AdamsRadial Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 8 hours ago, Northroader said: It looks like the crosshead is in line with the coupling rod, then the connecting rod is bolted on the side of the crosshead, passes outside of the motion bracket, then there’s a set in it to line up with the coupling rod, and a pin join with the coupling rod. Makes me think of Mac's Mangles - perhaps this was necessary to keep the cylinders away from the platform. Thinking about the thickness of a rod plus washers/bearing surfaces there'd be a couple of inches to be saved. I haven't found much specific detail about the platform clearance problems that Mac's Mangles were notorious for, but I'm guessing the problem was only evident on curved platforms ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted July 18, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, AdamsRadial said: I haven't found much specific detail about the platform clearance problems that Mac's Mangles were notorious for, but I'm guessing the problem was only evident on curved platforms ? I've never come across an account of such a problem with the Extra Large Bloomers - what is your source? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamsRadial Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 I'll have to dig out the books, might take an afternoon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 Definitely L&Y. Built as a 2-2-2 in 1849 number 133, renumbered 93 in 1850. Rebuilt as a 2-4-0 in1872 withdrawn in 1879 by which thing it Han acquired a new cab and new coupling rods. The sliderbars are, errr, interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamsRadial Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 (edited) OK, interesting. Ahron's The British Steam Railway Locomotive P79-80 mentions platform clearance problems with an early 2-2-2, but not the Bloomers. It's not the book I need to find which had a lot more about the shuffling around of CME's. But, in direct relevance to the particular locomotive that started this train of thought (sorry), on P99 is a photo of a Beattie 2-4-0 showing exactly this arrangement of coupling-rod extending past the crank pin and the connecting rod pivot on a leading extension. The book I'm still hunting for might be the Hughes memoirs (Hardy ?Hughes? ) a senior officer of the LNWR who describes some of the set-tos between Chairman and CME, or it might be in the Aspinall history. At present most of my books are in boxes awaiting new shelves, the ones I kept out are typically not the ones needed to answer these sort of questions ETA still with Ahrons, p121 shows a photo of a Trevithick 2-4-0T with the same extension to the coupling rod, it seems to have been Crewe/Allen hallmark? P118 shows a Caledonian 2-4-0 with it as well. I'm thinking this is definitely the result of what was learned in 1849 by the experimental 2-2-2 that clobbered the platforms, as the other engines come after this. Edited July 18, 2021 by AdamsRadial 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swampy Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 23 hours ago, sir douglas said: Another find, this time from a european online photo archive with lots of interesting stuff, i recently came across and am slowly going hrough it all, but anyway a 2-4-0 with resemblance to the above Bury and Welbeck. https://www.e-pics.ethz.ch/index/ethbib.bildarchiv/ETHBIB.Bildarchiv_101611.html the photo has no info apert from the date 1850 (which could either be date or photo date), i posted ina FB group and got a reply that it might be L&Y and some of the 2-2-2's were rebuilt as 2-4-0 The wagon on the left matches up pretty well to the 3-plank loco coal/coke wagon drawings in Coates LYR Wagon books. ( Early 8 ton in Vol. 1 figure 8 , with the 10 ton in Vol. 2 figure 106 ). If the 1850 date is correct, I'd plump for the 8 ton version. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 This arrangement of slide bars and crosshead wasn't uncommon. This Hudswell Clarke, built for the North Stafford Railway, in 1866, has them. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamsRadial Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, billbedford said: The sliderbars are, errr, interesting. That photo is in the David Baxter Victorian and Edwardian Locomotives book and I was able to view it under a bit more magnification. What appears to be bent/curved slide bars are in fact a trick of the shadows and grease? The slide bars seem to be fish-bellied above and below the straight guides, and those curves seem to be misleading the eye into thinking the entire slide bars are bent. What is also clearer under magnification is that the connecting rod is most likely forked around the coupling rod extension. This is the opposite of the Crewe/Allan practice on the outside framed locos where they initially forked the gudgeon-pin end of the connecting rod, but let it run on a normal style big-end on a crankpin on the single driver. I can't find any backing for my initial thoughts about platform clearance, Mac's Mangle was fouling the outside framing around the cylinders on some platforms (so it must have been the odd brick standing proud, as I'm sure the design would have paid attention to the loading gauge). They dropped outside framing quite quickly. The only