Creating a believable freelance pre-Group company

[HonestTom]

Not beyond the bounds of possibiliy. The GWR sold some very new 0-6-0T some years earlier, and you can always imagine that your chosen line ordered a copy of the L&Y pug from say Vulcan foundry, who I believe built the prototype.

 

That is very handy to know, ta for the info. One possibility I considered was something like what happened at Beckton gasworks. I don't have the book to hand, so I'm not clear on all the details, but basically Beckton had a very well-equipped workshop and decided to build their own locomotives, based on the ones they already had. However, the first loco they built was basically a direct copy of the Barclays they already had, which Barclay were not at all pleased about, and the resulting legal threats put an end to Beckton's building programme.

[whart57]

As these are fun to do, then I have done another one

 

 

The loco is again a Sharpie, an outside frame 2-4-0 from the 1860s (cab a later addition) and the coaches are a right mixture. The make up is 3rd brake, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 3rd and full brake

 

The third brake, full brake and firsts are assumed to be from the 1870s, the classic style of paneling came in around then. The third is a downgraded second and the second a downgraded first, which first saw the rails in their original classification around 1860. For the six wheel third I have borrowed a bit of SER history. It's a bit of a cheapskate affair. I'm positing that the L&SR being short of the readies - as always - found itself with a number of late 1850s coaches where the bodies were sound but the underframes and running gear worn out. So they ordered a number of new six wheel underframes and used them to carry a cut and shut job of 1850s bodies. The SER actually did that, others might have as well. Makes for an unusual coach though.

[Annie]

All good fun and certainly thought provoking in the 'what-if' department  

[Nick Holliday]

Just to add to the mix, the LBSC sold a number of old locos to other lines, apart from the wholesale clear out of Terriers. Between 1883 and 1885, two singles, two 2-4-0's and an 0-6-0, together with sixty old four wheel coaches were sold to the West Lancashire Railway, the coaches costing £4,245, roughly £70 each! The locos were sent in Stroudley livery, with new brass number plates and names. The Brighton also sold two 0-6-0PT's to the Alexandra Docks etc. Railway in 1882.

On another tack, in 1875 the South Eastern Railway asked Ramsbottom of the LNWR to report on their locomotive requirements, which resulted in the railway having 20 Precedent clones being bought, although not from the LNW itself, but from Sharp, Stewart and Avonside. In the reverse direction, W Kirtley, the LCDR chief engineer, provided advice and designs to the embryonic railway company that became the Hull and Barnsley Railway in 1885, resulting in Beyer Peacock building a number of 0-6-0 tank and tender locos, and a class of 2-4-0's, that had very strong resemblance to their LCDR counterparts.

[whart57]

Unfortunately the Precedent clones didn't perform as well as the originals, though it has been argued that the circumstances under which they were ordered meant that no-one in the loco department really wanted to sort out the teething issues with them.

[whart57]

I passed through Victoria station this weekend, and was reminded of its dual nature. Platforms 1-6 are quite separate from the others, and this is because that was the former LCDR station. Today those platforms are used by South Eastern's trains to SE London and Kent, i.e. the SECR lines in pre-Group times. The other platforms serve South London and Sussex, i.e. the LBSCR lines, and are used by Southern and the Gatwick Express. Relevance to this discussion? Well Platforms 16-19 are in a little annexe too, not opening onto the main concourse but reached through a passage down the west side of platform 15. The former London and Surrey station? 

[relaxinghobby]

Perhaps I can suggest a suitable loco becasue I've been over on the 3D printing and CAD section trying to learn to use the drawing application Inkscape from the MIke Trice tutorials there.

 

My exercixepiece is the loco Shannon.

 

An intermediate type that could operate the Redhill to Reading route. It is a large wheeled 0-6-0 designed by J G Robinson for the Waterford and Limerick and Western Railway in Ireland.

I've been practicing tracing us Inkscape from a photo of Shannon one of the later engines built in 1900 with a square Belphere firebox, the class first appeared in 1893, and with 5 foot 2 inch was of the general use type common to that era. Similar to the GWR Dean goods?

