 |
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Brief History of I.M.L.E.C.
“We have passed through the Greenly era of pseudo-scientific design so successfully demolished by the empirical methods of LBSC. Now we have to understand why LBSC’s methods give such results and to exploit them further if possible.” Jim Ewins. 7th July 1967.[2] The Meaning of Efficiency and the early Model Engineer. Efficiency; “the ratio of useful work performed to the total energy expended” [1] has probably been a goal of mankind from the very beginnings; pulling a plough with one oxen instead of two was well down the development line. The need to keep costs under control, as the industrial revolution gathered pace, would have kept the search for efficiency to the forefront of the engineering mind, and the reduction in the amount of fuel burned for the output obtained must always have been important. Railways were certainly most concerned with their locomotive performances and the Model Engineer magazine in 1903, was linking railways and efficiency, with an article on the Manhattan Elevated Electric Railway.[3] A small note at the bottom of a page in 1905 mentions that the comparative efficiency of two model steam engines can be arrived at by “measuring the amount of fuel and water consumed for the power generated in a given time”,[4] although this does refer to stationary engines and not railway locomotives. A querist G.T.P., in 1907, was bemoaning the difficulties of getting a ½ in. scale model locomotive to maintain 40 psi; significantly the title of the query is “model locomotive efficiency”, a phrase to be much used in subsequent years.[5] It would seem that a model locomotive that could achieve a circuit of a scenic railway was regarded as “efficient”, whereas one that could not, wasn’t. Charles Lake, a prolific writer in the early ‘Model Engineer’, discussed the reasons for the apparent efficiency of the North London Railway 4‑4‑0’s in 1909, an association between “railway steam locomotive” and “efficiency”.[6] In 1922, Henry Greenly wrote a letter to the Model Engineer, advocating solid fuel rather than liquid for firing model locomotives, and suggested a formula for calculating a value by which model locomotives could be compared.[7] Nothing to do with efficiency, just comparison. Mr. T.Watson, in the July 10th issue of 1924, suggested his own formula, requesting particularly LBSC’s opinion, and Lieut.-Col. D.M.Stewart wrote from India offering yet another.[8] The 1930s saw much discussion among well known figures such as C.M.Keiller, T.G.Marchant and H.Greenly on the subject of locomotive efficiency, with various means being advocated for achieving it. In 1936 G.S.Willoughby proposed that a proper test stand for testing model locomotive performance, and thus determining efficiency, should be built by the Society of Model and Experimental Engineers, who would supervise the work of a few selected experts. A small fee could be charged for the use of these testing facilities, because a locomotive’s value would be enhanced if a good certificate was obtained. It was felt that static testing would yield more accurate results than track testing. [9] Some correspondence resulted from this proposal,[10] with a number of different ideas of a technical nature being propounded. Significant among these was Mr. R.H.Wilks who put his finger very firmly on the button by stating that efficiency is accepted as what it is if we get what we want at a reasonable cost; he was also way ahead of his time when he said efficiency would become increasingly important as world fuel supplies ran short, and future generations would look back in horror at the folly of our time.[11] In 1939 Henry Greenly reported Victor B.Harrison’s experiments in testing Gauge ”1” locomotives, finding efficiencies of around 20% of full size engines, that is about 2%, a figure typical of those to be achieved at future IMLEC competitions.[12] In 1943 LBSC spoke about efficiency but only in relation to building a true to scale 3½ in. gauge Isle of Man locomotive, to work on tight curves in a restricted garden space.[13] The Stephenson Memorial Miniature Locomotive Association held its first meeting on September 4th 1948 at Roker Park in Sunderland.[14] As there had been insufficient time to arrange all the details for a proper competition, a rally was held under competition conditions; a comparative formula was devised and eight locomotives took part. It was agreed that the comparison was of locomotive and driver, some sympathy being extended to a competitor who only had one hour’s previous driving experience; the one 5 in. gauge locomotive taking part could not be fully loaded. More committee work would be done to determine if the formula used could be altered to place every competing locomotive on an equal basis, and thus determine the champion locomotive of the North East. As with the static testing proposal, there were a number of responses to this competition in subsequent postbags,[15] culminating in W.H.Nightingale’s suggestion in April 1950 that any comparative formula should include the drawbar pull and the calorific value of the fuel used.[16] This correspondence in turn provoked G.W.Wildy into reporting the stationary tests carried out by the Society of Model and Experimental Engineers in 1948. Only two locomotives were tested, the results possibly being affected by the wheels slipping on the rollers. The indications from these tests were that miniature locomotives could achieve one third of the thermal efficiencies of their prototypes, with miniature boiler efficiencies approaching full size.