Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers
Volume 11 (1921)
Steamindex home page  Updated 2016-10-29 Key file The IMechE virtual library is accessible (full papers, all diagrams, photographs, extensive tables, etc).via SAGE

Journal No. 47 (January 1921)

Thompson, F. (Paper No. 91)
Locomotive building practice. 3-22. Disc. : 22-30. .
Sequence to Paper 70. Based on North Eastern (Darlington) practice: machine shop, fitting and erecting department, on a basis comparative with general shop practice, selecting as many of the most interesting and important operations as possible. The main machine shop comprised six bays, and the machines within it were arranged in longitudinal rows, and grouped on the principle of keeping all machines employed on a certain specified class of work together and apart from those engaged on other operations. Discussion: Alcock, E. (Hunslet) (pp. 22-3): wheel shrinkage during shrinking on of tyres. Phillips (Manning Wardle) (pp. 23-5): marking off and jointing inside cylinders.

Tonkin, H.J. (Paper No. 92)
Notes on workshop accounting practice of British railways. 38-63. Disc.: 64-76; 98-116.
Discussion: F.J. Hookham (pp. 65-6) comment on mechanical calculating machines; J. Clayton (pp. 68-9): estimating & costing.E. Alcock (105-6) notes on costing.

Moore, F.G. (Paper No. 93)
Appliances used and methods adopted for clearing the line after derailments and accidents.77-91. Disc.: 91-8;  (Paper 93A): 331-42.
Discussion: (94-5): competition between groups could lead to crane tipping over. Elliot (LYR, Wakefield) p. 336 requested information about re-railing dock shunters and steam railcars (the latter being especially difficult), the author (340-1) considered that hydraulic jacks were the most suitable means, but 20 ton hand cranes could be useful for the awkward railcars.. G.A. Musgrave (338-40) commented on the use of jacks..

Gairns, J.F. (Paper No. 94)
Traffic influences upon locomotive design and practice. 119-29; Disc.: 129-44.
"It is remarkable how well some of the small-wheeled engines can run". Cited LNWR 5 ft 6 in tank engines and 5 ft 3 in 0-6-0; GWR 43xx ("splendid runners as well as first class pullers"); GER 420 2-4-0 noted for their speedy qualities; 47xx "often runs at considerably over 60 m.p.h."; the lack of cabs was considered not to be a problem. Considered the then current practice in regulators: Hughes on LYR capable of being operated from either side of the footplate; the bell-crank type employed on the LNWR; and the Gresley pull-out type employed on the GNR. Noted that cab design varied from the enclosed type which found favour on the NER, GER and NBR to the open nature of cabs on GWR 2-4-0Ts which ran bunker-first at speeds in excess of 50 mile/h. Seats were only employed on the LYR at that time, notably on the large locomotives with Belpaire fireboxes. Gairns did not opt for the correct driving position (left-hand vs right hand of the cab).Some consideration was given to the application of condensing apparatus..

Discussion: Hooker (pp 130-2) considered that tank engines would be standard in future and advocated outside Walschaerts gear. J. Maxwell Dunn (LNWR, Abergaveny) noted the problem of 0-8-2Ts on curves; the use of tank engines on the London to Rugby service; the accessibility of engines was "a rather sore point and I [i.e. he] think that many English engines are badly designed". Noted the problems associated with maintaining saddle tanks and the commodious cabs on the GER and NER.

