Claud Hamiltons and smoke/drivers vision issues

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

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Tanya
GNR J52 0-6-0T
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 3:27 am

Claud Hamiltons and smoke/drivers vision issues

Post by Tanya »

The report on the 1915 Ilford accident...
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docume ... rd1915.pdf
states that the driver blamed smoke beating down for obstructing his vision. Does anyone know of any other reports of the locomotives being affected in this way?

BTW it was 8813 of the D56 Belpaire fitted group that was involved. I presume it was repaired and returned to service?

TanyaJ
Miss Tanya Jane Jackson

HMRS British Rail carriage steward
www.hmrs.org.uk
Hatfield Shed
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Claud Hamiltons and smoke/drivers vision issues

Post by Hatfield Shed »

Never seen any evidence that they were better or worse in respect of exhaust obscuring crew vision than the many other similar designs in service. This was a standing problem with the steam locomotive: and the crew would have known that the rule on passing a distant signal that it was not possible to observe, was to slow down as if it were 'on', in order to be able to stop at the home signal.
John Palmer
GNSR D40 4-4-0
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:27 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: Claud Hamiltons and smoke/drivers vision issues

Post by John Palmer »

Smoke was prone to hang on the boiler flanks of the LMS' 'Royal Scots', at any rate before the fitting of deflector plates (which I think only partially cured the problem). There was speculation in the Inspecting Officer's Report that this may have been a factor in the 1931 derailment at Leighton Buzzard's Down Fast to Slow crossover. The recommendation of 'down-draught' plates in the Report mentions their efficacious adoption on the Southern, but there is no reference to hanging exhaust being a problem with LNER locomotives.

The Clacton train's driver's evidence was that "When I sighted the [Ilford] East Box distant signal, I took it to be off; it was not in a doubtful position. At that time it was nice and clear." Not the last time a footplateman would assert positively that he was lured on by a distant displaying a clear aspect when the state of the interlocking dictated that this could not have been the case.
Hatfield Shed
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Claud Hamiltons and smoke/drivers vision issues

Post by Hatfield Shed »

The LNER certainly had experience. The initial implementations of the double Kylchap ejector redoubled the problem, with a softer exhaust being more readily entrained in any low pressure zone around the smokebox and boiler. The A4 design thus received a front end form which specifically included lifting the exhaust clear as part of its purpose; and by a little fortuity while undertaking wind tunnel studies, a success.

Bizarrely, in a time when aerodynamics were significantly better understood, Riddles et al managed a design which exhausted right into a low pressure zone, on the Franco-Crosti equipped 2-10-0. Truly an appalling piece of work.
Post Reply