Beyer Peacock 4-4-0Ts

[mikejames]

hi

again maybe off topic but a question

 

these locos were designed to pull passenger services on the London local lines

they were then sold on to work in various locations including the north wales granite co site

 

surely they were not obviously suitable.

 

Is it just they were available cheap and people had to use what they could get

or is it a case of locos are actually very flexible if used with skill?

 

mike james

[Nearholmer]

My guess on the use of a SG loco by NWGCo would be to shunt the sidings at the bottom at Penmaeanmawr, where trains were despatched onto the main line. The quarry railway 'proper' was 3ft gauge.

 

And, I agree that a 4-4-0T does seem an odd choice for the job, although they were by no means weedy machines. My bet would be that they used it cab-end to the load, because 4-4-0 locos tend to "dig in" when pulling in that direction, and unload slightly when pulling from the smokebox end.

[sem34090]

I suspect it was because the loco was cheap (it was third-hand to the NWG Co.!!!) and although they had reasonably large driving wheels, compared to other industrial tanks, they were essentially designed for moving heavy loads at moderate speeds.

 

Also, with those tanks directly over all the driving wheels I'd warrant they had a decent amount of adhesive weight.

Edited June 6, 2019 by sem34090
Interesting to note the comment about Drummond Livery - I shall add that to the list as I'd rather like one in that livery!

[Guy Rixon]

One more owner: IIRC, the Mersey Railway had one as a shunter that could work into their tunnels. This was after they sold off their own locos and ran the service with EMUs.

[sem34090]

I didn't know that but it makes sense. If you have any more details, especially livery ones, or if anyone has a photograph then that would be very much appreciated.

[Compound2632]

The LNWR engines, sixteen of them, were ordered from Beyer Peacock in 1871, to work over the North London line from Willesden and the Outer Circle Broad Street-Mansion House services. They were replaced on these services by condensing examples of Webb's 4ft 6in 2-4-2Ts, the Mansion House Tanks. The conversions to 4-4-2Ts gave much greater bunker capacity and hence range - in fact the rear 3/4 of the engine looked very like a 5'6" 2-4-2T; the rebuilt engines were used in the Manchester area. [Ref. E. Talbot, An Illustrated History of LNWR Engines.]

 

The Midland engines were ordered earlier, in 1868. The Midland originally ordered six but were so anxious to have engines suitable for working over the Met that they tried to poach four from an order Beyer Peacock had in hand for the Met itself, going so far as to offer a higher price. After some toing-and-froing, the Midland got the last five of the Met's order and the first of its own, with the other five going to the Met. [Ref. S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives, Vol. 2.]

 

In both cases it's clear that the engines started life as identical to the contemporary Met engines - the ones that became Class A. As I understand it, engines working over the Met had to meet J. Fowler's specification, a particular feature of which was the ability to negotiate sharp curves.  Beyer Peacock just happened to have a pre-existing design to hand that met the spec.; it was then simplest for the main-line companies to follow suit.

 

As to liveries, I think the LNWR engines may have arrived early enough to start out green - black was just coming into use at Crewe in 1871 and the classic lining style didn't get going until 1873. The Midland engines also started out in dark green; possibly some were repainted in the light green livery Johnson experimented with before the move to red in 1883. The Midland engines also underwent some visual changes, gaining Johnson boilers with the standard Midland combined dome and Slater safety valves on the middle ring, rather than on the first ring as built; they also eventually got cabs.

 

So there are plenty of variants there if you want a complete set of Beyer Peacock 4-4-0Ts!

Edited June 7, 2019 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

BTW have you discovered this site, which gives what I take to be a complete listing of Beyer Peacock engines - the listing by wheel arrangement will be the most convenient!

 

The LSWR Beyer Peacock 4-4-0Ts - 46 Class - weren't of the Met type. The Beatties, father and son, had a close relationship with Beyer Peacock - the LSWR ordered from no other trade builder. When Adams came to Nine Elms, he at first followed suit but soon the company was ordering engines to his design from whichever firm put in the best offer. The 46 Class 4-4-0Ts were his first design, for surface suburban work, but were soon followed (and were rebuilt to match) the famous 415 Class 4-4-2Ts. Adams followed this up with a couple of batches of 4-4-0, first the 380 Class "steamrollers" - derived from the 46 Class - and then the larger-wheeled 135 Class. There was a discussion on the Castle Aching thread last year about how these orders marked Beyer Peacock's move away from the Met-type front-end; in effect they used Adams' design for 4-4-0s built for various overseas customers - in South America and Australia - and also for the Lynn & Fakenham - the well-known M&GN "Peacocks".