In his book Reflections on a railway career J.M. Dunn noted: On 19th January 1921 I attended a meeting of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers at Westminster when Mr. J. F. Gairns read a paper on "Traffic Influences on Locomotive Design": During the discussion Mr. Anderson of the Pekin-Mukden Railway in China stated that certain British-built engines had not been so satisfactory as those of the same type constructed in America, but that this was due to them not being designed by locomotive engineers but by "a firm of consulting engineers in Westminster". The Chairman ( H. Kelway Bamber), and a few members of the Council who were sitting with him did their best by means of nods, winks and frowns to convey to Anderson that he was on dangerous ground but with no avail and he went on to the bitter end. Sitting right behind him was W. A. Lelean, the head of the locomotive department of Rendel, Palmer and Tritton who had designed the engines in question and he at once got on his feet and choked, spluttered and got red in the face while we all, I think, held our breaths wondering what was going to happen. Anyhow, the Chairman very tactfully managed to pour oil on the troubled waters and Mr.Anderson, for whom I felt sorry, made a very apologetic speech which mollified Lelean and the incident closed
Mr. J. Maxwell Dunn (L. and N.W.R., Abergavenny 135-7): I have considerable experience of working traffic with one class of engine in South Wales. We work both goods and passenger trains with small 0-6-2 tank engines and find they do quite well. The engines are not of recent design, and in cases where the loading exceeds their capacity we use bank engines. The passenger traftic is not very heavy, usually six four-wheeled coaches, but the goods trains are very heavy indeed, and we find the engines do quite well. We have tried big 0-8-2 type engines, but the curves won’t stand the long wheelbase. The 4-6-2 type superheat tank engines fitted with Walschaert gear have been tried on passenger trains, but on account of their wheels being gft. 6in. in diameter, it is more than they can manage to get up the banks.
In regard to the use of tank engines in preference to tender engines, a large number of trains were worked from London to Rugby with tanks of the 4-4-2 type before the train service was reduced in 1917, and they used to do wonderfully well. Later we had 4-6-2 superheat tanks fitted with water-pick-up apparatus, and they did remarkable work, running further than from London to Rugby—sometimes as far as Crewe and Stafford.
The accessibility of engines is rather a sore point, and I think that many English engines are badly arranged in this respect. Nuts are located in places where it is difficult to get at them, so that it takes quite a long time to get a repair done. I know of a case of a saddle tank engine where in order to attend to a whistle standard joint it is necessary to undo the fixing of the tank and take the cab off—a whole day’s job. When ready to be got at it took ten minutes or a quarter of an hour to attend to the joint.
The arrangement of regulator handle on the North Eastern reaches from one side of the cab to the other, and one can lean over the side and manipulate the regulator while doing so without an effort. On certain other lines it is a sort of gymnastic feat to attempt this, and one cannot do both jobs properly. In regard to the lookout, I think that in practice one does not often find so much difficulty of getting a clear observation of the road ahead through the large boilers as one would imagine. Principally, one finds that on square saddle-tank engines. I know of one class not allowed to run smokebox first, but only bunker first.
On the question of the size of the cab, I think the divergence of opinion between the different lines is rather remarkable. The Great Eastern and North-Eastern have commodious cabs, while other lines like the Great Western have the opposite. Still a larger cab is sometimes rather objectionable owing to the heat, and I think the “ happy medium ” is that on the older type of Great Central engines.
Durtnall: (137-8) I have been particularly interested in some of the remarks that have been made during the course of the discussion, and particularly was I interested to learn that the Stone electric lighting apparatus really takes power. That is very misleading to one who works on rather different principles of lighting trains on another system. In my opinion there should be much more standardisation of locomotives, not only in our own country, but all over the world. There are an enormous number of different types and different shapes and sizes.
I think in reference to the statements about electrification and that no improvements need be made in steam locomotives for that reason, that they are rather misleading, because in England I do not think we can afford electrification. Electrification presents some very interesting railway characteristics from the purely public point of view, but it does not show anything in the way of dividends on the capital, which is, if I may say so, the most essential thing for railway operating engineers and managers to consider. Personally, I think we should endeavour to improve the physical operation of railways by improving the systems of locomotion, and to the Institution of Locomotive Engineers the question of locomotives of whatsoever kind should be ot the utmost interest. Of course, Gairns, in his excellent Paper, has dealt particularly with the steam locomotive. I would very much like him, if he will be good enough to do so, to give his views, based on his extensive knowledge of railway characteristics and operation, on the lines on which improvements might be made in the form of improveing the thermal efficiency of locomotives. For a number of years now we have been engaged on the design and construction of the internal combustion locomotive, and we are building what I believe will be a very interesting locomotive at the present time at Newcastle. It will be running in eight or nine months’ time. We have improved the system in the direction of-and I think I am right in calling it so-the mechanical engineer’s reply to electrification. That is to say, we have in this locomotive-which I had the pleasure of describing partly at this Institution in June, 1914, after a study of trans-continental) railway traction in Russia . — developments purposely introduced to get over some of the dificulties which Mr. Gairns points out in connection with the double-heading and “pusher” method of train operation, by arranging a system of railway traction by which exchange of energy can take place between the locomotives. For instance, in one case, we have recently had to deal with working 20 miles of three per cent. mountain grade in South America. To haul the train up the grade, requires about 2,400 h.p. at the speed desired by the traffic managers. Now if we have individual locomotives without the facility of interchange of energy, we have to put prime moversinternal combustion engines-in that case with a capacity of 2,400 h.p., a very expensive, and to my mind, not a very efficient mechanical engineering combination. But with this new system we can improve the traffic conditions by the installation of prime movers of only 1,000 h.p. — oil engines. — and when ascending the grade with this load we can draw energy, equal to 1,400 h.p. from the overhead line, in the recuperation of which the descending trains assist, that is, the kinetic energy of the falling train down the grade; also it delivers the full power of its prime mover on the descending locomotive, which makes up the total power required for the ascending train. I perhaps may be allowed at some future meeting of our Institution to contribute some further remarks concerning the tests of that system.

Journal No. 48 (February 1921)

Gee, F. (Paper No. 95)
Some notes on oil fuel and its application to locomotives. 157-61; Disc.: 168-211.
Argentinian practice.

Kimberley, R.E. (Paper No. 96)
Locomotive freight rating and train resistance. 212-38. Disc.: 239-52.
Argentinian experience

Journal No. 49 (March 1921)

Kempt, Irvine (Paper No. 97)
Some points in connection with lubrication and lubricators. 255-97. Disc.: 298-316.
CR practice. Bailey's Thurston's Patent railway pattern oil tester is described on  page 263; grease composition on page 265; grease-type axleboxes on page 268 et seq: within this part mention is made of the Iracier axlebox, syphon oil boxes for locomotives, connecting rod lubrication, and Menno grease cups. Furness type of lubricator is described and illustrated on pp. 280-1; sight feed lubricators: the Wakefield sight-feed displacement lubricator on pp. 281-3; the Detroit type as supplied by the Vacuum Oil Co (p. 283), and the Intensifore lubricator on pp. 287-90. Forced lubrication for axleboxes is thdn considered. Discussion: F.J. Hookham (Anglo-American Oil Co.) pp. 298-9 commented upon the Bang Lubricator for side and connecting rods which was used on the LNWR and wires were placed in the hole to control lubricant flow; J. McColl (NBR, Glasgow) 299-300 noted that his father had put a cup on the big end of a locomotive on the West Highland Line about "twenty years before": 2lb of grease (like rough vaseline) had lasted for three months; also noted that wire-packed lubricators were used on the NBR; Whitelegg (301-5) noted advances made in lubrication for the internal combustion engines used in automobiles and aircraft and this had led to he testing machines for oil developed by Thurston and Lanchester. Whitelegg was a great believer in white metal for bearings and noted the enclosed oil cases for steam road wagons. A.L. Mellanby (Royal Technical College, Glasgow) 305-7 noted the Lanchester worn gear testing machine, the then lack of knowledge about friction and the influence of Michell in his bearings for marine turbines and the Michell Viscometer. J. Wilson (CR) spoke about cylinder lubrication and introduced Peter Stobie (pp. 308-11) who discussed the Michell thrust bearing at length with notes on the extension of the relevant patent and the low rate of wear associated with it.

McKay, T.C. (Paper No. 98)
Electric arc welding. 317-30. No discussion
The disadvantages of the Bernados process are described before the Slavianoff process is considered. The value of flux is emphasised. Plant, both mobile and fixed is discussed. The strength and microscopy of welds.

