NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

This forum is for the discussion of the locomotives, motive power, and rolling stock of the LNER and its constituent companies.

Moderators: 52D, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard, Tom F

Post Reply
mtpalmer1
NER Y7 0-4-0T
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:50 pm

NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by mtpalmer1 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:03 pm

The NER proposal for an express derivative of it's S3 (B16) 4-6-0 is mentioned in a couple of threads in this forum, notionally called the S4. Can anybody provide any more details about this design or point me in the right direction for more information please?

Thank you for your time.

User avatar
Atlantic 3279
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 5372
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am
Location: 2850, 245

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by Atlantic 3279 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:41 pm

I believe I read that one of the LNER's first in-house attempts at designing the B17 (one of several rejected attempts) was based directly on the B16 and failed even to make the necessary allowance for the intended size of coupled wheels. That in itself does not prove that no North Eastern proposal for an express passenger version of the B16 had ever existed, but if it had, would not the need for allowance for 6' 8" coupled wheels already have been made or realised? Had drawings been made by the North Eastern, why would the LNER not have referred to those, as well as, or instead of, the B16 version. If drawings existed did they get spirited away rather than remaining on record, or did Gresley's team simply not know of the un-used NE drawings and therefore failed to ask for them?
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1

Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.

mtpalmer1
NER Y7 0-4-0T
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:50 pm

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by mtpalmer1 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:26 pm

Apologies, I should have said which threads it was mentioned in. It is referred to half way down Page 6 of this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11759&p=121330&hilit=s4#p121330

..and also gets a mention near the bottom of:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10993&p=111295&hilit=s4#p111295

I've gone through the index of the NERA's Express journal that drmditch mentions and believe it can be found in Issue 134. See here under Engine Diagrams, 4-6-0 Proposed Standard Express Engine:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8TQ0u ... E0ajQ/view

I am trying to get hold of a copy but no success so far. Does anyone have this Issue and if so, would you be willing to part with it?

Atlantic 3279 I'm afraid I had no idea of a B16-derived B17 before you mentioned it and am also curious why they wouldn't use the S4 as a starting point.

Hatfield Shed
LNER P2 2-8-2
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by Hatfield Shed » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:45 am

mtpalmer1 wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:26 pm
... I had no idea of a B16-derived B17 before you mentioned it and am also curious why they wouldn't use the S4 as a starting point.
The leading reason I should think would be that Gresley's spec included the conjugated valve gear, which immediately puts the entire engine and frame layout of the S4 in the trash can. Since the boiler would be to the LNER group design standard as well, that's all the essential parts of any S4 design 'not required'.

The high pitch of the S3/B16 boiler would enable 6'8" wheels to go underneath in a suitable new frame design. (Both B16 and B17 had 5'6" maximum diameter boiler, centreline pitches 8'11" on B16, 9' on B17, just an inch in it which is nothing in steam loco layout terms.)

User avatar
richard
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3291
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas
Contact:

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by richard » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:33 pm

Axles loading? A major design consideration for the B17 was the axle loading for use in the GE Area.
Richard Marsden
LNER Encyclopedia

Hatfield Shed
LNER P2 2-8-2
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by Hatfield Shed » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:26 pm

Quite. The all up loco weight estimates were a half ton greater for the B16 as compared to the B17 (in steam loco terms, no difference, especially as it is two different design shops estimating!), but the B16 has all the drive on the leading coupled axle, not a suitable layout to get the individual coupled axle loads down to something acceptable for the GE section; which NBL achieved by going for divided drive: again the engine and frames layout of the B16 are simply no good as a starting point for the project.

User avatar
tomburnham
LNER J94 0-6-0ST Austerity
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:44 pm
Location: Durham

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by tomburnham » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:40 pm

During the First World War the Association of Railway Locomotive Engineers were involved in discussions for a range of 'national standard' locomotives but the North Eastern Railway had decided not to participate. However, George Heppell, the Chief Locomotive Draftsman was instructed to prepare designs for three standard classes of engines, for passenger, goods and mineral traffic, respectively. The drawings for each class included as many common parts as possible and shared the same boiler design and three cylinder layout. The goods and mineral designs were developed into the Class S3 and Class T3 respectively, with a slight increase in cylinder diameter to 18.5", but the passenger engine was not proceeded with.
The passenger design was to have been a 4-6-0 with a wheelbase of 6' 6" + 7' 3" + 7' 6" + 7' 6" with 3' 1" and 6' 8" wheels and the boiler 16' 8" x 5' 6" with a 9' 0" firebox. Distance between the tube plates was 16' 2.5" and the working pressure 180 psi giving a maximum tractive effort at 80% of boiler pressure of 22,744 lbs with an adhesive factor of 5.1. The cylinders being 18" x 26". The total working weight was anticipated to be 70 tons 10 cwts with 52 tons 10 cwts on the drivers and 18 tons on the leading bogie.
Tom.
(Edited to include additional information)

