Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers
Volume 33 (1943)

Steamindex home page  Updated 2015-05-28 Key file The IMechE virtual library is accessible (full papers, all diagrams, photographs, extensive tables, etc) via SAGE

Journal No. 171

Sillcox, L.K. and Julian S Tritton (Paper No. 439)
Power to pull: a comparison of the operating charcteristics exhibited by steam and diesel-electric locomotives. 4-30. Disc.: 30-76.
Fourth Ordinary General Meeting of the Session held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Westminster, on Wednesday, 29 July 1942, at 6 p.m., the President, Mr. O.V.S. Bulleid, occupying the chair
This was an American paper and was intended to show the advantages of diesel traction. Possibly because there was a reduction in the number of papers presented during WW2 it produced a considerable response. E.C. Poultney (30-2); J.S. Clayton (32); E.S. Cox (32-4) who commented strongly on the hammer blow associated with two-cylinder locomotives; John Alcock (35); O.S.M. Raw (35-7); E. Graham (37);
Major O.S.M. Raw, R.A.O.C. (35), reierring to the rise in cost of steam locomotives since 1937 mentioned in the paper, pointed out that in 1937 the steam locomotive industry was very depressed, and willing to build at uneconomic prices, so that prices were bound to go up in the following years. Certain savings resulting from fhe use of Diesel locomotives were, he said, mentioned in the paper, but the chief saving in all the calculations which he had seen so far had been due to the elimination of the fireman, and whether one was allowed to do away with the fireman depended principally on what the trade unions had to say on the subject. The paper also maintained that the Diesel locomotive saved the time required for boiler washout, which was a very decided saving ; but, having been responsible for some Diesel locomotives in Ceylon and India he knew that it was necessary to offset against that the time spent on cylinder overhauls, which was considerable ; and in Ceylon at least two hours had to elapse after an engine came in from the line before the engine room was cool enough to send a fitter in. He would be interested to know more about the type of motors fitted in the Diesel-electric locomotives which were referred to as running at 100 m.p.h. He understood that axle-hung motors were normally used, and that axle-hung motors were normally limited to about 75 m.p.h. Surely the use of axle-hung motors at high speed accounted for the abnormally rapid track wear. The Author stated that Diesel locomotives could stay out in the yard for six days, which was an undoubted fact; indeed, he believed that the L.M.S. shunters carried fuel on them for six days. On the other hand, in the Calcutta docks and on the South African Railways the steam locomotives stayed out of the shed for six days also, with merely a cleaning of the fire-bars when the crews were changed over, so that there was not such a great saving there as seemed apparent. The elimination of water costs was put down in the Paper as a big saving, and undoubtedly it was; but when Diesel locomotives were used it was necessary to put in very special plant to service them. It was not possible to deal with Diesel locomotives in an ordinary shed ; it was necessary to have it dust-proof. He thought there was a great future for the Diesel locomotive for shunting, for rail motors, and for high-speed trains, but they would have to go a long way yet before they were used as main line heavy locomotives, because they involved having such a box of tricks all bottled up together, requiring a B.Sc. as driver. There is one further point, that is the employment of travelling maintenance staff. The Author suggests that on easy sections a portion of the power plant, the locomotive being built up from a number of individual units in multiple control, being shut down and serviced en route. As stated, my experience in India and Ceylon is that on a high-powered unit some considerable time must elapse from the time of shutting down the power unit until the engine room is cool enough. to work in. Surely it would be better to cut off the redundant power unit over the easy section and have it overhauled in a shed under better working conditions. The unit under power would also be saved the effort of hauling the unit under overhaul. The Paper presupposes that there is ample power for all purposes in the modern Diesel-electric locomotives in use in America, but I recollect having read that on Rocky Mountain sections a steam pilot locomotive is used with all forms d Diesel powered trains.
Mr. E. Graham (Member) expressed some doubt as to whether the labour costs given in the Paper were complete. The Author did not clearly state, he pointed out, what staff was employed. Leaving out of the question entirely the yard shunting locomotive, where the case for the Diesel was, in his view, undoubtedly established, and considering only the big Diesel-electric locomotives, he wondered what staff travelled with them on long runs. They were very complicated, with a great deal of auxiliary machinery, and a previous speaker had referred to them as a “ box of tricks.” It was a little difficult to imagine the ordinary steam locomotive driver and fireman taking care of such machines on, say, a 2,000 mile run. There is a hint in the Paper that additional staff were carried, because it is mentioned that there is the great advantage of b&ng able to couple up two, three or four machines and use them as required, and to the possibility if some part of the equipment of one unit failed of putting that unit out of action and repairing it while the train continued on its journey. That pre-supposed that shop staff was carried on the train. His own impression was that mechanics were cafried on each of the very big units on long runs. He doubted whether account was taken of that in the figures relating to running costs, but it might be that the cost was covered in the all-in- repair cost. On that he would like further information, if it was available.