Hookham, F.J. (Paper No. 99)
Standardisation of locomotive parts on a National basis. 346-58. Disc.: 358-77.
Included electrification. Noted the differences evident in practice between railways: e.g. axleboxes could have brass or white metal bushings; crossheads might be on single bars or on four bars. Noted 1913 paper on standardization of passenger locomotives. Conclusions: (a) Standardisation, if confined to components, could be made successful under correct organisation. Attention to be given first to non-essential details and parts where a change would be paid for by the value of displaced scrap. (b) The extension to complete locomotives is neither requisite nor right. Complete freedom should be left to each superintendent to bring about improvements, which of coursc applies equally to components, provided the Committee are kept fully advised. (c) It may be argued that in ten years the present steam locomotive will be to some extent superseded. Even so, the advantages would be making themselves felt both on the then older engines and on new stock, which would not be fundamentally affected adversely but rather helped by the existence of a guiding principle which would be valued and appreciated. (d) The value of standardisation depends upon the ultimate state of the railways. Its great value would appear under the Ministry of Transport grouping scheme. If a complete reversion to pre-war position took place, its chief use would lie in so far as manufacture of components could be cheapened, as with other engineering productions. (e) Probably manufacturers supplying railways would oppose the scheme. They would doubtless be justified, in so far as many small railways now huy forgings and castings, etc., which they cannot make, some of which might then be supplied by other railways. Locomotive builders would not he so much affected, and it would be up to the manufacturers by up-to-date organisation and plant to compete with the railn-a) s in the manufacture of components. With this brief summary, the Author would ask those present to set forth their views from the various aspects in which they regard the prohlem, due to their own personal connection with it, as the result of which it is hoped interesting and valuable information may be obtained.
Discussion: W.G.P. Maclure (GCR, Gorton) 358-9 stressed the importance of boiler standardization: "we have been attempting in a kind of way for many years to reduce our standard parts, inasmuch as we have been able to adapt a large number of engines to take one standard boiler. I think for a small railway like ours we had more classes than almost any other railway company, and we have been able to fit to our old stock a standard boiler which has been the means of economising to a very great extent". J. Clayton (pp. 359-61) approved and recorded how the merging of two railways to form the SECR had enforced standardization and stated how that he designed locomotives suitable for all British companies during WW1.There are two points I would like to eniphasise in connection with this matter. H.G. Hindell (Ministry of Transport 364-5)The first is the insufficient attention given to the amount of capital locked up in dead stock held for long periods. The question of standards should be approached with more emphasis from the storekeepers’ point of view. May I quote two illustrations? When the Central Argentine Railway bought up four smaller railways-took them over as running concerns, plans and rolling stock complete -we found when we came to standardise simple things like brake blocks and other matters, the apparent saving was more than lost in the stocks on hand, which were forgotten and simply on record in ledgers. That was my first introduction to the fact that standardisation may be too costly. My second illustration is this. It was my privilege to be stores officer in France, and the railways sent us 500 locomotives of 25 different types and 37,000 different parts. We had to make our own thread gauges for mud plugs and standardise our plugs, and we sent the engines back with standard plugs. One has to remember this, that standardisation is an ideal, but I venture to put it to you as practical men that changes are taking place which are not standards. To illustrate the, point, on the locomotives that came to France from different sheds we found that vacuum brake fittings were not alike, washout plugs differed, etc. Theoretically, the managers of the railways had said that these were all alike, but we found when we came to actually do the work that they were all different. That is one argument why we should adopt standardisation. My second plea-and may I congratulate the Author of the Paper on this point-is that the chief difficulty we have is propaganda, and it must begin not only amongst the chief mechanical engineers-it must begin from the top and go to the bottom, to the shed foreman and the man who holds the stock in the stores. We should emphasise the fact that storekeepers should be brought into this matter of standardisation. They must see that money locked up in dead stock is not working, and that excessive stock is waste. The Americans, as you are all aware, have gone for this matter, and are much more advanced than we are. They go in for more statistics on the stores side, such as I never have seen in this country-the actual stock on hand, its value and the interest lost thereby, and they compare it with the revenue of the company. In adopting the standardisation of certain parts and not the whole locomotive, it is necessary to bring in the storekeeper and find out what it costs him in money locked up in dead stock, and to go in for wholesale propaganda on all the railways. .

Blacklock, M. (Paper No. 100)
Notes on locomotive efficiency. 379-404. Disc.: 404-11.
Compares steam turbine electric; diesel electric; diesel hydraulic and direct-drive diesel. W. Pickersgill (pp. 407-8) pondered lack of torque in non-steam propulsion and preferred electrification, also commented on exhaust feed injectors and feed-water heaters. In further comment on page 410 he was not altogether pessimistic about the internal combustion engine for the locomotive.

Archbutt, L. (Paper No. 101)
Lubrication and lubricants. 412-36. Disc.: 436-40.
Read at the Manchester centre on the 4  March 1921 at the College of Technology. Mainly lubricants: essentially theoretical: cites A. Langmuir papers in J. Am. Chem. Soc., and Fritz Haber and experiments on MR using Deeley machine. Noted the value of free fatty acids in lubricants. Co-author with R.M. Deeley of Lubrication and lubricants 1912. J.H. Haigh (LYR, Horwich) pp. 436 raised the issues which led to the response from the Author. J. Parry (GCR, Gorton) asked whether grooves and oil holes broke the continuity of the lubricant films; G. Woolstencroft (LYR, Horwich) wanted to know the endurance of lubricants. In the discussion pp 438-9 there is response to the discussion by the Author of the relative attributes of the Deeley and Thursford lubricant testing machines in use at Derby Archbutt also distinguished between viscoity tests on the lubricants measured in a viscometer with assessments of the effects of lubricants on friction..

Journal No. 50 (April to June 1921)

Weatherburn, J. (Paper No. 102)
The North Eastern Railway dynamometer car. 443-71. Discussion: 471-7. folding diagrams, illus.
Read at Leeds members at the Philosophical Hall on the 4 March 1921. Very detailed account of the car and its instrumentation. Includes tests performed  on superheated T2 on 1 in 200 Simpasture branch where the aim was establish maximum haulage capacity and average drawbar horse power of 690 was achieved. The 3-cylinder T3 was tested between Hexham and Gillsland where there was an average gradient of 1 in 312 against the train. Later tests were performed between Bishop Auckland and Barnard Castle. There was no slipping and a drawbar pull of 11.67 tons was achieved. Discussion: C.N. Goodall (R. Stephenson & Co.) asked for Weatherburn's views on multi-cylinder designs: in his reply (p. 474) stated that it was simpler to maintain the 3-cylinder designs as against the 4-cylinder compounds. The six exhaust beats was a great advantage for the three-cylinder type: a three-cylinder locomotive could be put into full gear. Ahrons (p. 473) noted that the NER car had laminated springs whereas the LYR car had Timmis springs (see Proc. Instn Civ Engrs 1901) and the Swiss and American cars had hydraulic dynamometers: Weatherburn replied that the LYR had been changed to plate springs. J.A. Gilchrist (Hunslet) asked the effect of permanent way defects and was informed that bridges increased the resistance; F.J. Hookham (Anglo American Oil Co.) asked about the pressure of the measuring wheel and was informed that this was negligble; furthermore it recorded the distance travelled accurately...

