Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Both! Definitely not a decoration sample of the forthcoming Bachmann model (I trust...)

 

The 0-4-4T looks quite nicely built, though that looks more like a Deeley than a Johnson chimney. The number, 1357, is the post-1907 number of an 1892 Dübs-built example of the 1823 Class (1532 Class but with 150 psi rather than 140 psi boiler pressure, so nominally a tad more powerful). The front splasher, with beading on the splasherette* to clear the coupling rod crank, indicates that the engine is actually a member of the 1252 Class, built by Neilsons in 1875/6. This class had 5'6" drivers, all the rest had 5'3". At this early stage in his Midland career, Johnson was experimenting a bit to get the optimum 0-4-4T - the subtle differences between his Great Eastern 134 Class 0-4-4Ts of 1872/3, the Midland 6 and 1252 Classes, and the S&DJR 'Avonside' 0-4-4Ts makes an interesting study. The 30 engines of the 1252 Class were originally numbered 1252-1281, becoming 1236-1235 in 1907.

 

The livery is a bit of a mash-up. The number should certainly be in cut-out brass figures (Slaters do an etch of these) not transfers. I'm not sure what the splodge on the bunker side is supposed to be. Originally this would have been Neilsons' works plate but by the 20th century these had often been replaced by a Derby "rebuilt" plate - possibly on first change of boiler. The beading on the splasherette would not be polished brass, neither would the crown of the dome. The polished smokebox door hinge isn't usual. If the engine is supposed to be in pre-Deeley livery, as the lined-out boiler bands suggest, then frames and wheels should be red and lined. The lining yellow is too pale, almost white.

 

An interesting summary, thanks,  (though I was expecting you to say something about lamp irons!)

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

*Not an authentic Derby LDO term. What are they called?

 

The tender's had a bit of a hard time - it evidently once had coal rails.

 

I would love to know

 

1 hour ago, Buhar said:

In analysis of Scottish locos where they are quite common they're called coupling rod splashers.  However, splasherette should be henceforth adopted.

 

Alan

 

Now I do!

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

BTW neither this model nor the Bachmann one can be used to represent one of the engines loaned to the M&GN in 1906-1912 in exchange for four Lynn & Fakenham 4-4-0Ts, as those were members of the 6 Class, Nos. 142, 143, and 144.

 

Fortunately, CA is set in 1905.

[Nearholmer]

“But then if you cannot be satirical about the weak and the helpless where has the essence of democracy gone.”

 

My point is that taunting the weak and helpless isn’t satire, it’s just plan bullying.

 

To me, satire has the hint of bravery and subversion about it; bullying weak people isn’t brave, and it actually reinforces the current hierarchy, rather than seeking to subvert it.

 

And, if this turns into a “freedom of speech in a democracy” debate, then I don’t have any problem with the concept of freedom being circumscribed by carefully negotiated limits that are there to prevent society descending into something akin to an unsupervised playground at an infants school, because no meaningful form of democracy can exist in that environment anyway.

[Edwardian]

Quick visit to Shildon this morning. This is, I think, a bi-annual event (I was at one in, IIRC, June with Tees Castle).  and Shildon MRC are to be commended, particularly since there seem to have been far fewer events at Locomotion recently.  

 

Anyway, this weekend's show is a good one, even if I only managed a quick glimpse.  I will see if I cannot manage another visit tomorrow, but that may be difficult. 

 

Here is Norman Cook's excellent Dunstan Harbour, with Norman and some of his team.  

 

[Donw]

26 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

“But then if you cannot be satirical about the weak and the helpless where has the essence of democracy gone.”

 

My point is that taunting the weak and helpless isn’t satire, it’s just plan bullying.

 

To me, satire has the hint of bravery and subversion about it; bullying weak people isn’t brave, and it actually reinforces the current hierarchy, rather than seeking to subvert it.

