Beyer Peacock 4-4-0Ts

[RLWP]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

the Bissel truck, whether 2 or 4 wheeled, is directly under the cylinders/valve chest,

 

There must be a very interesting bit of structure going on between the frames, has anyone got a drawing?

 

Richard

[BackRoomBoffin]

On ‎22‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 23:39, Compound2632 said:

A distinctive feature of the Beyer Peacock design in contrast to the Alexander Allan outside-frame arrangement is that the Bissel truck, whether 2 or 4 wheeled, is directly under the cylinders/valve chest, so there's not such a forward overhanging mass with reciprocating parts; in other words, it ought to be steadier, as well as more flexible.

 

It's been noted elsewhere how, having built some of Adams' earliest design of outside cylinder 4-4-0 for the LSWR in 1879/80, Beyer Peacock were knocking it off for various customers - some South American lines and, notably, the Lynn & Fakenham.

 

Can I point out at this juncture that BP had been building locomotives with flat-angle outside cylinders (particularly 2-4-0s and 2-4-0WTs) in the style of Sinclair and Beattie through the 1850s (eg Swedish railways Prins August here http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/sweden10.htm)

 

Adams would have been familiar with the Sinclair types he inherited at the GER and the Beattie types at the LSWR.

 

 

Also, I note with interest that this beastie, Sinclair's last design, his 2-4-2WT of 1864, includes a Bissell truck at the front (apparently)?

Taking the front end in isolation, it's not a million miles from this to a locomotive with inclined cylinders and a 4-wheel Bissell truck.

 

All of this suggests to me that a lot of people were having similar thoughts whilst tackling similar problems in around 1864-6, as they strove to make the established types that had got them through the last decade, do more, go faster, and corner better.

[sem34090]

A suggestion in the Hattons 4/6w thread has made me wonder what ought to be tooled for if these were to be produced RTR, and how many liveries could be produced from that tooling. I'm thinking of the following tooling variants -

 

1. Class A (As-built Metropolitan condition - Open Cab, Dome on first ring, Salter Safety Valves, Tapered Copper-Capped chimney, Small weatherboard, thin vertical pipes on tanks)
2. Class A (Later Metropolitan condition - Open Cab, dome on second ring, separate safety valves (Ramsbottom?), cast chimney, larger weatherboard, weatherboard on bunker rear, wider vertical pipes on tanks. Basically as per the preserved No.23)
3. Class A (Even later Metropolitan condition - As above, but with cab)
4. Class A (Another later Metropolitan Variant - Condensing gear removed. I think all of these had cabs)
5. District (Open Cab, Dome on first ring, Adams Safety Valves, cast chimney, curved-top weatherboard, large curved pipe across tanks, Westinghouse Pump)
6. LNWR (Open Cab? Dome on second ring, Ramsbottom safety valves, Webb-pattern chimney, no condensing gear)*
7. LSWR (LSWR - As per original Metropolitan condition, but with cab and separate safety valves from new, Donkey Pump and round smokebox door. Sand containers fitted in front of tanks)
8. LSWR (Later LSWR - As above but with Adams Stovepipe chimney. Donkey Pump absent.)
9. Rhenische Railway (As per original LSWR condition, but without the Donkey Pump.)
10. 'Standard' Beyer Peacock (As per Rhenische Railway but without sand containers.)

 

*This is a guess as I only have photos of ones which were rebuilt

 

So, for tooling required:

1 Chassis tooling.

4 Main body toolings (to cater for different dome and safety valve positions and built-non-condensing)

3 Cab toolings (Met style, LSWR style and Beyer Peacock style)

3 Weatherboard toolings (Met original, Met later and District)

5 Chimney Toolings (Beyer Peacock, Later Met, District, LNWR and LSWR)

3 Dome Toolings (Met original, Met Later and Standard Beyer Peacock)

2 Smokebox door toolings (Round and half-round)

3 Options (Condensing, Condensing removed and built without Condensing)

4 Safety valve toolings (Salter, Ramsbottom, Adams, Later Met.)

2 Vertical Pipe options (Fat and Thin)

1 Donkey Pump tooling (LSWR)

1 Sand container tooling (RR)

1 Westinghouse Pump

 