Gabb, C.R. (Paper No. 103)
Locomotive repair shop organisation. 479-88. Disc.: 489-512.
Argentinian practice. Discussion: A.C. Kelly (Chief Electrical Engineer B.A.P. Rly. p. 492): It is many years since I was on the Great Eastern Railway (England), but we used to keep a system of accounts which, I think from what I have seen since, must have been a very good one, for we had statements of expenditure ready every Tuesday morning. This was good work as the men were only paid on Fridays.
In this country, I do not think at present we have any such system, but rely on the figures kept for the inspection of the Government ofiicial, but which arrive much too late to be of any practical use to the manager, and it is not unusual to find accounts for January not available until March. I think that there might be some scheme whereby the costs could be ascertained within a reasonable time, say within a week or 10 days.
Perhaps the Western Railway has some better method, and it would be wry interesting to have some details on this point.
A.J. Poole (Assistant Chief Draughtsman, B.A. Western Rly. p. 493): The favourable results achieved at St. Etienne during WW1 were due chiefly to the following:
1. Strict and efficient inspection.
2. Scheduling of every part through every shop.
3. Ten per cent. spare parts available, either new or repaired, and in circulation (not looked upon as crown jewels ” and kept locked up in general stores).
4. To utilise these spares to the full, insistence on the principle of bringing back engines to drawing centres at each repair.
5. Keenness on the part of the staff-a state of affairs usually lacking in civil life.

Reid, R.W. (Paper No. 104)
Some comparisons between British and American railway rolling stock. 522-45. Disc.: 546-9. 14 illustrations,  3 diagrams
Read at General Meeting of the Glasgow centre held at the Royal Technical College, George Street, on the 24 March 1921. Written as result of visit to USA and Canada:in 1919. Noted the huge distances overed by North American trains. The passenger rolling stock was much heavier and demanded a high use of electricity for lighting and fans. Freight was conveyed in bogie wagons. All stock had automtic couplers.. Discussion: Irvine Kempt (Caledonian Railway) page 547 had visited
Irvine Kempt (Caledonian Rly., Glasgow) : With regard to the higher capacity wagons which they use in America, I think it is generally accepted that for long distances higher capacity wagons are the most suitable. Of course in America they have large transhipment stations where the small loads are transhipped into wagons until fully loaded and then travel up to, say, a couple of thousand miles. In this country, however, the distances are not great enough to make it worth while having such transhipping arrangements. and the smaller wagons can be run more cheaply to the places they are loaded for. As regards the sleeping accommodation on the American cars, Reid has pointed out that an open saloon has double berth arrangement on each side, that is, one passenger above and one below. That I do not think is pleasant. and I much prefer the British type of sleeping car, either the Midland or the West Coast sleeping car. Besides want of privacy this double berth arrangement on the American car is somewhat disagreeable to the occupants of the lower berths when there are strange people climbing up to the top berth.
The lavatory accommodation is not quite as good as one would like, and one has to go along the ccntre of the car to reach it.
When in Chicago he visited the Pullman Company's works, but was very much disappointed with them after what I had heard and read about American practice. It struck my then that at St. Rollox we were very much ahead of the Pullman people. The whole place seemed to he very untidy, while a plentiful supply of shavings littered the floor. The smithy and the forge were nothing like what we had here at that time. From what Reid has stated, however, considerable progress appears to have been made in the Company's works, since then.
Walter Chalmers (547): Reid has told us quite a lot of things about that and other matters affecting American railroad practice. I have in use six experimental steel cars, not entirely of steel, but having complete steel underframe and body externally; the only timber being a small amount for decorative purposes, and, like you, I am rather concerned to know what is the practice and experience of the Americans after the side sheets have been in use for a number of years. There is the problem of keeping down noise, vhich the Author refers to, and which appears to he overcome ny careful building and the use of some felt or other material interposed between the inner and outcr skins. But I am not quite sure whethrr these things are successful, my experience only going back over a year or two. Another point regarding which I vould be glad to hear Reid's opinion is whether the rivets remain tight in thcsc very thin sheets. Another difficulty which appears to me very likely, particularly in the case of the dining-car, is in connection with the kitchen, which is prohably greater in rapacity on the American than on our British railways. From this kitchen there comes steam and hot air into the compartments, and it has been my espericnce that in cold weathcr there is a lot of sweating on the inside of the coach. Perhaps the Author could give some enlightenment on these points.

Thayer, Robert E. (Paper No. 105)
Standard locomotives in the U.S.A. 552-78. [Disc.: 566-72]. diagram
The announcement, coming in February, 1918, but a few weeks after the United States Government had taken control of the railways, that standard designs for locomotives were to be established for and to be used in conmion on the controlled railways, came as a bursting bomb to the railwaymen throughout that country. Acting on his own hitiathe and iii his own belief that standardisation was one of the greatest reforms that could be accoinplished in the railway business, the Director-General, W.G. McAdoo, a politician and railway financier of the Hudson Tube fame, brought into being the standard locornotil e without any reference to the railways a5 to its practicabilit), its desirability, or, in time of war, its need. The United States Railroad "Idministration was an autocratic and powerful department in the American Gokernment and it used its power to the full. That is why you were undoubtedly surprised some three years ago to hear that the American railways had adopted the principle of standard loconiotiyes. These remarks prefacing this Paper are made to clearly indicate to you that the idea of locomotive standardisation in the United States did not originate with the railways in that country.
When America entered the war, the railways of the United States were in a low physical condition, due primarily to the unprecedented amount of traffic they had been called upon to handle, to the difficulty of obtaining labour and materials and, to a ccrtain extent, the tightness of money. The locomoti\e situation was particularly bad, and this necessarily was one of the first problems for the newly-formed railroad administration to tackle. As indicated above, the Director-General sought to rectify the situation by building standard loconiotives.
The railways passed under the control of the Government on January Ist, 1918. About six weeks later, February 13th, 1918, General-Director McAdoo formed a committee of practical experienced locomotive builders for the purpose of selecting not more that twelve types of standard locomotives. This committee was made up of the leading engineers of the three principal locomotive building companies, namely, the American Locomotive Company, the Baldwin Locomotive Works, and the Lima Locomotive Works, no representative of the railways being included. The committee reported on 19 February, recommending moderation in such a wholesale programme of standardisation stating that to develop standards which would fit in properly with existing locomotives, of which there were some 70,000, the railways should be consulted and an exhaustive study be made, and that in the meantime those railways which needed power the most should be permitted to place orders for the duplication of existing designs, thus in no way delaying the building of new power which was so badly needed. This recornmendation was over-ruled and the committee was told to proceed with the design of the twelve locomotives outlined.
On 22 February the builders' committee met with a committee of railway mechanical officers to carry out these instructions, and early in April tentative specifications were sent out to the railuays covering twelve different designs as indicated :-
Locomotive Types Adopted as U.S.R.A. Standards.
Light Mikado type (2-8-2) ... with  55,000 lb. axle load
Heavy Mikado type (2-8-2) ..with  60,000 lb. axle load
Light Santa Fe type (2-10-2) ..with  55,000 lb. axle load.
Heavy Santa Fe type (2-10-2) .with  60,000 lb. axle load..
Switching type (0-6-0) ...with  55,000 lb. axle load
Switching type (0-8-0) ...with  55,000 lb. axle load
Mallet type (2-6-6-2) ... with 60,000 lb. axle load
Mallet type (2-8-8-2) ... .with 60,000 lb. axle load
Light Pacific type (4-6-2) ... with  55,000 lb. axle load
Heavy Pacific type (4-6-2) ... with  65,000 lb. axle load
Light Mountain type (4-8-2) ..with  55,000 lb. axle load.
Heavy Mountain type (4-8-2). . with  60,000 lb. axle load.