 

And, if this turns into a “freedom of speech in a democracy” debate, then I don’t have any problem with the concept of freedom being circumscribed by carefully negotiated limits that are there to prevent society descending into something akin to an unsupervised playground at an infants school, because no meaningful form of democracy can exist in that environment anyway.

 

The problems seem to arise when either the limits are imposed rather than being by consensus or particular groups feel the limits conflict with their fundamental views whether religeous or political.  

Incidentally one of the fundamentals of democracy is the losers in a debate accepting they have lost and accepting the majority view

 Don

[Compound2632]

56 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

An interesting summary, thanks,  (though I was expecting you to say something about lamp irons!)

 

You want detailed comments?

 

57 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Fortunately, CA is set in 1905.

 

Then you are beyond temptation.

[Edwardian]

52 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

“But then if you cannot be satirical about the weak and the helpless where has the essence of democracy gone.”

 

My point is that taunting the weak and helpless isn’t satire, it’s just plan bullying.

 

To me, satire has the hint of bravery and subversion about it; bullying weak people isn’t brave, and it actually reinforces the current hierarchy, rather than seeking to subvert it.

 

And, if this turns into a “freedom of speech in a democracy” debate, then I don’t have any problem with the concept of freedom being circumscribed by carefully negotiated limits that are there to prevent society descending into something akin to an unsupervised playground at an infants school, because no meaningful form of democracy can exist in that environment anyway.

 

Well said.  Where satire is not used to speak truth to power, it has little point.  To direct it against the powerless is reprehensible.

[Edwardian]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

You want detailed comments?

 

Well, I'm always happy for you to add to my meagre store of knowledge of this most charismatic railway company. 

 

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Then you are beyond temptation.

 

For once!

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

But then if you cannot be satirical about the weak and the helpless where has the essence of democracy gone.  After all most of what we find funny about Monty Python is directed at very ordinary people.

 

Monty Python, and any decent satirists, were making fun of the (lunacy of the) situation, not personal characteristics. 

You can be satirical about the obstacles faced by the “weak and helpless”, but there is nothing democratic about making fun of their weakness or helplessness. That’s just abusive.

Democracy doesn’t deny one the “right” to be abusive, by the way, but neither does it deny others the right to pull one up on it and state a strong aversion to abuse based on personal weaknesses.

And yes, I am fully aware of what irony means: I am intolerant of intolerance, and also wilful witlessness and lazy thinking. No irony in that.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

And, if this turns into a “freedom of speech in a democracy” debate, then I don’t have any problem with the concept of freedom being circumscribed by carefully negotiated limits that are there to prevent society descending into something akin to an unsupervised playground at an infants school, because no meaningful form of democracy can exist in that environment anyway.

Yep. True freedom requires responsibility and respect for others.

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

- GBS, and indeed many others.

 

[Nearholmer]

“....... one of the fundamentals of democracy is the losers in a debate accepting they have lost and accepting the majority view”

 

..... until they can themselves establish a majority around their viewpoint, which, of course, is easier to do if the currently prevailing majority is a small one, or fragile for some other reason, than if it is a large and robust one.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Regularity]

38 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

“....... one of the fundamentals of democracy is the losers in a debate accepting they have lost and accepting the majority view”

 

..... until they can themselves establish a majority around their viewpoint, which, of course, is easier to do if the currently prevailing majority is a small one, or fragile for some other reason, than if it is a large and robust one.

 

 

That’s only true of certain decisions: not always about the outcome of a debate. We also have pluralism, which allows for differing views on issues.

[Nearholmer]

PS: I’ve decided I’ve made a mug of myself by taking Malcolm far too seriously. I should have spotted the invisible irony markers. That’s what comes of being a grown-up-trainspotter.

[Donw]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

“....... one of the fundamentals of democracy is the losers in a debate accepting they have lost and accepting the majority view”

 

..... until they can themselves establish a majority around their viewpoint, which, of course, is easier to do if the currently prevailing majority is a small one, or fragile for some other reason, than if it is a large and robust one.

