50550 Hunslet- do we have a definitive name for the designer?

[55015Tulyar]

J94, austerity tank, take yer pick, but, do we have a definitive name for the person who is attributed to the original design?

[Wickham Green too]

Er  -  wasn't the 50550 the predecessor of the 'Austerity' design, rather than the same thing ??!?  ........... probably designed by a chap called' Hunslet Drawing Office'.

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

designed by a chap called' Hunslet Drawing Office'.

 

There's far too much cult of personality and hero-worship among steam locomotive enthusiasts. That's particularly true when it comes to railway companies, where the name of the Locomotive Superintendent or Chief Mechanical Engineer is well known. Many of them did have considerable practical involvement in locomotive design, others very little, but either way they get the credit when their role was primarily and officially that of a manager, with the drawing office staff as just one part of their responsibilities. A design produced by one of the locomotive trade firms highlights this. 

 

Of course in the early days men such as Charles Beyer and Richard Peacock did have considerable direct input into the design of their firms' products.

[Wickham Green too]

Indeed .......... and not just locomotives : a publication plonked on my doormat last week attributing a number of coaches to two consecutive Locomotive Superintendents of a particular railway - though the Carriage and Wagon Superintendents of that railway are quite well known names within that railway's following.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Indeed .......... and not just locomotives : a publication plonked on my doormat last week attributing a number of coaches to two consecutive Locomotive Superintendents of a particular railway - though the Carriage and Wagon Superintendents of that railway are quite well known names within that railway's following.

 

As in the case of the Midland Railway: the names of Clayton, Bain, and Reid are well-enough known. But the same applies - they were primarily managers, not the designers, who were the Carriage & Wagon Drawing Office staff. In this case, a draughtsman's name is given for each individual drawing in the Drawing Register. It seems to me likely that Clayton got the Midland job because a new carriage & wagon works was to be built and he'd just finished project managing the building of the Swindon one.

[doilum]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Er  -  wasn't the 50550 the predecessor of the 'Austerity' design, rather than the same thing ??!?  ........... probably designed by a chap called' Hunslet Drawing Office'.

Which itself was a development of the 48150 class. All the 18" Hunslets share the same wheelbase as their standard 16" class.      

[The Johnster]

Confused by the point that the ‘Austerity’ design was a development of the 50550 and both types continued in production simultaneously for some time post-war.  Am I correct in saying that those locos built other than by Hunslet were all to the Austerity specification?

[Wickham Green too]

The 50550 had smaller wheels so had a higher nominal tractive effort ....... as we all know that was only a nominal figure - but the difference may have found favour with some customers. Yes, those locos built for the War Department were all to the Austerity spec. 

[doilum]

17 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Confused by the point that the ‘Austerity’ design was a development of the 50550 and both types continued in production simultaneously for some time post-war.  Am I correct in saying that those locos built other than by Hunslet were all to the Austerity specification?

I haven't my Hunslets history to hand but if I recall correctly, the 50550 was a one off batch of nine locos for a new iron stone project near Corby that was cancelled on the outbreak of war. Eight o FC the completed locos were redeployed in the steel industry. The ninth was allocated to the port of London authority. After the war it was bought by the NCB and spent it's entire working life at Ackton Hall colliery Featherstone as S112. You are correct in saying that the non Hunslets locomotives were all austerity spec.

[doilum]

11 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

The 50550 had smaller wheels so had a higher nominal tractive effort ....... as we all know that was only a nominal figure - but the difference may have found favour with some customers. Yes, those locos built for the War Department were all to the Austerity spec. 

The larger wheels were at the request of Riddles' committee in order to enable the locomotive to work short main line frieght trains. The original suggestion was the LMS jinty but a representative for Hunslets pursauded the committee that a modified version of their 18" locomotive would be quicker and easier to build in large numbers. In the end the anticipated destruction of all railway stock and infrastructure by the retreating German army did not materialize and the allies inherited most of it intact. Many of the austerities never crossed the channel remaining in store until the end of the war. Those that did were mostly confined to working the docks in Antwerp and Calais.