I reckon that those options give you the following liveries:

Metropolitan Green (Tooling Option No.1)

Metropolitan 'Fully Lined' Red (Tooling Options Nos.1-2)

Metropolitan 'Simplified' Red (With several lettering options including 'Metropolitan Railway', 'Metropolitan' and 'Met.' Tooling Options Nos.2-4)

London Transport 'Early' (As per Met. Livery, but with 'London Transport' lettering. Tooling option Nos.3-4)

London Transport Late (LT Train Red with 'London Transport' Lettering and 'L.45' Number. Tooling option No.3)

London Transport Museum Preserved Edition ('Fully Lined' Metropolitan No.23 with tooling option No.2 and a gloss finish)

District Railway Lined Green (Tooling Option No.5)

District Railway Unlined Green (Tooling Option No.5)

District Railway 'UNDERGROUND' Green  (Tooling Option No.3 Is closest)

LNWR Southern Division Green/Red** (Tooling option No. 10 is probably closest)

LNWR Lined Black (Tooling option No.6)

Midland Railway (Tooling options No.1 or 10 are probably closest)

LSWR Beattie Red/Brown (Tooling option No.7)

LSWR Adams Green (Tooling option No.8)

Cambrian Railway Invisible Green (Tooling Option No.4)

GWR Unlined Green (Tooling Option No.4)

Mersey Railway (Tooling Option No.4)

Rhenische Railway Green*** (Tooling Option No.9)

Beyer Peacock Works Grey (Tooling Option No.10)

Plain Green (Tooling Option Nos. 2-4 or 10)

Plain Crimson (Tooling Option Nos. 2-4 or 10)

Plain Black (Tooling Option Nos. 2-4 or 10)

 

I could add a few others to that list (Nidd Valley and North Wales Granite Co. being two) but I seem to recall that the locos concerned were class B, which would require another chassis tooling with limited livery potential. I would also question whether tooling option No.9 is actually needed given it relates purely to a German loco, and a 00 gauge model of a loco which only ran in Germany might not sell too well!!! I won't even mention Hetton Colliery No.6...

 

Still, I think this exercise proves that with relatively few tooling options (about the same as a terrier) a loco could be produced in quite a large number of liveries.

Edited November 7, 2019 by sem34090

[Northroader]

If you link into the Hattons generic coaches, there’s really only the Midland, Cambrian, and LSWR had Met. tanks that could be teamed with suitable coaches.

[sem34090]

Hattons are doing LNWR and GWR ones too? I was also thinking that alongside the terriers they are ideal freelance light railway fodder.

[Nearholmer]

They very much are, and IMO they’d sell like hot cakes (for a very short time) in red Met livery, but the rest I’m not so sure about, each is very niche.

 

They fail miserably on the “it was in the Ian Allan ABC when I was a kid” test, which, again IMO, is a good one to apply to decide if things will sell, and there isn’t even a working preserved one that people might have fallen for.

 

I think that the same investment of time, money, and effort in something slightly more mainstream would make more bucks.

 

A buckjumper, perhaps!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Nearholmer

[sem34090]

Probably... It was just a pleasant thought.

 

Now a J69 sounds like a very good idea... but is also off topic for this thread.  

[tomparryharry]

Just looking at the Taff Vale Railway 'I' class 4-4-0t. Although much altered in later life, the original, Cardiff-built trio had a certain family likeness about them.  Even,  down to the cab details, which mimic the Australian  locomotives quite well.  The Hattons/ Hornby coaches might work well in this instance. The slotted bogie splashers, and the coupled wheelbase are used for both the Taff Vale 'I' class, and the 'C' class. All of the leading dimensions for both locomotives are pretty much the same from the leading headstock, back to the rear coupled drivers. Naturally, cylinder position  (inside/outside )  are different...