[17] Under the heading “Improvements and Innovations” (No. 14 – “What Price Efficiency?”), March 22nd 1951, “1121” humorously sums up the then current attitudes to locomotive testing, suggesting that what really should happen is that each competitor be given half-a-pound of coal and a gallon of water and be told to “see what you can do with that”.[18] The cover picture of Model Engineer Issue 2951 for the 12th December 1957 is of two members preparing their locomotives for the Harrow and Wembley efficiency trials, surrounded by interested onlookers; the report appears on page 807.[19] The first of these trials, the “Arthur Pole Trials” had been held in 1954and it can be presumed from the report that live loads were carried.[20] In 1956 the event was won by an Aveling Porter locomotive built by A.Tyler and fitted with a Franco Crosti boiler, and in 1957 by another well known model engineering name, Fred Cottam. At least on this occasion the weight of coal used was measured to the nearest half ounce, a dead load was used and the competition was again comparative, no calculations of efficiency being made. As the secretary of the time remarked, “ the trials do not seek to establish any particular achievement, but a good time is had by all”.[21]
(12 December 1957. V117 p788) In 1959 a meeting was called at the Model Engineer offices to discuss the subject of Steam Locomotive Efficiency Trials. LBSC was consulted, a formula agreed upon and recommended for general acceptance at average track meetings.[22] (Even this formula didn’t allow for the calorific value of the fuel). A small note on the same page indicated that the Model Engineer was considering the sponsorship of a national efficiency competition for passenger hauling steam locomotives of 3½” and 5” gauges. It was expected that clubs would hold trials early in the season and submit their two most efficient locos as entries. In typical LBSC fashion, he claimed that although he had been consulted, his views had been ignored; the ME Editor replied by saying that his response had been negative. LBSC was clearly against efficiency trials, concocting the “Bob and Bert” story of two friends who took part in a club trial and then fell out. But he was right in one respect, such tests would be of locomotive and driver; “Aim for efficiency by all means but do it for your pleasure and don’t parade it at the other fellow’s expense. I should like to see all so-called “efficiency trials” abolished, and the time spent in giving joy-rides to children”.[23] Several clubs indicated their wish to adopt the proposed efficiency formula and others expressed interest in a national competition. The ME was prepared to sponsor a contest with support from clubs, the proposal being for eliminating contests to be held on club tracks, with the winners to go forward to regional or national finals probably held in September. A handsome trophy and a cash prize of £25 was offered to the winning club.[24] Strangely, after all these meetings and discussions, another ten years were to pass before anything actually happened. On March 7th 1969, Martin Evans, the then Editor, announced that a locomotive efficiency competition to be known as The Model Engineer International Model Locomotive Efficiency Competition was to be held, the first one on the Illshaw Heath track of the Birmingham SME that coming July. A fine silver cup together with second and third prizes were to be donated by the Model Engineer, and it was hoped that most of the major model engineering societies would enter. Some individual entries would also be welcome. A further announcement on 21st March confirmed that twenty locomotives of 3½” and 5” gauges would compete for the Martin Evans’ Locomotive Challenge Cup and £25, a second prize of £10 and a third prize of two years’ subscription to M.E.[25] The Editorial run-up to the competition was intense, with a further ten announcements. Entries were invited from sixteen recognised model engineering societies, three from individuals, the twentieth place eventually being revealed as reserved for the home club.[26] The Model Engineer Volume 135 Issue 3376 was published as a “Special Issue”, and started with editorial comment on the unfortunate derailment which had occurred. Competition entries had been received from Sutton Coldfield, Glasgow, Bradford, Chesterfield, Wolverhampton, Bristol, Brighouse, Cheltenham, Chichester, Chingford, Malden, Coventry, Colchester and Northampton, and of course the home club. A seventeen page report by D.E. (Laurie) Lawrence was included with many photographs and details of the track and surroundings, and of course, the competitors and their locomotives.[27] Northampton was represented by Eric Hudson and his 0-6-0PT “Speedy”, a driver and locomotive that are still performing well to this day. The Competition was won by John Drury of the host club with his 5 in. gauge “Royal Scot” locomotive, having achieved the lowest figure for the weight of coal used per drawbar horsepower per hour. There are no figures in the results table for the efficiencies achieved by the locomotives and no entrant from outside the United Kingdom, although if present political trends continue the entry from the Glasgow Society could be considered as “International.”
