LNWR 777 Compound Tank

[Nicktoix]

This probably the last LNWR loco I will build in 4mm scale and it is certainly a challenge.

 

777 is one of Mr Webb's weirdos a three cylinder compound tank with outside Joy valve gear set up as a 2-2-4T complete with water pickup apparatus. Was this the only tank loco so equipped ? There is a good GA available but very few photos.

Built from my own etches in 15th nickel silver.

 

 

 

Nothing too complicated with the basic chassis except there is no room for sideplay in the leading or centre drivers. John Redrup, of London Road Models, kindly supplied me with his radial axle for the leading wheels.

 

 

Alot of fiddling to find a suitable drive resulted in a Road Runner and drive extender from High Level Models.

 

The valve gear is very fiddly to make and there is no room excess solder or sideplay. I simplified the arrangement by putting a slot in the lifting link and not trying to replicate the curved slide which cannot be seen anyway. Again thanks to John R for the crosshead. I did manage to solder one side up but recovered it OK.

 

After that the body seems fairly straight forward although I'm not quite sure about the arrangement in the bunker. There were no coal rails and the loco seems to carry alot of water and very little coal.

 

More later

 

Nick

[Argos]

Hi Nick,

 

I shall be watching this with interest as I have long term goal of build "Cold Dinners" in 7mm.

In fact the driver behind my choice of date for my layout, 1894, was selected to fit in with the timescale that 777 was operating to Buxton, She left in 1895.

I did look at the possibility of using 5'6" or 4'6" tank kits for the body but although similar they would be dimensionally incorrect, it seems 777 was a one off in terms of her tank sizes also.

 

I have photos form various publication, but you'll have probably seen them, if it helps I can post a list?

 

 

In works grey with Crewe build number

 

 

 

The final picture is from the J.W. Sutherland collection.

[Nicktoix]

Thanks for that.

 

I hadn't seen the last photo before it shows nicely the reversing handwheel which is useful.

 

Nick

[Argos]

Glad they're of use.

 

I'll have a dig around over the weekend and see what I've got in terms of photos.

 

The ones above were just what I happened to have on my hard drive.

 

Presumably you've got a copy of the works drawing in Talbot's LNWR engines?

[Nicktoix]

That has been my main source of info. I can't believe how little coal it carried in relation to the water capacity. Then just to rub it in there's water pickup. Weird.

[Compound2632]

I can't believe how little coal it carried in relation to the water capacity. Then just to rub it in there's water pickup. Weird.

 

Surely the main point of compounding is increased thermal efficiency and hence reduced fuel consumption! So naturally the coal space need not be as big as on similar simple engines doing comparable work... at least in theory. What were the Manchester - Buxton turns 777 was used on? Where they non-stop runs worked at a steady rate (thinks not) - the conditions under which the theoretical benefits of compounding start to be realised? The Teutonics (once underway...) were superb machines for the long-distance non-stop express work they were built for but like other well-known classes of compound they ceased to offer much advantage once reduced to secondary stop-start work. SW Johnson put his first pair of compounds to work between Leeds and Carlisle and the second batch of three to London and Leicester/Nottingham - the only non-stop runs of over 100 miles on the Midland system; The LNWR main line was of course worked in two 150-mile sections so there was plenty of logic in going for compounding. British geography was against compound engines; French geography favoured them. 

 

On the second point, if you've invented and are still the only line using water troughs, why not flaunt it? ... were there any troughs between Manchester and Buxton? I just had a look at the drawing in Talbot (mentioned above) and see it's a one way scoop - perhaps the troughs were on an uphill section...

 

NB. No attribution is given in the caption but the drawing in Talbot looks to be reproduced from one of the contemporary magazines/journals - 'Engineering' or similar - unlike some of the others in the book which do seem to be Crewe general arrangement drawings.

 

(For someone professing enthusiasm for the Midland I do seem to have a lot of books on the LNW. I compensate by not having any on the Great Western.)

[Nile]

Nick wrote:

 

complete with water pickup apparatus. Was this the only tank loco so equipped ?

 

 

The L&YR radial tank sold by Bachmann has bi-directional pick-up apparatus.

[pH]

777 is one of Mr Webb's weirdos a three cylinder compound tank with outside Joy valve gear set up as a 2-2-4T complete with water pickup apparatus. Was this the only tank loco so equipped ? 

 

No, there were others. In fact, there were other L&NWR ones. The Bowen-Cooke 4-6-2Ts had bi-directional water pickup gear. (April 2002 Steam Days "The Large Passenger Tank Engines of the L&NWR").

