SECR C1 Class

[LNWR18901910]

If that wasn't enough, then the SECR C1 Class 2-6-0 is another considered project of mine.

 

During construction of the C Class, there was talk about a mixed-traffic locomotive for the SE&CR routes. In 1905, the result was a C Class with a pony truck placed at the front and extension of the running-board. This locomotive became the C1 Class 2-6-0 locomotive and a handful of 115 were built between 1905 to 1908. The locomotive proved quite useful even when compared to its sister class in which plans were inspired from.

 

During the First World War, one locomotive was used to haul ambulance trains and even survived a raid. All 115 locomotives were then inherited into the newly-formed Southern Railway in 1923 and a number of them saw service along the SR routes. The class continued into BR nationalisation and became workhorses on commuter trains and express goods. Withdrawals took place between 1960 to 1965.

 

One locomotive, No. 287, has survived into preservation and survives on the Kent & East Sussex Railway.

 

What do you think? I might get another Bachmann C Class and make that into reality someday. The model would have its front buffer beam cut off and the running board would be extended. A pony truck would be added on at the front of the chassis and fitted into place.

Edited November 26, 2017 by LNWR18901910

[Compound2632]

What work would such an engine do that was not already being adequately handled by the various 0-6-0 and 4-4-0 classes? The move to a leading pair of carrying wheels (whether radial or in a pony truck) was motivated by increased front-end weight - larger cylinders with piston valves, superheater - the LNWR Class E and F 2-8-0s are good examples, where the leading wheels were added to the 0-8-0 Class B engines to carry the weight of the four-cylinder front end. I don't see where this requirement to carry extra weight is coming from in your suggestion based on the SECR Class C.

 

A secondary consideration was ride at higher speed, the leading pair of wheels helping to guide the engine smoothly into curves. In the context of the first decade of the 20th century, 4-4-0s were being used on express goods trains on many lines, solving this issue.

 

When the SECR did need more powerful general purpose (mixed traffic) engines that could operate within the restrictions imposed by its infrastructure, the result was the outside-cylinder, superheated N Class. Much of the design of this class was due to James Clayton, the SER and then SECR's chief draughtsman since 1898 - he had come to Ashford from Derby, bringing with him the best and most innovative aspects of design from the Johnson era there. It's well-known that Harry Wainwright wasn't himself a locomotive engineer, which probably accounts for the conservatism evident in the designs produced under his name - essentially 19th century engines - although Clayton did get Belpaire boilers on the E and L Class 4-4-0s, once some work had been done to enable the SECR's permanent way to take heavier engines. It needed the arrival of the Irish flair of Richard Maunsell to liberate Clayton to produce more innovative designs.

 

If Clayton had been asked to produce a 2-6-0 design around 1907-8, I imagine he would have used the Belpaire boiler of the E Class. The result might have looked something like the Rev. Awdry's James - an engine which does have many Midland features. Hornby's attempt at James commits exactly the mistake of simply sticking a leading pony truck on an existing 0-6-0 - in this case, the old Triang 3F. Mind you, that's just what Rev. Awdry did himself!

[LNWR18901910]

What work would such an engine do that was not already being adequately handled by the various 0-6-0 and 4-4-0 classes? The move to a leading pair of carrying wheels (whether radial or in a pony truck) was motivated by increased front-end weight - larger cylinders with piston valves, superheater - the LNWR Class E and F 2-8-0s are good examples, where the leading wheels were added to the 0-8-0 Class B engines to carry the weight of the four-cylinder front end. I don't see where this requirement to carry extra weight is coming from in your suggestion based on the SECR Class C.

 

A secondary consideration was ride at higher speed, the leading pair of wheels helping to guide the engine smoothly into curves. In the context of the first decade of the 20th century, 4-4-0s were being used on express goods trains on many lines, solving this issue.

 

When the SECR did need more powerful general purpose (mixed traffic) engines that could operate within the restrictions imposed by its infrastructure, the result was the outside-cylinder, superheated N Class. Much of the design of this class was due to James Clayton, the SER and then SECR's chief draughtsman since 1898 - he had come to Ashford from Derby, bringing with him the best and most innovative aspects of design from the Johnson era there. It's well-known that Harry Wainwright wasn't himself a locomotive engineer, which probably accounts for the conservatism evident in the designs produced under his name - essentially 19th century engines - although Clayton did get Belpaire boilers on the E and L Class 4-4-0s, once some work had been done to enable the SECR's permanent way to take heavier engines. It needed the arrival of the Irish flair of Richard Maunsell to liberate Clayton to produce more innovative designs.

