L.Y.Railway 0-8-0 no 676

[LMS 4F]

Despite living in the Eastern end of West Yorkshire for about 50 years I have only recently learned of the Boiler explosion in March 1901 of this locomotive. The incident happened just to the east of Knottingley in the area where Kellingley Colliery was later sighted.
The engine was badly damaged and the engine crew both killed.
The locomotive was less than a year old and I wondered what happened to it after the event? Was it scrapped or was it repaired and put back into service?
The official report lays the blame on the use of the wrong materials for the boiler stays. Were there any other explosions of this type involving similar engines of the L.Y.Railway?

 

[Gloster]

28 January 1845, Miles Platting, 27 (Manchester & Leeds Railway)
19 January 1857, near Sough, Nr 129
11 June 1858, near Heckmondwyke, Nr 158
14 July 1868, Sowerby Bridge, ?
22 January 1869, Middleton, ?
28 November 1874, Leeds City, Nr 189
9 April 1912, The Oaks, Nr 869

Source: Locomotive Boiler Explosions (Hewison, David & Charles, 1983), but not guaranteed exhaustive.

The loco was probably rebuilt as, according to BRDatabase, L&Y 676 became LMS 12706; it had a building date of of July 1900 and was reboilered (nor surprisingly) in 1901.

EDIT: Also ex-Stockton & Darlington 18 on 20 November 1846 near Sough Tunnel. It is unclear whether this had been sold to the L&Y.

 

[Bevan Price]

Eric Mason's "Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway in the 20th Century" has some extra details. In the explosion, the boiler landed 50 yards away from the track. The loco was rebuilt but withdrawn in 1927. Some experiments with boilers were not very successful, so later batches were built with increased water space around the firebox. Although many were withdrawn in the 1920s and 1930s, one survived to get a BR number. The locos were competent, capable of hauling heavy loads, but prone to failure of the "driving" axle boxes.

Some were rebuilt with larger boilers, similar to those used on a later batch of 0-8-0s.

 

[Gloster]

A short article in, I think, the journal of the L&Y Society No. 36 can be found by googling ‘ l&y 0-8-0 676 ’.

 

[LMS 4F]

Many thanks for all the information, I will carry on searching.
Both the crew are buried in Goole Cemetery and I hope to visit later this summer to pay my respects.

 

[WesternLancer]

Many thanks for all the information, I will carry on searching.
Both the crew are buried in Goole Cemetery and I hope to visit later this summer to pay my respects.

That’s most interesting. Perhaps you could report back on the state of the graves / share pictures in due course.

Hopefully you can get a plot map to know where abouts in the cemetery they are before you have to commence an extensive search on site.

 

[LMS 4F]

That’s most interesting. Perhaps you could report back on the state of the graves / share pictures in due course.

Hopefully you can get a plot map to know where abouts in the cemetery they are before you have to commence an extensive search on site.

I certainly will.

 

[Merle Haggard]

An interesting little fact in the official enquiry was that the alloy from which the stays were made contained lead. It's not clear whether this was intentional but, if so, it seems an unusual constituent for an alloy that needs to be very strong under tension.

The life of the L&Y 0-8-0s is really odd. Of the small boiler ones re-boilered with large boilers around 1923 many were withdrawn around 1927 (presumably a result of the coal down-turn) but ones retaining a small boiler lasted - just - into B.R. days, as did a few large-boiler ones. Some withdrawn in 1938 were re-instated in 1941 because of the increase in wartime traffic but I've seen a photo of one taken at Horwich before the War, after its first withdrawal and partly cut up - no cab, and a start on cutting the boiler. Must have been a lot of work to make it work again. Their fortunes really seemed to ebb and flow.

Probably the poor performance of the Fowler 0-8-0s built in quantity by the LMS after 1927 was a factor. Possibly these were thought to be the much better loco. by the Midland faction in charge of the LMS then but they didn't live up to those expectations.

 

[Gloster]

An interesting little fact in the official enquiry was that the alloy from which the stays were made contained lead. It's not clear whether this was intentional but, if so, it seems an unusual constituent for an alloy that needs to be very strong under tension.

