Edwardian Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Regularity said: Total wheelbase would be the same as a 5700 chassis, which was 7’3”+8’3”, which immediately creates the difference you are looking for to make it subtly different. Or a 6400 chassis, with 7’4”+7’4”, with more overhang. Either way, enough of a difference and you would have a new design of loco on the WNR books, still in the process of being delivered, so possibly the first example to arrive? Good points. I might struggle to fit a RTR tank engine chassis under the bonnet , however. EDIT: Having said that, the generous proportions of the C may help here. I have a Bachmann Pannier chassis (somewhere!), as I was going to use it for the WNR's Sharp Stewart 0-6-0T. It didn't fit. Further, I think the Bachmann chassis might drive off the rear axle, so it may even be possible to alter the position of the centre axle, though a voice inside is saying "why bother?" As I'm not prepared to lose any of the planned old Sharp 0-6-0s (equating to FR D1 and Cambrian Small Goods), it could, as you say, be a case of just one or two new 0-6-0s recently entering service. Careful, or I may also be tempted to add a Large Seagull and I don't even know offhand if one of those would fit the TT! I wonder if the new class should mark a simplified livery, or whether, in the spirit of Wainwright, we stay Full Victorian until at least 1910! Edited June 30, 2020 by Edwardian 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 40 minutes ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said: Lovely, 0-6-0 tender engines. Something so endearingly brisk about them. "Most flattering. I don't think I've been called endearingly brisk before." [Ben Brooksbank, SR Q1 0-6-0 at Feltham Locomotive Depot, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.] 2 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Now, there’s an 0-6-0 goods engine that I can very distinctly remember seeing in real, proper railway service! 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said: Now, there’s an 0-6-0 goods engine that I can very distinctly remember seeing in real, proper railway service! My commiserations. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 (edited) I rather like that sinister look. Spotted while waiting on a bus outside Woking station on the way to my grandparents - it was shunting a huge long p. Way train. I wasn’t sure what it was at first, but the trusty ‘Observers Book of British Railway Locomotives’ was readily to hand. PS: I’d misremembered the title! Edited June 30, 2020 by Nearholmer 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeysarefun Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 @monkeysarefun, Robert Stephenson & Co. or a local copy? @Nearholmer, I think the confusion goes back to the 19th Century, when the SER book was "Railway Locomotives of Kent" and the LCDR book was "Kentish Railway Locomotives". Or possibly the other way round... 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 To add to the confusion, it includes Irish, as in CIE as well as NIR and other, locos. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeysarefun Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: @monkeysarefun, Robert Stephenson & Co. or a local copy? @Nearholmer, I think the confusion goes back to the 19th Century, when the SER book was "Railway Locomotives of Kent" and the LCDR book was "Kentish Railway Locomotives". Or possibly the other way round... Yes, well picked sir. http://www.australiansteam.com/18.htm 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 36 minutes ago, Nearholmer said: I rather like that sinister look. I like them. I realise that, if all locomotives looked like that, I'd loath them, but, as an isolated essay in the modern steampunk brutalist phase, I rather like it. Some things are so ugly that they are beautiful. Not close enough to any of my periods of railway interest, however, for me to ever want a model. This, on the other hand, is an ugly duckling I would love to have ... Something about the wide cab and the indecently naked wheels gives it a hint of the American 25 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said: Lovely. Of course the Stephenson patent never stopped a 25-year long-boiler mineral engine building spree on the Stockton & Darlington/Central Division. One suspects Bouch must have done a deal at the start, but history does not, I think, record it. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 26 minutes ago, Edwardian said: Some things are so ugly that they are beautiful. Whilst other things are just ugly. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Compound2632 said: Whilst other things are just ugly. Hmm, like a Deeley smokebox on a Johnson engine. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Edwardian said: Hmm, like a Deeley smokebox on a Johnson engine. Although the Deeley style smokebox looks handsome enough on an engine in the full Deeley - Belpaire boiler style, as in the Deeley Compounds (though better when extended on superheating), 999 and 483 Classes. It's a radically different aesthetic. Edited June 30, 2020 by Compound2632 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 30, 2020 2 hours ago, Compound2632 said: My commiserations. The only person I know who has driven them seems to have quite a liking for them. Don 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Donw said: The only person I know who has driven them seems to have quite a liking for them. But that's looking at them from quite another perspective. I would imagine it didn't appeal to the old-timers who liked to oil the motion in motion, mechanical lubricators notwithstanding! