Beyer-Peacock / Kitson 'standard' engines on pre-grouping lines.

[CKPR]

Hello everyone

 

I'm looking to get modelling again soon and want to finish off my M&CR stud for 'Mealsgate' - it's a bit un-balanced at the moment (0-4-2t No.17, 0-4-4t No.26 and 0-6-0 No.29, the latter 'Yorkshireman' being wholly inappropriate) and I've got 0-4-2 No. 4 and 0-6-0 No.7 (or 19) on the stocks  ( loco and tender chassis for both and the footplate for the 0-6-0 completed ). I'm also looking at the Beyer-Peacock built M&CR engines, especially 0-6-0s No.27 and No.28,   to see whether I could build an additional engine using an existing kit as a basis. Cross-referencing Essery & Jenkinson's LMS engines vol.2  and Russell's GWR absorbed engines books, I've found both the LYR Barton-Wright 0-6-0s and the Taff Vale Class L 0-6-0s, both of which are described as Kitson / Vulcan / Beyer- Peacock (I don't really understand the presumably convoluted history of these concerns !) 'standard' designs. I know that the London Road Models kit for the LYR engine can be converted into the TVR version but was wondering whether it could also be built as one of the M&CR engines. Just to complicate matters, I already own the old Mercian Models kits for the Kitson 0-6-0 'Carlisle' (?!) that ran on the Bishops Castle Rly and whilst I know this has some serious inaccuracies having read the posts by Quarryscapes and others on the original engines of the Mid Wales, etc, I was wondering what potential this kit might have for building as an M&CR engine [by complete coincidence, we're going to Bishops Castle for the afternoon as soon as I've posted this].

 

Sorry for the long post and any information and suggestions gratefully received - if I can build an M&CR engine from the LRM kit, then I've got a couple of weeks to drop some hints for Christmas !

Edited December 3, 2017 by CKPR

[sir douglas]

a normal thing for railway companies when wanting to build large quantity of a class in a short space of time and not being able to do it themselves was to sub contract to the private builders, a large majority of mainline locos were built like this from firms such as Beyer peacock, vulcan, Hunslet, hudswell, Fowler and north british

[Compound2632]

a normal thing for railway companies when wanting to build large quantity of a class in a short space of time and not being able to do it themselves was to sub contract to the private builders, a large majority of mainline locos were built like this from firms such as Beyer peacock, vulcan, Hunslet, hudswell, Fowler and north british

 

And conversely, smaller companies such as the Maryport & Carlisle, together with notably the Furness and Cambrian, couldn't justify maintaining the drawing office and works capacity to design engines for themselves, so bought small quantities off-the-peg - in the case of the Furness and Cambrian, Sharp, Stewart & Co.

 

In the case of the larger companies as described by Sir Douglas, the private builders were generally contracted to build according to the railway company's drawings and specification, even to the extent of samples of components being sent out.

 

Sorry, this isn't really helping with the OP.

[CKPR]

And conversely, smaller companies such as the Maryport & Carlisle, together with notably the Furness and Cambrian, couldn't justify maintaining the drawing office and works capacity to design engines for themselves, so bought small quantities off-the-peg - in the case of the Furness and Cambrian, Sharp, Stewart & Co.

 

In the case of the larger companies as described by Sir Douglas, the private builders were generally contracted to build according to the railway company's drawings and specification, even to the extent of samples of components being sent out.

 

Sorry, this isn't really helping with the OP.

 

 

Partly correct as The Furness famously never built an engine themselves despite having excellent workshops at Barrow, whilst the M&CR engines were a mixture of home-made at Maryport and bought-in from a variety of sources, including Beyer-Peacock, North British and Yorkshire Engine Co. The M&CR bought-in engines tended to come in pairs except for the singleton No 18 from NBL. The M&CR certainly had an active mechanical engineering drawing office in the 19th century as I own three of the original drawings, which are practically works of art. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by CKPR

[Regularity]

And conversely, smaller companies such as the Maryport & Carlisle, together with notably the Furness and Cambrian, couldn't justify maintaining the drawing office and works capacity to design engines for themselves, so bought small quantities off-the-peg - in the case of the Furness and Cambrian, Sharp, Stewart & Co.