John Drury, winner of the first I.M.L.E.C. (5 September 1969. V135 p865) Controversy followed the event, a number of correspondents to the M.E, prominent among them Group Captain J.N.C.Law, questioning the accuracy of the results. It was pointed out that one boiler had evaporated some two and a half times the theoretically possible volume of water and that three boilers were over 100% efficient; the number of decimal places displayed in the results table was also questioned. The matter was eventually clarified by letters from Brian Hughes, the then Vice-President of the Birmingham society, explaining the quantities of water mentioned in the results table were those supplied, not necessarily evaporated. Others joined the fray, the Editor eventually having to close the correspondence.[28] Thirty Five Years of I.M.L.E.C.But the stage had been set for thirty five years of miniature locomotive running competitions. A pattern emerged of the Model Engineer arranging for a club to host the competition and advertising for entrants, and the competition taking place with subsequent reportage in the magazine. The competition venue changed from east to west, from north to south; the weather varied, the rules were adjusted, the date was usually in July but was flexible; some competitors retired, others derailed their locomotive bogies or their tenders; injectors failed, water pumps mysteriously decided not to work and the coal was not to the liking of some. Passenger coach bogie bearings seized, wheels came loose, and passengers were dropped off as a run proceeded, but never added. The merits and disadvantages of alloy or steel rails were discussed, some attributing differing efficiencies achieved from year to year to this factor. Such a regular and popular event was certain to produce its own highlights; the first single wheeler to win, (W.A.Heyden’s G.W.R. Single Wheeler Dean 4-2-2 at Southampton in 1971), the weighing of passengers (at Tyneside in 1972), the first lady driver and winner, (Pat Killian driving her father’s Bill Longstaffe’s LNER B1 at Chingford in 1973), the special award for best 3½ in. gauge engine, first suggested by the Editor in 1971, to Tom Arnott’s LMS Class 5 4‑6‑0 at Chingford in 1973, the first time efficiencies appeared in the results table (1972 at Tyneside), and the first international entry (Jean Villette’s 5 in. gauge 4-4-0 from France at Chingford in 1973). Unfortunately, Jean experienced a boiler defect on his own engine, so rather than disappoint the first overseas entry, Martin Evans exceptionally agreed to him being loaned an engine for the competition, Phil Hains’ “Experimental No. 5” which he drove to fourth place.[29] In 1975 a 3½ in. gauge locomotive took first place at the Tyneside Society’s track, Laurie Joyce with his G.W.R. “King”. 1976 at Kinver saw a plethora of overseas visitors from Australia, Belgium and America with Jack Love from the Cape Town, South Africa society, the first international entry driving his own 5 in. gauge South African Railways 4-6-0 locomotive (although built by Jimmy Scott in 1965) as opposed to a borrowed one. In 1977 Bill Perrett became the first person to win a second time, having won at Kinver the previous year.[30] 1978 at Guildford saw the appearance of the largest locomotive yet entered, Norman Lockwood’s New York Central R.R. 4-6-4, whilst 1979 at Bristol was the first two day event. 1981 saw Percy Wood win for the third time, in 1983 the first Shay type locomotive was entered, and 1988 at Leeds saw the highest ever recorded efficiency (over 4%) by Lionel Flippance, who reckoned Leeds track was all uphill. The Editor subsequently admitted that the Bristol dynamometer car had been giving high readings, but that the first four places were not in doubt. At Guildford in 1990, Barbara Milton drove David Williams’ Simplex as the Bristol Society’s entry with all female passengers and 1991 saw the first axle weighing. Most regrettably Bev. Fallows collapsed during his run on the Saturday at Leeds in 1992 and subsequently died that evening. The competition was first held at Northampton in 1996, and again following current political trends, IMLEC went international in 1997 being staged by the Llanelli society in Wales.[31]
Alan Crossfield at the start of his winning run at Northampton in 1996. (20 September 1996. V177 p299) In 1998, a “Superlec” was held at Birmingham, as a celebration of the centenary of the Model Engineer and thirty years of the International Model Locomotive Efficiency Competition. Highly placed locomotives in previous competitions were invited to run against each other, not as a re-creation of the first competition, but as a fun day out. Lionel Flippance achieved the highest efficiency with his Britannia locomotive “George Eveniss”.[32]