This paper has been written, not with the idea of saying to any railway or any country that locomotive standardisation is undeniably a mistake, for those railways and those countries knowing best their on-n conditions are better able to decide that question themselves. At attempt has, however, been made to recount how standardisation of the locomotive was handled in the United States, and how it applies to the conditions of the United States. By treating the subject in this way it is hoped that sufficient information has been given to assist others who have a similar problem to consider.
Discussion: J.S. Tritton: A considerable amount of work has recently been done in connection with the re-grouping of standards in India, and I think it would be interesting if one could get a little more information on the question of axle loading. One of the biggest problems in this question of standardisation of locomotives for India has been the standardisation of an axle load. It involves, as you probably all know, questions of more than the static loading of the axle. It involves the question of balancing, which the Author does not touch on in this Paper, but on which he could probably give us very valuable information as to whether the standard axle load he mentions is R static load or whether it is a maximum load \vhich is to rule given conditions at given speeds on an!. particular track. It is possible that standardisation will gradunlly form itself along the line that engineers are limited to  maximum load on an axle. For instance, take the Indian standard engine with 16-ton static axle load, the maximum load will not be 16 tons but 18 tons under running conditions.

Gresley, H.N. (Paper No. 106)
Alloy steel for coupling and connecting rods. 579-80. Discussion: 580-3.
A.G. Stamer noted that the reduction of weight would be helpful in the running shed. Kitson Clark supported Gresley's views..

Gresley, H.N. (Paper No. 107)
Valve gear for three-cylinder locomotives. 584-6. + folding diagram
Extremely concise.

Journal No. 51 (December 1921)

Visit to the Manchester & Bury Section of the L & Y Railway 9th September 1921. 595-601.
Including electricity generating station at Clifton Juntion.

Kyffin, Arthur Ellesmere (Paper No. 108).
Notes on axleboxes and axlebox guides. 603-24. Discussion 625-34: 1922; 12, 9-50.
This paper aroused a huge interest. Contributors to discussion included F.W. Attock (L&YR) who commented on lateral beding of the frames; E. Colclough (Cambrian Railways) pp. 626-7 who noted the excellence of the axlebox slides fitted to Metropolitan Railway 4-4-0Ts (which in the response to the discussion were observed to have been developed by Beyer Peacock;  At the end of the discussion Kyffin noted that Mr. Colclough has mentioned the solid axlebox slide embodied in the design of the old Metropolitan engines in this form of construction, it may be of interest to the members to know, was associated with many early Beyer Peacock engines, and as all who have had the handling of the old Metropolitan engines know, it entirely eliminated the trouble of loose hornblocks. This practice was quite feasible in the days of its adoption as engine frames were then made up of several short plates welded together. With solid horncheeks it was only necessary to draw down the billet on either side of the horn to the thickness required for the plate portion, leaving the cheeks of the height necessary.

J.H. Haigh (LYR Horwich) pp. 628-9 commented upon the beneficial effect of wedges; J. Parry (GCR, Gorton) 629-30: Collars on axleboxes, hornblock bolts and reinstallation of hornblock wedges on GCR; J.P. Hamer (629) on lubrication and that brass boxes were not quite strong enough; G.W. Phillips (GNR, Doncaster) 630-1 considered hornblock wedges, side play in the flanges of the boxes in axleboxes and horns Kyffin responded (p. 634): Regarding the question of collars, Mr. Phillips has given us the benefit of his railway experience, but statements from other running department officials would be most welcome. The firm the speaker is associated with has built engines with collarless axles for different railways, and this practice has been adopted as standard by many; on the ot.her hand, some have gone back to collars, although as far as is known no trouble has been experienced with the plain axle.; E.W. Selby (L&YR) pp. 632-3: Finally on page 635 Kyffin noted: The Chairman has stated that in his opinion regarding the question of horseshoe as compared with two-piece blocks, the latter has, if anything, the advantage. It is certainly cheaper to make, machine and fit than the horseshoe, and providing a really ample section of frame is available, reports show there is no more trouble from cracking in the corners of the horns of the frames; in fact, some engineers say that fractures are less frequent.

