Jump to content

Locomotion & Rails of Sheffield announce SE&CR D Class


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Left and right side of 31574 here both very clearviews of the lion, and the handrails.

 

https://rcts.zenfolio.com/steam-sr/sr/e/h810FA790#h810fa790
 

 

(url, not my image, off smugmug).

31574 Wainwright D class 4-4-0


Click the links and zoom in, the image enhances very clearly.

I know which way I think the lions point, and what colour I think the handrail is.

 

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Left and right side of 31574 here both very clearviews of the lion, and the handrails.

 

They're clearly taken at different dates though. Apart from the smokebox numberplate, I think the cabside numbers are in different styles. The LHS photo seems to show them a bit bolder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

They're clearly taken at different dates though. Apart from the smokebox numberplate, I think the cabside numbers are in different styles. The LHS photo seems to show them a bit bolder.

My time machine is on charge right now, i’ll go back tomorrow and try harder.

 

 

Seriously...

As side of a special occasion, why would BR polish, or otherwise colourize the handrails ?

Handrails on mixed traffic or freight locos were routinely black.

 

its a lot of effort, post war to be spending time polishing handrails before duty, and if he did, surely his efforts would be directed to something more glamourous. The fireman isnt going to wipe his hands clean when he’s on a job and needs to clamber over the loco so those efforts won't be appreciated, or last long.

 

is this model of a specific event or routine service ?

 

if its routine, in the absence of highlighted evidence, the path most travelled would be the more obvious path, and seek evidence to contrary ?.. black.


or

 

if it was polished for a special event, the presumably many pictures would exist of that event...

note some Royal Trains have had handrails painted white.. painting them white is far easier than polishing them to bare metal.. if whites good enough for the Queen, then who is high enough to get polished handrails  ?

 

To throw a random, if the handrails were photograph “bronzed”, it could give credence to being polished, as presumably if unpainted, and left, they would rust... prevention of which is the main reason for using paint.

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looking on the bright (sorry) side at least the front buffer beam isn't looking as if it will fall off at any minute and the handrails aren't bent to fit incorrectly.  Odd how some manufacturers are criticised over handrails which could easily be painted by any halfway competent modeller while others seem to get away with allowing through parts which all too visibly don't fit properly and were obvious on the various pre-production versions.  Same goes for liveries of course, any error there should be corrected at the livery sample stage

.

PS I'm buying the NRM version anyway so the black livery doesn't concern me and I'm not making a fuss about a certain lining omission on the one that I am buying. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Sorry, I still can't figure out what colour the rails are under the dirt !

Dirt ?

 

if you can still see the locos lining.. its definitely clean 

 

:D

 

I recall reading a story from 1968, that when some locals decided to clean up an 8f, that when they started scrubbing they discovered its tender was actually lined green.
 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2021 at 13:54, adb968008 said:

I recall reading a story from 1968, that when some locals decided to clean up an 8f, that when they started scrubbing they discovered its tender was actually lined green.
 

I am sure a similar rumour story persists for 92203 Black Prince.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

I am sure a similar rumour story persists for 92203 Black Prince.....

48679, several pictures show the lining on the tender, just.. beneath the grime.

http://www.prestonstation.org.uk/10D/10djantojune68.html

 

Not heard anything about 92203 wearing a green tender, but I recall reading in Steam Railway that David Shepherd himself said he  found evidence of green paint on the cylinders, but i’m not sure that amounts to much.

 

There was a rumour of a 2-8-2 9f, but thats debunked.

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

Not heard anything about 92203 wearing a green tender, but I recall reading in Steam Railway that David Shepherd himself said he  found evidence of green paint on the cylinders, but i’m not sure that amounts to much.

 

I was just poking a little fun in the direction of the 92203 is she / isn't she rumours :D

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, adb968008 said:

48679, several pictures show the lining on the tender, just.. beneath the grime.

http://www.prestonstation.org.uk/10D/10djantojune68.html

 

Not heard anything about 92203 wearing a green tender, but I recall reading in Steam Railway that David Shepherd himself said he  found evidence of green paint on the cylinders, but i’m not sure that amounts to much.