 

Interest, though, in that most of the North American railways specified their particular requirements or detailed the small components and bought from a major supplier, such as Baldwin, Alco, Lima, etc.

Partly correct as The Furness famously never built an engine themselves despite having excellent workshops at Barrow,

 

What about the power units for the steam railmotors?

[CKPR]

Interest, though, in that most of the North American railways specified their particular requirements or detailed the small components and bought from a major supplier, such as Baldwin, Alco, Lima, etc.

What about the power units for the steam railmotors?

 

 

Not listed in Essery & Jenkinson so presumably not technically locomotives ?!

[Regularity]

Most railways treated the power bogie as a locomotive (which it is, a locomotive engine) and the rest as a carriage.

[Regularity]

I always thought it interesting that the Furness simply bought from Sharp, Stewart whatever was appropriate for their needs until Pettigrew arrived from the LSWR (where he had been chief draftsman) and all of a sudden the external look was altered, to a smoother, more Edwardian line. Obviously he had some opinions on how things should look!

[Compound2632]

Most railways treated the power bogie as a locomotive (which it is, a locomotive engine) and the rest as a carriage.

 

Not listed in Essery & Jenkinson so presumably not technically locomotives ?!

 

Essery & Jenkinson [in An Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives] also omit the locomotive part of the two Midland steam railmotors - perhaps because they didn't receive locomotive numbers, though Lacey & Dow [ in Midland Carriages] record that they appeared in the locomotive register.

[Regularity]

And what is it that we are always told by such as Essery and Jenkinson? Do what the railway did, not as a modeller interprets it.

[Nick Holliday]

Interest, though, in that most of the North American railways specified their particular requirements or detailed the small components and bought from a major supplier, such as Baldwin, Alco, Lima, etc.

What about the power units for the steam railmotors?

According to R W Rush's book on railmotors, the loco units of the Furness examples were the only locomotives ever built at their Barrow workshops, presumably to Pettigrew's design. The Midland example was built in-house.

[Regularity]

The problem with Rush’s work is that he seemed to be in a rush, and not prepared to take time to check things.

I will have to check with McGowan-Gradon, to see if they are mentioned there.

[CKPR]

Any thoughts on the OP - use the Mercian Models 'Carlisle' kit or splash out on the LRM Barton-Wright kit ?

[Regularity]

Without a drawing for the M&C loco, it’s hard to say, but two points come to mind:

Which will give the most accurate result?

Which will provide the easiest* route?

 

All things being equal, I imagine the LRM being easier to build, but as for fidelity this is something only you (and your picket!) can decide.

 

* This doesn’t mean “easy”, but the one which will involve the fewest alterations to make parts that should fit, fit.

[Nick Holliday]

Looking at a photo of M&CR No 28 and comparing it with pictures of the LRM L&YR loco and the rendition of Mercian's Carlisle, I would venture to suggest that neither will provide you with an easy route to your goal, if you are hoping to capture the essential character of the M&C loco. Apart from the basic shape of the cab, with a rectangular splashers at the bottom and a curved cut out above, neither has the right profile, and at least the front splashers will need to be scratch built, and the distinctive Beyer Peacock splashers will need to be sourced somewhere, an etching perhaps. The LRM boiler looks too large and too high pitched, whilst the BCR boiler features a raised firebox, which 28 didn't. I can't comment on the BC chassis, but the LY one looks to have unequal wheelbase and fluted coupling rods, whereas 28 seems to have almost equal spacing, and plain rods. By the time you have corrected all these things there will be precious little left of use - perhaps the safety valves from the LRM kit!