 

It was built by Kitson and Co, they could also have built similar generic locos for other railways?

 

I could not find any quoted dimensions for the wheelbase so guestimated it from the quoted wheel size of 5ft 2 in.

 

Pink is not a livery suggestion, it is a colour which showed up well against the background of a smudgy grey  and pixelated photo.

 

Photo of Shannon   http://www.spellerweb.net/rhindex/Ireland/GreatSouthern/RobinsonWL060.jpg

 

[JimC]

It was built by Kitson and Co, they could also have built similar generic locos for other railways?

 

 

Kitson built 73 4'6 wheel 0-6-0s (K and L class) for the Taff Vale. The wheelbase was 7'3 + 7'9, 4'3" boiler barell and 6'5in pitch. There's a nice photo here:

 

http://lightmoor.co.uk/books/railway-archive-issue-25/RARCH25

[6892 Oakhill Grange]

There was a "real" West Midland Railway—the OW&WR used this title for a short time before selling out to the GWR. And Edward Beal used this title for his model railway back in the 1950s which, I believe, had a number of freelance locos. Not something which really happens now.

The problem with creating a realistic pre-grouping company is that, unlike the USA, virtually all British railways had their own distinctive fleets of locos. Less of a problem with the "Colonel Stephens" style of light railway.

On thing that occurs is imagining what might have happened if the Grouping had been done differently—a separate Scottish group, perhaps, or the Midland being part of the LNER...

The real WMR was the West Mercia Railway tracing its origins back to the Uxbridge and Amersham of 1839. This was the largest absorbed company into the Great Western although not as profitable as the Taff Vale. The WMR connected London with Oxford and twith Birmingham and Manchester or Cheltenham, Gloucester, Hereford and Ireland via Cardigan. It was the only pre grouping company that could offer you a one stop shop for Manchester to Southampton.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

What if a foreign-owned railway (say German) bought out one of our companies? Maybe they bought some locos from a third country (say the US).

 

No; too unlikely.

[sem34090]

What if those new locos began to take over from all home-grown locos with their radical corrugated-iron 'shed' styling?

 

That would never happen, not even in modern (1923) times - perish the thought! Mr Churchward's designs are radical enough for me, and as for the absolutely appalling lack of aesthetic thought given to the recent products of all of the railway companies since the (Great) war, don't get me started, but a locomotive resembling a corrugated iron shed. Only the Germans would ever have that, and they're welcome to it!

 

How times change...

Edited March 8, 2018 by sem34090

[whart57]

I'd like an excuse for one of these Borsigs

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Nestor%2C_Utrecht_pic2.JPG/1024px-Nestor%2C_Utrecht_pic2.JPG

[Corbs]

I charge very little for my excuse manufacturing services.

[whart57]

Kitson built 73 4'6 wheel 0-6-0s (K and L class) for the Taff Vale. The wheelbase was 7'3 + 7'9, 4'3" boiler barell and 6'5in pitch. There's a nice photo here:

 

http://lightmoor.co.uk/books/railway-archive-issue-25/RARCH25

 

Were they an off the shelf design or built specifically for the Taff Vale to their CME's design? There seems to be little on the internet about these locos.

[JimC]

Were they an off the shelf design or built specifically for the Taff Vale to their CME's design? There seems to be little on the internet about these locos.

Its an interesting question, isn't it? Can we know the answer? Were the Royal Scots designed by Derby or North British? I don't have any specialist literature on the Taff Vale, but this  class was introduced the year after the TVR acquired a young and dynamic CME, and the RCTS volume on absorbed classes states he specified the inside frames, and also states they had a Kitson patent design steam brake. 

 

My feeling is that no design exists in a vacuum. If a young draughtsman is told to design a wotsit for the new class, and he knows that he designed a very similar wotsit 6 months ago, seems to me the chances are he's going to get the old drawing and see if he can trace a lot of it and reuse it, no matter which customer its in use for. We can see a whole spectrum between a railway company instructing a manufacturer to build exactly to their specification (as the GWR tended to in the 20thC)  through things like the Scots, where most of the detail design was done by the builders, right through to buying an off the shelf standard design.