D.R. Carling (37-40) on smoke abatement and comment on the steam locomotive failures cited in the paper on the Norfolk & Western Railroad; Mr. D. R. Carling (Associate Member) said he wished to make some remarks in support of what Mr. Cox and Major Raw had said. Mr. Cox made some remarks on Figs. I and 6 which were very much to the point, but in addition there was undoubtedly a discrepancy of some kind in Fig. 6, because the tractive effort curves over a considerable length lay almost together, and yet there was a steady difference all the way along in the horse-power curves. There was something wrong there, which might explain Mr. Cox’s difficulty. Which curves were correct he would not like to say, because he had not had the time to make any calculations. The question of smoke was referred to several times in the Paper. A great deal in the way of smoke abatement had been done on the railways in America, but the locomotives still gave out much more smoke than was the case in this country. It was worse in! America than in this country because the American locomotive did not have a closed ashpan, and therefore unless working at a fairly high output and being fired steadily, if there was any unburned coaI on the grate the locomotive gave out clouds of filthy black smoke, and that had led to the by-laws in many American cities prohibiting the use of steam locomotives. It had already been mentioned that the price at which steam locomotives were sold a few years ago was not economic, it being a question of the state of the market and of competition. Something of the same sort applied to the Diesel locomotive. Competition had been increasing. A few years ago there were fewer firms producing Diesel-electric locomotives, especially high-speed types, than the;e were now, and it might be partly competition which was reducing the price. At the same time, the increasing market for steam locomotives was permitting an increase in price, because the builders were no longer at their wits' end where to sell anything at all. Another point which should be mentioned was that the maintenance cost of steam locomotives was known to rise rapidly with age for a given mileage per year. The cost per year would rise very considerably as the age of the locomotive increased, particularly under United States conditions of really heavy working ; and that made it essential, in all such comparisons as those made in the paper, to know the average age of the motive power. Taking as an example the figures given for freight locomotives on pages 27 and 28 of the Paper, the steam locomotive was built in 1938 and the Diesel in 1941 ; in other words, the Diesel was in its first year of life. If the steam locomotive had been in its first year of life, he believed that the repairs would have been so much cheaper as to reverse the saving of 34d. shown. In a few years' time the steam locomotive would cost more, and what the Diesel locomotive would cost was not yet known, or at least if any figures were available he did not think that they had been published yet. The trend of repair costs for Diesel locomotives with increasing age would be very interesting, when figures became available. Only time could shew what it would be
O.V.S. Bulleid (42-4) was highly critical of the US steam locomotice costs quoted in the paper;
C.E. Fairburn (written communication 44-7 quoted in full) wrote that Dr. Sillcox, in his most interesting paper, defined the position of Diesel-electric traction as an effective compromise between steam and electric motive power, which presumably implied that it might be used to replace either, but so far as this country, and indeed most parts of, the world, were concerned, asked if it should not be regarded as complementary to these syslems? There were, said, undoubtedly many applications for Diesel units on both steam and electric lines but, except perhaps in some rather special cases, it was doubtful if it could be justified as the sole motive power. He maintained that on lines with heavy traffic the fundamental advantages of electric traction must rule out the Diesel. One of those which was often overlooked was. in the provision of prime movers as distinct from the transmission equipment, viz., the total horse-power rating of the Diesel engines needed for any service, was the sum of the rating of all the individual locomotives required, whereas on an electrified line provision had to be made only for the maximum power demanded at any one time. The rating of the power station plant needed for that was very considerably lower than that of the Diesel engines which would be needed if that form of traction were adopted ; in addition, the supply was usually taken from a system feeding an industrial load as well and the diversity between the two loads gave a substantial reduction in the proportion of the capital expenditure on generating plant which could be charged against the traction load.