 

If Clayton had been asked to produce a 2-6-0 design around 1907-8, I imagine he would have used the Belpaire boiler of the E Class. The result might have looked something like the Rev. Awdry's James - an engine which does have many Midland features. Hornby's attempt at James commits exactly the mistake of simply sticking a leading pony truck on an existing 0-6-0 - in this case, the old Triang 3F. Mind you, that's just what Rev. Awdry did himself!

I agree with you, Sir. Of course, this locomotive is totally fictional and an interpretation of what if the SECR experimented with a Mogul locomotive for mixed-traffic work. So far, I have been developing and drawing some pictures of how the locomotive would turn out and more on this is being planned and develop. Besides, it would go nicely with those Birdcage coaches, too.

[Nile]

I tried a quick mock up to see what this might look like.

The extra wheels and length might be justified if it was fitted with a longer boiler. Extending the boiler of the Bachmann model could be a challenge not for the feint hearted.

BTW your original idea is the same as how Hornby turned the Triang 3F into James.

[LNWR18901910]

I tried a quick mock up to see what this might look like.

C1_1.JPG

The extra wheels and length might be justified if it was fitted with a longer boiler. Extending the boiler of the Bachmann model could be a challenge not for the feint hearted.

BTW your original idea is the same as how Hornby turned the Triang 3F into James.

Thanks very much, Niles. Extending the boiler is a pretty big job, but then you've got compromises and that's what I would go by. Still, much to learn and thanks for the render. It's a whole lot better than what I would've come up with. Now, which chimney should I use - the one seen on the preserved C and O Classes or the later one?

Edited November 25, 2017 by LNWR18901910

[howardb]

Southern Way ran one or two articles on unbuilt engines. One I particularly recall is a Q1 based Pacific, which if it was anything like the original would pull anything, but would have problems stopping. The other was about early diesel designs.

[relaxinghobby]

Perhaps the leading wheels could be justified if you enlarged the driving wheels for greater speed. Perhaps a larger boiler or enlarged smoke box

for a superheater, a new technology coming in at that time.

Real world examples of such an enlarged 0-6-0 loco could be found on the Caledonian Railway, Glasgow and South Western Railway and the survivor of this type of inside cylinder 2-6-0 in Ireland.

 

http://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/storloco4.html

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/keyword/gswr;nbl/

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/IRISH-RAILWAYS/GREAT-SOUTHERN/i-4gmmTNM

 

They all seem to have fatter boilers.

[Compound2632]

Perhaps the leading wheels could be justified if you enlarged the driving wheels for greater speed. Perhaps a larger boiler or enlarged smoke box

for a superheater, a new technology coming in at that time.

Real world examples of such an enlarged 0-6-0 loco could be found on the Caledonian Railway, Glasgow and South Western Railway and the survivor of this type of inside cylinder 2-6-0 in Ireland.

 

http://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/storloco4.html

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/keyword/gswr;nbl/

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/IRISH-RAILWAYS/GREAT-SOUTHERN/i-4gmmTNM

 

They all seem to have fatter boilers.

 

These three are all in the category of "I've designed a 0-6-0 with a front end so heavy it needs extra support to spread the weight" - perhaps considering what effect such weight on the leading axle of a 0-6-0 would have on the track on entering a curve.

[chris45lsw]

These three are all in the category of "I've designed a 0-6-0 with a front end so heavy it needs extra support to spread the weight" - perhaps considering what effect such weight on the leading axle of a 0-6-0 would have on the track on entering a curve.

 

Perhaps the leading wheels could be justified if you enlarged the driving wheels for greater speed. Perhaps a larger boiler or enlarged smoke box

for a superheater, a new technology coming in at that time.

Real world examples of such an enlarged 0-6-0 loco could be found on the Caledonian Railway, Glasgow and South Western Railway and the survivor of this type of inside cylinder 2-6-0 in Ireland.

 

http://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/storloco4.html

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/keyword/gswr;nbl/

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/IRISH-RAILWAYS/GREAT-SOUTHERN/i-4gmmTNM

 

They all seem to have fatter boilers.

The Irish survivor (461) is actually from the Dublin & South Eastern Railway.

 

Chris KT

[LNWR18901910]

Perhaps the leading wheels could be justified if you enlarged the driving wheels for greater speed. Perhaps a larger boiler or enlarged smoke box

for a superheater, a new technology coming in at that time.

Real world examples of such an enlarged 0-6-0 loco could be found on the Caledonian Railway, Glasgow and South Western Railway and the survivor of this type of inside cylinder 2-6-0 in Ireland.

 

http://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/storloco4.html

 

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/keyword/gswr;nbl/

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/IRISH-RAILWAYS/GREAT-SOUTHERN/i-4gmmTNM

 

They all seem to have fatter boilers.

Yes, that would require some serious converting. It depends what is avaliable and what you can find. Plus, it would mean extra work.