The life of the L&Y 0-8-0s is really odd. Of the small boiler ones re-boilered with large boilers around 1923 many were withdrawn around 1927 (presumably a result of the coal down-turn) but ones retaining a small boiler lasted - just - into B.R. days, as did a few large-boiler ones. Some withdrawn in 1938 were re-instated in 1941 because of the increase in wartime traffic but I've seen a photo of one taken at Horwich before the War, after its first withdrawal and partly cut up - no cab, and a start on cutting the boiler. Must have been a lot of work to make it work again. Their fortunes really seemed to ebb and flow.

Probably the poor performance of the Fowler 0-8-0s built in quantity by the LMS after 1927 was a factor. Possibly these were thought to be the much better loco. by the Midland faction in charge of the LMS then but they didn't live up to those expectations.

Hewison’s comments (see #2) make clear that he strongly agrees with Carlton, the boiler inspector who assisted the Inspecting Officer, that the root cause was the use in the firebox stays of an alloy invented by Hoy, the L&Y’s CME, which was less elastic than copper; although they were an Aspinall design, the loco was built during Hoy’s term. Hoy does not come out of it well, seeming to try and evade responsibility, although I don’t think he goes as far as blaming the driver and fireman; it is noticeable that Hoy didn’t last much longer as CME: perhaps (I speculate) he made himself unpopular. Hurry Riches, Locomotive Superintendent of the Taff Vale, gives the impression of someone supporting a friend without anything really useful to say.

 

[Rescars]

Hewison’s comments (see #2) make clear that he strongly agrees with Carlton, the boiler inspector who assisted the Inspecting Officer, that the root cause was the use in the firebox stays of an alloy invented by Hoy, the L&Y’s CME, which was less elastic than copper; although they were an Aspinall design, the loco was built during Hoy’s term. Hoy does not come out of it well, seeming to try and evade responsibility, although I don’t think he goes as far as blaming the driver and fireman; it is noticeable that Hoy didn’t last much longer as CME: perhaps (I speculate) he made himself unpopular. Hurry Riches, Locomotive Superintendent of the Taff Vale, gives the impression of someone supporting a friend without anything really useful to say.

Given this background, I wonder how much of the ebb and flow in these locos fortunes was due to the fact that a Fowler was a metallurgist by training.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Hewison’s comments (see #2) make clear that he strongly agrees with Carlton, the boiler inspector who assisted the Inspecting Officer, that the root cause was the use in the firebox stays of an alloy invented by Hoy, the L&Y’s CME, which was less elastic than copper; although they were an Aspinall design, the loco was built during Hoy’s term. Hoy does not come out of it well, seeming to try and evade responsibility, although I don’t think he goes as far as blaming the driver and fireman; it is noticeable that Hoy didn’t last much longer as CME: perhaps (I speculate) he made himself unpopular. Hurry Riches, Locomotive Superintendent of the Taff Vale, gives the impression of someone supporting a friend without anything really useful to say.

I remember reading the facts about the alloy some time ago, when going through the Railways Archive files. I too got the impression that Hoy was under pressure and squirming. When Hoy was CME he had been offered, and accepted, the position of M.D. of Beyer Peacock. Hughes replaced him. In this situation criticism of his (Hoy's) engineering abilities would be unfortunate, to say the least..

It did seem common at the time that CMEs would patent some odd gadget or invention and then decide to specify it on the locos they designed. Presumably the company they worked for would have to pay them royalties for use and thereby increase their income.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but the patented items were usually removed by the next CME so perhaps not a always worthwhile improvement.

 

[Rescars]

It did seem common at the time that CMEs would patent some odd gadget or invention and then decide to specify it on the locos they designed. Presumably the company they worked for would have to pay them royalties for use and thereby increase their income.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but the patented items were usually removed by the next CME so perhaps not a always worthwhile improvement.

Wasn't this the situation which applied when the LNWR adopted Clarke and Webb's chain brake?

 

[Merle Haggard]

Wasn't this the situation which applied when the LNWR adopted Clarke and Webb's chain brake?