 

Its also not unknown for a customers design to be offered to other companies. After all, if Kitson - or whoever - have built some successful locomotives for Company-down-the-road - then why wouldn't you say - "like those ones but we'd like these changes". I think I mentioned up thread that there were examples among the Welsh lines of round top firebox versions of other co's classes with belpaire boilers and the like. 

 

So in this case, if we're considering fictional late 19thC design, it does seem there's quite a reasonable case for picking and choosing the features we like, provided the whole thing works. Taking, say, a Dean Goods and cutting and shutting it with a different cab, cutting down the tender top and giving it different chimney and dome, plus ramsbottom safety valves ought to present one with a credible generic 19thC freight locomotive. 

 

Passenger locomotives are more challenging, but it looks to me as if it would be possible to shorten the boiler/smokebox of a Triang Dean Single a little bit, in which case a bearable 2-2-2 might be feasible. I'm not sufficiently aware of what's been produced in the past to suggest which battered 4-4-0s might be susceptible to shortening into a credible 2-4-0.

 

(Later) I'm rather tempted to get out the hacksaw to a Dapol City of Truro. It would be a major exercise to turn one into anything resembling any of the real GWR 2-4-0s, but a generic 2-4-0 seems possible...

Edited March 9, 2018 by JimC

[whart57]

There's a good example of taking a design and putting your own preferences to it in a story J N Maskelyne tells of the Metropolitan Railway C class. In 1890 the Met's CME, one J J Hanbury, proposed designing an 0-4-4T. The Chairman of the Met was Edward Watkin who was also Chairman of the SER. Watkin was about to sign an order for 10 Q class 0-4-4Ts for the SER and called Hanbury in and told him that that type was what he wanted. Hanbury looked over the drawings, said that the funnel was too high and that he wanted a normal domed boiler instead of Stirling's domeless one. Upshot was that Neilson's got an order for 14 Qs of which four had Metropolitan Railway boiler fittings.

[Nile]

What if a foreign-owned railway (say German) bought out one of our companies? Maybe they bought some locos from a third country (say the US).

 

No; too unlikely.

 

In the 19th century it was mainly British money investing in foreign railways. By the 20th century the tide was turning, much of the London Underground tube network was financed with American money and electrified with American technology.

[wagonman]

Its an interesting question, isn't it? Can we know the answer? Were the Royal Scots designed by Derby or North British? I don't have any specialist literature on the Taff Vale, but this  class was introduced the year after the TVR acquired a young and dynamic CME, and the RCTS volume on absorbed classes states he specified the inside frames, and also states they had a Kitson patent design steam brake. 

 

My feeling is that no design exists in a vacuum. If a young draughtsman is told to design a wotsit for the new class, and he knows that he designed a very similar wotsit 6 months ago, seems to me the chances are he's going to get the old drawing and see if he can trace a lot of it and reuse it, no matter which customer its in use for. We can see a whole spectrum between a railway company instructing a manufacturer to build exactly to their specification (as the GWR tended to in the 20thC)  through things like the Scots, where most of the detail design was done by the builders, right through to buying an off the shelf standard design.

 

Its also not unknown for a customers design to be offered to other companies. After all, if Kitson - or whoever - have built some successful locomotives for Company-down-the-road - then why wouldn't you say - "like those ones but we'd like these changes". I think I mentioned up thread that there were examples among the Welsh lines of round top firebox versions of other co's classes with belpaire boilers and the like. 

 

So in this case, if we're considering fictional late 19thC design, it does seem there's quite a reasonable case for picking and choosing the features we like, provided the whole thing works. Taking, say, a Dean Goods and cutting and shutting it with a different cab, cutting down the tender top and giving it different chimney and dome, plus ramsbottom safety valves ought to present one with a credible generic 19thC freight locomotive. 

