Jump to content

LMS2968

Members
  • Content Count

    1,617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,281 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wigan
  • Interests
    Archivist to Stanier Mogul Fund and Stanier 8F Locomotive Society.
    Was a guard with BR and a fireman on the SVR, both in the 1970s. Currently, and once again, a volunteer at Bridgnorth MPD, another follow on from the 1970s!

Recent Profile Visitors

327 profile views
  1. As an aside, F.W. Webb took out patents on his radial axles and trucks, although it must be said that he was very adept at taking other people's ideas and modifying them just sufficiently to avoid their patents, and then patenting his version. On the other hand, he was a brilliant engineer and inventor. One of his premium apprentices was (later Sir) John A.F. Aspinall. When the latter took up the role of CME at the L&YR, he produced a 2-4-2T using Webb's radial axles, and the L&YR built several hundred of these over different permutations. Later, Webb found out about this and reminded his old friend of the still extant patent and he could he have his money, please?
  2. You're in there deeper than I want to go! But good luck with your researches, and I trust you'll share the results with us.
  3. Frank Webb always used either a radial axle (two wheels) or a radial truck (four wheels. What you see under LNWR engines are neither pony trucks or bogies.
  4. 'Claughton & Patriot 4-6-0s' by G. Toms and R.J. Essery (2006) Wild Swan Publications Ltd, Didcot ISBN 1 905184 19 0
  5. It varied with the system. Some would have different thicknesses of packing pieces to alter the force on the spring; some would use a screw and nut arrangement, provided the nut would move after some time in service. below is a coupled axle spring being adjusted 0on 2968 during the restoration from Barry condition, 1974 - 1990.
  6. Yes, but the damage was distributed throughout the entire ten coach length of the train, not just the last coach, with underframe damage to the first, second, eighth and tenth vehicles. The light engine was only 161 tons, although its speed was higher. Structural damage to the entire train occurred even then.
  7. Perhaps you should have a read of this. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Etterby1952.pdf
  8. Yes, they were, but there was direct access into the sidings from the Up, so ne need to work wrong road along the Down. Just seems strange that this is what's happening here.
  9. Sorry, Apollo, But no. Professional railwaymen, including me although from near fifty years ago, have no issues with permissive working; it does the job. It would be very difficult to operate some environments without it. It does require vigilance by the drivers of following trains, that's all. That was a general comment and not to be taken as applying to the collision under discussion.
  10. The underframes are Bowen Cook, ex-LNWR, if that means anything. The tanks aren't.
  11. Part of the fallacy is that the CME's job was to design new engines. Mostly, as JimC says, his was an administrative role which, depending on the railway involved, would also encompass rolling stock and outdoor machinery: turntables, coaling plant, water columns, and so on. He might even have a hand in signals and telegraph, as did F.W. Webb. But whatever his range of subjects, the most fundamental part was maintenance of the existing stock, far more than new provision. He had men to overhaul the locos when they came in for repair, and other men to do the design work. But the CME laid down the standards of repair and the desired design criteria.
  12. We can agree on that at least, especially given the thread's title! You're right in that Midland locos were comparable in size with others up to about the turn of the century, but not after. While the LNWR built eight-coupled goods engines and, soon after, four-cylinder Claughtons, and the L&YR did similar And the Caley had its Cardeans, the biggest Midland loco was the Compound. Why? At the Grouping in 1923, the CME, George Hughes, had a series of locos proposed for all-line operation. Acceptable on the Western, Central and Northern Divisions by the new LMS Chief Civil Engineer, he would not accept them over the Midland. Why? It was the weight per foot run that was the usual problem, hence the sacrosanct Midland coupled wheelbase of 8' 0" + 8' 6"; it spread the load. Right from the start, an urgent need was seen for a loco to work the Toton - Brent (hardly a backwater route) coal traffic single handed instead of the 3F + 4F double heading at that time mandatory. A hundred 2-8-0s were envisaged by the Chief General Superintendent, Mr Follows (Committee minutes 29/11/23) and several permutations of the type schemed out by E. Stewart Cox, but at the meeting of 23/7/24 the CME reported that 'It had not been possible to arrive at a design of engine which could be utilised on all sections of the line.' The Toton - Brent problem was solved in 1927 by the purchase of three Garratts with a further thirty in 1930. It says a lot that a 2-8-0 could not be designed which could work over the Midland Division,, despite the design's 20ft wheelbase (the eventual 8F's was 17' 3"). It was the LMS which sorted out the Midland infrastructure, not the parent company. This doesn't mean that the Midland directors did not invest capital, but they chose to invest it in other areas and accepted the need for small locos, worked in pairs when (often) needed.
  13. Yes, but that started only in the 1890s and over specific routs, rather than the Railway as a whole. Much upgrading of the system had to wait for the LMS in the 1920s and 1930s.
  14. The Midland directors shied way from the capital investment the straightening and strengthening their road would entail and instead settled on a policy of smaller locos which suited the original infrastructure and double headed these when necessary. They therefore accepted higher operating costs as opposed to capital investment. While it sounds odd it worked on the Midland. The problems arose only after the Grouping. Since new LMS designs had to be able to work all parts of the system, including the ex-Midland Railway, loco size and development was severely limited until the capital was finally invested to upgrade the infrastructure and bigger engines, e.g. Claughtons and Super Ds, were allowed over Midland tracks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.