 

 

[eastglosmog]

19 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

..........................

The LSWR Beyer Peacock 4-4-0Ts - 46 Class - weren't of the Met type. The Beatties, father and son, had a close relationship with Beyer Peacock - the LSWR ordered from no other trade builder. .........................

 

 

Not strictly true, WG Beattie's  348 class of 4-4-0's were built by Sharp Stewart (they were known as the Sharps Express class, after all).  The deficiencies of the class put the LSWR off of ordering any more locos from Sharps and to WG Beattie's early retirement, so it would probably have been better for WG Beattie if he had used Beyer Peacock.

[sem34090]

I think we may have got our LSWR 4-4-0s confused, Stephen - The 46 Class were the steam rollers, were they not? If so I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to these -

https://hmrs.org.uk/photographs/4-4-0t-lswr-metropolitan-320-with-feed-water-heater-donkey-pump-lhs-stvpchim-short-bogie-f-moores-postcard-ref-7013.html

Most definitely of the Met type!

[Compound2632]

I stand corrected - the 318 Class, ordered in 1875, i.e. under Beattie the younger, evidently of the standard Met design but in this photo, without condensing gear. Were they supplied as condensing engines? I'm puzzled as to what workings they were intended for - did the LSWR have any workings onto the Met or District Railways? 

 

Neverthless I believe the various classes of Adams bogie four-coupled engines with 5'7" driving wheels were, in chronological order:

• 46 Class 4-4-0T
• 380 Class 4-4-0
• 415 Class 4-4-2T.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Compound2632

[sem34090]

Given the Met and District shared the lines up from Richmond as far as Hammersmith and from Wimbledon as far as Putney bridge, I'd warrant that they were intended for use on those services. I know the District and LSWR had a reasonably good relationship, especially given that District trains once made it as far as Windsor (LSWR). I'm not sure how much further (beyond Hammersmith) the LSWR ever got towards the city, if any further at all. Certainly what are now the Westbound Lines of the Piccadilly and District lines, and owned by TfL, between a junction just to the West of Hammersmith (Metropolitan) Station and Richmond, via Turnham Green, appear to have been LSWR-owned,and there appears to have been a connection between the LSWR and the Metropolitan at Hammersmith, where the LSWR curved North East, then South East, to join the West London Line. The LSWR had a station at Hammersmith, just to the North West of the Metropolitan Station.

I've shown these map sections (taken from here - https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=18&lat=51.4936&lon=-0.2670&layers=168&right=BingHyb ) to demonstrate that what is now very much 'District' Territory was in fact LSWR-owned, though the District probably ran more services over it. Of course, the line between Gunnersbury and Richmond does, I believe, remain NR-owned even though very few, if any, NR trains use it these days, the same goes for Wimbledon - Putney.

 

Sorry for the tangent into London's railway geography and history!!! 

[jim.snowdon]

22 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

I've shown these map sections (taken from here - https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=18&lat=51.4936&lon=-0.2670&layers=168&right=BingHyb ) to demonstrate that what is now very much 'District' Territory was in fact LSWR-owned, though the District probably ran more services over it. Of course, the line between Gunnersbury and Richmond does, I believe, remain NR-owned even though very few, if any, NR trains use it these days, the same goes for Wimbledon - Putney.

Correct, although technically the line from Richmond to Gunnersbury is still used by National Railway trains and owned by Network Rail - it's simply that the TOC is TfL, with LUL retaining running powers. Wimbeldon - Putney is a bit different now, as ownership was transferred to LUL some years ago, but South West Railway trains are still scheduled over it, both as ECS and (a few) scheduled passenger services.

 

Jim

[sem34090]

I'll be perfectly honest here and admit that I don't generally keep up to speed with what's gone on with the railways since my post-2000 birth!!! I generally stick pre-1970s... Same with most things in my life really (music, dress (lack of) sense, etc). 

 

All the same, thank you for the correction - I forgot LO was just a TfL-run TOC.

 

 

[Compound2632]

10 hours ago, sem34090 said:

 

Sorry for the tangent into London's railway geography and history!!! 

 

In the context of Met-type BP 4-4-0Ts, it's hardly a tangent but rather key to understanding why the main-line companies bought them too.

 

I'd supposed that those services from the District into Richmond &c. were always District-operated but evidently not so.

 

EDIT: In the light of further information posted below, not evidently not so.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Compound2632
Conclusion amended in the light of further posts.