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 3 hours ago, Compound2632 said: Although the Deeley style smokebox looks handsome enough on an engine in the full Deeley - Belpaire boiler style, as in the Deeley Compounds (though better when extended on superheating), 999 and 483 Classes. It's a radically different aesthetic. There is a break in the aesthetic, as you say. Similarly, some Churchwardian changes to Dean designs can be similarly jarring, whereas each designer's work holds its own when separated. When the NRM gets round to a model of the Spinner, if I'm still alive and they're still paying me any attention, I intend to push very hard for an as built/pre-Deelification version! Strangely, however, the Johnsonification of Kirtley does not offend. There are other examples. The Wainwright rebuildings of SER and LCDR classes were handsome enough. Perhaps, however, that is because the results were locomotives that looked essentially like those of Johnson and those of Wainwright/Surtees, whereas Deeley placed hideous carbuncles on the faces of beloved old friends! 2 hours ago, Donw said: The only person I know who has driven them seems to have quite a liking for them. Don 26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: But that's looking at them from quite another perspective. I would imagine it didn't appeal to the old-timers who liked to oil the motion in motion, mechanical lubricators notwithstanding! That perspective being from inside the thing 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Edwardian said: That perspective being from inside the thing Exactly. What the eye does not see... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 13 hours ago, Edwardian said: Quote Some idiotic singer changed his/her name from Antebellum to something forgettable To be fair, I always thought calling oneself Lady Antebellum was pretty stupid to begin with. The 'Dixie Chicks' have now dropped the reference to Dixie! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 (edited) To be known respectively as "Lady A" and "The Chicks". Either a kneejerk response to BLM or a marketing gimmick to bring their brands back to public notice. Whatever happened to Dixie Cups? Are they still being made? What might they be known as? D Cups sounds a little problematic... Edited June 30, 2020 by Hroth To insert a word that I thought was there already... 2 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 Back in 1979, the most shocking thing about this programme was how short those shorts were ... 2 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 A contemporary re-make would be interesting. I suspect though that the Daisy Dukes would be shorter still, such are the contrary ways of the world. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: A contemporary re-make would be interesting. I suspect though that the Daisy Dukes would be shorter still, such are the contrary ways of the world. Well the car would have to be repainted completely, the lads dropped for a couple of young ladies*, more racially balanced..... It'd end up like the Ghostbusters remake. * Wearing the shortened Daisy Dukes no doubt Edited June 30, 2020 by Hroth 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schooner Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 15 minutes ago, Hroth said: Wearing the shortened Daisy Dukes Fully expected "haircuts"...but not before the 4th I suppose... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam88 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 21 hours ago, Nearholmer said: Hmmm ....... Can we talk about long-defunct railways for a minute? This ought to interest members of CAPC, although it’s not exactly light bedtime reading http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/4941/1/Thesis - David Tuner - PhD - For binders.pdf I stumbled upon while swotting-up on the LSWR, which I’m now beginning to understand a lot better than I did. That is a fascinating document - even a quick scan of some of the names sends one off on a trail through the great and the good as shown in thepeerage.com. Seeing the name Wyndham Spencer Portal for instance leads you to ask are these Portals related to Sir Charles Portal? They seem to be through a common Huguenot ancestor in the C17th and the current Archbishop of Canterbury is the Sir Charles' half-brother's grandson. Again, Wyndham Spencer Portal's daughter-in-law was the granddaughter of George Carr Glynn, 1st Baron Wolverton of the LNWR of course and Glyn's bank. That just came from one name in the list of directors. When I was first at school we used to sing Mrs C.F. Alexander's words: The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, And ordered their estate. I think these were often very applicable to Victorian railway directors. I could go into great digressions about her too having been taken to an exhibition of her life last year. The Anglo-Irish can lead you into some pretty deep rabbit holes too. Returning to the LSWR, here is a simply outlined set of maps showing the growth of the railways in NE Hants on this web site http://www.bdrs70d.com/CT_Pages/CT_basingstole_date_maps.htm - most of them are South-Western but not all. 2 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Being a great believer in statistics and financial accounts as storytellers, I am still enjoying it! That map over time tells a lot of stories too. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now