Jim Elliott starting his winning run at Northampton in 1999. (10 September 1999. V183 p299) The year 2000 saw Jim Woods bring his 5 in. gauge Isle of Man locomotive “Mona” all the way from Otago in New Zealand to achieve sixth place; Jim will be remembered for his cheerful approach to life and the competition and said he was “here to have a good time rather than be a serious competitor.” It was also the year when all locomotives were required to be fitted with spark arrestors.[33] Because of the restrictions imposed by the agricultural foot and mouth epidemic in 2001, the chosen society, Bristol, were unable to stage IMLEC that year, and an offer by the Guildford society to run it in August rather than July was accepted; but only six entries were forthcoming and the Model Engineer Editor announced its cancellation in May. Guildford promptly changed the name to the ‘Open Model Locomotive Efficiency Competition’ and subsequently ran the event with twenty eight entrants! [34] Winners over the ages
Technical Aspects.Of course, the competition encouraged the continuation of the debate in the M.E. on how to improve the efficiencies of miniature steam railway locomotives, started all those years previously. Various options were discussed in Post Bag by personalities such as Jim Ewins, D.E.Lawrence and H.A.Illingworth in the early seventies, leading up to an erudite article by Professor Dennis Chaddock in 1986 in which he attempted to analyse the results of the 17th IMLEC trials with a table of results and two graphs. He concluded that much more information was required, such as track timing, cylinder dimensions, indicator diagrams, wheel diameters and grate areas, and particularly rates of water evaporation before more detailed analysis could be done. Probably with this in mind, the competitors in the 1990 competition were asked to provide their grate areas and/or total boiler heating surfaces.[35] In 1986 D.E.Lawrence also attempted to identify the parameters of design that lead to high efficiency in model locomotives and thus the ideal. He concluded that there were too many variables; varied build and maintenance standards, varying coal quality, varying driver enthusiasm, experience and driving techniques, the curving or otherwise nature of the competition track, alloy or steel rail, the flange profile of the passenger trucks, and of course the coal. The position of a competitor on the scoreboard could well be dependent on his judgement of load not on the efficiency of his locomotive; a poor guesser would find himself lower down the table.[36] In 1989 A.S.Garner, a statistician, wrote an interesting two part article under the heading ‘Incredible I.M.L.E.C.’ in which he attempted to analyse a variety of results from the professional viewpoint. In 1974 R.A.Riddles, ex. Chief Mechanical Engineer to British Rail, on presenting the prizes at that year’s IMLEC at Bristol, had said that a 5 in. gauge eight coupled narrow firebox two cylinder locomotive with a high piston speed was his recommendation for a winning locomotive,[37] and A.S.Garner also concluded that such a locomotive should be driven as fast as possible pulling the highest reasonable load, and forget about the coal. Another article in the form of correspondence between Mr Garner and Jim Ewins, the latter who had carried out much practical experimental work over an extended period, appeared in 1990.[38] Dynamometer cars have inevitably played an important part in the search for and measurement of efficiency, and the Model Engineer was reporting their use in railway terms as early as 1914. A 5 in. gauge Dynamometer Truck won W.G.McCall a Silver Medal at the 1936 "M.E." Exhibition, but it wasn’t until October 1963 that a description of a car designed and built (by S.J.Hobson for the Harrow and Wembley SME) for miniature locomotives appeared. Apparently Charles Babbage, the founding father of the computer, spent one period of his busy life developing a full size dynamometer car.[39]
The Harrow and Wembley Society’s Dynamometer Car. (1 October 1963. V129 p384) In November 1969 Brian G.Hughes in a two part article, described the Birmingham dynamometer car specifically built for the first IMLEC; a car built by the Rugby society and used in their club trials proving useful in determining the range of conditions likely to be met. This latter car was described in the M.E. by J.H.Daltry and H.A.Caldwell in March 1970. Eric Griffiths of the Bristol society produced a dynamometer car which was used for the first IMLEC held at Bristol in 1974, and Don Cordall and the late Walter Bossons wrote a four part series on its refurbishment in 1992. Guildford made one for their event in 1983 (described inM.E. in May), with the Chingford car in reserve.