Regency Rails - Georgian, Williamine & Early Victorian Railways

[Nearholmer]

They might have been deluding themselves because, depending upon how the lumps did or didn't fit together, they might have done better or worse, I think.

[runs as required]

i suppose it depended on who was paying whom in the supply stage down to the point of sale (which I always I imagine somewhere in the pool of London - where Pepys writes about buying a chaldron [36 cwt] with his friends and sharing it out between them.)

Up at the other end on the Tyne there were certain suppliers lower down the flatter Northumberland banks of the Tyne who nailed very high boards onto their waggons to deliver bigger loads to the staiths. Buying from these staiths the sea going colliers could get get a lot more sea coal in a (nominally) 53 cwt chaldron for their money than from staiths at the foot of more difficult Waggonway runs.

dh

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

On 22/08/2019 at 07:00, Compound2632 said:

 

 

Re. Shakespearean railways - is there any reference in the plays or sonnets? 

 

Ahem ...... 

 

Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and c(h)aldron bubble.

 

Macbeth 

[runs as required]

Malclolm does rather well out of the chaldron  plotting but moving Birnam Wood was hardly very green

[Hroth]

5 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

 

Ahem ...... 

 

Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and c(h)aldron bubble.

 

Macbeth 

 

Shakespeare is so typical of non-technical London based literati, getting it all wrong...

 

If the fires burning then it shouldn't be the c(h)aldron bubbling!

 

Quote

moving Birnam Wood was hardly very green

 

Obviously an early experiment in biomass power generation.

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Hroth
usual problematic fingerpokery

[Caley Jim]

Or clearfelling!

 

Re the capacity of chaldrons, Mike Williams in his book on CR wagons points out that most mineral wagons couldn't actually contain the weight of coal for which they were rated, but could hold that weight of other, denser minerals such as iron ore.

 

Jim 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Caley Jim
Edited to correct predictive text (again!)

[Ruston]

13 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

On the subject of chaldron wagons I'm sure I read somewhere that colliery owners liked chaldron wagons because they are measure by volume and if they filled them with big lumps of coal then they effectively got a better price than a measure by weight.

 

Gibbo.

I'm not sure that's true. Larger coals would command a higher price than small coal or slack so although the same volume would mean less weight of coal in the waggon with larger pieces it could be worth more than than the greater weight of coal in a waggon full of small coal.

[runs as required]

Chaldron waggons II

The justification for a single horse hauling a Chaldron waggon on an oak or beech edge rail is that it could handle more than twice the weight (between 36 cwt and 53 cwt) of the lumbering wooden coal wain hauled by a brace of oxen plus a pair of horses (later regulated to 17.5 cwt).

Moreover Waggonway working, besides being faster, was more intensive in terms of headways between waggons and in some cases Chaldron traffic continued day and night through 24 hours. 

So profits could be many times higher due to the increased tonnages transported, even though the infrastructure was far more costly to install and maintain. That is why Waggonway partnerships were led by the landed aristocracy.

 

But the evolution of the humdrum Chaldron itself (by Rude Mechanicals?) gets relatively short shrift compared to: 

firstly attractive old hand drawn maps showing the rapid spread of Waggonway technology across the country  

secondly: elegant rendered drawings of increasingly ambitious Civil engineering across undulating mining terrain (at the same time as fashionable Landowners were busy re-arranging the landscapes of their private parkland estates to include water features and temples). 

Lastly, but very evident here, our fascination with the early steam attempts at horse replacements. 

 

In Les Turnbull’s “Railways before George Stephenson” waggons receive two interesting pages in Chapter 3 “The Anatomy of the Waggonways”.

Turnbull is really good at showing us the little illustrative blocks decorating the documents he finds in his archive searches:

 

The above decorates the title page of his "Early Railways of the Derwent Valley"  book and is from a plan by Gibson. The vignette explains the whole industry from the mine down to the timbered staith where a keel is being loaded. It is perhaps central Gateshead at Redheugh (the windmills could be powering water pumps to drain the mine workings ). 

Note the wooden waggons also have wooden flanged wheels 4 inches in width including the shaped flange. 

The loaded waggon descending to the staith is being braked by the driver sitting on and pushing down on a long lever termed a convoy to operate on the far side wheels. He has tethered his horse behind; it is doing no work but may be expected to be the last resort should the waggon runaway.