 

Having another look at the Taff Vale locomotives no's 67-69, and although built at Cardiff West Yard, the probability is that in reality, they were assembled at west Yard. The likeness is just too much  to dismiss the thought. It has certainly piqued my interest. 

 

Information courtesy RCTS volume 10.

 

Cheers,

Ian. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by tomparryharry

[corneliuslundie]

I have only just come across this thread, for some reason.

Attached is a Word file listing the drawings and photos I know of of the Cambrian versions. Note that the same photos have usually appeared in several places, and the drawings ditto; also one drawing really covers the class either as built or as rebuilt, so there is again duplication.

Jonathan

Drawings and photos of Cambrian ex.doc

[Natalie]

Hi

 

Just catching up with this excellent thread.

 

Forgive me if I am mistaken but there has so far been no mention of the South Eastern Railway's three examples. Built in 1880 and intended for the Met as their (B Class) Nos 57-59, the Met instead hired them from new to the SER to work the South Eastern's cross-London local services that wandered north of the Thames (via the Snow Hill tunnel and the Widened Lines) - such as Woolwich Arsenal- Alexandra Palace/ Enfield/ Muswell Hill. The locos that were originally introduced onto these services had proved to be underpowered and in order to allow the SER to resume its North London services, condensing locos were required. The three Met locos were sourced as a stop-gap until more permanent replacements could be built.

 

Bradley's RCTS book on 'Locomotives of the South Eastern Railway' states they were purchased at £2045 (Goudie- £ 2150) each with BP maker's Nos of 1941/42/43 of May 1880. The first two locos (Met 57/ SER 299 and Met 58/ SER 300) were delivered to the SER- still in Met livery-  in time to allow the through service to the GNR to start on 25th May 1880. The third loco (Met 59/ SER 301) followed on 11th June 1880. With the arrival of the third loco this enabled each engine in turn to be taken out of traffic and sent to Ashford Works where they received SER livery. There are no specific details of what this entailed for this class but the general livery notes for the time suggest that passenger locos would have been painted "Holly green with black bands and white lining." 

 

With the arrival of the 'suitable replacements' in the form of twelve condensing Q-Class 0-4-4T in 1882 (Goudie- June 1883). The three 'Beyer Tanks' as they were seemingly referred to as, were transferred temporarily to Tonbridge for local passenger work whilst Stirling negotiated their return to the Met. Terms were agreed at £1900 each on 27th November 1883 with 300/301 returning in early December and 299 on 9th January 1884. The Met restored their original intended numbers and they worked, usually on the Hammersmith and City, until withdrawn in 1907 (57) and 1911 (58 & 59) being sold to R Fraser of Newcastle upon Tyne.

 

Another use I've not seen mentioned is the loan of Met A Class locos nos 9,10,14,15,17,23 to the Great Eastern between July-November 1872 to tide them over during a motive power shortage on their newly-opened Walthamstow, Edmonton and Chingford Lines. 

 

All in all the locos as a whole are of great interest, my main area being the Met and District locos. The Loco Profile 10- The Met Tanks- Brian Reed (Profile Publications, February 1971) is a must.  Also of interest are Don Bradley's various 'Locomotives of. ... ' series for RCTS and Wild Swan for the locos used on the Southern constituents. The South Eastern Railway and LSWR Locos Part 1 (RCTS) being the most relevant along with the later enlarged 'Locomotives of the LSWR' for Wild Swan. Finally is 'Metropolitan Steam Locomotives' by Frank Goudie for Capital Transport, 1990.

 

Hope my ramblings are of some use.

 

Natalie

Edited May 23, 2021 by Natalie

[Natalie]

Hi

In case it is of interest I have copied the details of the Met locos that were sold to other railways, rather than for scrapping.  They are taken from Frank Goudie's book mentioned above.

 

6- Sold in 1906 to Fraser, Resold to Pelaw Main Colliery in 1926.