Forrester/Hawkshaw type 2-4-0s showing this connecting rod arrangement don't appear until after Mac's Mangle was built, and then the practice stops by about 1860, with no comment as to why it was first adopted and then dropped. I've gone through Ahrons, Stretton, and Baxter and that's about all I can glean. A question for the planchette, maybe? Edited July 19, 2021 by AdamsRadial 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wessy Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 On 26/04/2021 at 17:01, sir douglas said: do you think there is at least a passing resemblance between "Welbeck" and this Bury, it would fit the description of an L&Y 2-2-2 this is from the Bury page on Graces Guide, the address for the image says it is from page 114 of Volume 135 which is an article by E.L. Ahrons, i dont know anymore than that since you cant get into the pdf without having to pay https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1923/02/02 Many of the drawings published in The Engineer and used in articles by Ahrons are also in his volume 'The British Steam Railway Locomotive 1825-1925.' It is 390 pages of pure joy and is often available second hand via Abe or other such sites. This one is certainly in the book. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted July 21, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 21, 2021 I paid the Grace's Guide subscription at the rate that allows me 60 downloads per year, which was only about £25, I think. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wessy Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 On 19/07/2021 at 09:55, swampy said: The wagon on the left matches up pretty well to the 3-plank loco coal/coke wagon drawings in Coates LYR Wagon books. ( Early 8 ton in Vol. 1 figure 8 , with the 10 ton in Vol. 2 figure 106 ). If the 1850 date is correct, I'd plump for the 8 ton version. The photo from the Swiss archive (also reproduced in Barry Lane's book on LYR locomotives) and the photo posted by Bill Bedford show some of the challenges to be found in early LYR loco history. Both are from Jenkins 2-2-2 tender engines but show different boilers, safety valves and outside steam pipes. Lane states that the engine in the Swiss photo was no. 70 rebuilt as a 2-4-0 in 1868 and scrapped in 1877. The livery was green and the dome and chimney top were copper. Numbers were carried at the front of the loco and the rear of the tender. The cut out in the footplate side sheet is to accommodate a Giffard injector. The modern view is that Jenkins was a competent locomotive engineer but hamstrung by a Board who did not want to invest in anything, preferring to pay large dividends instead. In his early years on the LYR he had the dubious benefit of having a Sir John Hawkshaw as Chief Engineer whose strengths, like Brunel further south, did not lie in the field of locomotive engineering and design. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 On 19/07/2021 at 15:29, AdamsRadial said: That photo is in the David Baxter Victorian and Edwardian Locomotives book and I was able to view it under a bit more magnification. What appears to be bent/curved slide bars are in fact a trick of the shadows and grease? The slide bars seem to be fish-bellied above and below the straight guides, and those curves seem to be misleading the eye into thinking the entire slide bars are bent. The coupling rod crosses the rear end of the slide bars, so either the slide bar taper in towards the frames at the rear end or they are offset from the centre line of the cylinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamsRadial Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 7 hours ago, billbedford said: either the slide bar taper in towards the frames at the rear end or they are offset from the centre line of the cylinders. A third option is the boss and gudgeon pin are offset outwards from the crosshead and piston rod centreline. I suppose there was a design struggle to try and fit larger diameter outside cylinders while keeping to the gauge restrictions. Putting the connecting rod on the outside of the coupling rod (as you must) means the cylinder centreline also moving outwards unless you start doing these clever tricks with extended rods allowing the connecting rod to be in line with the coupling rod. I found Mike Sharman's book of early LSWR locomotives and there is a small group of Joseph Beattie outside-cylinder designs where the same extended coupling rod appears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 18 hours ago, wessy said: Many of the drawings published in The Engineer and used in articles by Ahrons are also in his volume 'The British Steam Railway Locomotive 1825-1925.' It is 390 pages of pure joy and is often available second hand via Abe or other such sites. This one is certainly in the book. by chance, a few days i got a free download of it since somebody posted it a facebook group, i found the drawing but all it said about it was what we already know,an L&Y 2-2-2 built by Bury, no measurements, nothing about the rebuilds or life span 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wessy Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 There is detail in Vol 3 of Marshall's history of the LYR. Some of the detail repeats that in Rush's book of 1949 and will have been extracted from Hawkshaw's list of June 1850. The 2-2-2s eventually comprised a class of 82 locomotives. 