Probably not a topic of much interest but I have noted a dearth of designers names used when describing locomotives both on this forum and off. I was quite amused to discover that Canadian and American RR Co’s rarely bothered to make their own steam engines. Why?
Apart from Heisler and Shay I never hear the designers name used, I find this odd because it would never occur to me to drop this vital piece of information before I came here. Gee, even my Mum knows the difference between a Bulleid Pacific and a Gresley Pacific…one is green and the other is blue (she has only seen the one Gresley, Sir Nigel )
Does anyone know or use these guys names or doesn’t anyone care?
Tony; with a bit of research, you can find them, keep in mind in North America there are many many more locomotive designers than in the UK. Pick a particulare railroad, and maybe we can dig up a bit more information.
Some roads did make their own steam engines. many lacked the ability to do the huge casting required to do modern engines. For many it was cheaper to buy off “off the shelf” designs. Plus I would be that Heisler and Shay didn’t personally design the steam engines themselves necessarily, they designed the geared drive system, and the company was named after them, much in the way the Baldwin was named after the Mathias Baldwin.
No railroad, or for that matter locomotive builder had the ability to cast the one piece frame with cylinders intregrated; those castings came from GSC.
The N&W had a fairly large foundary, and could do things as large as trucks and cylinders, but the larger castings were purchased.
Cost was probably a primary factor concerning locomotives, and most railroads, no doubt, could not afford to construct an erecting floor to produce their own locomotives, when companies such as Baldwin, Alco, and Lima were already mass producing them. During World War I, the government created the United States Railway Administration (USRA), which standardized steam locomotive designs and dictated who could produce what, and in what quantity; thus the common term of a “USRA” design. Similarly, during World War II the government took control of the railroads, and again dictated the types of locomotives and rolling stock that could be produced and in what quantities. If you go back to the very earliest days of railroads in North America, most locomotives were known by their manufacturer’s names, such as a Rogers, Baldwin, etc., instead of being attributed to an individual inventor. Since designs were copied from even the British, it was probably a matter of too many people involved to attribute a design to a particular individual, except in cases of something really unique, such as a Shay or Heisler geared engine.
Southern Pacific could and did construct their own locomotives–the Sacramento Locomotive Works was set up to do just that, and SP prided themselves on being able to produce locos from raw materials.
The above is correct, though–there were a lot of locomotive designers, so designer names are far from common knowledge except to serious detail nuts. Manufacturer names (Baldwin, Vulcan, Lima, etc.) are pretty well-known.
Heislers and Shays were the names of types of geared locomotives, but even they weren’t all designed by the guy who had the same name.
Not familiar with these Bulleid or Gresley Pacifics…so far as I know, though, no US locomotive had a distinctive color based on who had designed it–locomotives and were painted with the road’s colors rather than retaining a factory paint job. How does this work in the UK?
Bulleid was the chief engineer and designer for the Southern Railway (GB) in the late 30’s when their main shops (Eastleigh - near Southampton) built their heavy and light, air smoothed pacifics. Most of them were painted brunswick (dark) green.
The Southern’s coaches were apple (?) green.
Nigel Gresley was ditto for the London & North Eastern Railway, in the 20’s when their main shops (Doncaster - near Sheffield) started building their A1, A2, A3 and A4 Pacifics. The streamlined A4s claim the 129 mph speed record (Mallard) and other examples include one named for Dwight D Eisenhower.
Tony LightBender is right about the A4 named after Gresley being painted blue – but the old LNER’s company loco colour was apple green (e.g. Flying Scotsman).
The LNER’s coaches were light brown.
While we’re at it, the other principal pre-nationalization company colours were;
Mostly reds or greens for the London, Midland & Scottish locos, with maroon coaches. Then, saving the best for the last, Brunswick Green locos, with chocolate & cream coaches on the Great Western Railway.
Well thankyou for the lucid and erudite explanation, but then what less could we expect from a GWR afficianado.
As an aside I grew up in Sussex and so have the affection for all things Southern Region, particularly enjoying the clean aesthetics of Bulleid over Maunsell’s utilitarian approach. However, growing up with a childhood friend that lived a few houses away and who was the greatgrandson of G.J.Churchward I developed a respect and insight into God’s Wonderful Railway.
The American approach seems to have lost much of the individuality and personality that these old British steamers had. The different regions designers had their own unique approach leading to very much signature locomotives. The British operations which were geared towards lots of short trains rather than the American few bloody great enormous ones kept British loco’s a manageable size for a modest foundry. 150 tons is big for a British loco. Undoubtedly the American and Canadian approach is and was more economical and sensible but sadly lacks the romance and human connection.