1922, 12, 9-50. Corbett Fletcher (GNR, Manchester, 9-11) noted experiments with mechanical luubricators involving the reservoir for the Wakefield lubricator), S. Jackson (Gorton Foundry, 11) noted that collars on axles were useless; W. Rowland (GCR, Gorton, 11-14) commented on the application of Intensifore lubricators for the drivinmg axles on the GCR, and also described earlier L&YR practice.J.H. Smeddle on pp. 16-17 noted that the NER had evaluated several types of axlebox, that collarless axles on tenders had not been satisfactory, and that horseshoe horn blocks were not sufficiently elastic; G.A. Musgrave (GNR, Doncaster, 17-19) commented on lubrication, wedge angles, that collars were not successful and brass versus cast iron keeps noting that the brass was resuable; J. Weatherburn (NER, Darlington, 19) commented on NER practice: axleboxes were made from wrought iron with renewable brass plates, horn blocks and adjustable wedges had been abandoned on the latsest engines, horn cheeks were riveted to the engine frame, and commented on white metal composition. H.J. Stephenson (NER, Gateshead, 19-21) commented on lubrication, gun metal bearing brasses, collarless journals had been evaluated on trials between York and Edinburgh on express passenger trains for five weeks (running 11,340 miles) and no trouble had been experienced. A Hird (Hunslet) pp. 21-2. E.L. Ahrons (25-7), Hookham (30-1), J.M. Dunn (31-3) who noted the "great deal of trouble" with the Ministry of Muntions 2-8-0 type

J. A. Hookham (N.S. Rly., 30-1): observations based on North Staffordshire Railway practice. Collars on journals — discontinuing these, partly because they formed dirt traps, and they take up room which could be better employed as bearing surface, and tend to throw oil off by centrifugal force: Brass boxes — used for many years, but lately were introducing cast steel with pressed-in bearings without flanges. The outside surfaces working in the horns are white-metalled: Brass keeps.— can be made at little expense from old brass: Lubrication. — So far as possible use bottom pad, but supply oil at the top. One or two engines fitted entirely with bottom feed lubrication, which were doing very well: Wedges in horns — not very satisfactory as they are apt to be tampered with, and any loose parts that can be avoided should be avoided. If shed fitters could be relied upon to look after things as they should, and if drivers could be trusted to leave things alone, I think there would be a great deal to be said for the wedge horn; but in ordinary practice it appears be a failure. None working on NSR, but some engines built about 18 years ago by the Vulcan Foundry were fitted with wedge horns and have since been altered.

J. Maxwell Dunn (LNWR, Tredegar 31-3): The coupled axleboxes in use on most of the engines of the London and North-Western Raihvav are of cast steel with a brass bearing put in under pressure; but the bogie boxes and all boxes on a few of the older engines are of brass throughout. Referring to Fig. 1, illustrating a case-hardened steel box, he had some considerable experience with boxes of this type on the Ministry of Munitions' 2-8-0 engines, and had a great deal of trouble with them. The top part of the box does not appear to be sufficiently substantial and we have had them closed in at the bottom as much as 3/16in., and have had to spend hours cutting the keeps to get them to enter. The brasses also, from the same cause, have had to be chipped and filed to get them in place, and altogether our experience has been unfavourable with this class of box. In our own boxes, the brasses are merely pressed in and secured by means of two tapered brass pegs driven through the crown of the box — one at each side, and we have never had any trouble due to the brasses shifting. The pegs, however, which in some cases are drilled through the centre and fitted with worsted tail trimmings to lubricate the bearing, sometimes work loose and cut the tails off the trimming by jamming them against the lid of the oil well in the top of the box. We have had several cases of hot box attributable to this cause, and in sheds not fitted with appliances for removing wheels it is a great nuisance as it is almost impossible to tighten the pegs when the boxes are in place under the engine. As stated in the Paper, white metal is used for both the wheel boss and hornplate faces of the box with good results. Brass bogie boxes are, after maximum wear has taken place in the bearing, used repeatedly with a white-metal bearing. Brass keeps, forming a continuation of the bearing, are used for the driving boxes on a number of our eight-wheels-coupled coal engines with excellent results. These keeps have a small recess in the centre which is filled with cotton waste in the ordinary way.

I have only come across one instance in which any attempt has been made to make the keeps easily accessible, and that was in the case of the North London engines, which had a hole about 11/8ins. diameter in the side of the keep, tapped and fitted with a setscrew. Of course, it was a very slow process to poke a sufficient quantity of waste through this hole; but it could be done, and was better than having to lift the engine high enough off the boxes to enable one to remove the keep fastenings.

I am strongly in favour of collarless journals, as by dispensing with collars it is possible to increase the length of the bearing, especially in the case of crank axles. In regard to the lubrication of axle boxes, we have boxes running with one groove in the crown only and also with one on each side below the crown. Personally, I prefer the latter, as owing to the reversal of forces acting on the axle the journal is pressed first against one side and then the other of the box, thus giving the oil a better chance of getting away from the grooves and lubricating the face of the bearing.

Another question arises on the subject of lubrication, and that is whether it is better to use the top of the box as an oil well or to use an independent oil box connected to the bearing by means of a pipe. Speaking as a running shed man, I am decidedly in favour of the latter arrangement. When the reservoir is situated in the top of the box it is a matter of great difficulty to inspect or change the trimmings, especially the one next to the wheel boss. The oil wells also get made up with ashes, etc., in spite of the lids provided, and it is almost impossible to properly clean them out when the wheels are in place under the engine. With independent oil boxes the pipes should be short and as nearly vertical as possible.

On the question of plain or adjustable horn plates, all our own engines (LNWR) have the former, while the Ministry of Munitions and North London engines have the latter of the wedge variety. To my mind, wedges are quite unnecessary.

Hornplate bolts might, I think, with advantage be made of steel of a greater tensile strength, as my experience agrees with Mr. Kyffin's in that the trouble of loose hornplate bolts is due to the stretching of the bolt rather than the nut slacking back.

R.P.C. Sanderson (Baldwin Loco. Works 33-): Viewed from the standpoint of modern American locomotive practice, there is only one criticism to make, and that one is on the continued use of bronze for such heavy castings as driving axleboxes. The Author has enumerated some of the points for and against the use of this expensive metal which, taken at his own estimate, can be perfectly well (mechanically) displaced by cast steel at perhaps one-fifth the cost. He has, however, entirely omitted to mention the accrued interest on the investment in this more costly metal, which, day and night in service and out of service, on the line or in shop, must be always charged against the engine and which compounds itself into astonishingly large figures during the life of the engine, or at least of the driving boxes. If you will once figure up this sum at compound interest it will make a very deep impression. It must always be remembered that every twenty shillings added to the cost of an engine is placed to capital account, and must earn its interest regularly from the train service. This reduces the net earnings of the railway that would otherwise be available for dividends.