Hatfield Shed
LNER P2 2-8-2
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by Hatfield Shed » Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:56 am

The weight estimate is well off. Inconceivable that it would be lighter than the closely related S3. Circa 80 tons with 60 tons on the coupled wheels would be about right. The success of the T3 and S3 suggests it would have been a competent machine, but limited in further development potential for increased sustained power output by the 4-6-0 format. Still, it would have given Gresley and Thompson both another 4-6-0 to rebuild in their preferred formats. (There'a a modelling challenge for someone, would make a wholly credible job to have the cognoscenti scratching their heads.)

mtpalmer1
NER Y7 0-4-0T
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:50 pm

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by mtpalmer1 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:33 am

Thank you Tom for that information! That was exactly what I was looking for. I can see why they went with the 4-6-2 layout instead to fulfil their express passenger needs. For all of the A2's flaws, as Hatfield Shed says, a 4-6-0 would have limited development potential. Still, it makes for a fascinating what if.

User avatar
Atlantic 3279
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 5372
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am
Location: 2850, 245

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by Atlantic 3279 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:10 pm

The objections to a B17 produced simply as a large wheeled variant of the B16, with all drive combined on the first coupled wheelset, plus Gresley conjugated valve gear dropped in to boot, are well enough expressed in the above replies, but my re-reading of the relevant RCTS green book this morning confirms that an attempt was made to produce such a scheme, initially adhering to B16 wheelbase figures which wouldn't even accommodate the 6' 8" coupled wheels properly.
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1

Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.

sturrock
GNR J52 0-6-0T
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:13 am

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by sturrock » Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:06 pm

A careful reading of the Green Books part 2B p93-4 will show precisely why Doncaster failed in their near impossible brief from Gresley.
The two factors current at the time for the GE section were – One, Vehicle length for the short GE turntables. As the LNER was particularly cash-strapped at all times it had to put up with the existing infrastructure. –and Two, weight restrictions limiting the axle load for the same reason.
Gresley’s reluctance to use divided drive made things even more difficult for the team and they could not possibly get the wheelbase down using derived valvegear and drive on the same axle because of internal clearance problems with the centre cylinder.
On weight and distribution the Green Books say a (new) taper boiler was to be used.
The poor Doncaster team could come up with an engine with low enough axle load but simply could not get it short enough.
NBL solved the problem using divided drive and the shorter length meant another new boiler this time an accepted Doncaster parallel type, later modified by Thompson as a standard as we know.
I,ve done G/A drawings using both Doncaster and Darlington styles –but I’m still trying to work out how to scan.
Just a few additional comments.
Tom’s 4 6 0, if it had three 18x26 cylinders, a 180psi boiler and 6ft8in wheels it would compute to 24,166 lbs nominal tractive effort.
-and does Hatfield forget the Royal Scot, Castle, King, and Lord Nelson all of which can match the pacifics in nominal tractive effort, and the taper boiler Scots and the Kings could match the HP generated by most pacific wide firebox boilers?

Hatfield Shed
LNER P2 2-8-2
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: NER S4 Proposed 4-6-0

Post by Hatfield Shed » Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:04 pm

sturrock wrote:
Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:06 pm
...and does Hatfield forget the Royal Scot, Castle, King, and Lord Nelson all of which can match the pacifics in nominal tractive effort, and the taper boiler Scots and the Kings could match the HP generated by most pacific wide firebox boilers?
Not at all. It is the sustained power output that is the wide firebox format's advantage. Put your 4-6-0 on the Coronation service and it will be losing power output after 250 miles as the ashpan chokes up and unable to make schedule. (The King would be out of coal at 300 miles in winter conditions thanks to its petite bunker.)

What is really interesting is that when BR tested two developed pacific designs against two good 4-6-0s, the pacifics didn't suffer in efficiency terms despite having to move about 25 tons more weight around than the 4-6-0s. Better sustained combustion conditions thanks to the much larger ashpan, and higher superheat thanks to greater superheater ratios enabled by the large boiler.

Post Reply