 

 

 

By reasoned argument  is part of democracy but not threats, violence, abuse etc. or abuse of one's position.  An example might be  the question of Abortion  where some feel justified on moral grounds to try to cower those involved in Abortions into ceasing. However there does not appear to be a large clamour against abortions. If you support their actions where do you draw the line. It can become a form of terroism. 

Don

[Nearholmer]

Completely agree. That seems like a case of a large and robust (if largely silent) majority in favour of the current position, and, as you say .......

[runs as required]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

... I’ve decided I’ve made a mug of myself by taking Malcolm far too seriously. I should have spotted the invisible irony markers. That’s what comes of being a grown-up-trainspotter.

That is what I so admire about your posts; having enjoyed reading them, I think to myself "I wish I could have researched and posted that so succinctly". 

dh

[Nearholmer]

Very kind, but not really deserved.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

PS: I’ve decided I’ve made a mug of myself by taking Malcolm far too seriously. I should have spotted the invisible irony markers. That’s what comes of being a grown-up-trainspotter.

 

At last someone got it  

 

I tend to think that absolute statements concerning contentious subjects should always be tested, when everyone is in virtuous agreement then history has plenty of examples showing us that this could be hiding a more serious problem. As a character in a book I read once said "When do you ever see a mob rushing across town to do some good?"

[Nearholmer]

Hmmm ........ not your inner shock-jock taking over sometimes then?

 

That would be ironic: a person criticising public figures for attention-seeking behaviour, by deploying attention-seeking behaviour.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Hmmm ........ not your inner shock-jock taking over sometimes then?

 

 

 

At my age? I think that if that occurred I'd need urgent application of a defibrillator.

 

I suppose it would help if I made more use of emoticons but if people can't understand the subtleties of straight faced humorous irony then I can't be blamed for that, or can I .........

 

However as satire has just about died in the face of the ever increasing tendency of people to be offended by anything, no matter how innocuous, I fear that irony is the only thing we have left.

 

Cue complaints by those who feel that their sense of irony is just fine thank you very much, but they demand that irony should only be used in conjunction with the recognition that the use of free speech doesn't mean that we can just say what we honestly feel ...........        

[Hroth]

Don't know if anyone watched the brought-foward heat 5 of "The Great Model Railway Challenge", but one of the teams named themselves after the M&GN railway....

 

 

[Annie]

 

Attention class.  This is a picture of an ex-GER T26, - you might have a distant memory of steam engines of this kind.  Note the pleasant surroundings which it is passing through and the happy people nearby.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Annie
Ammeding foolish error

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

5 minutes ago, Annie said:

 

Attention class.  This is a picture of an ex-GER Y14, - you might have a distant memory of steam engines of this kind.  Note the pleasant surroundings which it is passing through and the happy people nearby.

 

I bet that farrier will be in for a surprise if it blows its whistle.

[Edwardian]

29 minutes ago, Annie said:

 

Attention class.  This is a picture of an ex-GER Y14, - you might have a distant memory of steam engines of this kind.  Note the pleasant surroundings which it is passing through and the happy people nearby.

 

Nope, it's a picture of an ex-GER T26. 

 

(E4 in LNER-speak)

[Annie]

My excuse is that I was half asleep and I hadn't cleaned my glasses.

[Compound2632]

@Annie has beaten me to it for our Norfolk-related railway starter for the day, despite my very early morning cup of tea - I will be going back to bed. I wonder where our ramblings will lead us today? Whilst imbibing, I was looking for my own Norfolk picture to get us started when I came upon this beast in trouble:

 

 

at the website of the North Walsham and District Community Archive. This looks to be an accident involving a passenger train and should therefore have been the subject of a report to the Board of Trade by one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Railways. I have found no match at the Railways Archive Accident Archive. 