 

The LMS 2-6-4Ts (or at least some of them) had pickup gear. Locomotives Illustrated #47 "The LMS 2-6-4Ts" has a picture of Stanier 2-cylinder 42544 picking up water from Dillicar troughs. The caption includes this - " Not all the LMS 2-6-4Ts were fitted with water pickup gear, certainly not the three-cylinder engines nor the Brighton-built examples". Many pictures of Fowler, Stanier 2-cylinder and Fairburn engines show vents on top of the sidetanks. Assuming vents wouldn't be needed if tanks were being filled from water columns, it would suggest that engines were at least built with the possibility of pickup gear being fitted.

 

The BR Standard 4 2-6-4Ts also had vents on the tank tops. The initial position of these vents could obstruct the driver's view forward, so the vents were moved in later engines. The NRM has plans for pickup gear on these engines so, again, there is the possibility that some or all of them were fitted - http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/6d26c8db-5890-42d3-aa20-fd14a60de942

 

I don't know whether LNER or GWR tank engines had pickup gear. SR ones wouldn't have, since the railway had no water troughs.

 

(Edit - other pregrouping engines apparently had gear too - see Neil's post above.)

[£1.38]

Like others, I am fascinated by Webb's compounds. Wishing you every success in modelling what must be the most challenging of the lot! I will follow with interest. Hopefully there will be a video sometime to show us all what the beast looked like in action.

[Compound2632]

No, there were others. In fact, there were other L&NWR ones. The Bowen-Cooke 4-6-2Ts had bi-directional water pickup gear. (April 2002 Steam Days "The Large Passenger Tank Engines of the L&NWR").

 

Not all the LMS 2-6-4Ts were fitted with water pickup gear, certainly not the three-cylinder engines

 

Re. the big LNWR tanks - I thought as much but couldn't find the evidence on a skim through of the Talbot book.

 

Am I right in thinking the 3-cylinder 2-6-4Ts were built specifically for the Tilbury section, as passengers complained of the surging experienced when accelerating hard with 2-cylinder engines? As far as I'm aware, the Tilbury section had no troughs.

[Nicktoix]

It always struck me that Mr Webb made some fundamental mistakes with several of the compound locos he designed.

 

One - using two high pressure cylinders feeding one low pressure cylinder seems to me to be the wrong way round in a three cylinder arrangement.

 

Two - 4 bar crossheads which removed clearance behind for a coupling rod.

 

But then Mr Webb did know best and has left us some interesting models to build.

 

The drawing in Talbot is from The Engineer..
 

 

Nick

[Compound2632]

It always struck me that Mr Webb made some fundamental mistakes with several of the compound locos he designed.

 

using two high pressure cylinders feeding one low pressure cylinder seems to me to be the wrong way round in a three cylinder arrangement.

 

WM Smith and SW Johnson aren't here to press the "agree" button so I've done so on their behalf.

[PenrithBeacon]

It always struck me that Mr Webb made some fundamental mistakes with several of the compound locos he designed.

 

One - using two high pressure cylinders feeding one low pressure cylinder seems to me to be the wrong way round in a three cylinder arrangement.

 

...

 

 

Nick

He had his reasons, good reasons. The mistake was in not getting the respective volumes of the cylinders right and not having separate valve gears for high and low cylinders.

 

Regards

[Argos]

Surely the main point of compounding is increased thermal efficiency and hence reduced fuel consumption! So naturally the coal space need not be as big as on similar simple engines doing comparable work... at least in theory. What were the Manchester - Buxton turns 777 was used on? Where they non-stop runs worked at a steady rate (thinks not) - the conditions under which the theoretical benefits of compounding start to be realised? The Teutonics (once underway...) were superb machines for the long-distance non-stop express work they were built for but like other well-known classes of compound they ceased to offer much advantage once reduced to secondary stop-start work. SW Johnson put his first pair of compounds to work between Leeds and Carlisle and the second batch of three to London and Leicester/Nottingham - the only non-stop runs of over 100 miles on the Midland system; The LNWR main line was of course worked in two 150-mile sections so there was plenty of logic in going for compounding. British geography was against compound engines; French geography favoured them. 

 

On the second point, if you've invented and are still the only line using water troughs, why not flaunt it? ... were there any troughs between Manchester and Buxton? I just had a look at the drawing in Talbot (mentioned above) and see it's a one way scoop - perhaps the troughs were on an uphill section...

 

NB. No attribution is given in the caption but the drawing in Talbot looks to be reproduced from one of the contemporary magazines/journals - 'Engineering' or similar - unlike some of the others in the book which do seem to be Crewe general arrangement drawings.