 

Passenger locomotives are more challenging, but it looks to me as if it would be possible to shorten the boiler/smokebox of a Triang Dean Single a little bit, in which case a bearable 2-2-2 might be feasible. I'm not sufficiently aware of what's been produced in the past to suggest which battered 4-4-0s might be susceptible to shortening into a credible 2-4-0.

 

(Later) I'm rather tempted to get out the hacksaw to a Dapol City of Truro. It would be a major exercise to turn one into anything resembling any of the real GWR 2-4-0s, but a generic 2-4-0 seems possible...

 

 

Dean designs, well GWR designs generally, are too distinctive to be usable in this sort of context. SECR fans won't thank me for suggesting it but the Wainwright C class with a few mods would be better, at least for a late C19 design. 

 

An Aspinal A class is another possibility. There are quite a few suitable prototypes appearing in the various Shapeways sites...

[Skinnylinny]

I have to agree with you on the Wainwright C class idea! (Well, I would have to, seeing as I've already done it!). I'm still trying to work out whether I can convert a C class into either a fairly generic 4-4-0 or a 2-4-0 (probably the latter, for proportions' sake), so as to keep a vague style of loco design within my freelance pre-grouping railway.

 

[sem34090]

I still think that Nile's idea of swapping the front and middle splashers makes it look a lot less like a C, but that's just me...

[FPH 603]

Funny that you mention the C Class being the ideal base for a generic pre grouping design. I came up with a design very much like a C class which I plan to convert from a GBL loco.

[Skinnylinny]

I still think that Nile's idea of swapping the front and middle splashers makes it look a lot less like a C, but that's just me...

It does, yes... but the longer middle splasher in this case hides the fact that the centre wheel set are in the wrong place on the Hornby Jinty chassis! They're slightly too far forward, though this is less obvious with the longer middle splasher, and I didn't feel up to moving the cutouts in the running plate. That loco was originally meant to be just a quick bit of fun, and ended up metamorphosing into an entire layout plan...

[whart57]

The reason the Wainwright C looks a "generic" design is because that's what it is. Wainwright probably contributed no more than the paint scheme, the design is generally accepted to be that of Chief Draughtsman Surtees and the design is a continuation of the LCDR's B class, which in itself was a pragmatic utility design. We think of Wainwright as a loco designer but in reality he was one of the earliest corporate re-branders - and a very successful one. The SER and LCDR had lousy reputations for service and reliability, but Wainwrights flair with paint and with the cosmetics of loco and carriage design lifted the SECR up in public estimation then and still today among railway enthusiasts. It was as if the makers of Morris Marina and Austin Allegro suddenly produced the BMW 7 series. And Wainwright couldn't have done it without Surtees and his team providing the technical excellence.

Edited March 11, 2018 by whart57

[JimC]

Dean designs, well GWR designs generally, are too distinctive to be usable in this sort of context.

Maybe, although as one who has spent a lot of time drawing Armstrong and Dean 2-4-0s, the striking thing is that they are all different! But as none of those are available ready to run its scarcely relevant. I'm just playing with butchering a Dapol City into an attempted generic looking 2-4-0. It will be interesting how it comes out. It requires a fabricated boiler though, and my first effort is about to disappear vertically downwards. My guess is that if you can lose the distinctive boiler fittings and alter the cab then there should be some potential. But once you have a Churchward taper boiler I agree it will never look like anything else.

[NCB]

 

Passenger locomotives are more challenging, but it looks to me as if it would be possible to shorten the boiler/smokebox of a Triang Dean Single a little bit, in which case a bearable 2-2-2 might be feasible. I'm not sufficiently aware of what's been produced in the past to suggest which battered 4-4-0s might be susceptible to shortening into a credible 2-4-0.

 

I believe the 4-2-2 Dean Singles (3031 class) were derived from the earlier 2-2-2 3001 class, replacing the leading axle with a bogie, as a result of an accident in Box tunnel; it was reckoned the leading axle was carrying too much weight. So, just chop off everything in front of the firebox and add a single axle under the firebox.