineers , and were hired by the Japanese government from 188 to 1904 and from 1876 to 1897 respectively. They made a large contribution by guiding and supervising the design and manufacture of locomotives"

An example of Richard Francis Trevithick's work is a compound 2-4-2, the JGR Class 860, for which there is a brief Wiki entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JGR_Class_860

Colin.

Going back a little to the NER Smith compounds, the RCTS books imply that Smith died around the time of the introduction of these classes, and the executors of his estate required royalties to be paid on any new engines. The originals had already cost rather more than TW's simple versions, and the NER did not want to pay the royalties.

The compound Atlantics were, however, well regarded by the running department, and handled the top expresses, including Royal duties. They were outlived by the simple engines as much as anything because they had non-standard boilers, and the cost of replacements wasn't justified. The Atlantics were four cylinder, using a a variation of the Smith ideas, which were normally  three cylinders as described by John.

The 4-4-0 was also successful, but an alternative to economy was found in superheating, so it remained a solitary loco.

Martyn

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 91


Hello Chums

Compounding - A Simple Approach -

'Second Compound Era' from 1890 to 1922 - Edwardian Compounds:

We concluded the previous part with SW Johnson retiring as Locomotive Superintendent of the Midland at the end of 1903. His five recently-introduced three-cylinder compounds performed particularly well, especially on the Settle-Carlisle line. These compounds used the WM Smith system and Mr Smith's son, John Smith, had risen to be the Midland's Chief Draughtsman at its Derby Works.

The Midland had what would now be called a succession plan in place. Richard M Deeley, Derby Works Manager, had been appointed Assistant Locomotive Superintendent and succeeded Mr Johnson in the post as of 1 January 1904. Cecil W Paget, whom we met earlier in connection with the Paget locomotive, was promoted from Assistant Works Manager to Works Manager. Henry (later, Sir Henry) Fowler became Assistant Works Manager. John Smith remained Chief Draughtsman with James Anderson as Assistant Chief Draughtsman.

Such was the success of Mr Johnson's compounds that Mr Deeley set to work to design an improved version. This was the famous Deeley 'Midland Compound' class. The first, No. 1000, later renumbered as No. 1005, appeared in 1905. Fortunately, she survives and can be seen and enjoyed in glorious Midland crimson lake, once again as No. 1000.




[The first of Mr Deeley's 'Midland Compounds', No. 1000, as built in 1905.]


Mr Deeley was a scientifically-minded engineer and increased the boiler pressure to 220 psi - as we have seen, that was a high figure for the time. He also devised his own pattern of regulator, where the engine worked as a semi-compound, with high pressure steam admitted to the two LP cylinders at the initial opening of the regulator. When the regulator was opened further, the live steam supply to the LP cylinders was cut off automatically. To return to semi-compound working, while running, the regulator had to first be fully closed, then re-opened.

This arrangement simplified the working of the engine, but did not permit the flexibility of the 'reinforced compound working' which Mr Smith had incorporated on NER No. 1619 and had been included on the five Johnson compounds.

A total of forty of the Deeley compounds were built and the five Johnson compounds were modified to conform to the modified design.

Mr Deeley's compounds were successful engines and became synonymous with the Midland Railway. We'll return to them later.

**

Also in 1905, in December, appeared Great Britain's largest compounds thus far. On a railway which, up to now, hadn't been involved with our compound story - the Great Central. Gorton Works built two Class '8D' three-cylinder, WM Smith-system compound versions of John Robinson's two-cylinder Great Central 'Atlantic'. Another pair were built in December 1906. These were GCR Class '8E'. All four were classified as 'C5' by the LNER. All carried names, unlike the two-cylinder simple-expansion 'Atlantics'.

Fascinating fact: John Smith left the Midland in August 1906 to take up the appointment of Works Manager at Gorton.