At the meeting, which, unfortunately, he was unable to attend, one speaker suggested that performance as such was the deciding factor in choosing a traction system and that, if improvement in cleanliness were needed on steam operated lines, that should be obtained by air conditioning but the criterion was surely performance in relation to total cost and if the fitting of air conditioning equipment to all passenger coaches on a railway were taken as the alternative to Diesel or electric traction, it would certainly be more costly, and did not affect the cleaning and maintaining of stations, buildings, and the outside of the stock on steam lines. The Paper compared steam and Diesel locomotives on the basis of horse-power but, by itself that meant very little. A statement of horse-power must be associated with a duration before it could be used as a rating to compare different units. Thus Dr. Sillcox gave the indicated horse-power of certain steam locomotives he mentioned, but were the figures the maxima which the locomotites could maintain continuously or were they for some shorter period, such as one hour or even five minutes? The rating of an electric locomotive was normally given as the sum of the ratings of its motors, usually on a one-hour basis and other figures on a continuous and a momentary basis were generally stated also. However, that method could not be applied to a Diesel-electric locomotive as the output was always limited by that available from the engine ; in practice, owing to the variable voltage and current conditions to be met, the total rating of: the motors on a normal traction basis was usually considerably greater than that. The rating of a Diesel locomotive could, therefore, only be based on the power available from the engine and the time for which it could be maintained and also whether it was measured at the engine coupling or at the wheel tread must be stated. As the transmission efficiency varies with operating conditions, the relationship between figures measured at those two points was complex; quite apart from any power taken from the engine for auxiliary purposes.
If fuller information on those lines could be given for the locomotives dealt with in the Paper, the data already included might be of considerable value ; at present it could not be properly assessed. Apart from a comparison ‘on a horse-power basis, the relative weights of the steam and Diesel locomotives were important provided that the class of work was the same in each case. In British practice that applied specially to shunting units where all the ,weight was adhesive and so determined the maximum tractive effort which could be expected. It was, however, necessary to make some correction for the even torque of the Diesel in comparison with the steam unit. This was illustrated in the table on page 22, where the Diesel locomotive was shown to have an adhesive factor of 33 per cent. compared with the steam figure of 22 per cent. only. To sum up, what was wanted was a basis of comparison which accurately reflected the traffic capabilities of the different locomotives; ability to perform a given service was what really mattered.
He said the figures for the annual mileage of both Diesel and steam locomotives given in the paper were surprisingly large, and wished to know in what degree they were representative of general practice in the U.S.A.? It seemed that they must be based on a few services where conditions favour large mileages, and it would be interesting to learn to what extent traffic in the U.S.A. could be arranged to give such figures generally, provided, of course, that the types of locomotives employed were suitable. In this country, the limit here was set much more by traffic conditions than by the capabilities of the locomotives.
Regarding the characteristics curves given in Fig. 6, there appeared to have been some slip, e.g. if the tractive effort characteristics of the steam and Diesel locomotives cross at 60 m.p.h. the driver horse-power characteristics also should cross on the same ordinate. In Fig. 1 the drawbar horse-power was given instead of the driver horse-power and that was perhaps better, as it compen46 sated in some degree for any differences in weights of the two types of locomotive which were not given. In Fig. 7 the steam locomotive characteristics were clearly only approximate, as they should have a horizontal portion at low speeds. That was the most important part of the curve for shunting locomotives and as drawn, the curves did not show very clearly the rather important differences between the two types. It would be an advantage also if they showed the limits set by adhesion since, as already mentioned, the even torque of the Diesel-electric locomotive gave it a distinct advantage in this respect.
