| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Dumb question re: British vs. US design https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11593 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Scott [ Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Dumb question re: British vs. US design |
I don't want to start a controversy, but I have a novice question. Please take a look at the photos below of the 1910 British 4-4-0 and compare them to the ATSF 2-10-4. Now I realize that there is 40 years of technology separating them but note how clean the exterior of the British locomotive is compared to the numerous pipes and stuff hanging all over outside the jacket of the newer and more advanced American product. I realize that the British locomotive in the photo probably is not superheated and just plain saturated but I've noticed similar characteristics in much later engines. Did the Americans quit caring about how their products looked particularly at the end of steam? Or were the American railroads driven by shop forces who wanted function over form - i.e. the reason the maintenance forces hated streamlining of steam? Thanks in advance for any insight. |
|
| Author: | Brian Norden [ Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dumb question re: British vs. US design |
Fuction over form. And in America it was not at the end of steam. External piping was long a feature of many locomotives. Yes, some passenger locomotives had many pipes hidden under the boiler jacket. Its a matter of cost and time required to install or repair hidden piping. Yes, shop men may not want to return streamline skirting that they only have to remove again. But also because of the "bean counters." |
|
| Author: | Gavin Hamilton [ Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dumb question re: British vs. US design |
If you've ever had to prepare a "typical" inside connected British locomotive, and I do about 12 times a year, you will understand why the British eventually followed the American way. There was an early move towards "everything outside" by the London & South Western Railway (later part of the Southern Railway) in about 1913 and the other lines, excluding the Great Western, eventually followed this lead. GWR appologists will spin a different tale but the lack of outside valve gear on this companies products (with four exceptions, two narrow gauge, that I can think of) shows the stagnation of the thinking at Swindon. G |
|
| Author: | Aarne H. Frobom [ Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dumb question re: British vs. US design |
One of the pleasures of foreign tourism is seeing how other people do ordinary tasks differently. Also extraordinary tasks, like designing steam engines. Recently some of the Steam Railroading Institute (PM 1225) members made a swing through Swindon, Didcot, and other British sites, largely for the purpose of seeing things like oil-lubricated rod bearings, forged semi-circular mud rings, and monel staybolts, with nary a glance at York Minster or St. Pauls. Probably the single overwhelming impression we got from British steam was the sheer labor intensity of the designs. We constantly saw arrangements that left us slack-jawed (or "gobsmacked" as the Brits say) over the work required to accomplish simple tasks. One of the memories I took away from the Castle Class 4-6-0 that is installed over a pit at Swindon is that the Great Western and maybe other British roads didn't use ashpan hoppers. The ashes had to be raked out backwards from underneath. As pointed out above, the BR standard designs look a lot less exotic to Americans and were more labor-efficient. Although on my first visit, in 1982, the 125-mph passenger trains were still brush-painted. The single neatest observation of our latest trip: the call sign of the local radio station at Swindon is GWR. |
|
| Author: | steamdon-jr [ Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dumb question re: British vs. US design |
I will not say it is a dumb question you just have not observed many other things in the steam world other than locomotives maybe. If you have ever taken note to brisitsh versus US steam in all aspeccts of it is the same was in regards to the unsightly details, US has dirty steam traction engines, britsh have beautiful clean showmans engines, US has steamboats that are work boats and the brisitsh have works of art with glass encased engines,polished brass and even white...yes white stacks, they are more meticulous and want everything to look perfect...it is just thier way of life I guess. it shows on thier locomotives too, however I do believe if you look at something like 614 or the 1225 there is something powerfull looking about all that exposed piping |
|
| Author: | softwerkslex [ Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dumb question re: British vs. US design |
Most of these symptoms are logical once the environment is studied. Fuel was expensive and labor was cheap prior to WWII. The track loading gauge was tight. The fuel was of excellent quality and had minimal ash. British conditions did not require all the auxilliaries common in America or Europe, such as air brakes, electric lights, cab heaters, power reverse, etc. The British railways were all commercial businesses operating in dense public locations, so cosmetics were important for advertising and public relations. And don't forget that a streamlined engine with minimal external plumbing is easier to keep clean. I wonder why the British never embraced feedwater heaters. I suspect that besides the maintenance aspect, the constant stop/start short run traffic made them difficult to operate in practice. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|