Peckett W4 types - weathering, modifying and prototype

[Regularity]

 As for the different types of Peckett, I think to most people a Peckett 0-4-0ST is just that, a Peckett 0-4-0ST and they don't really care whether its a R2 or a W4, or whatever.

  

What an odd post. On the one hand you grumble that chapter and verse have not been provided, when the pics were offered as suggestions of how a loco might look, then you go on to say that actually a Peckett is a Peckett and different versions are all the same to most.

 

I don’t think it was an odd post. To most people there is a standard Peckett “look”, much like to most people, a Stanier Black Five is a standard look despite the numerous detail variations*, or “all GWR panniers look the same” (despite there being at least two different cab designs).

 

But the point is, we ain’t most people: we like this sort of thing and this forum is the most appropriate place to discuss the differences. However, to most people (expanding this outside of railway enthusiasts) it’s just a steam engine that looks a bit like Percy the small engine.

 

* Typically, the old Triang-Hornby “Silver Seal” Black V managed to combine two variations - short boiler and short firebox - which didn’t exist in the real world. We’ll ignore the single slidebars on the crosshead.

[Oldddudders]

Well, I have no use whatever for an industrial locomotive, but nevertheless have ordered a W4, mainly due to this thread and the good things I read here about performance etc. I don’t weather, so it will remain pristine black.

[PGH]

 

My previous comment was made purely within the narrow context of the quote above it. It was not intended to criticise you for posting pictures of locos other than W4s. On the contrary, sourcing such good quality colour photos of any industrial locos was no mean feat. What you provided was interesting and valuable. Please, keep posting.

 

 

Everyone likes to see a good photograph and we should no doubt be grateful for those who take the small amount of time and effort to download or copy an image from another source and post it here.  However does it ever cross your mind when commending this effort that this photo is actually the work of some unknown uncredited photographer who has spent time and effort visiting the location; photographing the subject, sometimes spending time waiting to get it in a suitable position; processing the film (or paying for the processing) if its pre digital; scanning the negative or slide; editing the result suitable for publication and composing a suitable informative text for the caption (probably ignored when the image is copied).

 

Perhaps they deserve some credit  ????     Just a thought.  

[Regularity]

There was another thread where a poster put up links to his Flickr pages, albeit withou much at all by way of text, and several other posters (including the OP) complained, asking him to post either a linked image, or “better” still, to upload the pictures into the thread because of “limited bandwidth” on their part.

 

The thing is, on Flickr, the photos had captions for date, place and any other useful information as well as credits where they were someone else’s photo. To copy all that over would have been very time consuming. (I spent a pleasant hour or so looking at all the photos in the album, which I would otherwise not have been aware of, so I had no problem with this.)

 

Not surprisingly, after a second round of bleating about having to click on a link and open another window (what’s the problem guys? I mean, if you want to look at lots of pictures, pay for more bandwidth) he simply stopped posting. No fuss, no bother.

 

Not a problem for me, as I had looked at all of his mighty fine collection of photos, but had he acceded to their requests, they would have gone without all the useful info, or he would have needed to do a lot of copying and pasting.

[Norton961]

As the author of over 10 books (both Railway and Motorcycle) I have been collecting photographs for many many years and always endeavour to credit the photographer, but I have many prints and slides where no photographer is mentioned and no trail to follow to help identify who might have taken it. In the past I bought a print with nothing on the back and then recognised it as a copy print of a C C Green photo which someone has taken a photo of an original print and then printed it without mentioning the photographer. I

I have even found a print of a photo I took (with nothing on the back) and I have no idea who or how it came to be at a postcard fair! The advent of quality digital scanners has further clouded already muddy water of credit to the photographer as postcard prints are then taken from the scans and then appear at eBay/postcard fairs. The same applies to slides.

So it is possible to buy lots of photos and slides without any reference to any photographer. So I agree with PGH but it is not always possible to give credit where it is due.

 

David

[Ruston]

I'm glad we've sorted that out again.

 

Here's a Peckett to keep everyone going..

 

[Caledonian]

Ah, it looks very nice but who took that photie and when?   Coat, hat...

[PGH]

What an odd post. On the one hand you grumble that chapter and verse have not been provided, when the pics were offered as suggestions of how a loco might look, then you go on to say that actually a Peckett is a Peckett and different versions are all the same to most.

 

And actually, managing to introduce a grumble into such a thread is quite something. A more informative and inspiring few pages are hard to imagine.

 

That's a rather twisted view of my remarks although no doubt you felt it necessary to make some unfavourable comments.

 

Most are probably satisfied with photos of "typical" Pecketts merely to illustrate weathering and couldn't give a damn who took it and when but lack of information just arouses my curiosity.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by PGH

[PGH]

Ah, it looks very nice but who took that photie and when?   Coat, hat...