The ascending waggon is drawn up by the horse. It appears to be nearest the edge on the double track incline which is the same as present day double track running. 

 

I can’t explain the appearance of an early Gateshead Angel to the east of the mine. Could it be a signalling telegraph to further downriver where the sea going sailing colliers await? 

 

There were different sizes patterns and capacities of waggons but by the late C18 the term Chaldron waggon was in general use and in the early days of the public railways after 1825 carrying capacities were converging. 

Gauge also varied on the spatially disconnected wooden railed waggonways between 4 and 5 feet; 4ft 8ins of the Killingworth waggonway eventually emerging, thanks to George Stephenson with the extra half inch as the standard (which is why two Wylam 4 foot gauge Hedley locos endured as museum relics) 

 

In the heyday of the Waggonway from the early C18, kits of waggon parts came from different sources: the timber flanged wheels were by specialists, leading wheels were larger than rear wheels.

Coops (the waggon bodies) and all the various components had names: soles, deals, sheths, overings. 

A waggon cost less than a tenner but ironwork (for a timber wheeled waggon) was over 50% of the cost, the coop the least. 

A waggon came without the Convoy (brake), it not being necessary in some of the SE Northumberland area waggonways. They were fitted by the waggonway operators within a pertnership. Some fitted two convoy levers "and by a little contrivance at the hind end...operates on all 4 wheels".

 

By the start of the C19 the cost of a chaldron waggon has doubled. The coop is still the cheapest 25% proportion of cost; iron work the most expensive at 76% of which the specialist iron wheels account for over a third. Due to industrialisation labour (workshop) costs have reduced to less than 5%. 

 

There was a diversity in the ways loaded Chaldrons were dispatched with extra boards nailed to the top on the easier runs and also size of coals loaded (which posts above have discussed). 

dh

Edited August 24, 2019 by runs as required
included quote about 4 wheel braking

[Edwardian]

22 minutes ago, runs as required said:

Chaldron waggons II

The justification for a single horse hauling a Chaldron waggon on an oak or beech edge rail is that it could handle more than twice the weight (between 36 cwt and 53 cwt) of the lumbering wooden coal wain hauled by a brace of oxen plus a pair of horses (later regulated to 17.5 cwt).

Moreover Waggonway working, besides being faster, was more intensive in terms of headways between waggons and in some cases Chaldron traffic continued day and night through 24 hours. 

So profits could be many times higher due to the increased tonnages transported, even though the infrastructure was far more costly to install and maintain. That is why Waggonway partnerships were led by the landed aristocracy.

 

But the evolution of the humdrum Chaldron itself (by Rude Mechanicals?) gets relatively short shrift compared to: 

firstly attractive old hand drawn maps showing the rapid spread of Waggonway technology across the country  

secondly: elegant rendered drawings of increasingly ambitious Civil engineering across undulating mining terrain (at the same time as fashionable Landowners were busy re-arranging the landscapes of their private parkland estates to include water features and temples). 

Lastly, but very evident here, our fascination with the early steam attempts at horse replacements. 

 

In Les Turnbull’s “Railways before George Stephenson” waggons receive two interesting pages in Chapter 3 “The Anatomy of the Waggonways”.

Turnbull is really good at showing us the little illustrative blocks decorating the documents he finds in his archive searches:

 

The above decorates the title page of his "Early Railways of the Derwent Valley"  book and is from a plan by Gibson. The vignette explains the whole industry from the mine down to the timbered staith where a keel is being loaded. It is perhaps central Gateshead at Redheugh (the windmills could be powering water pumps to drain the mine workings ). 

Note the wooden waggons also have wooden flanged wheels 4 inches in width including the shaped flange. 

The loaded waggon descending to the staith is being braked by the driver sitting on and pushing down on a long lever termed a convoy to operate on the far side wheels. He has tethered his horse behind; it is doing no work but may be expected to be the last resort should the waggon runaway.

The ascending waggon is drawn up by the horse. It appears to be nearest the edge on the double track incline which is the same as present day double track running. 

 

I can’t explain the appearance of an early Gateshead Angel to the east of the mine. Could it be a signalling telegraph to further downriver where the sea going sailing colliers await? 