 

(For someone professing enthusiasm for the Midland I do seem to have a lot of books on the LNW. I compensate by not having any on the Great Western.)

 

It should be remembered that the LNWR didn't just use compounding on express engines. The A and B class 0-8-0 freight locos were all built as compounds. This was following a comparative trial of the the first two engines built, one was built as a compound A class the other one as a simple (very similar to the later C class). The economy shown in the trial for the A class lead to the compound being the adopted standard. Whilst these locos would be trundling around at low speed, I would also assume they would be stopping at regular intervals and put into loops to allow faster expresses to pass so would be very stop start in nature.

 

When 777 was displayed at the Manchester Exhibition she was labeled as a Compound Goods Tank. Not sure about the thinking there! One would imagine that a tank engine would be built for shorter workings.

 

In "The LNWR Recalled" there is a chapter on Buxton very similar to the book "Scenes form the Past 24, Railways of the High Peak Buxton Engines & Men". This contains the extract of an interview with William Goodwin, one of 777's regular drivers at Buxton. He is the gentlemen leaning out of the cab in the picture below:-

 

 

 

He recalls a morning working leaving Buxton at 10.50 arriving at Manchester for 11.56, a journey of 1 hour and 6 minutes. This compares to today when a similar trip on a Class 150/156 unit leaves Buxton at 10.24 and arrives in Manchester at 10.26, a journey of 1 hour and 2 minutes.

777 stands comparison, she couldn't have been that bad, compounding or not!

 

The Buxton sets at that time were made up of fixed sets of six 32' carriages, plus milk and parcel traffic, so I would guess they would have a similar, if not greater loading. I would also presume the station stops would be longer as the carriages were slam door as against the modern units with sliding Guard/Driver controlled doors.

The Buxton line is not an easy road having a ruling gradient of 1:60 with many station built on a severe gradient. Middlewood adds a curve just in case it wasn't hard enough!

 

It was the 10.50 working that earned 777 her nickname cold dinners. Following some stock movements she arrived at Longsight at 12.30, right at the start of the fitters lunch break. The pipes connecting the high pressure and low pressure cylinders were flanged off the frame so worked loose and needed attention. The assigned fitter would have to work through his lunch break returning to his cold dinner.

 

Apart from the fitting staff at Longsight 777 seems to have been well regarded. Although prior to the compound tanks arriving the Buxton line was worked by anything that came to hand, Chopper and 4'6" tanks with wooden brakes, supplemented by old Crewe and DX (pre-rebuild) Goods with no brakes on the engine (and no cab on the Crewe Goods!). 

[Compound2632]

He had his reasons, good reasons. The mistake was in not getting the respective volumes of the cylinders right and not having separate valve gears for high and low cylinders.

 

 

Quite - which is why one high pressure and two low pressure cylinders is a better arrangement - Webb just couldn't get a big enough low pressure cylinder between the frames - though the engines look pot-bellied enough in a head-on view. Just as well this aspect of Crewe influence didn't reach Inchicore...

 

Only the first two Midland compounds - 2631 and 2632 - had truly independent control of the high and low pressure valve gear settings. (Not sure about NER No. 1619 - WM Smith's prototype of the Midland compound layout.) Johnson modified the arrangement for Nos. 2633-5 and all were eventually rebuilt to conform to Deeley's design ("there are no Smith compounds on the Midland", he asserted). The consequence was to effectively limit the maximum speed of the engines, so 2632's 92 mph sustained over two miles (on a 1:100 downgrade) was the maximum recorded speed with a British compound - possibly any compound? - given the 120 km/h (75 mph) speed limit on the French railways dating from Napoleon III's time. 

 

BTW how's the 777 build going?

[Horsetan]

....Only the first two Midland compounds - 2631 and 2632 - had truly independent control of the high and low pressure valve gear settings. (Not sure about NER No. 1619 - WM Smith's prototype of the Midland compound layout.) Johnson modified the arrangement for Nos. 2633-5 and all were eventually rebuilt to conform to Deeley's design ("there are no Smith compounds on the Midland", he asserted). .....

 

That may have been because they didn't want to pay Smith any royalties.

 

The French line speed limit was eventually increased to 130km/h, which suited Chapelon as he designed his engines to run constantly at these speeds, with room to spare. Chapelon's 242A1 (a compound, naturellement) reportedly maintained 158km/h (98mph) on test, having been given dispensation for this.

[Nicktoix]

Quiet and steady progress

 

 

The tanks are finished and the beading around them.

 

 

The two wires fixed thro' the spectacle plate are to line up the boiler. They are different lengths as that makes it easier to fit the boiler. As I model in 00 alot has to be cut away in the cab to clear the wheels.