 

There was a rumour of a 2-8-2 9f, but thats debunked.

Apart from the reports in a contemporaneous 1968 magazine and a photo of it.    The latter admittedly when not in traffic -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glevumblues/6963715462/

 

David Shepherd never mentioned anything about the tender of 92203 being found to have any trace of green paint and he always had plenty to say about his favourite engine especially to those of us who arranged a very special little outing for it which was kept very quiet as it was after the steam ban had been brought in.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Apart from the reports in a contemporaneous 1968 magazine and a photo of it.    The latter admittedly when not in traffic -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glevumblues/6963715462/

 

David Shepherd never mentioned anything about the tender of 92203 being found to have any trace of green paint and he always had plenty to say about his favourite engine especially to those of us who arranged a very special little outing for it which was kept very quiet as it was after the steam ban had been brought in.

 

Its those pictures at Carnforth that caused the confusion.

its rod has been removed, presumably as spare whilst it was dumped in the siding..but it didnt move.

 

The moment you move that loco, over a dipped rail joint, or if it wheel slipped in steam, the synchronisation between the loose coupled wheel, and coupled wheel would be lost.

 

As seen clearly in its scrapyard picture having been towed..., bottom of page 37..

https://www.whatreallyhappenedtosteam.co.uk/pdf/WRHTS-Railway-Magazine-article-October-2010.pdf

until and unless it was jacked up and reset, that wheel will always be out of sync, and will be out of sync again even before it left the shed.. Non of the carnforth pictures have it out of sync, indeed all show it at the same end of siding.

 

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Its those pictures at Carnforth that caused the confusion.

its rod has been removed, presumably as spare whilst it was dumped in the siding..but it didnt move.

 

The moment you move that loco, over a dipped rail joint, or if it wheel slipped in steam, the synchronisation between the loose coupled wheel, and coupled wheel would be lost.

 

As seen clearly in its scrapyard picture having been towed..., bottom of page 37..

https://www.whatreallyhappenedtosteam.co.uk/pdf/WRHTS-Railway-Magazine-article-October-2010.pdf

until and unless it was jacked up and reset, that wheel will always be out of sync, and will be out of sync again even before it left the shed.. Non of the carnforth pictures have it out of sync, indeed all show it at the same end of siding.

 

 

So the reports in a magazine at the time of it being seen in traffic were either incorrect or invented presumably?  And Brian Haresnape - with a text checked by Alec Swain of all people - also got it wrong when he stated that it worked several turns as a 2-8-2 immediately before withdrawal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So the reports in a magazine at the time of it being seen in traffic were either incorrect or invented presumably?  And Brian Haresnape - with a text checked by Alec Swain of all people - also got it wrong when he stated that it worked several turns as a 2-8-2 immediately before withdrawal?

 

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Its those pictures at Carnforth that caused the confusion.

its rod has been removed, presumably as spare whilst it was dumped in the siding..but it didnt move.

 

The moment you move that loco, over a dipped rail joint, or if it wheel slipped in steam, the synchronisation between the loose coupled wheel, and coupled wheel would be lost.

 

As seen clearly in its scrapyard picture having been towed..., bottom of page 37..

https://www.whatreallyhappenedtosteam.co.uk/pdf/WRHTS-Railway-Magazine-article-October-2010.pdf

until and unless it was jacked up and reset, that wheel will always be out of sync, and will be out of sync again even before it left the shed.. Non of the carnforth pictures have it out of sync, indeed all show it at the same end of siding.

 

 

 

Why does an uncouple axle, with no direct drive, need to be 'in sync'?

 

There were numerous verified instances of, amongst others, 0-6-0Ts running as 2-4-0T or 0-4-2Ts for prolonged periods - usually to allow them to operate over sharp curves.

 

If there are genuine, engineering reasons why a 2-10-0 could not run as a 2-8-2, please explain here.

 

John Isherwood.

 

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

Why does an uncouple axle, with no direct drive, need to be 'in sync'?

 

There were numerous verified instances of, amongst others, 0-6-0Ts running as 2-4-0T or 0-4-2Ts for prolonged periods - usually to allow them to operate over sharp curves.