The life of the Diesel was estimated at 15 years. In the present state of development some units may be obsolete in a shorter time than this, but there was no obvious reason why, when design had had time to become more stabilised, the life should not be comparable with that o€ the steam locomotive as all wearing parts could be replaced in the ordinary course of maintenance. It would be interesting to have Dr. Sillcox's views on the use of nose-suspended motors on high-speed Diesel locomotives. Those motors were generally recognised as being satisfactory in regard to track stresses up to moderate speeds, but in electric locomotive design some form of flexible drive was almost universally used for high speed units. It appeared that certain forms of such drives which occupied relatively little space might be adopted with advantage on *high-speed Diesel units. Could any of the effects ascribed in the Paper to the low centre of gravity of the Diesel locomotive be due in some measure to the nose-suspended motors ?
The L.M.S. 250 h.p. Diesel shunting locomotives at present required refuelling at 12-21 day intervals, depending on the yard where they were working, and in new designs somewhat greater tank capacity would probably be provided to enable a long uninterrupted period to be operated in all yards. It was also expected that a general overhaul would be necessary only ever! three years. On that basis the theoretical technical availability would be at least 95 per cent., including time spent in shed maintenance. It was difficult to comment on the operating costs given in the paper owing to the different conditions, different relative costs of fuels and smaller units used in this country. A 0-6-0 tank shunting locomotive of some 45 tons weight costs not much more than half as much for fuel as the shunting locomotives quoted at the top of page 26, and the cost of fuel oil for a 350 h.p. Diesel was about two-thirds of that for the 600 h.p. American unit. The saving on fuel was, therefore, relatively lower, in addition the other costs for the steam locomotive, particularly repairs and water costs appeared to be very high. Nevertheless the L.M.S. had been able to establish the Diesel-electric shunter at least in its more intensively worked yards. Perhaps Dr. Sillcox in his reply could cover interest and depreciation charges in those comparisons more fully ; interest appears to be excluded and the life on which depreciation was based was not given.
The first cost of steam and Diesel locomotives given also differed considerably from those obtaining here. Recently the ratio Could it be taken as 15 years in all cases? of the cost of Diesel to the cost of steam units had been rising and what might be described as the price spiral which had always handicapped the Diesel showed no sign of breaking. In order to be really useful to a railway, Diesel units had to be employed in reasonably large numbers, otherwise the maintenance and other standby costs become too great a burden for the Diesels to carry. Also the total market open to a manufacturer had a large influence on first cost. But the manufacturer was unwilling to risk quoting prices on the basis of a reasonably large sale to a wider market, and the railway companies in turn would not risk ordering large numbers of locomotives of a type which for most applications was still unproved in this country. Action had to lie with the manufacturers as they had a potential world market, while each railway was limited to itself. That must now, of course, await the end of the war, but the outbreak of war could not be regarded as the reason for the very slow progress made here up to the present as there were few signs of rapid development before, and in fact the manufacturers were more conservative than the railways. As already mentioned the railways were able to establish the shunting unit at least for some duties, but the manufacturers seemed unable to follow that up and produce a locomotive on an economical basis for large scale use on other services.
H.H. Andrews (59-50) was critical of the dismissal of electric motive power in the USA;
T. Henry Turner (53-4) A good case had been made out for the use of Diesel-electric shunting vehicles at marshalling yards, but he thought the Author did not make any reference to tunnels. It seemed to him that Diesel-electric vehicles would be preferable to steam vehicles on, for example, the Metropolitan line passing through Baker Street, where the sulphurous fumes were at times most objectionable to the crowds of passengers. The same could probably be said for the rather special King’s Cross Hotel tunnel on the L.N.E.R., and possibly some others, such as the Severn tunnel, might also be operated by Diesel-electric vehicles.
He realised that many of the tunnels in this country were on main lines and therefore had to be passed by steam locomotives for many years to come, but wherever it were possible to substitute Diesel-electric, the amount of corrosion of the rails and other fittings in the tunnels would be much reduced and the maintenance simplified. He had not mentioned Woodhead, as the electrification which was started on the lines, including that tunnel, was already well in hand. In his work he had constant reminders of the abnormal corrosion in tunnels and therefore thought the Author might be interested in that point. The substitution of Diesel-electric for steam locomotives in suburban services would seem to be justifiable in view of the acceleration characteristics, but whether that be so or not, it would result in an appreciable reduction in the smoke nuisance.