[40] In 1984 A.F.Saunders suggested the competition would be more interesting if a dynamometer car could transmit data to a lineside computer for processing and display, and in January 1990 Andy Fremont began a four part serial on the building of a digital dynamometer car for the Chelmsford society. David Tomkins described the design and construction of the Staines society’s car in a two part series in 2001 under the title ‘Measuring for Efficiency. Design for a Dynamometer Car’. [41] I.M.L.E.C. in the pages of The Model Engineer.As the competition changed and developed so did the style of its reporting in the Model Engineer magazine. D.E. (Laurie) Lawrence (M.E. editor 1980 to 1984) reported the first one at some length with each individual run being recorded in detail, a tradition he continued until 1989. He reported that some engines were given a discreet ‘nudge’ to get them started and some Postbag correspondents took issue with the accuracy of his reports. Laurie countered by describing his days at an IMLEC competition as a series of ‘half-started conversations’, and saying that he had done his best. Later, details were given of hotels and other places to stay and of interest to visit in the vicinity of the competition venue, together with details of on site camping and caravanning facilities if these were available. As the years progressed, model exhibitions and an increasing trade presence became the norm and were reported. Limitations on space in 1987 prevented a run by run description and marketing skills were apparent in 1989 in the form of a free ticket for every fifteen purchased. From 1990 to 1999 IMLEC was ably reported by Ted Jolliffe assisted by other M.E.staff, with gradually improving quality, layout and increasing numbers of colour pictures. The first cover picture of an IMLEC locomotive was on the 5th November 1971 and was of Fred La Roche’s 5 in. gauge L.M.S. 0-6-0 tank locomotive, which he drove to fourth place at Southampton that year. Percy Woods, the winner in 1978 had to wait until 20th September 1979 to see his winning “Maid of Kent” on the front cover, but from 1983 it became usual to see a front cover picture of the winner on the issue containing the report of that year’s competition. In recent years it became the practice to report the previous year’s event as an introduction to the current year’s competition, that is the report of the 2002 event at Leeds did not appear until June 2003, and the 2003 event at Bristol was not reported until June 2004. Happily that state of affairs has now been corrected, an excellent report of the 2004 event at Kinver appearing in M.E. 4228, 20 August – 2 September, with a happy Glyn Winsall on the front cover. A Social Gathering.Many of the reports of efficiency trials in the Model Engineer, whether at club or “international” level mention the social and “having fun” aspects of the competition. From the Harrow and Wembley Society secretary’s comment in 1957, “the trials do not seek to establish any particular achievement, but a good time is had by all”,[21] via Ted Martin’s suggestion in 1970 after the second IMLEC at the Witney and West Oxford Society’s track that “the real reason for IMLEC is a gathering of like minds” [42], to New Zealander Jim Wood’s remark in 2000 “I’m here to have a good time rather than be a serious competitor”,[33] everyone taking part or involved in the organisation seems to have enjoyed themselves. Summary.The early model engineer seemed to equate efficiency with actually meaning getting a locomotive to work, and this developed into devising means of comparison. Only later did people start to think of including the calorific value of the fuel used and thus to arrive at reasonably accurate figures for work in, work out; static testing was supplemented by track testing hauling dead loads which developed into track testing hauling live loads. In view of the remarks earlier in this article, it is interesting to read in the second instalment of Martin Evans’ reminiscences (2003) of the reason for the delayed start of IMLEC, the then editor Leslie Howard, feeling it necessary to put Martin’s proposal for a competition to LBSC. It is tempting to speculate whether the latter’s opposition to the idea was professional jealousy, or a fear that his designs would not be competitive.[43] So has it all been worthwhile? At least for the organising club it is a reason to tidy up the track site and get all those deferred jobs done and out of the way, and for each and every competitor the opportunity for half an hour of total track occupation. A reason for the success of IMLEC is that it is a gathering of like minds, the opportunity to meet friends, enjoy the company, and have a day out. IMLEC is a measure of the driver and the way he handles his locomotive; he gets the cup at the end of the day, not the locomotive! For Martin Evans, the ‘Father of IMLEC’, there was no doubt; it had achieved his original ambition, the spreading of the gospel of miniature locomotive construction. References.Unless otherwise stated all the following are references to the Model Engineer Magazine (volume-page)
C.Orchard July 2004 © |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