[relaxinghobby]

 

Further development of the C to the C1

 

The Midland Railway built a couple of their standard 0-6-0s into 6 footers ( wheels ) to use on fast goods, they did not last long and were rebuilt with the standard 5 ft 3 in wheels.

Perhaps if the C1 had 6 ft drivers it would need a pair of small leading wheels to guide it into fast corners, this would look a bit tall and skinny with the original small C class boiler, perhaps they would be nick named grass hoppers?

 

Alternatively convert the C in to a small wheeled 4-4-0 a popular format for mixed traffic locos, for example the LSWR's L11s by Drummond.

 

Or make it into a type of mixed traffic loco popular in the 19^th century but disappearing by the beginning of the 20^th ,the 0-4-2. All sorts of the old railways used them the GNR, GSWR, LBSCR, L&YR etc., a version based on the C would be a similar size to the ones by Adams on the LSWR.

[Corbs]

If you don't want to hack in to a Bachmann model, you could use a Hornby Jinty chassis under a GBL C class?

[LNWR18901910]

 

Further development of the C to the C1

 

The Midland Railway built a couple of their standard 0-6-0s into 6 footers ( wheels ) to use on fast goods, they did not last long and were rebuilt with the standard 5 ft 3 in wheels.

Perhaps if the C1 had 6 ft drivers it would need a pair of small leading wheels to guide it into fast corners, this would look a bit tall and skinny with the original small C class boiler, perhaps they would be nick named grass hoppers?

 

Alternatively convert the C in to a small wheeled 4-4-0 a popular format for mixed traffic locos, for example the LSWR's L11s by Drummond.

 

Or make it into a type of mixed traffic loco popular in the 19^th century but disappearing by the beginning of the 20^th ,the 0-4-2. All sorts of the old railways used them the GNR, GSWR, LBSCR, L&YR etc., a version based on the C would be a similar size to the ones by Adams on the LSWR.

 

Grasshoppers? That's a good nickname for it. In fact, I like it. In fact, I'll stick with that.

If you don't want to hack in to a Bachmann model, you could use a Hornby Jinty chassis under a GBL C class?

Thanks for the idea, but I'll stick with what I originally had in mind as the GBL locomotives are hard to find and you don't come across them easily.

[Corbs]

oh wow, I had not realised that had become so expensive! Cheaper to buy the Bachmann one.

[Compound2632]

 

Further development of the C to the C1

 

The Midland Railway built a couple of their standard 0-6-0s into 6 footers ( wheels ) to use on fast goods, they did not last long and were rebuilt with the standard 5 ft 3 in wheels.

Perhaps if the C1 had 6 ft drivers it would need a pair of small leading wheels to guide it into fast corners, this would look a bit tall and skinny with the original small C class boiler, perhaps they would be nick named grass hoppers?

 

Alternatively convert the C in to a small wheeled 4-4-0 a popular format for mixed traffic locos, for example the LSWR's L11s by Drummond.

 

Or make it into a type of mixed traffic loco popular in the 19^th century but disappearing by the beginning of the 20^th ,the 0-4-2. All sorts of the old railways used them the GNR, GSWR, LBSCR, L&YR etc., a version based on the C would be a similar size to the ones by Adams on the LSWR.

 

 

For some 0-4-2 inspiration, see Stirling's 221 Class for the G&SWR as rebuilt by Manson. Roughly contemporary with the SE&CR C Class and having the same Stirling parentage! What one does notice about 0-4-2s is that they are generally more high-stepping than goods engines - 5'7" for the 221 vs. 5'2" for the C.

 

If you must add a pair of carrying wheels, why not put them aft and make a 0-6-2T - just the thing for transfer freight traffic in the London area, I'd have thought - an advance on the various SER and LCDR 0-6-0Ts. This would be something of a goods version of the 0-4-4T H Class, so cab/bunker design could be based on that.

[Guy Rixon]

Did you see Charles Phillips' list of proposed designs for locomotives of the Southern companies? There are some there that I'd never heard of. Notably, there is no 2-6-0, although Mr. Wainwright seems to have laid plans for almost every other wheel arrangement. I think a Wainwright atlantic would have been a rather fine thing.

[Compound2632]

Did you see Charles Phillips' list of proposed designs for locomotives of the Southern companies? There are some there that I'd never heard of. Notably, there is no 2-6-0, although Mr. Wainwright seems to have laid plans for almost every other wheel arrangement. I think a Wainwright atlantic would have been a rather fine thing.

 

Ah well, there you go - Bradley: "The 0-6-2 Tank locomotives intended to be a tank version of the 'C' Class, was designed in 1906 but although running numbers were raised no order was placed. In 1910 the design was again looked at but the 'J' Class was built instead."

[Nile]

The GBL C class can still be found on ebay for around a tenner. Ignore the silly priced ones.