Clarke, C.W. (Paper No. 440)
Service tests to establish locomotive efficiency. 77-90.
On the GIPR in India

Journal No. 172

Vittoné, Jose (Paper No. 441)
Notes and observations on diesel electric railcars on the Buenos Aires Provincial Railway. 94-156. illus., 9 diagrs.
Please note the Peper number is duplicvated. Second Quarterly Meeting of the South American Centre Session, 1941, was held at La Plata, at the Workshops of the Buenos Ayres Provincial Railway on Monday, 1 September 1941, at 9.30 a.m. Translated from Spanish.
four Diesel-electric railcars of the Buenos Aires Provincial Government Railway were acquired in the year 1935 and up to the 31 December, 1940, they had been in service practically five years, and the present time is considered opportune to give an account of certain details and technical results of their working in the hope that same will be useful in the study of, and solution to, some of the problems which arise in connection with this modern branch of railway transport.

Journal No. 173

Robson, T. (Paper No. 441).
The counter pressure method of testing locomotives. 171-98. Disc.:198-217+ folding plate. 5 illus., 12 diagrs. (incl.. 2s. els.)
Please note the Peper number is duplicated. Presented on 24 March 1943 in London.
In order to save expense the Author attempted to use one locomotive only, although it was appreciated that the extra power absorbed per cylinder might cause difficulties. An old 4-6-0 locomotive with outside cylinders and piston valves, built in 1906, was put at his disposal and the necessary alterations made, the French practice being followed. When about 600 horse-power mas being absorbed, the metallic packing was melted out of the piston and tail rod glands, so the water injection was led to the centres of the cylinders instead of into the steam chests, the supply was much increased and the glands were lubricated mechanically. These alterations were an improvement, but when attempting to absorb 900 horse-power, the driving axleboxes heated badly. These were steel with an inserted bronze bearing in the crown, and the side faces were too small to withstand the heavy side thrusts. Solid bronze axleboxes, without any white metal, were fitted to the driving axle having large bearing surfaces on the inside of the wheel boss, and three oil feeds were supplied to each box, one syphon feed to the wheel boss and one syphon and one mechanical feed at the rear
Includes details of the tests performed on the B17 class. Pp. 206-7 : Comment on the Vitry tests with P2 class 2001 Cock o' the North, Contributors to the discussion included E.S. Cox, O.V.S. Bulleid, H. Holcroft and E.C Poultney..