 

 

The boiler former has  a tab to notch into the top of the boiler and two holes for the wires to g o thro'

 

 

The smokebox assembly is bolted to the front of the boiler and all lined up.

 

 

I shall not fit it finally until more detailing had been done. The cylinder really gets in the way protruding below the footplate.

 

 

[Horsetan]

777 is quite a bizarre creation; I keep thinking it's a 2-6-0T, but it isn't.

[Compound2632]

777 is quite a bizarre creation; I keep thinking it's a 2-6-0T, but it isn't.

 

I think in Whyte notation it's a 2-2-4-0T (just as the Teutonics, which look as if they ought to be 2-4-0s, are 2-2-2-0s). Your mention of Chapelon's 242A1 compound speed record holder - 4-8-4 - suggests other notations may be more informative, as Whyte notation doesn't distinguish powered and unpowered wheelsets - 2-2-2-0 is also the Whyte notation for a Crampton, with two fixed carrying axles and the big stern-wheeler drivers. I think in the UIC standard notation 777 is a 1ABt or possibly 1'ABt - this system doesn't seem to have been designed with Webb's radial axles in mind...

[John M]

Its a very interesting loco somewhat reminiscent of the Cork Bandon & South Coast's rebuild of a 4-4-2T into a 4-6-0T before standardising on that wheel arrangement for main line passenger and goods work.

 

Was 777 intended for short-medium distance passenger work on steeply graded routes such as Manchester-Buxton rather than as a goods tank. The 5'6" driving wheels do not stack up for goods work and the additional adhesion weight over a 2-4-2T would help on a steeply graded line.

 

Was it customary for the LNWR to turn passenger tank locomotives on work with limited stops and relatively high speed? This would probably explain the fitting of water pick up in one direction only.

 

Its interesting that Aspinall and Ivatt did not introduce Webb Compounds Joy valve gear or wooden frame tenders to Inchacore, however a couple of locos were converted to the Worsdell Von Borrie system under Ivatt before reverting to simple expansion

[Jol Wilkinson]

Its a very interesting loco somewhat reminiscent of the Cork Bandon & South Coast's rebuild of a 4-4-2T into a 4-6-0T before standardising on that wheel arrangement for main line passenger and goods work.

 

Was 777 intended for short-medium distance passenger work on steeply graded routes such as Manchester-Buxton rather than as a goods tank. The 5'6" driving wheels do not stack up for goods work and the additional adhesion weight over a 2-4-2T would help on a steeply graded line.

 

Was it customary for the LNWR to turn passenger tank locomotives on work with limited stops and relatively high speed? This would probably explain the fitting of water pick up in one direction only.

 

Its interesting that Aspinall and Ivatt did not introduce Webb Compounds Joy valve gear or wooden frame tenders to Inchacore, however a couple of locos were converted to the Worsdell Von Borrie system under Ivatt before reverting to simple expansion

The LNWR used wooden framed tenders until they went to 3000 gallon tank capacity IIRC. Joy valve gear was a complex gear but gave good valve action. David Joy was a friend of F W Webb and but for that, it is unlikely that the LNWR would have paid the royalties  for using his design.

 

Richard Moon, LNWR Chairman, was very keen on financial economy to provide strong dividends and there is no doubt that had a considerable influence on LNWR loco design under Webb. His "simple" locos were effective and cheap to build. Ironically their 1st class carriages were some of the most opulent of the time, recognising the need to attract the well heeled traveller.

[Nicktoix]

Got it finished now.

 

 

 

 

On these pics the cab roof and boiler fitting are loose. The tool boxes and smokebox door are plastic padding castings (not permanent fixtures).

This won't be painted yet as I am not at all  happy with the smokebox. It is too small a diameter ,by about 0.5mm, and the rivets are not clear enough. 

That will be fixed in some revised etches along with some other minor adjustments. It may be available from London Road in the new year.

 

Altogether a challenging build but very satisfying.

 

Having said it's my last LNW build I've just found a half built F class tucked away that needs finishing.

 

Nick

[Compound2632]

Got it finished now.

 

It would be a Joy (!) to see 777 in motion!

[Blue Max]

Heres hoping it does come out as a London Road Models kit, I would be at the front of the queue for one.

[jrg1]

Heres hoping it does come out as a London Road Models kit, I would be at the front of the queue for one.

I have been following your project with great interest-Well Done on an excellent build.

As the engineering saying goes-If it looks right, it probably is right, and if it looks wrong, it probably is.  A great model, and in real life, a weirdo!  Webb had some outlandish ideas that George Whale had to deal with.

Have you considered a model of the Dendy-Marshall locomotive?