In 1908, Mr Robinson reported that the compound 'Atlantics' were slightly lighter on coal - around 2-2 1/2 lbs per mile - than the simple-expansion two-cylinder 'Atlantics'. Presumably, this saving was insufficient for compound locomotives to be perpetuated on the Great Central. It's that cost/benefit factor, much discussed earlier, in action again. Although the four compounds were built so that they could be fairly easily converted to the standard type, this was not done and the final one in service was withdrawn in 1947, being, incidentally, the LNER's last compound locomotive.

**

Let's now return to WM Smith, still Chief Draughtsman on the NER. One might have thought, with his three-cylinder system of compounding being introduced on other railways, he would have been developing and promoting it with gusto.

His son, John Smith, had accompanied the Midland's 4-2-2. No. 2601 Princess of Wales to the Paris Exhibition in 1900. There he saw the first de Glehn compound 4-4-2 for the Nord and was given authority to ride on the footplate of its sister engine. He was most impressed and reported back to his father.

WM Smith immediately turned his attention to four-cylinder compounds and obtained two patents. What then followed is extraordinary and reflects well on Wilson Worsdell. Mr Smith was given authority to design and build two compound 'Atlantics', not with his three-cylinder system but with four cylinders.  Design was a protracted affair, the drawings being entered in the Gateshead Drawing Register between March 1903 and June 1905.

There appears to have been an unfortunate reason for this. Wilson Worsdell's two-cylinder simple-expansion 'V' Class 4-4-2 entered service in November 1903. Mr Smith's was experiencing poor health and was absent from work for an extended period when the 'Atlantic' was being designed. Consequently, the design work was overseen by George Heppell, Mr Smith's deputy. On his return, Mr Smith was critical of the 'V' class - probably unfairly, these were excellent locomotives - and Mr Heppell was less than pleased by this. Which meant he declined to became involved with the design of Mr Smith's compound 'Atlantic'.

The pair of compounds, classified '4CC', entered service in mid-1906. One had Walschaerts valve gear and the other had Stephenson link motion. Uniquely, for the NER, they had Belpaire fireboxes. Perhaps this was as a result of John Smith's experience of these on the Midland.

The convention is locomotive types are attributed to the Locomotive Superintendent or Chief Mechanical Engineer, even if they had little or nothing to do with the design. However, the two '4CC' 'Atlantics' were openly credited to Mr Smith. EL Ahrons expressed it delicately, 'Two 4-4-2 four-cylinder express engines were built at Gateshead Works of the NER to WM Smith's design under W Worsdell's supervision'¹

Mr Smith died in harness in 1906, aged 64.

The two compound 'Atlantics' performed well and were subject to close monitoring from  October 1906 to September 1907. No. 731, with Walschaerts valve gear, proved to be more economical than No. 730, fitted with Stephenson link motion. The average coal consumption per train mile was 39.8 lbs and 42.75 lbs respectively.

The ten Class 'V' two-cylinder simple-expansion 'Atlantics' were also monitored and their average coal consumption per train mile was 45.95 lbs. The best figure for the class was 42.7 lbs.

It is worth mentioning that the 'V' class had been built in 1903/4 and their results would have included engines fresh from works and those overdue for general repair. The two compounds were new engines.

As such, whilst the compounds were shown to be more economical, there wasn't that much in it, even before allowing for the greater complexity and cost of four-cylinder compound locomotives. However, the NER authorised the construction of a further ten 'CC4' locomotives, with Walschaerts valve gear, in December 1907. As @martyn helpfully mentioned in Reply 470, it is understood the executers of the late WM Smith's estate wanted royalty payments for the use of Mr Smith's patents. This was an outrageous position, as the NER had given Mr Smith a great deal of support to pursue his interest in compounding.

Unsurprisingly, the NER considered this unacceptable and the batch of ten wasn't built. Ten more 'V' Class 'Atlantics' were built in 1910.




[NER compound 'Atlantic' No. 730. A good-looking engine.]