32 were built at Miles Platting, 20 by Fairbairn's and 30 by Bury, Curtis and Kennedy. Principal dimensions: Driving wheels 5' 9" (Bury and some Fairbairn engines), 5'10" for the rest Leading and trailing wheels 3'6" Boiler 4'2" x 10'1.5" Overall length 21'6" 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill-lobb Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 20 hours ago, AdamsRadial said: I suppose there was a design struggle to try and fit larger diameter outside cylinders while keeping to the gauge restrictions. Putting the connecting rod on the outside of the coupling rod (as you must) means the cylinder centreline also moving outwards unless you start doing these clever tricks with extended rods allowing the connecting rod to be in line with the coupling rod. Where the drive is onto the leading coupled wheel it is possible to put the connecting rod inside the coupling rod - see the Midland Compounds. Bill 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 the little problem there is the crankpin on the rear wheel becomes a bit of a weak point and needs to be beefed up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill-lobb Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) 51 minutes ago, sir douglas said: the little problem there is the crankpin on the rear wheel becomes a bit of a weak point and needs to be beefed up True, But apart from allowing the cylinder centre to be closer to the frames, it also applies the major thrust to the leading crankpin closer to the wheel, so that doesn't need to be so beefy. In any event, off the top of my head I believe the Midland Compounds, NER Class Z Atlantics and the Adams Radial tanks all had the connecting rod inside. So it was not too unusual an arrangement. Edit. I'm not 100% but it looks to me as if that Hudswell Clarke 2-4-0 a few posts ago has the same arrangement. Edited July 23, 2021 by bill-lobb addition 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 (edited) I'm currently redrawing Welbeck to model one day, making a composite between the Chronicle drawing and the L&Y, starting with the latter for the boiler, firebox, frames and axle centres, then add on all the rebuild parts. The saddletank profile is based on photo of Mountaineer that Killian posted on FB months ago. There are a few places ive had to change from whats shown on the Welbeck drawing to fit, we cant say for sure what is correct or not since it was drawn from a photo. ive changed the front buffers for block just as my own preference. I'm about half way done looking at the cylinder on the L&Y photo, there isnt any shadow but most of it is shiny so it must stick out from the valance and running plate. i was also doing some referencing of other similar outside cylinder 2-2-2's from some drawings collected over the years and found the possible reason for the bend in the connecting rod, it could be forking around either side of the crosshead and we only see the outside half here is a little extract of an 1846 EB wIlson showing the fork Edited August 4, 2021 by sir douglas 10 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted September 16, 2021 Share Posted September 16, 2021 (edited) a little coincidence came up while researching the L&Y 2-2-2, the EBW drawing i used above is titled "Leeds Dewsbury and Manchester rly 1847" but reading the Mark Smithers' book it actually went to the Eastern Counties Railway which makes it the same loco as the No18" loco that Ruston believes to be the origin of "Portland" but in its original tender condition On 04/01/2020 at 15:47, Ruston said: Yesterday i was looking around for anything about Gilbert & Sharp of Salford, the recipient of Welbeck. Gilbert & Sharp, stone masons and quarry owners https://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/organization.php?id=msib5_1219070204 https://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/organization.php?id=msib5_1220448860 Slaters directory of Manchester and Salford 1861. entry for Gilbert, George of Broad Street, Pendleton. there isnt a corresponding entry for any contractor in the many Sharp names Slaters directory 1876. George is now independent with the business address listed as Oldfield Road much closer to the city centre The London Gazette 11-10-1882. (transcribed below). George has most likely died and the sons have taken over In the County court of Lancashire, holden at Manchester, in the matter of a special resolution for liquidation by arrangement of affairs of William Gilbert of 35 Milton street, Stockport Road, Manchester and Alfred Gilbert of 70 Bolton Road, Pendleton, both in the County of Lancaster carying on business in copartner- ship together at Oldfield Road, Salford in the County of Lancashire aforesaid, as Contractors under the style of firm George Gilbert & Sons Slaters 1883. entry for son Alfred Ive not found anything about the Sharp side of the business or where exactly the quarry was Edited September 16, 2021 by sir douglas 4 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 Came across another mention of Boulton. Im currently borrowing a copy of "Yorkshire Engine Company" by Tony Vernon 2008, from my local library in 1883 Thomas Wheatley, General Manager of the