 

The engine is one of the original "Gobblers" - one of T.W. Worsdell's M15 Class of 2-4-2Ts. These engines were built at three periods, 30 under Worsdell in 1884-6, 10 under Holden in 1885, then a further 120 in 1903-9. The numbering information on the GER Society page on these engines (from which I am cribbing) is unclear as to which numbers belong to which batches but I infer from the photographs that the original Worsdell engines were Nos. 650-679. Worsdell's design incorporated features from his alma mater, Crewe - radial axles fore and aft, Joy valve gear, and exposed cylinder and steam chest ends. These were all features replicated in the first engines Worsdell had built on his move to Gateshead in 1885, NER Class A. The latter engines don't seem to have had the reputation for being heavy on coal that the M15s did. Holden's version of the M15 had Stephenson motion, which apparently gave improved fuel economy. The Worsdell engines were rebuilt to match (gaining piano-lid covers to the cylinder fronts in the process) so it is presumably in that form that we see No. 666 here. Nevertheless the nickname of "Gobbler" stuck. Give an engine a bad name...

 

Curiously, it was at exactly this time that S.W. Johnson dabbled in Joy gear, with the ten bogie four-coupled express passenger engines of the 1667 Class. These engines seem not to have been a success, being replaced after no more than 15 years. Ahrons says they ran short of steam but this was probably due to their large cylinders, 19" x 26", rather than the Joy gear. 

 

My tea's gone cold - back to bed.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Compound2632
Reporting cooling rate of beverage.

[Edwardian]

9 minutes ago, Annie said:

My excuse is that I was half asleep and I hadn't cleaned my glasses.

 

To be fair, they look pretty similar above the footplate!

 

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

@Annie has beaten me to it for our Norfolk-related railway starter for the day, despite my very early morning cup of tea - I will be going back to bed. I wonder where our ramblings will lead us today? Whilst imbibing, I was looking for my own Norfolk picture to get us started when I came upon this beast in trouble:

 

 

at the website of the North Walsham and District Community Archive. This looks to be an accident involving a passenger train and should therefore have been the subject of a report to the Board of Trade by one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Railways. I have found no match at the Railways Archive Accident Archive. 

 

The engine is one of the original "Gobblers" - one of T.W. Worsdell's M15 Class of 2-4-2Ts. These engines were built at three periods, 30 under Worsdell in 1884-6, 10 under Holden in 1885, then a further 120 in 1903-9. The numbering information on the GER Society page on these engines (from which I am cribbing) is unclear as to which numbers belong to which batches but I infer from the photographs that the original Worsdell engines were Nos. 650-679. Worsdell's design incorporated features from his alma mater, Crewe - radial axles fore and aft, Joy valve gear, and exposed cylinder and steam chest ends. These were all features replicated in the first engines Worsdell had built on his move to Gateshead in 1885, NER Class A. The latter engines don't seem to have had the reputation for being heavy on coal that the M15s did. Holden's version of the M15 had Stephenson motion, which apparently gave improved fuel economy. The Worsdell engines were rebuilt to match (gaining piano-lid covers to the cylinder fronts in the process) so it is presumably in that form that we see No. 666 here. Nevertheless the nickname of "Gobbler" stuck. Give an engine a bad name...

 

Curiously, it was at exactly this time that S.W. Johnson dabbled in Joy gear, with the ten bogie four-coupled express passenger engines of the 1667 Class. These engines seem not to have been a success, being replaced after no more than 15 years. Ahrons says they ran short of steam but this was probably due to their large cylinders, 19" x 26", rather than the Joy gear. 

 

My tea's gone cold - back to bed.

 

Off back to bed now the dogs are in before my coffee gets cold, so will pay this post the attention it deserves a bit later.  I am glad to see evidence of a Gobbler in North Norfolk; one of the numerous suburban classes of all railways that are said to find rural homes in later life, but one is never quite sure how much later the authors mean!  Well here's apparently 1909-10, making a Gobbler on CA at some point more likely.

 

There must be some irony, in present circumstances, in a derailed "conference train", but it's too early in the morning for me to find it!

 

Who's having a conference in Overstrand in 1909-10?

 

I don't think we've featured Anarcho-syndicalists yet; perhaps them?!?