Mr Smith left an important legacy on the NER as Vincent (later, Sir Vincent) Raven succeeded Wilson Worsdell as from 1 June 1910. Following his retirement, Wilson Worsdell was retained as Consulting Mechanical Engineer until 31 December 1911. As we saw earlier in this remarkably brief mini-series, Sir Vincent was convinced of the benefits of three-cylinder propulsion. In 1925, after his retirement, he spoke at the Newcastle meeting of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and told the meeting he had been convinced of the merits of three-cylinders by the locomotive modified by WM Smith - No. 1619 that we discussed earlier.

You might recall I commenced this section by discussing the concept of cost and benefit, using, of course, pints of fine, foaming ale and the nice big barmaid. Then we moved to discussing compounding. Hopefully, you'll have seen a pattern emerge from the examples I used. I think it's fair to say that compound locomotives were, as Martyn once mentioned to me, efficient but not economic in the British context.

By 1910, superheating was being generally accepted as the way to improve performance and cut the coal bill. One railway persevered with compounds and we'll briefly discuss these in the next part - the last in this section.     


¹EL Ahrons, The British Steam Railway Locomotive 1825-1925, Locomotive Publishing Company, London, 1927, Page 326.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Cheerie-bye

John

Thanks again, John, for your excellent and informative postingam

Regarding the GCR compound Atlantics, as stated, when both classes (compound and simple, C5 and C4,) were saturated, that the compounds were slightly more economic. Records kept at their heyday shed, Leicester, showed that after superheating of both types, the compounds were using slightly more coal than the simples. At Leicester they were used on London expresses and had a very good reliability record.

As stated by John, superheating was found to be an easier way to economies, in coal and water, in UK conditions than compounding. Compounds seemingly also had higher building and maintenence costs than simples, and this was another factor against them.

Martyn

Wow - -I've finally caught up after discovering this very informative series about a month ago.

What I was searching for was an explanation of why some steam locos get stuck and have to reverse a little before they can move forward - I've learnt so much that I can't remember if this point has been addressed but in any case it has been worth the reading. The reason I wanted to know is that as a heritage railway signalman I have to recognise requests from the loco crew to reverse, and to permit them to do so when it is safe - for instance once the points behind the train are set correctly.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.

Jeremy

Quote from: JeremyS on June 06, 2025, 12:03:19 AMWow - -I've finally caught up after discovering this very informative series about a month ago.

What I was searching for was an explanation of why some steam locos get stuck and have to reverse a little before they can move forward - I've learnt so much that I can't remember if this point has been addressed

It is possible for them to come to a stop with neither of the valves sufficiently open over the steam inlet port to permit enough steam (if any) to enter the cylinders for forward drive. Changing into reverse will move the valves sufficiently to open the ports for reverse travel, however, so the only way to get them into a position for forward travel is to set back a little - unless you're really unlucky and stop it with the valves in the same position again.

I don't think it happens with 3-cylinder locos because I think one valve will always be in the right place.

Not sure about 4-cylinder locos though, I think it depends on how independent the cylinders and valves are - some 4-cylinder setups have the pairs of cylinders completely in tandem so they are the equivalent of a 2-cylinder loco but with the volume split between two smaller cylinders that will fit between the frames and outside but still within the loading gauge when a larger cylinder just won't fit.

Many thanks @JeremyS for your kind comment.

I am grateful to Chris for providing a jolly elegant explanation.

This has been mentioned several times in the mini-series. For instance, we see single-cylinder traction engines but not steam locomotives (at least not since the very earliest days). If the piston stops 'dead-centred' on a single-cylinder traction engine the driver can give the flywheel a push and all will be tickety-boo.

Reliable and smooth starting effort was also one of the reasons for Sir Vincent Raven and, later, Sir Nigel Gresley becoming so enamoured of three-cylinder propulsion.

The mini-series will return soon. I need to finish off the section on compounding and then get started on the concluding section on draughting.

Thanks again and all good wishes.

