Jump to content
Following a software upgrade the Classifieds section is out of action. I'm working to resolve this. ×
 
  • entries
    63
  • comments
    344
  • views
    9,907

ex P&M Brush built 0-4-0s 795 and 921


JimC

2,462 views

Powlesland and Mason were not really a railway as such. They provided cartage and locomotive haulage on the trackwork of the Swansea Harbour Trust, which also owned its own locomotives. At the grouping they had nine 0-4-0ST from five different manufacturers. These two, built in 1903 and 1906, were among the last steam locomotives built by the Brush Electrical Engineering Co. This is the same Brush company, give or take a few mergers and acquisitions, that was and is a significant builder of diesel electric locomotives. They had taken over the the Falcon Engine & Car Works Ltd in 1889, which had built steam locomotives for P&M amongst others.

Powlesland & Mason locomotives came to the GWR in January 1924, late in the grouping, and were given a rather random collection of numbers – and number plates – reused from locomotives absorbed earlier that had already been withdrawn. 795 was given a considerable rebuild in 1926. This included a new boiler to a different design, and, uniquely for an 0-4-0T, pannier tanks. These were short tanks and didn't cover the firebox. 921 didn't receive such dramatic changes but did receive a GWR combined dome/safety valve cover. Both were sold on to industry in 1928/9. 795 was scrapped in the early 1960s, but 921 survives and is preserved, although has not run in preservation.

 

 

 

040-795.jpg.a4a2edeb768626e49081b75deb871405.jpg

 

040-941.jpg.4c548cfb2ed47f4f49c2917c709c0f93.jpg

 

An earlier version of this page included the following request for assistance, which explains the earlier part of the discussion.

 

These - well, perhaps just 795 in its extra cute pannier tank form - are going to be my next sketch. What I could do with, though, is a really square side on photograph to get the rods and cylinders right. I have a GW weight diagram, but it has no detail. All the photos I've found on line of 921 are at something of an angle. This one isn't bad, but squarer would be better. Any offers? 

 

Edited by JimC
corrected number

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

12 Comments


Recommended Comments

Larger version:

 

The valence shape at the front looks different to that of the drawing. The springs are more substantial. The toolbox sandbox is in a different position (to clear the injector).

795.jpg.c8cef5e306bf31803baebc251430060b.jpg

Edited by Miss Prism
  • Like 1
Link to comment

One thing about that one which is interesting, but fortunately not my problem is that the balance weights in that photo are completely different to the one I linked to, clearly they - and I presume the wheels - had been changed.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment

I reckon there's at least two more differences between drawing and GW era photo.
And what about the sanding arrangements? It looks to me as if there's just a single smallish sandbox located between the wheels, instead of two large conventional ones on 942. Don't recall seeing anything like that elsewhere. 

And aren't those buffers unusual, so very short.

Link to comment

I did mean sandbox (rather than toolbox) in my earlier post, which I have now corrected.

 

Yes, the buffers are unique.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Here's a first draft which I'll take a good look at later. Feel free to comment.  I was struck, when I was copying standard parts from other drawings and the like, by just how small this locomotive is, so I thought that for now it would be fun to have an outline of a 57xx behind to give an idea of the  relative size.
 

 

795pt.jpg

Edited by JimC
  • Like 4
Link to comment

Well, I've produced the sketches, and altered the first page to include the usual description. I thought it might be more interesting to include the discussion rather than start a new page. 
The other feature of 795 that differs in photos and weight diagram is the forward of the cab hand rails and, I think, the radius of the cab cutout just above it.

 

Rather randomly, because I came across it while preparing the drawing, I was interested to see a 1924 photo in RCTS (K452) of another ex P&M locomotive, 928, in which as well as the GWR cabside plate the saddle tank is still labelled P & M No 14 with what appears to be a cast plate. 

Edited by JimC
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...