Journal No. 174

Parker, C.R. (Paper No. 442)
Some notes on experience with railcar oil engines in the Argentine (with particular reference to repairs). 241-302; Journal No. 175: Disc.: 314-362.
First Ordinary General Meeting of the 1942/43 Session was held jointly with the Diesel Engine Users’ Association in the hall of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Storey’s Gate, S.W.1, on Thursday, 5 November 1942, at 2.30 pm., Mr. O.V.S., Bulleid, President, occupying the chair and supported by Mr. G. E. Windeler, President of the Diesel Engine Users’ Association.
An extended abstract appeared in Loco Rly Carr. Wagon Rev., 1942, 48, 201 under the heading: Diesel Vehicle Repairs A consideration af the maintenance and repair methods of diesel locomotives and railcars compared with those of steam locomotives indicates that the life of either type of unit may be virtually unlimited. It has not been uncommon practice to. glorify the performance of steam locomotives 30, 40 and 50 years old, regardless of the fact that at such an age there is little of the original locomotive left except the spaces between the wheels. Similar methods may be applied to. the engines and mechanical portions of diesel locomotives and railcars by routine renewals, and by building-up through welding and by metal deposition.
This passible similarity of the methods applied to. steam and diesel power an railways was not featured in the remarkably comprehensive paper an the repair of railway oil engines on the Central Argentine Railway presented recently by Mr. C. A. Parker, of that line, to the Diesel Engine Users' Association, and read in London, on November 5, before a joint meeting of that Association and the Institution of Locomotive Engineers. But that paper did result. in an appreciation of the way and degree in which the proportions of a maintenance-and-repair programme may vary. For example, with. the Chicago-California and other long-distance diesel-powered trains in the United States the travelling-fitter system and the work done during a few hours of lie-over time at each end of the run, mean that say, 75 or 80 per cent. of all maintenance and repair work comes under the heading of maintenance, and that repair work "within the meaning of the Act" is undertaken only at infrequent intervals. On the other hand, the method practised on the Central Argentine Railway for the power plants of the 12 twin-car 640 b.h.p. Ganz diesel sets incorporates the mmimum of shed work, and the running department has teen relieved of the responsibility for engine maintenance except for odd details, practically all of the necessary work being carried out in the course of visits to the central repair shops. The claim is made that this Central Argentme Railway practice in no way invalidates "preventive" maintenance and repair, which is probably the key to the successful running af motive pawer of all types. On the Central Argentine system the power plants are taken to. the repair establishment for a light overhaul every 43,000 miles, and for heavy repairs every 125,000/140,000 miles, and It is judged that these mileages enable attention to be given to all the major and minor constituents before they begin to give trouble either through excessive wear, fatigue, or deterioration. Nevertheless, the extent to which the Central Argentine Railway has relieved the running department of much minor work and tuning-up the engines is greater than found on the majority of railways owning diesel stock, and possibly the success with which this has been done may be traced in a large measure to. the fact that these twin-car trains are concentrated in one area and work an certain definite services without variation. For mare widely-scattered vehicles it would seem that the shed staffs would still have to. be entrusted with a greater proportion of the total maintenance-and- repair work. These remarks, of course, apply to. medium and large-sized railways, for an the smaller lines maintenance and repair are usually undertaken in the same shed by the same men just as they happen to be needed.
Although a certain amount of trouble has been experienced with the main constituents of these oil engines an the Central Argentine Railway—the shopping periods, for instance, seem to be governed by the mileage which can be expected before trouble is g;iven by the inverted main bearings bolted to the light-alloy crankcase—Mr. Parker's paper emphasised the feature which has been found in practically all diesel railcars designed and built from about 1937 onwards, and that is the great majority of failures booked against the vehicles are not due to the engines or to the gearboxes themselves, but to. the auxiliaries associated with those two main constituents, Many of these troubles are trifling, and may result in the lass of only a few minutes on schedule, or a day laid off. On the other hand, the consequential damage resulting from the failure of a relatively unimportant part may be great, and that is one of the principal reasons for the necessity of an immediate advance in the standard of design and construction of all ancillary equipment. Far too often the standards have been almost nonsensical, and if found in conjunction with a conscientious running department officer who. books every defect, however small, may give a totally incorrect impression as to what modern diesel locomotives and railcars can do in the way of performance.