John 

Thanks @chrism for the explanation. I had probably missed any relevant explanation earlier because I was assuming that the reason some locos occasionally need to reverse slightly before moving forward had to with the relative positions of cylinders and cranks, as the significance of valves was not particularly prominent in my thinking. One major light-bulb moment while reading through this series was realising that the valve gear (which I only knew as describing all the extra bits apart from the connecting and coupling rods) is so called because it operates the valves directing steam into the cylinders. Somehow those dots hadn't connected before despite 50+ years of reading railway books and magazines.

Jeremy

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 92


Hello Chums

Compounding - A Simple Approach

'The End of the Compound Era' - 1910-1960

Quote from: Train Waiting on April 28, 2025, 11:02:26 AM[...] By 1910, superheating was being generally accepted as the way to improve performance and cut the coal bill. One railway persevered with compounds and we'll briefly discuss these in the next part - the last in this section. [...]

Jolly bad form to quote oneself, I know. But I'm aware there is some unfinished business to attend to. Many apologies for the delay - this was largely caused by my suffering a serious failure whilst in traffic and having to be taken to a Main Works for a Heavy General. I'm now running-in on light duties and what duty could be lighter than describing compounding in (roughly) the last 50 years of British steam traction. So, let's jolly on with the last part in this section of our astoundingly brief mini-series.

1910-1922: SuperheatingSupreme

1910 is a good year to start this part. It saw the death of King Edward VII and was probably the year in which superheating was generally accepted as the way forward for main-line locomotives.

1960 was the year in which the last steam locomotive was built by or for British Railways - the immortal '9F' 2-10-0 Evening Star. She was named after a locomotive built for the GWR by Robert Stephenson & Co. in 1839. Mr Brunel's locomotive procurement had been less than completely successful. Fortunately, he and Daniel Gooch were able to turn to Mr Brunel's friend for help.

As we have seen, compounding, in Great Britain at least (an island much of which sits on seams of good-quality coal), received a mixed reception. I think it's fair to say that compound locomotives were, as @martyn once mentioned to me, 'efficient but not economic in the British context.'

It was the almost-universal acceptance of superheating that did it for compounds. What I call 'the second compound era' was the Edwardian decade. We discussed earlier some excellent compound locomotives on the North Eastern, Great Central and Midland introduced during that decade, but that was exactly the time when superheating was beginning to be introduced.

If we can accept the leading British steam locomotive engineer of the time was GJ Churchward of the GWR (and in second top place of all time in my view - surpassed only by Robert Stephenson), it is instructive to note his approach. He certainly gave compounding a try, with the three French 'Atlantics', but did not adopt it for his own designs. But he was the first to introduce superheating, in 1906, just ahead of George Hughes on the L&Y. Mr Churchward's view appears to have been that the efficiencies provided by superheating, in conjunction with his other excellent design features, would not be increased economically by compounding.

We really would need to look furth of Great Britain to see examples of the 'double-bubble' benefits realised by combining superheating and compounding. With one exception.

And that was the Midland. We have already noticed Mr Johnson's five three-cylinder 4-4-0 compounds which used the WM Smith system. These were originally MR Nos. 2631-5 and were  introduced in 1901. Mr Johnson retired at the end of 1903 and RM Deeley, who had been Derby Works Manager, became Locomotive Superintendent. Mr Deeley was scientifically-minded and an innovative engineer. in 1905 he introduced the first of his modified compounds. Importantly, the boiler pressure was increased from 195psi in Mr Johnson's design to 220psi - a very high pressure for the time apart from, of course, on the GWR.

I have been given to understand that Mr Deeley wanted to superheat these compounds using the Schmidt system but the Midland Board - Successful Northern Men - would not countenance handing over their precious brass to pay for the necessary royalties. Forty Deeley compounds were built and the five Johnson engines were rebuilt to conform to the modified design. Mr Deeley unfortunately had a quarrel with someone high-up in the Midland and resigned in 1909. C Hamilton Ellis, The Midland Railway, Ian Allen, London, 1953 is worth reading on this. Page 134.