 

If there are genuine, engineering reasons why a 2-10-0 could not run as a 2-8-2, please explain here.

 

John Isherwood.

 

John Isherwood.

John, 

 

two things we have in common, this post and your words...

 

They are not in sync.

 

if it was coupled, then of course it would be in sync, otherwise the wheels wouldnt turn.

but without the coupling rod.. it will fall out of sync.

 

Dont you think it odd, that it could travel 60+ miles, with an uncoupled wheel, that stayed perfectly in true with its coupled bretheren, right upto it was parked in the sidings ?

 

Even more so, that considering every lump of coal shovelled from April to August 1968 was photographed, yet arguably the most interesting working for decades.. was not photographed at all ?


Believe it if you want, I believed in aliens when I was young too.

 

It was manoevred around the yard for in preparation for scrapping.. and the wheel was already out of sync to the rest before it even left the shed.. pictures show that when it was moved to be next to 92233.

 

See here, note the crank pin.. clean and shiny..yet the wheels are rusted, as is the track... and its out of sync. That explain it ?


(not my flickr url).

Carnforth 2-8-2

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

So the reports in a magazine at the time of it being seen in traffic were either incorrect or invented presumably?  And Brian Haresnape - with a text checked by Alec Swain of all people - also got it wrong when he stated that it worked several turns as a 2-8-2 immediately before withdrawal?

Famous photographer is Brian..

how come he didn't get a picture of it ?

 

Theres oodles of pictures of 92167 on its last days, and after withdrawl.

 

Several turns... this thread has several turns.. the most credible reference Ive seen is 1 run from Neville Hill to Carnforth on June 12th 1968.. if it was out daily “several turns” as a 2-8-2.. where is the proof ?

 

Imho its a myth, if were going to debate it, how about a bit more evidence ?.. so far ive shown two examples of showing why it makes little sense. Its easy to shout deny deny deny to something..

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a photo of the Black Five running scheduled freights in 1980 either.

 

That did happen as I saw it. As did hundreds of others.

 

Even in the 1980s very few people had cameras and if they did film was expensive. Much more did than in the 1960s though. To most people that would have just been yet another 9F. Why waste film on it? It was also a freight locomotive so most of it's runs would be at night.

 

It wasn't a case where people were on their mobile phones chasing down anything that was a bit different. 

 

It's a bit like City Of Truro. Some idiots think it never reached 100 mph because it never had a Dynamometer Car. 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

It's a bit like City Of Truro. Some idiots think it never reached 100 mph because it never had a Dynamometer Car. 

 

Ahem. Don't believe everything a dynamometer car tells you...

 

I suppose there are some published logs of runs with Ds - any notable highs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I saw an 8F hauling a failed freight through Northwich station around 1980.

 

It was an open day, so with my grown up head on the question is, how staged was the failure.

 

It was the Black Five. After the open day they stored a few locomotives before they attended Rainhill.

 

They put 5000 on a freight diagram until being told off by senior management. The normal locomotives were Class 25s. Lasted about a week.

 

The trains it was pulling were the ICI hoppers. Here is a photo, but that was on the actual open day and was allowed. they didn't expect the shed staff and crews to start using it.

 

http://8erailwayassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/No.7-On-Shed-Journal-Winter-2020.pdf

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

It was the Black Five. After the open day they stored a few locomotives before they attended Rainhill.

 

They put 5000 on a freight diagram until being told off by senior management. The normal locomotives were Class 25s. Lasted about a week.

 

The trains it was pulling were the ICI hoppers. Here is a photo, but that was on the actual open day and was allowed. they didn't expect the shed staff and crews to start using it.

 

http://8erailwayassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/No.7-On-Shed-Journal-Winter-2020.pdf

 

 

 

Jason

All Staniers look the same when you're a kid :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

All Staniers look the same when you're a kid :D

 

I always felt sorry for the neighbours that weekend. It was constant whistles and horns all day.

 

Sobering to think back and it was only a few years after the end of genuine BR steam. Yet is now over forty years ago....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...