A quick Google search will take you to a definitive history originally published in the IRS magazine.

[The Johnster]

IIRC the Austerity was a bit bigger all round than the 50550; larger diameter driving wheels, and more capacity in the tank and bunker.  The austerity bunker was extended about 3” out over the buffer beam, the quickest visual reference.  Otherwise there wasn’t much obvious difference.  
 

 

[doilum]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

IIRC the Austerity was a bit bigger all round than the 50550; larger diameter driving wheels, and more capacity in the tank and bunker.  The austerity bunker was extended about 3” out over the buffer beam, the quickest visual reference.  Otherwise there wasn’t much obvious difference.  
 

 

The 50550 bunker end sloped whilst the austerity had a vertical rear Which extended it a few inches beyond the buffer beam. I am sure the tank was the same having been extended from the 48150 which stopped before the smokebox. The main visual difference were the massive full depth buffer beams required by GKN. 

Other differences were not obvious and resulted from cost cutting and substituting cheaper materials. Having followed my own advice I re read the above mentioned article and found that a further seven of the 50550 were built after the war, two as late as 1953.

Please read correction below.

Edited September 22, 2022 by doilum

[br2975]

".....So it was that in the latter half of 1942 an amalgam of previous Hunslet inside cylinder locomotive practice came together to emerge as the first 'Austerity' locomotive'..."

.

Locomotives Illustrated No.61

The Hunslet 'Austerity' 0-6-0STs

by

Don Townsley ( who probably knows more on the subject than anyone else )

Edited September 22, 2022 by br2975

[doilum]

I forgot the one other obvious visual difference, the large square cab windows of the 50550. I am almost certain that the 48150 had conventional round windows in the cab rear. Oh, and the small square opening in between the austerity rear windows. There was once an extensive thread on this topic which came to the conclusion that it was to do with lamps.

Photos hopefully illustrate the differences. S112 lost the deep rear buffer beam when Hunslets fitted an automatic stoker in the 1960s but the front one was retained.

[doilum]

I have managed to check with my history of Hunslets. A couple of corrections: firstly there were only eight of the 50550 class. The first nine 48150 were built before the war with a further six built for Richard Thomas and Baldwin of Scunthorpe between 1944-53.

The case for the Hunslets austerity was made by Edgar Alcock who was chair and joint MD of Hunslet. 

The grandad of this family of 18" saddle tanks was 1506 a one off 18" side tank built for John Bowes of Jarrow in 1930.

Edited September 22, 2022 by doilum

[br2975]

25 minutes ago, doilum said:

The grandad of this family of 18" saddle tanks was 1506 a one off 18" side tank built for John Bowes of Jarrow in 1930.

.

Don Townsley is of the opinion

"....The story starts in 1923 when the Hunslet Engine Company introduced a standard 0-6-0ST with 3'9" driving wheels and 16" x 22" cylinders, examples of which were built into the 1950s"

.

This would be 'Fitzwilliam' 1438/1923.

.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by br2975

[doilum]

The 16" class are my favourite Hunslets. I have three. Although they have the same wheelbase as the 18" locomotives they are a much smaller daintier beast. The link to 1506 comes from Don's magnum opus History of Hunslet.

[Steamport Southport]

15 hours ago, br2975 said:

.

Don Townsley is of the opinion

"....The story starts in 1923 when the Hunslet Engine Company introduced a standard 0-6-0ST with 3'9" driving wheels and 16" x 22" cylinders, examples of which were built into the 1950s"

.

This would be 'Fitzwilliam' 1438/1923.

.

 

 

 

Parts of Fitzwilliam still exist in Kinsley including the tanks and at one point it carried the nameplates.

 

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/hunslet-works-no-1954-kingsley-0-6-0st/

 

 

 

Jason

[doilum]

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Parts of Fitzwilliam still exist in Kinsley including the tanks and at one point it carried the nameplates.

 

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/hunslet-works-no-1954-kingsley-0-6-0st/

 

 

 

Jason

A bit like the settlements. Only a true native of those parts knows where Kinsley ends and Fitzwilliam begins.