 

7- Sold in 6-1925 to Fraser who resold it to Mersey Railway (as No 2- to replace ex Met 61)

 

10, 11, 12, 13, 15- Sold in 11-1905 to Cambrian Railway (as Nos 2, 12, 33, 34, 36.. Nos 34 and 36 converted by Cambrian to 4-4-0 tender Locos (GWR Nos 1113 and 1114 allocated), with the remaining nos 2, 12, 33 allocated GWR Nos 1129-1132 respectively.

 

14- Sold in 1905 to South Hetton Coal Co. (Converted to 0-6-0T as No 6, later National Coal Board (No 2 Area) no 66)

 

20- Sold in 1905 to Bradford Corporation (Nidd Valley Lt Rly No 1 'Holdsworth')

 

22- Sold in 5-1925 to District Rly (No 35, later Underground L35)

 

24- Sold in 1913 to Fraser, Resold to Birtley Colliery in 1923

 

26- Sold in 1926 to Pelaw Main Colliery 

 

28- Sold in 1906 to Sherwood Colliery 

 

34- Sold in 1905 to Bradford Corporation (Nidd Valley Lt Rly No 2 'Milner'- resold to North Wales Granite Co, Conway Quarry in 1914 and renamed 'Conway')

 

37- Sold in 1907 to West Somerset Mineral Railway (later sold by auction ?? Bute Works Supply Co?)

 

44- Sold in 6-1925 to Fraser, Resold to Pelaw Main Colliery in 1926

 

61- Sold in 1907 to Mersey Railway (as No 2)

 

66- Sold in 1905 to Cambrian Railway (as No 37. Allocated GWR number 1132)

 

A little bit more info regarding the Underground (ex District) examples post electrification:

 

Nos 27,33,34,35,36,39 retained post 1905 for engineering  and ballast train use.

 

Nos 27,35,36,39 were withdrawn in 9-1909 leaving only 33 and 34 for works trains. 

 

No 33-  withdrawn 10-1925 (replaced by 'new' 35 (ex-Met 22)

 

No 34- Fitted with a narrow cab in 1927 and retained condensing equipment. Pic 'c1930' shows sleet brushes fitted.  Livery appears unlined and caption states 'Underground black livery.' Lettered Underground and 34. Renumbered L34 in 1931,  withdrawn 5-1932

 

Loco Profile 10 has the following:

"Last survivor of the District stock, No 34, was fitted with a cab in 1927, and in 1928 was part of the District's diamond jubilee exhibition at Kensington; by then it was painted black, lined out in red, and lettered UndergrounD above the maker's plate with the number below." (p240)

 

No 35- Was built as Met 22, sold to MDR in 5-1925 (as a replacement for MDR 33) and renumbered (MDR) 35, (Underground) L35 in 1931, withdrawn 1932. Pic dated 'late 1920s' shows it fitted with a cab, but with condensing equipment removed. Vac brake and tripcock in situ. Pic shows loco as UndergrounD 35 wearing "the final Metropolitan red livery." Single lined panel on tank and bunker. Lettered UndergrounD 35.

 

Loco Profile 10 describes this loco as being "painted a still deeper and richer shade of chocolate, lined out in black and white." (p240)

 

Note- There were two MDR Locos numbered 35. The first loco was BP No 2057 built in 3-1881 and withdrawn in 9-1909. The second loco was built for the Met as their No 22 (BP No 709), built in June 1866 and withdrawn in 5-1925. This is the 35 described above. 35 was used for this loco as it was simply the next vacant in 1925 when it joined the MDR fleet.

 

On the subject of livery and District locos Loco Profile 10 has this to share:

"Until 1876 District engines were painted an olive green much like the Met shade, but in that year a lighter green was adopted and the numbers were painted white on the tank sides. Then around 1881 the colour was changed again to a darker olive green with black and red lining; but lining was omitted in any repainting over the two or three years preceding electrification. Despite the similarity of colour, the brass numbers on the chimney and the contiguity of working, neither the Met nor the District engines bore any mark of ownership until the 1880s; then the Met adopted a large oval transfer on the tank sides with the company name round the border and the number inside, though the brass numbers on the chimneys remained." (p239) (The District opted to spell out DISTRICT RAILWAY in large letters (? white ?) underneath the loco number in the centre of the tank sides.)