Webb seemed to have had a particularly inventive mind, and another product of it was the Webb & Thompson signalling token instrument. I'm no expert on signalling but I think that these remained in use around the world until comparatively recently.

One recent railway author seemed to have a particular dislike for Webb and not all the allegations made against him (Webb) stand up to critical analysis.

 

[webbfan]

I remember reading the facts about the alloy some time ago, when going through the Railways Archive files. I too got the impression that Hoy was under pressure and squirming. When Hoy was CME he had been offered, and accepted, the position of M.D. of Beyer Peacock. Hughes replaced him. In this situation criticism of his (Hoy's) engineering abilities would be unfortunate, to say the least..

It did seem common at the time that CMEs would patent some odd gadget or invention and then decide to specify it on the locos they designed. Presumably the company they worked for would have to pay them royalties for use and thereby increase their income.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but the patented items were usually removed by the next CME so perhaps not a always worthwhile improvement.

Nope, in the LNWR they never paid royalties to the CME for use of patent - that was the condition under which they were allowed to patent items.

Chain brake was already in use when webb became CME and he just improved it. It was removed whilst Webb was still CME at Moons request after all the bad press that it wasn't automatic.

 

[Pigeon]

An interesting little fact in the official enquiry was that the alloy from which the stays were made contained lead. It's not clear whether this was intentional but, if so, it seems an unusual constituent for an alloy that needs to be very strong under tension.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Knottingley1901.pdf

Hoy keeps calling the alloy "bronze", which makes it sound posher than it is. Carlton's report makes it clear that it is actually brass. His analysis is bang on and the behaviour of the stays is basically just what you'd expect for the material, the operating conditions, and the maintenance procedures.

The composition is much the same as other grades of brass with good corrosion resistance and high tensile strength. So far so hoopy. But as Carlton points out they lose strength at the kind of temperatures they would reach in that service, and they don't like cold working (repeatedly re-riveting the ends) or the cyclic lateral thermal expansion stresses and flexing they were getting. He is also correct about the inadequate water space around the sides of the firebox (whereas Hurry Riches is just blathering).

(An infrequently-noted "advantage" of the steam locomotive is that you could engineer it really badly and still get it to function...)

The lead may have been a deliberate addition to make it easier to cut the threads on the stays, but Carlton reckons it is simply an impurity that came along with the zinc.

Wasn't this the situation which applied when the LNWR adopted Clarke and Webb's chain brake?

And his rotten compounds.

 

[Rescars]

And his rotten compounds.

Though I understand the Stephenson Locomotive Society's "Orion" still works quite nicely.

 

[Bevan Price]

Though I understand the Stephenson Locomotive Society's "Orion" still works quite nicely.

Webb had mixed fortunes. His 0-8-0s lasted well into the BR era, although most received larger boilers. Some of his 0-6-0 locos and tank locos also had long lives. His weak point was probably his persistence with smallish compound locos for express passenger work.

Hoy produced only one original loco design for L&YR - the flawed 2-6-2Ts. They were said to perform competently when new, but had a tendency to try to straighten curved track. Also, their water tanks soon started to leak like sieves. They were largely relegated to shunting duties and had fairly short lives (mostly just over 20 years)

 

[webbfan]

Webb had mixed fortunes. His 0-8-0s lasted well into the BR era, although most received larger boilers. Some of his 0-6-0 locos and tank locos also had long lives. His weak point was probably his persistence with smallish compound locos for express passenger work.

Hoy produced only one original loco design for L&YR - the flawed 2-6-2Ts. They were said to perform competently when new, but had a tendency to try to straighten curved track. Also, their water tanks soon started to leak like sieves. They were largely relegated to shunting duties and had fairly short lives (mostly just over 20 years)

Webb's compounds were very good engines - especially the teutonics - but the driver had to know how to drive them. Towards the end of their days they were doing very well as most drivers had become used to them. it could be said that Webb should have arranged to get them some education but things were not done that way in those days. His policy in starting with smallish compound engines was due to the need to get increased power without a significant increase in weight - track at that time couldn't cope with it. The later express passenger locos such as Greater Brittain class were not small, they had the same boiler as the 0-8-0's but without the (useless) middle combustion section.