 

There were different sizes patterns and capacities of waggons but by the late C18 the term Chaldron waggon was in general use and in the early days of the public railways after 1825 carrying capacities were converging. 

Gauge also varied on the spatially disconnected wooden railed waggonways between 4 and 5 feet; 4ft 8ins of the Killingworth waggonway eventually emerging, thanks to George Stephenson with the extra half inch as the standard (which is why two Wylam 4 foot gauge Hedley locos endured as museum relics) 

 

In the heyday of the Waggonway from the early C18, kits of waggon parts came from different sources: the timber flanged wheels were by specialists, leading wheels were larger than rear wheels.

Coops (the waggon bodies) and all the various components had names: soles, deals, sheths, overings. 

A waggon cost less than a tenner but ironwork (for a timber wheeled waggon) was over 50% of the cost, the coop the least. 

A waggon came without the Convoy (brake), it not being necessary in some of the SE Northumberland area waggonways. They were fitted by the waggonway operators within a pertnership.

 

By the start of the C19 the cost of a chaldron waggon has doubled. The coop is still the cheapest 25% proportion of cost; iron work the most expensive at 76% of which the specialist iron wheels account for over a third. Due to industrialisation labour (workshop) costs have reduced to less than 5%. 

 

There was a diversity in the ways loaded Chaldrons were dispatched with extra boards nailed to the top on the easier runs and also size of coals loaded (which posts above have discussed). 

dh

 

Fascinating, David, thank you.

[RLWP]

34 minutes ago, runs as required said:

 

I can’t explain the appearance of an early Gateshead Angel to the east of the mine.

 

It may well be a ventilation device on top of a shaft. In 1556 Agricola illustrates something similar but smaller in De Re Metallica (in my translation, Book VI, page 201). The ones illustrated are four boards mounted vertically in a cross shape to deflect the wind down the mine

On page 205 he illustrates windmills used to drive fans for ventilation and in other parts for water pumps. This may explain the mills in Gibsons picture

 

Richard

[runs as required]

SORRY I SCREWED UP EDITING AND DUPLICATED POST

Edited August 24, 2019 by runs as required

[runs as required]

49 minutes ago, runs as required said:

Chaldron waggons III 

Top row l to r

1. At the Causey arch the replica of the contemporary (1720s) waggon is all wooden including the wheels. Note the leading wheels were larger diameter than the rear. It has a crude brake (termed the convoy) acting on the rear wheel  

2. This charming woodcut is of a later waggon perhaps of the 1780s where iron is now cheap enough to justify it being used for the leading pair of wheels. The driver sits upon his convoy - which still only acts on the smaller wooden wheel. His horse trots along behind, his shovel is stowed behind a slat and all look relaxed as they roll over the crest of the run down to the river.

3. I've vainly included this because it is of the run which past where I live at Ryton [Holy Cross church's lead spire is visible in the trees above the loading area at the Willows alongside the river for packhorse trains from the north Pennine lead mines]. The waggonway run descends to a staith on the Tyne at Stella.  Although it shows in detail a valuable load of large coals descending the kilometre long 1 in 14, it is inaccurate for it will surely runaway and crash- neither waggon is depicted with a convoy brake.

Second row l to r

1.    This is a Dandy waggon for the horse on the Throckley brickworks waggonway - usually with a supply of hay for the downward ride.

2.     A photo from the Beamish collection of a runaway waggon spill. Ashes and cinders were used to slow descending waggons but deaths of drivers and (their more valuable) horses were frequent.

3.     A preserved Stockton and Darlington Railway Chaldron waggon from around the 1825 opening (a Science musum pic) 

4.     Another pattern of later Chaldron waggon restored at Beamish

Third row l to r

1.     A fine measured drawing by K Fleming of an 1880 (Lord) Londonderry Railway Chaldron Waggon at Seaham Harbour 

2.    A revealing photo of the ironwork of a decaying Cw dumped at Seaham.

3.    A detail of a double acting convoy brake on a restoration/replica in Shildon town centre.

4.    An interesting 1908 photo (for comparison) of the last horse hauled train of waggons arriving at the terminus of a Outram plateway (3ft 9in gauge) at Eaton – on the Derby canal.

Fourth row l to r

1  The complex of lines at Seaham harbour – with a coffee pot loco at work such as the one rescued and restored at Beamish along with a train of Londonderry Cwt   retrieved also from Seaham. 