Journal No. 176

Shields, T.H. ( Paper No. 443)
The evolution of locomotive valve gears. 368-448. Disc.: 448-60. 1944, 34, 260. 2 illus., 100 diagrs., 2 tables. Bibliog.
The list of valve gears covered in this historical survey is very extensive, but is not completely comprehensive. It includes several which may not have been fitted to locomotives. The gears covered included those by James Watt who had learnt German to be able to understand Leupold's Theatrum Machinarum, William Murdock, William Symington, Richard Trevithick and his locomotive. Before the application of engines to locomotives and ships there had been little need to reverse. Engine, Cam and Frame Gear, Stop Valve Gear, Narrow Cam and Ring, Cam and Box Gear, Loose Eccentric, Carmichael's Gear, Bury's Gear, Gurney's Expansion Gear, Melling's Gear, Bourne's Link Motion, Hawthorn's Gear, Gray's Expansion Gear, Drop Hook Motion, Bury's Double Eccentric Gab Motion, Stephenson's Double Eccentric Gear, Pauwel's Gab Motion, Stephenson's Gab Motion, Rodger's Link, U.S.A. Gab Motion, Dodd's Wedge Motion, Dodd's Spiral Sleeve Gear, L. & S.W. Rly. Gab Motion; Fenton's Sliding Eccentric Gear; Crampton's Valve Motion; Eastwick's Sliding Block; Johnston's Reversing Valve; Hawthorn's Expansion Gear; Gozenbach Expansion Gear; Meyer Expansion Gear; Routledge Expansion Gear; Polonceau Expansion Gear, Guinotte Expansion Gear; Carbey Expansion Gear; Longridge Expansion Gear; Nasmyth Expansion Gear; Forrester's Gear; William's Link Motion; Howe's Link Motion; Howe-Stephenson Link ,Motion; Solid Bar Link Motion; Link Motion, Dub's and Co; Link Motion, G.I.P. Rly; Link Motion, L.M.S. Rly; Crampton's Locomotive Kinnaird.; intermediate driving shaft loco.; Gooch Stationary Link Motion; Angele's Link Motion; Walschaerts' Valve Motion; Heusinger Valve Motion; Walschaerts' Valve Motion (GSWR version), LMS version, William Mason modification for application in USA in 1875; Allan Straight Link  as employed by Beyer-Peacock and on LSWR; Stewart's Link Motion; Cam and Link Motion (U.S.A.); Taylor's Shifting Eccentric; Von Landsee Link Motion; Hackworth's Radial Gear; F.C. Marshall's Radial Gear; Bremme's Radial Gear; Brown's Valve Gear; Kitson's Valve Gear; Morton's Valve Gear; Strong's Valve Gear; Joy's Valve Gear and as used on LYR and by Andrew Barclay and Sons; Ouest Valve Gear; Southern Valve Gear; J.T. Marshall's Gear; Bryce Douglas Valve Gear; Deeley's Cross Drive Gear; Churchward's Cross Drive Gear; Young's Cross Drive Gear (U.S.A.); Beames Walschaerts' Valve Gear; Stephenson-Molyneux System; Berthe Valve Gear; Baker Valve Gear; Valve Gear developed by Andrew Barclay and Sons; Webb's Loose Eccentric; Conjugated Valve Gear by Gresley and by Caledonian Railway; Poppet Valve Gears: Durant-Lencauchez; Caprotti; and R.C. Type (A.L.E., Ltd.); Fluid Pressure Gear-Meier-Mattern System; and Bulleid Radial Valve Gear.
1944, 34, 260.
Corrections and additions were publshed in Journal 179 (p. 260); on page 379 it had been stated that Forrester locomotive of 1832 for the Liverpool & Manchester Railway Swiftsure had four fixed eccentrics, but it appears that it had Carmichael valve gear with one fixed eccentric (Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1934 January). The locomotive Vauxhall of 1834 for the Dublin & Kingstown Railway had a four-fixed eccentric gear (Engineer, 1983, 2 March). On page 401 comment on introduction of Walschaerts into Britain failed to note Fairlie-type locomotive built by Yorkshire Engine Co. in 1873 so fitted: locomotive sold to East & West Junction Railway (later Stratford-on-Avon and Midland Junction Railway): illustrated Loco. Rly Carr. Wagon Rev., 1911, Nov.). Another date claim (p. 403) concerned "last locomotive" built with Allan Straight Link Motion as being Dubs locomotive for Highland Railway in 1917, but Yorkshire Engine Co. built two 0-6-0s so-fitted for Maryport & Carlisle Railway in 1921. Additions: Younghusband valve gear tried on five NER passenger locomotives in 1897. Riekie valve gear (a modified version of Walschaerts gear) was tried on Caledonian Railway by McIntosh (illustrated in Paper 194)