Wigtownshire Railway (ex NBR loco superintendant) visited the Yorkshire works and saw 2 little tram engines which were for a cancelled order to Barcelona from 1879. Wheatley was interest and had them taken by his driver James Pirie to do a night run on Huddersield tramway but he over ran the ends of the rails badly damaging the tyres on the road, while arranging the repairs, Wheatley died and Pirie was ordered to return to Wigtownshire, some months later though he was sent to somewhere in Ashton Under Lyne to get the repairs done. The author here suggests it might have been Boulton. It is not known if these 2 engines were bought but "a tram engine" is listed in WR ownership in 1885. This story is noted as coming from The Locomotive magazine, in an article about the WR in 1943 by David L Smith and repeated in "Little Railways of South West Scotland" also David L smith 1969 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 (edited) I came across this site earlier while looking for works numbers for Beyer peacocks in sweden the Manning Wardle list has MW 108 "Wimmerby" in Denmark as being previously Boulton's Leodis https://www.historiskt.nu/rullande/lokbyggandet_2/mw.html and this photo of it from a swedish online archive https://digitaltmuseum.se/021018123288/nassjo-oskarshamns-jarnvag-noj-lok-10-wimmerby The translated description for this Text on the back: "1878". Text on cover: "Nässjö-Oskarshamn railway.", "NOJ Locomotive No. 10. "Wimmerby". Manufacturer: Manning Wardle In the 1860s. To YEJ building sold to Morton NOJ in 1870. The locomotive was named Eslöf. The locomotive was sold by NOJ to SNJ building in 1899. Photo from Vimmerby." the dates for this dont make sense if Boulton bought it in 1872 and sold in 1874? The list gives original owner as Peto Betts & Co, contractors, The Industrial Locomotive Society's contracor list also has it under Peto Betts but without works number it also associates Peto Betts & co with Brassey who were the owners of the Canada Works mentioned in the chronicles that Boulton bought Leodis from https://www.industrial-loco.org.uk/ContractorsLocosVols1-VI.pdf built 1864 for Peto Betts & Co "Leodis" sold 1872 to Boulton sold 1874 to Rahr & Raundrap (who i ssume were agents) and sent to Sweden 18?? NOJ No10 "Eslof" 1899 SNJ No4 "Wimmerby" i have just emailed the owner of the Historiskt website about the date problem Edited October 23, 2022 by sir douglas 9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 this just came up on FB A HOT-AIR balloon made an ascent from Ashton Market during Wakes week in August, 1850. This is how the Manchester Guardian covered the event: “On Tuesday last, Mr IW Boulton, of Ashton, made his first ascent from the Market Place, in one of Mr Green’s balloons. “The inflation of the balloon was commenced at about half-past eleven, and the ascent was made at about a quarter-past four, amidst loud cheers from the thousands who had assembled. “Immediately on rising, the balloon was driven at a great speed in an easterly direction, the wind blowing very fresh. In about five or six minutes sight was lost of the balloon, which was again seen in about twenty minutes. “It appears, from this statement of Mr Boulton, that the balloon passed over Stalybridge, taking a direct course over Woodhead, and leaving Pennistone on the north. “About two miles from thence the balloon passed over Wortley Hall, at a considerable altitude, estimated to be about two miles, at which height Mr Boulton turned out two pigeons, the property of Mrs Frith of Dukinfield, who had requested him to do so. “The birds at once made direct towards the earth, and were home again in a very short time. “The balloon then proceeded in a direct line to Haxy, in Lincolnshire, about six miles from Gainsborough, and fifty-six in a direct line from Ashton. At Haxy Mr Boulton arrived at twenty minutes to six, and alighted quite safe.” Boulton’s ascent should have taken place the previous day but was delayed because of the boisterous weather which prevented the balloon from being inflated. This disappointed the great number of persons who had come from a distance by railway. Favourite Wakes holiday destinations in Ashton and Dukinfield were York, Goole and Great Grimsby. Great numbers of operatives availed themselves of the opportunity afforded of viewing the country at a cheap rate. 5 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir douglas Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 big Trent, Railway magazine 1898, pretty much the same as in the book except here Master James says that when rolling up Portland street they put down iron plates, while the book states that it ran straight on the cobbles small Trent, Rail mag 1902 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 2 hours ago, sir douglas said: big Trent, Railway magazine 1898, pretty much the same as in the book except here Master James says that when rolling up Portland street they put down iron plates, while the book states that it ran straight on the cobbles small Trent, Rail mag 1902 The way I read it is that it did run directly on the road as he writes "only at times were any plates under the wheels", which suggests that at times they had to use plates and not that it ran on plates all the way. 3 1 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