 

From 1864 to 1885, the colour of the (Met) locomotives was bright olive green; the chimneys had copper tops, and the dome covers and brass work were polished bright.  The tank sides were lined black-yellow-black in a three panel arrangement. Under J.J. Hanbury, who came from the Midland, the colour was changed to a deep chocolate with dark lining (yellow edged in black), the tank sides had only one large lined panel in place of three, the domes were painted over.  (p234)

 

"From 1894 to 1905 polished dome and safety valve casings reappeared;  and though the 'Hanbury chocolate' was retained the lining went back to three panels, and the large oval with the company's name and loco number was put in the centre panel." (p235)

 

The so-called 'Hanbury chocolate' was also referred to as 'midcared' ( a dark red deeper than midland red).

 

Natalie

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Natalie

[Jeff Smith]

I remember reading somewhere that the final Metropolitan red prior to LT was Midland red.

 

Here's my version from the IKB ex-Milestone kit. LT apparently initially retained the colour before adopting the maroon post WWII seen on the preserved Metrovic in the LT Museum and in countless photos of Panniers.

 

[Engineer]

Many thanks both to Jeff Smith and to Natalie for the cross-connections between Metropolitan livery and 'Midcared'.  I've been looking around for wider references and information on the latter term, having spotted 'Midcared' on a drawing related to the Metropolitan-Vickers electric locomotives.

[Nearholmer]

Midcared - shorthand for ‘midland carriage red’? Or, ‘middle Carmine red’?

 

On the second possibility, Carmine is usually thought of as quite a light/bright red, but heavily saturated it looks almost brown.

[Jeff Smith]

In 1998, when searching for the right colour to paint my BP 4-4-0T, I wrote to Ian Huntley, author of The London Underground Surface Stock Plan Book 1863-1959 (1988 Ian Allan/LT Museum).  Ian had done extensive research into liveries but had not heard of Midcared.  I subsequently acquired a copy of his book.  His company, MLT Productions had, at the time of the book publication, created a range of enamel paints for modellers, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have survived.  Appendix 2 describes the liveries and lists the paint colours.  The relevant ones are :-

LT1 - Crimson Lake 1: Original 1885 loco colour (Derby Red)......

LT2 - Crimson Lake 2: Intermediate Met colour....

LT3 - Bullock Maroon: 1956 LT loco body colour...still in use in 1988

These colours were developed with Bob Bird of the LT Museum and a paint foreman (Railway Depots, LRT) Arthur Simmons.

 

I realize that without any examples of these paints we are not going to get anywhere but I would refer you to the book and Appendix 2 which describes in detail the colour variations.

 

I have completed several LT models, all of which are documented as having varying shades of red.  For the BP I used a Badger paint called Milwaukie Maroon! 

[Engineer]

Great and valuable information again, many thanks, though I'm conscious of the risk taking the topic a bit far from B-P 440s, but at least it has brought me back to thinking again of Met. models and the eventual painting (and teak finish).

Just for fun, just now I looked up Wikipedia on the colour name 'Carmine':

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmine

This offers explanations for the colour's origins and the methods of production.  The mention of 'lake' is interesting.

 

On colour, couple of things that have featured in other threads long ago.   A set of official colour cards [used for record and prepared for every new batch purchased].  I have these, stored somewhere safe, dry and out of the light but unfindable at the moment.  Long ago I did a quick comparison between the red and the LT preserved 1938 Stock - blended invisibly, excellent match.  

 

 

By the way, I'm told by someone who worked at Acton  that the 'reddish' roof colour that sometimes appeared on newly-overhauled stock during the 1950s and 1960s as an alternative to grey was not a single 'colour'.   It was created by pouring all the unused contents of tins from a week's work in the Paint Shop into a spare drum and using this to complete the painting.  Maybe the goal was to minimise waste.  The dominant colour of the Paint Shop's work at the time was red but various proportions of the others above were included.  Very soon in service and in the weather it turned a greyish, darkish colour.