[Unmitigated Midland. Compound 4-4-0 No. 1032 with a 'Scotch Express' around 1912. The Midland worked the train as far as Carlisle, where the portions for Glasgow (via the G&SWR) and Edinburgh (via the NBR's Waverley Route) went their separate ways. This route took longer than either the East Coast or that of the Euston Confederacy. People chose it because of the sumptuous Midland passenger stock and the splendid scenery. And, yes, the North British double-crossed its East Coast partners by getting involved with a rival route from London to Scotland. Original photograph by H Gordon Tidey]


Henry, later Sir Henry, Fowler, formerly Assistant Works Manager, succeeded as what was now termed Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Midland. At last, superheating was permitted and 24 of the compounds, including all five of the rebuilt Johnson engines, had been fitted with superheaters by the end of 1922. The remaining 21 were dealt with by the LMS after the Grouping.

Post-Grouping Developments - 1923-1960

It's easy to summarise compound locomotive history in this period. The Great Western remained completely convinced of the excellence of Mr Churchward's design principles (for jolly good reason) and didn't build a compound.

Neither did the Southern. Not a surprise for Mr Maunsell, a sound, practical engineer, but Mr Bulleid, who enjoyed novelty and a gadget or several, also resisted the siren call of the compound. I assume this was due to Sir Nigel Gresley's influence when Mr Bulleid was his Assistant on the LNER.

As for the LNER, it built one compound - the experimental high-pressure 'W1' 4-6-2-2 No. 10000. With a steam pressure of 450psi a compound made sense. She did some work, but steaming wasn't that great, and was soon rebuilt as a three-cylinder conventional locomotive, looking like a slightly stretched 'A4'.

Likewise the ill-fated high-pressure 4-6-0 Fury on the LMS was a compound. A boiler failure at Carstairs on her first long test run killed a man on the footplate. She was then laid aside, although some say Sir William Stanier later arranged a test steaming. I hope he stood well back! Then she was rebuilt as a conventional 4-6-0, No. 6170 British Legion, a prototype for the later LMS 2 and 2A-boilered 4-6-0 locomotives.

Developments on the LMS or Sir Guy Kills the Compound

Which brings us to the LMS proper. The only post-Grouping railway in Great Britain to adopt compounding. This was all due to Sir Henry Fowler - yes?

No! Have you heard of JE Anderson? He had been Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Midland and was appointed Superintendent of Motive Power for the LMS. This effectively put him in charge of locomotive running. He was a forceful personality and was to greatly influence LMS locomotive matters during the years following the Grouping. He also had what appears to be a blind devotion to everything Midland.

George Hughes was the first Chief Mechanical Engineer of the LMS and was based at Horwich. Mr Anderson, based at Derby, set about proving the Midland Compound, as superheated, was the finest express passenger locomotive on the LMS. He arranged with Mr Hughes to have the Horwich dynamometer car (the Midland had never had such a thing) available for a series of tests to be run over the Settle & Carlisle line, beginning on 10 December 1923. The engines tested were a Midland '999' class simple-expansion 4-4-0, an LNWR 'Prince of Wales' 4-6-0 and Midland Compound No. 1008. All were in LMS power class 4. The Compound was the clear winner, giving a splendid performance with lower coal consumption than the other engines. Worth noting is No. 1008 was fresh from a General Repair at Derby whilst the '999' and 'Prince of Wales' had run a fair mileage in heavy traffic.




[The picturingham shows a 'Prince of Wales' 4-6-0, No. 86 Mark Twain, in glorious LNWR 'blackberry black'. Model by Union Mills.]


There was a second round of trials, in May 1925, just before George Hughes retired, between Carlisle and Preston. These featured a Hughes L&Y 4-6-0, an LNWR 'Claughton' and 'Prince of Wales', and a Compound, No. 1065. Once again, the Compound came out on top but the margin of superiority was less. Mr Hughes retired later in 1925 and was succeeded by Sir Henry Fowler.