 

Oh yes, very amusing indeed.  Just purely as a matter of interest Caledonian how many prototype photos have you posted on this forum ?  (I've posted one thousand one hundred and forty one - all of my own taking if you'd posted anything like that number you might be a little less flippant about crediting the photos correctly, where possible)

Edited October 12, 2018 by PGH

[Tiptonian]

Everyone likes to see a good photograph and we should no doubt be grateful for those who take the small amount of time and effort to download or copy an image from another source and post it here.  However does it ever cross your mind when commending this effort that this photo is actually the work of some unknown uncredited photographer who has spent time and effort visiting the location; photographing the subject, sometimes spending time waiting to get it in a suitable position; processing the film (or paying for the processing) if its pre digital; scanning the negative or slide; editing the result suitable for publication and composing a suitable informative text for the caption (probably ignored when the image is copied).

 

Perhaps they deserve some credit  ????     Just a thought.  

 

Yes, of course they do deserve crediting for their work.  I have been a photographer on various subjects (but not railways) since the mid 60s, and am therefore fully aware of the efforts involved, but have not been bitter when, over the years, a few of mine have appeared unexpectedly.  I admire your knowledge of the subject concerned. However, I think the poster of the photos made it quite clear in post #88 that he would have given full credit and more details if he was able to do so.

[NHY 581]

That's a rather twisted view of my remarks although no doubt you felt it necessary to make some unfavourable comments.

 

Most are probably satisfied with photos of "typical" Pecketts merely to illustrate weathering and couldn't give a damn who took it and when but lack of information just arouses my curiosity.

 

In the first photo Peckett 1704 is a Class R2.  It was supplied ex works on 22/6/1927 to M & W Grazebrook Ltd., Netherton, Worcestershire.  The name (which may be difficult to read in the photo) is FRANCIS.  In 1961 it was sold to Cafferata & Co.Ltd. for use at their Hawton Works, Nottinghamshire, where it was later scrapped in 1968.  The photograph would have been taken at Netherton.

 

For the second photo we have the loco and location identified (Hurrah !).  Peckett 1897 was a Class R4 supplied new to Walsall Gas Works in 1936 and remained there until scrapped in 1970. 

 

In the third photo Peckett 1931 is a Class R4 ex 17/1/1938 to M & W Grazebrook Ltd., Netherton, Worcestershire.  It originally carried the name GRAZEBROOK No.2.  Rail traffic ceased at the site in 1962 and the loco was scrapped at about the same time.

 

The fourth photo is of Peckett 2046 described in the works list as a Class R4 (Type 1853).  The additional "Type" description indicates a variation on the standard Class R4 design, but not significant enough to warrant a higher class designation (there was no Class R5).  The original Peckett 1853 was supplied to the Barnsley Gas Co. in 1934 as BRISTOL No.3, but I've no idea if or how this varied from the standard R4.

Peckett 2046 went new to the No.1 Metal & Produce Recovery Depot, at Cowley, Oxfordshire.

This was a depot run by Morris Motors Ltd. on behalf of the Air Ministry during and after World War II to repair and salvage damaged aircraft.  In November 1948 it was transferred to the Dunlop Rubber Co.Ltd. at Erdington in Birmingham, where the photograph was taken.  At some point previous to the photo it had carried the No.5.  It was scrapped on site in 1966.

 

A slightly different black and white view of the same loco is here:

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/misc/misc_indust108.htm

 

although its incorrectly described as a W4

  

Oh yes, very amusing indeed.  Just purely as a matter of interest Caledonian how many prototype photos have you posted on this forum ?  (I've posted one thousand one hundred and forty one - all of my own taking)

[Corbs]

Oh for goodness' sake, you try and defuse a disagreement where one person has upset another (probably without intending to) through the medium of cold, hard text, then someone tries to lighten the mood with a little joke and it's back to being cross again. Chill out dudes! We're all in this together because we share a common interest and it's not a good use of our time to get grumpy with each other.

 

I apologise if I've made things worse/carry on more by butting in, I think I've derailed the topic enough now! Can we all shake hands and talk about trains

industrial railways again?

[Ruston]

Oh yes, very amusing indeed.  Just purely as a matter of interest Caledonian how many prototype photos have you posted on this forum ?  (I've posted one thousand one hundred and forty one - all of my own taking)

 

I'm sure we're all thankful for your posting of prototype photos but can you please give it a rest? It isn't a competition and although I'm sure you have posted more prototype photos than Caledonian, as far as I can recall he hasn't disrupted any topics. Nor has he repeatedly taken down photos, and deleted posts, thus rendering topics useless simply because someone posts something that he doesn't like.This is yet another topic that is rapidly heading toward chaos. The same gripes, from the same poster, about people not crediting photos and questioning whether  anyone here is interested in prototype information or not.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Ruston

[NHY 581]

Quite.