 

In order to return towards topic, example of model colour, painted long ago so has to be viewed in the context of variations in paint availability over time, age degradation, as well as subjectivity and lighting conditions, but done by someone who had seen each of his prototypes at close quarters, although there might be many years between 'seeing' and building his models.  He was a stickler for fidelity but wasn't seeking finescale perfection.  A Class model built in 1941 from wood and card, for display - however the driving wheels are only present below the tanks!

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Engineer
Use of English and off-topic material removed in hindsight

[Nearholmer]

Carmine is a rare case of the etymology and the entomology coinciding.

[John_41241]

On 05/06/2019 at 08:13, sem34090 said:

I've got a growing interest in these locos, and am looking to produce a variety of models of them. As far as I know, these are the variations - 

The original (I seem to recall) Spanish Broad-Gauge locos, built for the Bilbao and Tudelo Railway in Northern Spain.

http://www.spanishrailway.com/wp-content/uploads/Locomotora-LA-BASCONIA-rodaje-220T-foto-Wiseman-668x441.png

From the thread below, I also now know that at least one of these passed to the Madrid Sugar Co, shown above.



I seem to recall the Met A Class were the next ones to be built - here's one in original condition. The initial 18 locos carried names, but these were later removed.

 

There was also the Met B Class which basically tried to solve a few of the A Class' shortcomings, the first photo showing a class member in Met condition. The second one is shown in industrial service, with condensing gear removed, in North Wales. This locomotive was previously owned by the Nidd Valley Railway, so more pictures of it will appear below.

From the 1880s they appear to have been re-boilered, with the dome moving onto the second ring of the boiler. The pressure of the boiler was raised from 120psi to 150psi. They also seem to have gained cast chimneys at this time.

From 1895 cabs began to be fitted. I'm unsure as to when the condensing gear began to be removed (No.23, L.45 above, never lost it) but some locos lost it as also shown above.

I think it may have been sometime around 1905 that they began to be withdrawn, what with electrification, and 40 of the 40 A and 26 B Class locos had been withdrawn by 1907 (All of the Bs had been withdrawn, I think) with one remaining until 1936 (so I was wrong earlier) when it was set aside for preservation, this being the former Met No.23, by that time renumbered L45. I think it lasted until 1936, with one other (Met No.41) lasting almost as long, due to its being allocated to Brill Tramway duties, with that line shutting in 1935. No.23 and No.41 are shown sometime around 1933/4, with 23 in interim London Transport/Met livery, on the Brill Tramway.

23/L45 is shown in preserved condition above, with the later boiler and chimney but with cab removed and weatherboard re-fitted and, of course given it was never removed, original condensing gear.

 

Now, onto the District examples.

Not much to note with these, - At some point they gained curved-top weatherboards, but besides that I think they altered little during their lives. All but six of the 54 District examples were withdrawn by 1907, again due to electrification, with these last six remaining in departmental service until 1926, thereafter being scrapped.

Other companies had these, and I know of the Cambrian, Midland, LNWR and LSWR definitely using them, though I am unsure whether these were second-hand purchases or new-builds to the same design. Webb ended up rebuilding some of the LNWR examples into quite quirky 4-4-2Ts...

And it seems some other interesting experiments were carried out on the LNWR examples...

Here's the only set of online photos I can find for Cambrian ones, and I have yet to see any for the LSWR and Midland ones.

The Cambrian also converted two into tender machines, one remaining left-hand drive with lever reverse, the other being converted to right-hand drive with screw reverse - A photograph of one of them can be found here:

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p469896013/h3CAC7E77#h3cac7e77

http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/OtherRailways/LofthouseStn.jpg

Another company which bought a pair was the Nidd Valley Light Railway (Well, the stock was bought by the Bradford Corporation), one being withdrawn due to its unreliability and subsequently sold to the North Wales Granite Co. as pictured above, and below.