Not many may know that Seaham’s town plan was originally commissioned by Lord Londonderry as a ‘German Sea’ rival to the Prince Regent’s fashionable Brighton, from John Dobson the famed Newcastle architect of Newcastle Central Station. 

But the market favoured healthy sea coal profits rather than healthy bathing, so just a short sea frontage of the Grand Plan was ever built. (which is a great reason for a tourist to visit and check out the bizarre changes inflicted upon Seaham over the centuries).

2.  This is the famous engraving of Hedley’s Black Billy(?) adapted to power a broad beamed river craft to break the bitter 1822 keelman’s strike (at the time of unrest such as Peterloo 1819 leading to the Reform Act of 1830– resulting in  Newcastle's Grey St and Earl Grey atop his Monument). Read more here.

dh

Sorry folks I seem to have uncoupled pictures montage from text commentary

Edited August 24, 2019 by runs as required
hyperlinks to other sites inserted

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, runs as required said:

SORRY I SCREWED UP EDITING AND DUPLICATED POST

 

47 minutes ago, runs as required said:

Sorry folks I seem to have uncoupled pictures montage from text commentary

 

I hope we get to see Chaldron III: Return to Depot. "He's back, with pictures, and this time it's personal!"

 

Do you drag and drop to the point of the text you want?  Others have always done this, but I've only been able to since New Improved RMWeb with Added Advertising came to be.

[runs as required]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I hope we get to see Chaldron III: Return to Depot. "He's back, with pictures, and this time it's personal!"

Do you drag and drop to the point of the text you want?  Others have always done this, but I've only been able to since New Improved RMWeb with Added Advertising came to be.

Thank you James for the helpful hint

Yes I usually do that and I had a display exactly as I had intended:  photo montage visible above the text with explanatory captions.

2  I got into my difficulties by creeping back in an hour so later from urgent tasks elsewhere to add the hyperlinks in to other sites then  found it had somehow opened up a second unwanted post with all the edited caption but without the montage being visible.

3  I hoped by deleting the earlier post's content I could choose and drag the pic to above the edited text but nothing visible appears.

dh

[RLWP]

Richard

[runs as required]

What quick thinking! Thank you.

[RLWP]

I clicked on the link in your post which opened the image. I then right clicked and copied the address of the image, then pasted the address straight into a post

 

Richard

[Compound2632]

On 24/08/2019 at 11:09, runs as required said:

 

secondly: elegant rendered drawings of increasingly ambitious Civil engineering across undulating mining terrain (at the same time as fashionable Landowners were busy re-arranging the landscapes of their private parkland estates to include water features and temples). 

 

 

Hummm... The railway as a feature in the artificially-improved landscape of one's grounds. Still done, but not often on such a grand scale!

[Compound2632]

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway now looks almost too modern for this topic, which has been straying well into Jacobean railways! Apologies for dragging us back on topic with something genuinely Williamine. The Ackermann prints of Liverpool and Manchester trains are very well-known but I've not been able to find any clear account of their publication history - they seem to have gone through several redrawings in the 1830s plus there are various later reprints to muddy the waters. This is the 1831 version, while this is the 1833 version and finally a version dated 1834, with significant differences. Ackermann published a book of lithographs of the Liverpool & Manchester by T.T. Bury in 1831, with text by G. Ottley, which also has an 1833 edition. The train prints seem to have been issued as an adjunct to this, it's not clear to me whether they were always bound in the volume. The NRM attributes the 1831 version to Bury but elsewhere they - or perhaps only the later versions - are attributed to I. Shaw.

 

I recently visited some relations who are collectors of various things, including old maps, about which they have become very knowledgeable. They recently purchased an 1835 map of Lancashire, printed on silk:

 

 

It really is up to date for 1835, showing all the Rail Roads - the Bolton and Newton lines as well as the Liverpool & Manchester itself. The map is about 80 cm square and shows signs of having been folded into a 20 cm square - my relatives tell me that such maps were used as travelling maps. Other than that, they have not been able to find out anything about this map from their copious library of reference works - they are not connected to the internet. I've not hunted very hard but here's what the BM says about G.F. Cruchley (plus more here) whilst here's something on S.W. Silver & Co - whose main line of business seems to have been travelling equipment rather than printed matter, which fits, but it's a moot point whether this map proves the business started before 1838, or that this silk printed version of the map is no earlier than 1838. 