[eastglosmog]

According to Bradley's book, the LSWR Met tanks were actually built for the Exeter-Okehampton- Lydford service for the opening  of the Lydford extension of the Okehampton line in 1875.  It was only when they proved too heavy for that service they were moved (after modifications) to Nine Elms in 1877, but not for long, being distributed between Kingston, Letherhead and Bournemouth by 1878.  They never had condensing gear, but were strung about with Beattie feed water heater gear.

Edited June 8, 2019 by eastglosmog
typo

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, eastglosmog said:

According to Bradley's book, the Met tanks were actually built for the Exeter-Okehampton- Lydford service for the opening  of the Lydford extension of the Okehampton line in 1875.  It was only when they proved too heavy for that service they were moved (after modifications) to Nine Elms in 1877, but not for long, being distributed between Kingston, Letherhead and Bournemouth by 1878.  Thye never had condensing gear, but were strung about with Beattie feed water heater gear.

 

Curiouser and curiouser - was the Lydford line particularly winding, motivating the choice of and engine designed for tight curves, or was this just a case of W.G. Beattie buying an off-the-peg design from BP without giving it too much thought? (Thereby contributing to the company's dissatisfaction with his performance.)

[eastglosmog]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Curiouser and curiouser - was the Lydford line particularly winding, motivating the choice of and engine designed for tight curves, or was this just a case of W.G. Beattie buying an off-the-peg design from BP without giving it too much thought? (Thereby contributing to the company's dissatisfaction with his performance.)

I think the latter.

[mclong]

On ‎06‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 23:05, Guy Rixon said:

One more owner: IIRC, the Mersey Railway had one as a shunter that could work into their tunnels. This was after they sold off their own locos and ran the service with EMUs.

Here's a Mersey Railway ex METROPOLITAN No 61. B.CLASS. BP2580-1884. Another variation was the LSWR MET tank which Adams fitted a longer wheelbase bogie.

[Compound2632]

10 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

Not strictly true, WG Beattie's  348 class of 4-4-0's were built by Sharp Stewart (they were known as the Sharps Express class, after all).  The deficiencies of the class put the LSWR off of ordering any more locos from Sharps and to WG Beattie's early retirement, so it would probably have been better for WG Beattie if he had used Beyer Peacock.

 

... so no, sticking with BP didn't do him any good!

[eastglosmog]

Looking at the timing, it may have been his experiences with the Met tanks (1875) that persuaded WG to go to Sharp's  instead for the 4-4-0's in 1877 - that and the price.  But the build quality was sadly lacking, which was not the case with the Met tanks.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, mclong said:

Here's a Mersey Railway ex METROPOLITAN No 61. B.CLASS. BP2580-1884. 

 

If bought for tunnel work, why has the condensing gear been removed?

[Guy Rixon]

35 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

If bought for tunnel work, why has the condensing gear been removed?

Working the tunnel was my speculation, clearly now disproved.

[Nearholmer]

Not necessarily. As an ‘engineers train’ loco they might have been fine without it, depending upon exactly how they were used.

[Nearholmer]

Also, when Adams comes into this, it is worth considering his career, NLR, GER, LSWR, because his outside cylinder 4-4-0T for the NLR was clearly very very influenced by BP/Met practice.

 

He was a man who very clearly understood the London situation, and knew very well how to design tank engines for it, and as well as making some relevant innovations himself, had the good-sense to learn from others, and indeed  share his knowledge with them.

 

Why or how, for instance was the LSWR 415 an almost direct replication of the LTSR No.1 class, the first of the classic Tilbury Tanks?

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Also, when Adams comes into this, it is worth considering his career, NLR, GER, LSWR, because his outside cylinder 4-4-0T for the NLR was clearly very very influenced by BP/Met practice.

 

He was a man who very clearly understood the London situation, and knew very well how to design tank engines for it, and as well as making some relevant innovations himself, had the good-sense to learn from others, and indeed  share his knowledge with them.

 

Why or how, for instance was the LSWR 415 an almost direct replication of the LTSR No.1 class, the first of the classic Tilbury Tanks?

 

 

Adams left Stratford for Nine Elms in 1878; at Stratford his passenger tank engines had been four-coupled leading inside cylinder engines, if anything, the forerunners of the T1 and O2 classes. As we've seen, it took him a couple of steps to arrive at the 415 Class 4-4-2T in 1882. Meanwhile, his former Stratford Drawing Office assistant Thomas Whitelegg had become Locomotive, Carriage & Wagon and Marine Superintendent of the LT&SR, with the first 1 Class 4-4-2Ts coming out in 1880. 

 

It seems to me inconceivable that they didn't both leave Stratford with a bundle of drawings under their arms - the same drawings - and didn't continue to talk to each other.