One purchaser of these that I had not previously been aware of was the Rhenische railway in Germany, an example is pictured above - I'm now beginning to wonder how many other classes of loco can be operated on layouts set in three different nations, in the following liveries -

• Tudela & Bilbao Railway Livery (Which appears to have been black, according to this page about the loco - https://forotrenes.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=34540 )
• Madrid Sugar Co. Livery (A grimy black, basically!)
• Metropolitan Railway Green
• Metropolitan Railway Crimson (Early style with number on the centre of the tank)
• Metropolitan Railway Crimson (Later style with one panel of lining on the tanks and various permutations of lettering)
• District Railway Green
• LSWR Beattie Brown
• LSWR Adams Green
• LSWR Drummond Green
• LNWR Lined Black
• MR Lined Crimson
• Cambrian Black
• Nidd Valley Railway Livery (I'm not sure what this actually was!)
• North Wales Granite Co. Livery (Again, I'm not sure what this actually was besides it being lined. I imagine it to have been some form of green.)
• Rhenische railway Livery (Yet again, I'm unsure as to what this actually was.

 I should also add that one was purchased by the West Somerset Mineral Railway, remaining in Met livery.

 

As for preservation, to my knowledge there are two of this pattern of tank engine preserved - Bilbao & Tudelo Railway No.29 Izarra and Metropolitan Railway No.23.

Metropolitan Railway No.23 was set aside for preservation upon her 1936 withdrawal, and in the early 1960s was restored to open-cab condition and fully-lined Metropolitan Railway livery for the Centenary of the Metropolitan. After this she moved to the British Transport Museum at Clapham, and she is currently located in the main London Transport Museum at Covent Garden and looks to remain there for a very long time given her position on a higher-level floor.

No.23 after outshopping from Neasden in 1963.

And posed with some surviving Metropolitan Railway wagons.

At the BTM, Clapham.

And at what currently seems set to be her final resting place - the LTM at Covent Garden.

Izarra has been on outside display in Bilbao since the 1970s and by 2012 was in an appalling state. Here's what I take to be a 1970s photo compared with a 2000s photo:

Reading the above-linked Spanish forum thread, however, gives some encouraging photographs of the locomotive having its condition stabilised in 2012-13, although it now appears to carry a rather austere olive livery, the third photo seems to date from 2018.

The photos suggest that, despite years of outside storage, the loco appears to be in reasonably sound condition, though looks can often be deceptive and there appears to be a significant amount of filler on the tank sides.

 

I would greatly appreciate any information on any of these!

hey, so. nidd valley.. that was one of three liveries, one was kept in Metro red, the other was alleged to be put in either a dark brown or Bradford corporation orange.. as shown here with Nellie:

 

hope this helps! 

[BackRoomBoffin]

Coming back to this monumentally late... 

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by BackRoomBoffin
image would not upload with link to original url

[Nearholmer]

Is that working the Outer, Outer, Outer Circle route?

[t-b-g]

Seeing the thread pop up again reminded me that I had never posted a photo of the completed and painted District Railway loco I built a while ago, so I have dug one out and here it is. For some reason the photos didn't come out very sharp and the loco has gone to its new home now so I can't easily take new ones but hopefully it is better than no photo at all.

 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

For a moment there I thought you'd gone overboard on the condensing apparatus. Then I realised there's a water column behind the engine!

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

For a moment there I thought you'd gone overboard on the condensing apparatus. Then I realised there's a water column behind the engine!

 

I thought exactly the same when I saw the photos. It wasn't my best moment posing a loco on a layout for a photo. I really must build a proper "photo plank" with some decent lighting and no distractions but I have been saying that for many years and not done one yet.

[Compound2632]

No photo plank could achieve the atmosphere of Buckingham. It's such a natural-looking composition.

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

No photo plank could achieve the atmosphere of Buckingham. It's such a natural-looking composition.

 

You could be right. With some better lighting and a bit more care in positioning the loco, it wouldn't do so badly!