 

The interesting feature for us is the border decoration - four trains that are clearly based on but not identical to, the Ackermann prints.

 

Across the top, the first class train:

 

 

The 1831 and 1833 prints have a locomotive with equal-sized wheels; this follows the 1834 print in showing what I understand to be a "Northumbrian" type - NRM says it's Liverpool. The number of ordinary carriages has gone down from five in 1831 to four in 1833 and 1834 - here cut to three, while the mail coach is a constant feature. The OCT with carriage and passengers first appears in the 1833 print; there and in 1834 it's an open carriage - a landau I think; the map's artist shows a closed carriage - but still a landau? and has added a second OCT with a barouche. (The L&M's carriages were designed and built at the company's Crown Street workshops by Thomas Clarke Worsdell. He had an established road carriage building business in Liverpool; he was a Quaker and was introduced to George Stephenson in 1828 by another Quaker, James Cropper, a L&M director. T.C. Worsdel's grandsons, T.W. and Wilson, are well-known; some of the latter's locomotives remained in service almost to the end of steam. [G. Hill, The Worsdells - a Quaker Engineering Dynasty (The Transport Publishing Company, 1991)].)

 

Along the bottom, the second class train:

 

 

Again, the locomotive seems to follow the 1834 print, which the NRM blurb says is Fury. The second class carriages changed considerably between the three versions of the print, starting out roofless in 1833, with three of the "blue" carriages with panelling and doors and three very plain boxes-on-wheels. In 1833 the panelled carriages gain very high roofs and the three box-carriages become a pair of "fairground ride" carriages with curved openings; these are further developed in 1834 with a border to the bodywork. This is repeated on the map. The 1834 print puts the fairgound carriages first and the blue carriages at the rear; the map goes back to the original order, but with only two blue carriages and three of the fairground variety.

 

All these carriages are drawn with very short wheelbase; if that's how they actually were, they must have been very rough-riding! The LMS, in their 1930 reconstructions, wisely spaced the axles out a bit more. 

 

The goods train goes up the left hand side of the map, rails to the outside:

 

 

For this train, the 1831 and 1833 prints are virtually identical; in 1834 the locomotive changes from one with equal-sized wheels and a haystack boiler and a tender with a rectangular iron water tank to the one seen on the map, which NRM says is North Star. The wagon loads are different in 1834, eight followed by the pair coupled only by their load of logs. The map artist has gone to town on the wagons, changing the order, introducing new loads - the big barrels stood on end - and what looks like a tilt wagon. He's but the pair of wagons with the logs in the middle of the train - possibly not a good idea in practice!

 

Finally, the cattle train runs up the right hand edge of the map, rails to the outside - and hence is reversed relative to the prints:

 

 

The 1831 and 1833 prints show Fury on this train; in 1834 it becomes the engine seen here, Jupiter according to the NRM. By 1834 we no longer have the men trying to keep the pigs in order; the train is rationally ordered by animal species / type of wagon, as here, though again the map artist has changed the quantity of each type of wagon.

 

So it would seem that Cruchley's artist / engraver has worked from the 1834 version of the Ackermann prints (T.T. Bury redrawn by I. Shaw?) but has felt free to adapt them to the space available or his own fancy - to avoid copyright infringement? 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The map is about 80 cm square and shows signs of having been folded into a 20 cm square

<Ahem> 32" square, folded down to 8" square.

This is definitely a map from the days of imperial measurements...

(And even if it wasn't, we use SI, not CGS, so 800mm and 200mm...)

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Regularity said:

<Ahem> 32" square, folded down to 8" square.

This is definitely a map from the days of imperial measurements...

(And even if it wasn't, we use SI, not CGS, so 800mm and 200mm...)

 

Fair enough, on both counts - 0.8 m square, folded down to 0.2 m. In fact that's just my recollection of the rough size; I didn't measure it and didn't take a photo of the whole map.

 

On the other hand, my modelling is at a scale of 1.2 cm/yd on a gauge of 650 thou.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

This month's Back Track has an article on the early locomotives of the Stanhope & Tyne Ry. by Rob Langham, which is well worth a read.