Did you notice the Compound's number - No. 1065? But there were only 45 Midland Compounds taken into LMS stock at the Grouping in 1923, Nos.1000 - 1044. You see, even before the 1923 trials had been completed, Mr Anderson arranged for authority to have a further 20 Midland Compounds built, Nos. 1045-1064. These differed from the original design by having 6ft 9in coupled wheels instead of 7ft 0in. They appeared in mid-1924, when Mr Hughes was still Chief Mechanical Engineer. Six were allocated to Camden for use on the Euston-Birmingham-Wolverhampton expresses. The former LNWR enginemen were most definitely not amused.

A further 20 were then built in the early summer of 1925, Nos. 1065-84 with cut-down boiler mountings, primarily for use in Scotland. But they weren't allocated in Scotland - all twenty went to Carlisle Kingmoor, the former Caledonian shed. The former G&SWR shed at Currock had closed and its engines and men had been transferred to the premises of the despised 'Caley'.

Five Compounds were for use over the G&SWR section and 15 were for the Caledonian lines. This was rather unfair as the Caledonian section had 79 superheated express engines.

The G&SWR section had two! Mr Manson's 4-6-0s of 1911. The six Drummond superheated 4-4-0 had terrible bearing heating problems and were, effectively, banned from main-line express work. Five of the six superheated 4-6-4T locomotives, of Mr Whitelegg's design, were used on the coast trains. Only one, Hurlford's No. 545, took part in the running of main line expresses and that was only over the 24.3 miles from Kilmarnock to Glasgow. Even that, over a steeply-graded line, was a bit much for her and she was frequently out of action with heated bearings. 

Given the poor reception of the Compounds at Camden, how did the ex-G&SWR and Caledonian men, who had no previous experience of compound working, take to these strange new engines?

Very well indeed. These were the days before 'common user' on the LMS and each driver has his own engine. Some sparkling performances were achieved with wonderful economy - the G&SWR men at Kingmoor were running the Glasgow expresses on 25lbs of coal per mile.

Mr Anderson seems to have had no difficulty getting his way and 150 Compounds were added to LMS stock between May 1925 and July 1927. Again, this commenced before Sir Henry Fowler was appointed Chief Mechanical Engineer, so he cannot be held responsible for the LMS reliance on Compounds for express passenger work. Although, on the LNWR section, much of the heavy traffic was kept moving by the 'Claughtons'.

But a 4P 4-4-0 in 1927? That was the year the magnificent 'King' class was introduced on the GWR, the Southern's first 'Lord Nelson' entered traffic in 1926. Over on the LNER, Sir Nigel Gresley was working on improvements to the boiler and valve gear of his 'A1' 4-6-2s and the first 'A3' 'Super Pacific' appeared in 1928.

What was happening on the LMS? What nearly happened was more compounds, but bigger engines. Once settled in as Chief Mechanical Engineer, Sir Henry Fowler instructed design work commence on a compound 4-6-0, looking like a lengthened Midland Compound. This was replaced by a large compound 'Pacific', much influenced by M. Bréville's locomotives on the Nord Railway in France. OS Nock stated that the frames for two of these had been cut¹.

But Events intervened.

And they might seen a tad strange. Sir Guy Granet, formerly General Manager of the Midland, had been appointed Deputy Chairman of the LMS at the Grouping. The Chairman, Hon. CN Lawrence, later Lord Lawrence of Kingsgate, of the LNWR, retired in 1924 and was replaced by Sir Guy. Midland dominance guaranteed?