I did think that perhaps the Branchlines kit of the BP / LSWR Ilfracombe Goods might offer an easier route, but being some thirty years earlier in design, it too has little in common with the M&C loco.

I realise I have been rather negative, but unless the M&C rebuilt the locos later, then I fear scratch building may be your best course. But if you can provide a drawing of what you are after, including the tender which doesn't appear in the photo I found on the Internet, then there might be scope for identifying other suitable donor kits that might give you a head start.

[Nick Holliday]

The problem with Rush’s work is that he seemed to be in a rush, and not prepared to take time to check things.

I will have to check with McGowan-Gradon, to see if they are mentioned there.

I know that Mr Rush has a reputation for a degree of "unreliability" which is why I always include his name when quoting his information, so the reader can season it with a pinch of salt! However, thanks to his "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" approach, many of his books have dabbled in uncharted waters, and the hobby would be a little poorer without his efforts.

However, with regard to the FR railmotor, in Michael Andrews' 2012 book on the line he quotes minutes to the effect: "The Board approved the construction of a steam powered railmotor to carry fifty passengers. It was to be built in the Company's own workshops, at Barrow, at a cost of £2,000 and was to run on either the Lakeside or Coniston branches. The prototype was examined by the Board, in the workshops, on 14th October 1904 ....."

[CKPR]

Looking at a photo of M&CR No 28 and comparing it with pictures of the LRM L&YR loco and the rendition of Mercian's Carlisle, I would venture to suggest that neither will provide you with an easy route to your goal, if you are hoping to capture the essential character of the M&C loco. Apart from the basic shape of the cab, with a rectangular splashers at the bottom and a curved cut out above, neither has the right profile, and at least the front splashers will need to be scratch built, and the distinctive Beyer Peacock splashers will need to be sourced somewhere, an etching perhaps. The LRM boiler looks too large and too high pitched, whilst the BCR boiler features a raised firebox, which 28 didn't. I can't comment on the BC chassis, but the LY one looks to have unequal wheelbase and fluted coupling rods, whereas 28 seems to have almost equal spacing, and plain rods. By the time you have corrected all these things there will be precious little left of use - perhaps the safety valves from the LRM kit!

I did think that perhaps the Branchlines kit of the BP / LSWR Ilfracombe Goods might offer an easier route, but being some thirty years earlier in design, it too has little in common with the M&C loco.

I realise I have been rather negative, but unless the M&C rebuilt the locos later, then I fear scratch building may be your best course. But if you can provide a drawing of what you are after, including the tender which doesn't appear in the photo I found on the Internet, then there might be scope for identifying other suitable donor kits that might give you a head start.

 

I'd wondered about an 'Ilfracombe Goods' as a starting point as well - the apparent similarities between these supposedly standard off the shelf engines is very deceptive. Oh well, at least scratch-building is cheap !

[Edwardian]

I'd wondered about an 'Ilfracombe Goods' as a starting point as well - the apparent similarities between these supposedly standard off the shelf engines is very deceptive. Oh well, at least scratch-building is cheap !

 

At least there are scale drawings available of the Ilfracombe Goods - Colonel Stephens Soc, IIRC - a later Beyer Peacock design is, of course, soon to be available RTR in 4mm, from OO Works.  I'm afraid I don't know which BP type the M&CR locos resembled.   

[MarcD]

According to R W Rush's book on railmotors, the loco units of the Furness examples were the only locomotives ever built at their Barrow workshops, presumably to Pettigrew's design. The Midland example was built in-house.

This is the case as I have a copy of a rail-motor drawing with Pettigrew's signature on it. The Furness did completely rebuild locos some of the 0-6-0 Sharp Stewart's looked completely different after they had left barrow works. Also the sharp Stewart 2-4-0 were converted to 2-4-2T the design of these tanks were copied by the Manchester and Milford.