There are a few other points that I desire to direct attention to that are the result of experience in America with engines of greater power and weight, on track of greater curxature than is common in this country. With regard to rolling clearance in driving box flanges, it is noted in the Paper, and inquiries elsewhere confirm the understanding, that it is the general practice in this country to plane the recess between the flanges as shown in the drawings parallel and of the dimensions throughout to fit about the horn castings with the proper tolerance for free working.

We do not, and have not done this in America for a good many years, and as engines grow in size, and especially on Colonial, Dominion and other railways, it may later prove advantageous to follow our practice. To prevent the tops and bottoms of the flanges pinching and biting into the horn castings as the engine rolls, it is our general practice to leave the middle 3in. of length parallel to the correct width for sliding on the horn castings. Above and below this three inches the flanges are planed out on a taper of usually 1 in 7 so that there is a flare above and below the centre. This permits the box to roll slightly in the frames to follow the position of the axle when the springs. are more compressed on one side than the other as is often the case when running around sharp curves.

It has been found by long experience, interspersed with repeated trials of promising designs, that for heavy powers there is no kind of machine or hand-fitted brass such as are shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8 that will stand without very soon causing a knock which will soon become destructive. When such bearing brasses become hot they are apt to close in on the journal as they cool and be quite loose in the box thereafter. Nothing but a carefully correctly machincd crescent-shaped brass forced into the cast-steel box under hydraulic pressure will stand heavy, hard service such as we have to provide against. These brasses are always securcd in place by (usually) two bronze rivets located at an angle through the crown of the box and not from the, sides as shown in Fig. 4.

Opinion in America is divided between the choice of one oil groove directly at the crown of thc box and two such grooves placed a little to either side of the centre. Both plans are good and give successful results under severe service. As practicallv all driving boxes in American locomotives of any size are lubricated by grease and not by oil there must not be any oil holes through the brass to the bearing surface or cavity. If such holes were there the grease would work out through these holes in the form of long worms and soon become exhausted. The use of this grease requires the keepers to be made to suit. Many times have venturesome mechanical officers in America tried out the idea of using axlebox guides solid without the adjustable wedge. Every time it has had to be abandoned for engines of large size. The adjustment provided by the wedge has been found very necessary to keep down the knocks, and keep down shop work.

It is common practice in America to use cast-iron wearing shoes and wedges, for the boxes to slide against, which can be quickly and cheaply renewed. It is also the practice on some railways to cast these shoes and wedges of cast iron with a brass face integral with the cast iron which gives excellent wearing between the steel of the box and the brass face of the shoe at a very small cost for brass and without any loose liners or riveted liners. The brass and iron are poured into the mould practically together in a molten condition but through separate gates. There is skill required in doing this, but when once learned the job is simple enough.

A.H. Whitaker (S.&D. Rly., Bath): 22 page 35: One point that struck me in the Paper was the question of collars on the journals. I have experience of a couple of locomotives that were originally built without collars, and it was seen fit to add them afterwards in a rather unique way. A slight groove, about 1/32in. deep, was turned in the axle just in the place where the collar usually is placed, and a sectional collar—a collar in two halves—was holted tightly on. After that, I think I can safely say the engines rode more steadily. The wheels referred to were the bogie wheels of a four-wheel-coupled bogie passenger engine, and collars were fitted to all four bogie wheels, with good, results. With regard to solid boxes and otherwise: his experience of steel boxes with a brass bearing in them—although, of course, they are now becoming very common—shows that they are more liable to knock, because not only is there the ordinary knock of .the axlebox between the horns and in the crown, but also a slight movement between the brass and the steel box that is, the brass in time tends to become loose in the stcel box and causes movement there and consequently adds to the knock. .With regard to the adjustment of the hornhlocks by wedges, that seems to be going out of fashion. On our own engines we have almost entirely done away with them and fitted the ordinary hornblocks, either of the horseshoe type or of the single type.
T.C. Britten (LSWR, Eastleigh 35): There is one thing 1 was very interested in that I was not aware of, and that is the American practice of running boxes without any white-metal bearings. I think the Author says that he considers it an advantage that there is no white metal to run out in the event of the box running hot; but is not there a great chance of the box and the journal being very badly damaged by the absence of the white metal? With regard to wedges, I agree with Mr. Whitaker that in modern practice they ought to be done away with; on the London and South-Western Railway they have been given up entirely on new construction. We have a very large brass box with the two pads, one on either side of the crown. The oil, introduced from an external box, is carried to transverse grooves in the crown of the box, and also to the cheeks of the hornhlocks by pipes. These boxes are for outside-cylindered engines with a very big journal, and weigh about 5.25 cwt. each. I may say that they are giving no trouble with regard to running hot. I do not like the idea of steel castings for axleboxes. It is difficult in a steel casting, unless machined all over, to get a box of uniform section. It seems to me that there is such a chance of blowholes occurring, and with the knocks and wear an axlebox has to stand up against I would rather not see cast steel there. With regard to wrought-iron boxes, on the South-Western Railway we used them extensively at one time with the brass bearing fitted into a 4in. spigot in the top of the box, but undoubtedly there was movement there; the knock used to become troublesome in the horns very soon, and the side of the box was very often compl.etely broken off. We have now stopped using wrought-iron and brass bearings for this purpose.

Deakin, W.P. (Paper No. 109)
Behaviour of materials used in construction of locomotive fireboxes, etc. on the Central Argentine Railway. 637-708. Disc.: 709-37.
Page 720 suggested that failure of steel fireboxes in Britain may have been due to nature of British steel and suggested that imported American steel should be used..

