That's coming along nicely Dave. They are ugly brutes!! Looking forward to seeing it finished.

Thanks both for the kind comments.

I think I side more with Killybegs regarding their aesthetics. Compared with normal Black 5's, the inside Caprotti engines were rather ungainly but with lots of interesting features.

I haven't got the number plate yet, but the loco is intended to be 44741, which was a Longsight engine and so possibly seen at "Holt" on excursion traffic. It's intended to be weathered but not too filthy.

Wrong number, but it might look quite appropriate at Barrow Road.......

Dave.

Liking that very much Dave.  I hope it is heavy and has a big motor. I went round to Robin's last night and we were discussing requirements for loco hauling power. 11 coaches pretty typical up Fishponds bank.

Cheers....Morgan 

Southport often ended up with oddities as we also had 44686/44687 and the Stephenson loco 44767. All in the same miserable condition I'm afraid.

I recall reading an article by a retired engineman where he stated that the Stephenson loco was unofficially rated by crews as equal to a class 6. Anyone know what the engine men thought of the Caprotti class 5s?

Nice work. Ugly? Yes. Impressive looking? Yes.

Generally, I believe skins and rice puddings sums it up! I think this came about because the sharper bark at the chimney cause many driver to shorten the cut-off too much. Many old hands drove by the sound rather than reading the cut-off scale on the reverser and it was made worse by an error in the engraved marks that resulted in an even shorter cut-off than indicated (later corrected, but the reputation for weakness stuck). They were considered to be very fleet-of-foot on the level and would coast for miles.

The outside gear locos and BR Standards were far superior, the latter matching A4's turn for turn on Glasgow to Aberdeen trains in the mid '60's.