 

Marc

[pete_mcfarlane]

At least there are scale drawings available of the Ilfracombe Goods - Colonel Stephens Soc, IIRC - a later Beyer Peacock design is, of course, soon to be available RTR in 4mm, from OO Works.  I'm afraid I don't know which BP type the M&CR locos resembled.   

 

The Science Museum group has the Beyer-Peacock works drawings. 

 

http://www.ssplprints.com/search/keywords/beyer%20peacock%20drawing

 

You'll need to do a fair bit of digging to find the ones you are after, but there are definitely  M&CR drawings in there: http://www.ssplprints.com/image/1106567/a1966-24-ms0001-3-26606

[CKPR]

I've got drawings (well, LMS weight diagrams) for the M&CR BP engines , available from the Cumbrian Railways Association,  and the Les Darbyshire drawings  of both the 'Ilfracombe Goods' and  'Carlisle' from MRN back in the day, so I just need to find the same for the LYR and TVR engines - time to find my copy of Leleux's index. There was a drawing of the TVR engine  in MRC in the late 1940s and I saw a bound set in Hay-on-Wye last week but the asking price of £18 would go a long way towards paying for the necessary wheels. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by CKPR

[Gordon A]

What price information if it is not generally available?

 

Gordon

[Nick Holliday]

I've got drawings (well, LMS weight diagrams) for the M&CR BP engines , available from the Cumbrian Railways Association,  and the Les Darbyshire drawings  of both the 'Ilfracombe Goods' and  'Carlisle' from MRN back in the day, so I just need to find the same for the LYR and TVR engines - time to find my copy of Leleux's index. There was a drawing of the TVR engine  in MRC in the late 1940s and I saw a bound set in Hay-on-Wye last week but the asking price of £18 would a long way to getting the necessary wheels.

 

To save you a bit of trouble and expense, possibly, there is a GA type drawing of the L&YR loco in Barry Lane's book on L&YR Locomotives. Key dimensions are wheelbase, 7' 3" + 7' 9", boiler pitch 6' 5" and boiler diameter 4' 1" to which has to be added cladding thickness. Russell's book on GWR Absorbed locos has an outline drawing of the later rebuilt TVR version, with a higher pitched boiler. However, when the TVR design was adopted by the L&YR, the latter substituted the rectangular cab splashers which look like the M&CR loco, at least in original form, so this variant isn't particularly helpful. Unfortunately,I have not been able to find any photos of the M&CR locos after their rebuilding, as pictures of their locos, especially goods types, are as rare as hens' teeth, and the two books on the line I have only cover the early passenger locos, and even then rather scantily, so I cannot comment whether the later incarnations are more, or less, like the L&YR ones.

[CKPR]

To save you a bit of trouble and expense, possibly, there is a GA type drawing of the L&YR loco in Barry Lane's book on L&YR Locomotives. Key dimensions are wheelbase, 7' 3" + 7' 9", boiler pitch 6' 5" and boiler diameter 4' 1" to which has to be added cladding thickness. Russell's book on GWR Absorbed locos has an outline drawing of the later rebuilt TVR version, with a higher pitched boiler. However, when the TVR design was adopted by the L&YR, the latter substituted the rectangular cab splashers which look like the M&CR loco, at least in original form, so this variant isn't particularly helpful. Unfortunately,I have not been able to find any photos of the M&CR locos after their rebuilding, as pictures of their locos, especially goods types, are as rare as hens' teeth, and the two books on the line I have only cover the early passenger locos, and even then rather scantily, so I cannot comment whether the later incarnations are more, or less, like the L&YR ones.

 

 Thank you, this is really helpful - I forgot about the drawing in the Russell book so I can look this up no problem.

[CKPR]

Finally got the Mercian Models "Carlisle" kit down from the Aged Ps' loft at the weekend and just checked it against the TVR Kitson 0-6-0 drawings in Russell ...hmm.

Edited January 4, 2018 by CKPR