 

Not sure if suitable but a nice image all the same.

 

 

Rob.

[Regularity]

That’s nice - what a wonderful study in rust and grime.

 

I am almost afraid to ask (only joking!) but where and when?

[Corbs]

To further the W4/R1 confusion, here's 'Annie' at Y D Paper in Duxbury, 1967, listed as an R1 but with smokebox wings. Looking decidedly worn out here!

 

More info: https://www.embsayboltonabbeyrailway.org.uk/oldsite/9.html

[Giles]

the loco is lovely - but possibly even more so the track and the growth... superb!

[NHY 581]

Reposting the image with full info.

 

Steam loco at Tredegar Estate May 1963 by John Wiltshire. (Peter Brabham collection)

 

 

The the following is further information from a Mr Peter Viney. 'The location is Mill Parade Pillgwenlly, Newport. The loco is on the private sidings of the former Tredegar Estates Lines company, which from 1960 became the Uskside Railway Co. The lines served the river wharves and later a number of engineering companies which were sited here just up river from the Transporter Bridge. The loco is probably Peckett No. 1907, being the only one of its type purchased by Tredegar Estates Lines. A rare shot at this location '

 

 

Rob.

[Norton961]

I make no claims to be an expert on Pecketts, but I came across an article about Peckett and Sons in Railway Bylines Summer Special No2 which gives a summary of the Company and the locos it produced.

According to the author, I C Coleford the W4s were built between 1885 and 1906 with 143 being built making it the largest class built by Peckett. Any one confirm this?

 

David

[Sandhole]

Reposting the image with full info.

 

Steam loco at Tredegar Estate May 1963 by John Wiltshire. (Peter Brabham collection)

 

 

The the following is further information from a Mr Peter Viney. 'The location is Mill Parade Pillgwenlly, Newport. The loco is on the private sidings of the former Tredegar Estates Lines company, which from 1960 became the Uskside Railway Co. The lines served the river wharves and later a number of engineering companies which were sited here just up river from the Transporter Bridge. The loco is probably Peckett No. 1907, being the only one of its type purchased by Tredegar Estates Lines. A rare shot at this location '

 

 

Rob.

Massive Shot!!!!!

Don't even know where to start raving about that!!!

                                                           C.

[Corbs]

I make no claims to be an expert on Pecketts, but I came across an article about Peckett and Sons in Railway Bylines Summer Special No2 which gives a summary of the Company and the locos it produced.

According to the author, I C Coleford the W4s were built between 1885 and 1906 with 143 being built making it the largest class built by Peckett. Any one confirm this?

 

David

 

That would make sense as to why Hornby chose the W4, then, if it was such a big class. The R1 pictured above (Annie) was built 1908 so if the R1 followed the W4, it would make it an early version (which explains the winglets).

[Budgie]

That would make sense as to why Hornby chose the W4, then, if it was such a big class. The R1 pictured above (Annie) was built 1908 so if the R1 followed the W4, it would make it an early version (which explains the winglets).

It also means that Hornby can continue issuing new liveries for the next 50 years or so. Shrewd, or what?

[Caledonian]

Reposting the image with full info.

 

Steam loco at Tredegar Estate May 1963 by John Wiltshire. (Peter Brabham collection)

 

 

The the following is further information from a Mr Peter Viney. 'The location is Mill Parade Pillgwenlly, Newport. The loco is on the private sidings of the former Tredegar Estates Lines company, which from 1960 became the Uskside Railway Co. The lines served the river wharves and later a number of engineering companies which were sited here just up river from the Transporter Bridge. The loco is probably Peckett No. 1907, being the only one of its type purchased by Tredegar Estates Lines. A rare shot at this location '

 

 

Rob.

 

Given the heavy weathering evident on the loco the sign above and to the right is a touch ironic 

[Andy Y]

I would like to make it clear that we provide the facility to users to edit or hide posts on RMweb so that corrections can be made; it is not intended to be a tool used to damage the integrity of posts or topics and their usefulness to readers. We accept that any contributions are those of the individual and they maintain rights over such but it comes across as very mean-spirited when it looks more like 'taking your ball home because you don't like the score'. Also it's not a competition.

 

If you wish to establish or maintain a reputation as a respected contributor hissy fits aren't the way to hold onto that.

[Barclay]

I note that PGH has removed all his photo - posts which saddens me greatly because those of us who weren't 'there' rely heavily on those who were for first hand information and PGH's photo's were really useful to me when I built my Manning Wardle. Reconsider, if you will?