Stamer, A.C.
Inaugural address. 738-50. Disc.: 750-1.
The high wages paid for labour make it imperative to look round for labour-saving devices ; and when I speak of high wages I do not mean to infer that I think it either right or desirable that wages, especially in the lower paid grades, should go down to the pre-war [WW1] level; but in order to pay higher wages than those obtaining before the war we must endeavour to bring down the cost of production. The introduction of new and up-to-date machinery and the scrapping of old slow-moving machines of course can effect this, but much as this may be desired, it involves in many cases a large expenditure of money which it may not be found expedient to incur. We want to look about us for improved methods of performing work without a large expenditure on expensive tools.
A considerable cause of expense at running sheds is the handling of coal from the wagon to the tender of an engine. The method most frequently employed is for the loaded coal wagons to be pushed by a locomotive up an incline on to a ,raised stage, capable of holding, say a dozen wagons; the coal is then shovelled from the wagon into tubs and tipped from the tubs on to the tender. A fair average of coal dealt with by one man per shift is about 25 tons, and at a shed where 250 tons per day is handled, this means the employment of ten men. Coal-stage work is not a much sought after occupation, and to tempt men to undertake it, we find that prices for the work keep increasing. Mechanical appliances are now being used to a limited extent, and they appear to be an economical method of coal handling. The appliance consists of a structure carrying one or two large storage hoppers into which coal is conveyed by a bucket conveyor which is fed from a hopper below the ground, into which the coal has been tipped from the wagons. The coal is let out of the storage hoppers on to the tender, and can be measured out in its passage from hopper to tender. Four men covering the 24 hours will deal with the amount of coal instead of the ten I have mentioned with the old style of coaling from a stage. The capital outlay on such an appliance is of course a heavy one, and greater than for the ordinary coal stage; and maintenance also is heavier, but taking all working expenses and overhead charges into consideration, there is a saving which I think can be placed at 33d. per ton of coal handled. An appliance of this kind would only be really economical at sheds where a considerable quantity of coal was handled, but for small quantities of coal a conveyor taking coal shovelled direct from a wagon and delivering straight on to the tender might be a 5ound proposition.
Another source of expense in time and labour at running shrds is the filling of sandboxes with dry sand, and it is worth investigation as to whether this work could not be more economically performed by incorporating with a mechanical coal stage a somewhat similar arrangement whereby dry sand is lifted into a hopper and transferred to the sand boxes on the locomotives through a short and flexible hopper and thus save the time occupied in carrying numerous buckets of sand between the sand-furnace and locomotive. This method has, I believe, been adopted in America, but as far as I know has not been tried in this country.
Hot-water washing-out plants. The advantage to be gained by such a plant is not so much with the object of saving labour, though this is actually realised, as to try and prolong the life of the boiler and prevent the undue strains and stresses set up by the sudden introduction of cold water against the heated plates, tubes and stays. But in addition there is a saving in the time in which an engine is out of commission owing to the necessity of washing-out the boiler, and incidentally there is a saving in the amount of water used in this operation. With the ordinary method of washing-out with cold water, an engine is brought into the shed and has to stand at least four hour's to cool down; then the water has to be run out of the boiler, and this water is run to waste. The temperature of the plates and tubes is then ahout 180°F and the introduction of cold water among the plates and tubes at this temperature must cause sudden contractions with very bad results. The process of washing-out will occulpy one hour ; filling the hoiler with water half an hour; lighting-up and getting solhs. of steam four hours; or a total time from starting to prepare for washing2out to having sufficient steam in the engine to move it out of the shed of about ten hours.
With the hot-water washing-out plant, an engine is brought into the shed with 60lbs. or more of steam in the boiler, and by means of a flexible metallic hose pipe a connection is made between the blow-off cock on the engine and the blow-off line of piping to the tanks which contain the hot water for washing-out and filling. The engine is then blown off and the water and steam pass away to a separator on the top of the tank containing the washing-out water. The water falls down through a coke filter bed (which arrests any scale) into the tank, and the steam passes away through a ,pipe to a chamber on the top of the tank which contains the filling water, where it meets pure cold water from the main water supply. This water is heated up by the steam and falls into the tank. When the engine has been fully blown off, which occupies from ten to twenty minutes, according to the size of the boiler, the blow-off hose is disconnected and an armoured hose wash-cut pipe is connected to another line of piping through which the water from the wash-out tank is pumped, and the engine is washed out in the usual manner.  A duplex pump capable of delivering 450 gallons a minute is used for pumping the wash-out water, and this is automatically controlled so as to give a pressure of 6olbs. per square inch. By means of a thermostatic valve, the temperature of the wash-out water is maintained at 160°F .It is difficult to put an actual value on the saving that results from hot-water washing. The initial co'st of the plant is a heavy one; but I think the working costs and general charges are covered by the saving effected in comst .of fresh water used for washing-out, the coal used for steam-raising and in boilertvashers' wages. This being so, the actual economy of hot-water washing is to be found in the improved condition and freedom from trouble with stays, tubes and plates. Experience shows this to be the -case, and as an instance of this I find that since the introduction of these plants at certain sheds the number of broken firebox stays shows a remarkable decrease. In addition, there remains the great advantage that accrues from the better user of locomotixes, especially at busy times, when a shed superintendent finds great dificulty in laying-off his engines for washing-out.
The use of oil as fuel for locomotives came into some prominence during the recent coal strike, and I do not think that its use for this purpose can be dismissed without further investigation now that coal is again available, or that it must be looked upon merely as a temporary expedient. Its use requires consideration from various aspects. The first consideration is, from a steam-raising point of view, we must be satisfied that it can be relied upon to maintain steam under the varying conditions of loads and weather, to the same extent that we expect to find-and do find-to be the case with coal. It is all very well to be able to keep a full head of steam and maintain time with a moderate load and in fine weather, but will oil fuel give a driver that little bit extra that he wants when he has a heavier train than usual and a strong side 'wind to contend with, and which he generally finds he has in hand with his coal-burning engine ? The essential and important point, therefore, is to be satisfied that from a steam-raking point of view we can obtain results equal to that with coal.
.

Kitson Clark, E.
Presidential Address: The translation of the locomotive. 759-76.
Comment on the battle of the gauges: cites Colburn's "admirable book". Includes many extracts from literature. Noted that D.K. Clark, to whom he was not related, referred to the anatomy, physiology and resistance of the locomotive. : Dickens' Dombey & Sons; Kemble; Edgar Allen Poe's The thousand and second, J,R. Mozley; Birkbeck Hill; Oswald H. Dunn's Night Ridge; William Cosmo Monkhouse and Robert Louis Stevenson's From a Railway Carriage. Bret Harte, W.C., and Rudyard Kipling are also mentioned. .

Whitelegg, R.H.
Inaugural Address for the Scottish Centre. 778-802.
Mentioned the Heilmann locomotive which he judged to be unsuccessful as it did not run for long (called it a generating station on wheels) and noted the improved form developed by North British Locomotive Co. (NBL) and considered that might be more economical than railway electrification; the diesel electric was considered to have possibilities and noted work by Minneapolis & St Paul RR