 

There is quite a bit known about the first locomotives on the line in the 1830s.  These were Robert Stephenson's 'Large Samson' 0-4-2s, not dissimilar to the Todd Kitson & Laird Lion and Tiger of the Liverpool & Manchester.

 

The image below is reproduced in the article, but the version below is copyright free from Wiki:

 

 

Things then become a bit vague due to a paucity of records until the Stockton & Darlington takes over part of the line in 1845. The S&D joined the S&T near Waskerley, a high and bleak moorland summit, where locomotive facilities were developed by the S&D. 

 

Waskerley shed, it will be recalled, was one of the buildings that went into Beamish's delightful waggonway pastiche building,

 

 

The S&D progressively constructed diversions around inclines, allowing most of the line to be continuously loco-worked. 

 

From accident reports, two of the S&D locos that were on the line in the late '40s are known. One was No.28 Conside, of which more is said in Pearce's book.  Conside is interesting as a one-off from the period when the S&D were still building/buying Hackworth twin tender types, and had yet to settle on the Stephenson long-boiler types that would characterise the next quarter century.  In Conside we have a conventional long-wheelbase 0-6-0 bought in 1845 from the Hartlepool Iron Co. No drawing exists, though Pearce has a drawing of a loco believed to be similar. Conside had 3'9" wheels at 5'3" + 5'3". 

 

A model, based on the drawings in Pearce, would make a very interesting project.

 

The other loco identified as serving on the line at the time was No.23, Wilberforce, a Hackworth twin tender type of the Director Class, dating from 1832/3.  She is well-known from photographs and engravings, and drawings of her are found in Alan Prior's book.

 

 

 Thereafter, in the 1850s, Waskerley very becomes the preseve of the twin-tenders.   

 

Langham states that in May 1856, thirteen locomotives were recorded at Waskerley and its sub-shed. 

 

They comprised 12 of the 20 Hackworth Tory Class, built 1838-1846, and one of the ultimate twin-tender, the 6-strong Miner Class, built 1845-1846.

 

The Waskerley Tories included No.25, Derwent, whilst the Miner was No.31, Redcar.  Both these twin-tenders dated from 1845, the same year as Conside.   

 

I think the penultimate diversion, dispensing with the Hownes Gill incline, was the Hownes Gill Viaduct of 1858.  The article reproduced a picture of a Tory Class loco on the new viaduct.  Again, the version below is copyright free from Wiki:

 

[Compound2632]

Is it understood at all why the Hackworth type of locomotives continued to be built as late as the mid-40s, by which time the Stephenson-type locomotive had surely demonstrated its evolutionary advantage?

[Northroader]

I’m not so sure that Hackworth types were so inferior to Stephenson types, I fancy the boilers would have been comparable in construction costs and efficiency, and for slow speed freight haulage, they would cope quite well. At a time when inferior metallurgy would lead to a need for regular replacement, they took a remarkably long time to become extinct.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Is it understood at all why the Hackworth type of locomotives continued to be built as late as the mid-40s, by which time the Stephenson-type locomotive had surely demonstrated its evolutionary advantage?

 

Given that William Bouch was appointed the Line's locomotive engineer in 1840, it is a little odd.

 

The penultimate twin-tender class was built from 1838.  Not until 1845 did Bouch call for a new class, and this was in the form of an improved Tory, the Miner class.

 

Then, the purchase of Conside having happened in the meantime, Bouch introduces a radically different looking mineral type in the form of the Commerce Class of 1847.   This is a long-boiler.  Bouch had worked at Stephensons, so, again, one wonders why he did not introduce the type earlier.  There is no record of the S&D paying anything to use the Stephenson patent, though nor does there seem to have been a falling out; Stephensons built Bouch locos for the S&D.

 

Commerce, a class of three, was followed in 1849 by the two members of the Birkbeck Class, which were conventional, not long-boiler, 0-6-0s. Next, starting with Cleveland in 1849, came a series of locomotives described as long-boiler versions of the Birkbeck Class.  All of these types had a slightly hybrid look inasmuch as they all carried Hackworth-style plug wheels.

 

I suppose that the familiar look of the S&D long-boiler really came with the Peel Class of 1852, and was maintained to the last long-boilers of 1875.