Talk:LSWR P14 class

Re-write needed

This article is very confusing. For example: "The continuing need to grasp the nettle in terms of Drummond's first two 4-6-0 classes". What nettle? "He also returned to a two-cylinder layout with what was to become the P14 Class". But the P14 was a 4-cylinder engine. Biscuittin (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've checked: and all of Drummond's 4-6-0s were 4-cylinder. The earlier types (F13, E14, G14, P14) had the inside cylinders in the normal place below the smokebox, but the outside cyls were only just in front of the leading coupled axle. This meant that the outside cyls had rather long steam passages, causing sluggishness; the use of dissimilar valve gear (Stephenson inside, Walschaerts outside) would not have helped perfomance. Apart from the driving wheel diameter (which was a comparatively trivial change), the main difference with the T14 was that on the latter, the four cylinders were placed in a straight line below the smokebox, allowing for short steam passages. After the 4-6-0s, Drummond went back to the 4-4-0 - with the 2-cyl D15 class which were miles better than any of his 4-6-0s.

It's a curious fact that Victorian/Edwardian loco engineers who could turn out any number of decent 4-4-0s (as Drummond did) had difficulty when it came to the 4-6-0. You see the same thing with Dean (GWR), McIntosh (Caledonian), Robinson (GCR) and Whale (LNWR). Those who never bothered with a 4-4-0 (or whose 4-4-0s were merely copies of earlier types) could often produce a useful 4-6-0 (Churchward, Collett, Maunsell, Stanier, Urie). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)