Not quite, Sir Guy was an especially able fellow and soon began to realise things were rotten in the state of the LMS. There were too many warring factions and the company seemed to be falling behind the other three of the 'Big Four'. So, in 1926, he went outside the railway service and installed Sir Josiah, later Lord, Stamp as President of the Executive of the LMS. The new broom wasted no time and great improvements were planned for the summer 1927 train service. No existing locomotives would have been good enough and Sir Henry's compound Pacifics would take time to develop from prototypes into, hopefully, effective traffic machines. What was required were engines that were up to the job, to be ready in a matter of months.

The top brass of the LMS arranged to borrow a 'Castle' from the LMS in late 1926 and it proved its worth. If only the LMS had been able to obtain some 'Castles'. But that wasn't possible and a locomotive of comparable power to a 'Castle' was required. Sir Henry Fowler was instructed to get 50 (yes, fifty) built and ready for the summer service of 1927.

Mr Maunsell was sporting enough to provide drawings for his four-cylinder 4-6-0 'Lord Nelson' class. The North British Locomotive Company's Hyde Park Works' drawing office got busy, in conjunction with Derby drawing office, and on 7 December 1926 the firm submitted its quotation to build the 50 engines. I doubt any other firm, at least this side of the Atlantic, could have done this. The first of the new 'Royal Scot' 4-6-0s arrived at Derby on 14 July 1927 - a tremendous achievement. And they were a great success.

But why were they built with three cylinders when the 'Castles' and 'Lord Nelsons' had four? The story goes that Mr Anderson, besotted with the three-cylinder compounds, persuaded the drawing offices to use three cylinders, even though this would require a set of inside valve gear. Certainly the 'Royal Scots', in original and, especially, 'converted' form were magnificent locomotives. I have travelled behind both preserved engines and heard the famous 'roar' when working hard.

So, the conventional compound locomotive was killed in Great Britain by the action of LMS senior management and the supreme competence of the North British Locomotive Company. And, no, Sir Henry did not resign after what can only be described as a snub. He lingered on until he was 'promoted sideways' to make room for Sir William Stanier.

But it wasn't quite the end of the compound in the British Isles. In 1932, the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) received five 'V' class 4-4-0 three-cylinder compound locomotives, built by  Beyer, Peacock & Company. Happily No. 85 Merlin survives in working order.


That ends the section on compounding. Thank you for your patience. Once again, I'm grateful to @martyn for reviewing the drafts of the postingtons for this section. My thanks also to @Hailstone and Ted for their expert assistance throughout this amazingly brief mini-series. I'm also grateful to all those who contribute to the discussion.

Of course, I'm a coarse writer as well as a coarse modeller and any errors, omissions or infelicities are mine alone.

**

I think (hope!) there's only one section left to write. That regarding what to do with the exhaust steam once it comes out of the cylinders. It was an area of unfinished business at the end of steam locomotive development in Great Britain. Which lets us finish with a Finn, just as I hoped to do.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Toodle-oo

John


¹ OS Nock, A History of the LMS, Volume 1, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1982, 44.

For further details about the success of the Compounds in Scotland, an excellent source is David L Smith's article, The Work of the LMS Compounds in Scotland, in the Stephenson Locomotive Society's Journal October, 1962.

Quote from: Train Waiting on October 09, 2025, 11:28:48 AMThere was a second round of trials, in May 1925, just before George Hughes retired, between Carlisle and Preston.

Did the aforesaid Mr Hughes not know where he retired?

Many thanks again, John, for a brilliant postingham.

I thought I was going to top you by referencing the work done on the GSWR route article, but you even knew about that and beat me there! One thing the article did say was the MR section only got 1000 edhp from a compound when on the trials you mentioned. It goes on to say that the GSWR drivers got 1000+ at least four times in normal service, and frequently hp of the mid 900s as well.

I have read a number of times that Herr Schmidt required royalties for using his superheater design, as well as insisting on certain fittings being used, piston valves among them. But did the designers of other superheaters such as, e.g. Robinson (and on the GNR, Gresley, briefly) get royalties? I've never seen a reference to that one way or another.

Looking forward to a French take to Finnish the series.

Martyn