I wouldn’t say that–American locomotives varied immensely in size and style. Regional variation was inevitable, given the size of the United States, and quite evident in the prototype. In the 19th Century, locomotives were largely built by the big Eastern foundries because that’s where the steel was. The western two-thirds of the United States was largely unsettled wilderness–initially, steam engines had to be shipped to West Coast ports by ship because there wasn’t a rail connection between East and West Coast until 1869, and because the West Coast lacked any industrial capacity at the time–no iron mines, no foundries, no steel mills. By the turn of the 20th there were a few western foundries, but folks still bought them from back east.
In terms of diversity of design, there are dizzying varieties of American locomotives! Sure, the big heavy trains got all the attention, but they certainly didn’t go everywhere–rural and wilderness America abounded with short lines, branch lines and industrial railways. Unlike the relatively-limited palette of UK engines, the hundreds of American lines each had their own color scheme. And because short lines were also often short on cash, they frequently used small, out-of-date, or hand-me-down engines purchased from bigger lines seeking to upgrade their own motive power.
Sorry to wax eloquent, but the suggestion
that American locomotives lacked
diversity is ludicrous.
I couldn’t agree more, the diversity is quite gobsmacking, I have 2 & 3 truck Shays and Heislers and a couple of Climax’s, I also have a small collection of balloon stack wood burning 4-4-0’s and a 4-6-0. These are so unlike anything I saw in England, in fact they are completely different from one another. The first time I say a picture of a cabforward I stared at in total disbelief as it slowly dawned on me that this was a very clever innovation to steam engines that should have dominated future design. Sadly engineers had to wait for diesels to get a comfy ride.
I had no intention of causing anyone to feel defensive as there is no way the steam locomotives of Britain and North America can be compared, they filled completely different needs and faced completely different regulations and operating conditions. If a modern Canadian wheat train were to run in some places in England’s steam heyday, it could have been in 3 stations at once.
The point of my post was that the guy that thought up these amazing beasts is unknown or at best a very well kept secret instead of being a necessary part of the description, which I have always been used to. My reference to the individuality and personality of the various British steamers being a manifestation of the various designers signature style. As an example all regions (Railroad Co’s) would have their Pacifics but they would not look alike at all. Further the Pacific’s of the former designers to that same region would also be quite different again. Other locomotives built by that designer would carry that same distinctive signature style.
The market force behind the growth of rail use in Britain was the passenger traffic so there was a competitive effort to make them cute and pretty. The operating requirements necessitated modest power for both freight and passeng
A wee bit off-topic, but :
The main difference that affected the development of railroading between Great Britain [ and Europe for that matter], and North America was that in GB / Europe all of the cities & towns existed before railroads were invented…in North America most cities & towns west of the original US & Canadian colonies were created as a RESULT of railroads’ expansion and growth.
Much the same as N.America applies to Asia, but not so much in Africa or S.America, IMHO.
In terms of “designer fame”, the superintendents of motive power for many of the bigger N.A railroads ( ie: Pennsy, B & O, CP ) were very well known, even famous, during their administration. In some cases, their own railroads built the power they designed, ( or redesigned ).In other cases the work was contracted to Alco or Baldwin.Also well known during their time of influence, were the streamline-metalwork designers, like Loewy.
While I think both British and North Americans have an equal sense and appreciation for political and military history, I think the British have a greater sense of mechanical \ industrial history, and the names of the designers is a good example of that.
No offense to those North Americans who DO find industrial \ mechanical history fascinating, there’s just less of us, I think.
Merry Christmas,
Mike[:)]
It is very true that in England the populations preceded the railroads–in the US passengers were necessary largely to bring people to the West so they could build cities and industries for the railroads to serve!
It seems like British railroading is more similar in scope to a large regional railroad in the U.S., specifically more like the Eastern railroads which served already present industry and populations–shorter distances between stations, more local infrastructure, no big whompin’ mountains to crawl over.
And at that regional level, designers do start to appear–SP buffs are familiar with the name A.J. Stevens of the Sacramento shops. I imagine other regional favorites have their own names–but it’s true, typically locomotives are identified by manufacturer rather than designer.
In terms of “cute” locomotives, I’ll agree that American lines did abandon prettifying locomotives about the time wood-burning engines passed from favor–but that in itself might be due to American aesthetics. The idea that Americans tend to favor large, powerful vehicles to haul them around is nothing new, and comparing an American smoke-belching monster to a cute li’l British engine is a bit like parking a Hummer next to a Morris Minor.