Jump to content

Rails of Sheffield Improved Precedent Class


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

Brian, are you thinking of doing any particular order of these? Is it worth a request list or just an email? Just wanted to ask before you’re bombarded with request emails ;) 

We are always Happy to Etch plate to order If there is Name you would like let us know & we can add it the list we etch

Please Email 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, john new said:


Gladstone: Given that the Society saved it we did consider this a few years ago as a possible SLS commissioned project, unfortunately the tentative initial enquiries showed the financial aspects were too high a % of our assets for us to risk. It would make a delightful model, but I doubt we will ever be able to commission it, hopefully, someone else will. Perhaps for the centenary of it’s preservation.

 

Apologies for the thread drift.

Judging by the sudden appearance of the Improved Precedents fully formed, I’d say it’s a safe bet that something else is being worked on already. Whilst an S160 would cause me to yelp with delight, I think the more likely contenders would be Gladstone and the Nor’ Eastern M1, No. 1621.

 

Note that my powers of prediction are very poor. :(

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, No Decorum said:

Judging by the sudden appearance of the Improved Precedents fully formed, I’d say it’s a safe bet that something else is being worked on already. Whilst an S160 would cause me to yelp with delight, I think the more likely contenders would be Gladstone and the Nor’ Eastern M1, No. 1621.

 

I would say 1621 is now a dead cert. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

"A very short time" = five years. The move to putting LMS on the tenders was made in 1928, along with the decision that almost all engines would be black. Also, while you're busy hacking off the supposed Midland men in charge (rather far from the truth) you need to explain how it came about that the LNER and Southern were also putting engine numbers on tenders at this period! 

 

When tenders were renumbered, I presume the old transfers were rubbed off and new ones applied, without the necessity of a full repaint. But Crewe seems to have been slow to adopt the red livery for passenger engines undergoing overhaul (as opposed to newly-built engines). I don't have the Essery & Jenkinson LMS Locomotives books; is there any record of repainting dates? Were all ever painted red? I wouldn't be altogether surprised if some class members had slipped through from wartime unlined black to LMS 1928 black!

 

The thing that did change very quickly was the LMS lettering on the cab side - this was a temporary arrangement for passenger engines, rapidly superseded by the roundel. Goods engines kept the LMS, in a rectangular panel (corners varied).

 

 

LNER and SR didn't tend to swap tenders. Apart from for operational reasons. Such as some LNER A3 swapping corridor tenders with the A4s. Or SR locomotives moving to the SE Section where they had smaller turntables so couldn't use an eight wheel one. Near the end there was a lot more, but most SR engines went to the scrapyard with the one they were built with. 

 

Midlandisation at the LMS. Read the History Of The LMS trilogy by OS Nock. It's all there. Surely that's common knowledge? It was bitter and not just enthusiasts having a jokey poke at rival railways. It was management virtually sabotaging their own railway to get a cheap win over the enemy.

 

Notice that most LNWR and L&YR locomotives didn't get a repaint in to LMS livery until the scheme ended. They mostly kept pre grouping liveries or were painted plain black. Details in the Essery & Jenkinson books.

Also in the Talbot book which I'm sure everyone has.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ILLUSTRATED-HISTORY-LNWR-ENGINES/dp/B004CJN90S/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=lnwr+engines&qid=1605280252&s=books&sr=1-5

 

And Yeadon. This is the relevant volume

 

https://www.booklaw.co.uk/booklaw-publications/a-compendium-lnwr-locomotives-1912-1949-part-one.html

 

Five years is a short time. We've been waiting for the Bachmann 94XX far longer than that and keep being told it isn't long....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

According to the catalogue entry for the Aster live steam model, only four were painted red.  They chose Novelty too. 

 

I also came across this photo of Penrith Beacon, locomotive clearly painted red but paired with an unnumbered tender which looks to be black.  Possibly awaiting scrapping?  Note the loco has washout plugs as does Hardwicke, so presumably an LMS-built boiler?

 

That's what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to point out earlier. They used to swap tenders and that one's ended up with a plain tender and no number apart from the smokebox door one.

 

Probably still in service.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steamport Southport said:

That's what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to point out earlier. They used to swap tenders and that one's ended up with a plain tender and no number apart from the smokebox door one.

 

Smokebox door numberplates seem to have been a rarity on Webb engines. 

 

You're quite right about the tender-swapping; it happened even in Midland days. The Midland introduced the practice from the US; a few pre-Grouping lines followed their example - notably the North British and SE&CR. By the period 1923-1928, only the Great Western was choosing to continue to make its locomotive numbers indecipherable from a distance!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the next "specials" will be a Midland Spinner - I asked a Rapido gent a few years ago about this after the GNR single appeared, and although statutorily non-committal he wasn't as professionally poker-faced as Messrs Kohler and Lovett; and the Caledonian single, to go with Rails 812, and a possible cause of friction with a former producer of these models? Both available for scanning etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding render swapping, it happened on ex Caley lines too. In 'Caledonian in LMS Days' on page 2 there's a picture of former 812 class no. 17588 at Aberdeen on 22/6/27 with the loco in LMS black but matched to a tender in Caley blue.

 

Paul.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

LNER and SR didn't tend to swap tenders. Apart from for operational reasons. Such as some LNER A3 swapping corridor tenders with the A4s. Or SR locomotives moving to the SE Section where they had smaller turntables so couldn't use an eight wheel one. Near the end there was a lot more, but most SR engines went to the scrapyard with the one they were built with. 

 

Midlandisation at the LMS. Read the History Of The LMS trilogy by OS Nock. It's all there. Surely that's common knowledge? It was bitter and not just enthusiasts having a jokey poke at rival railways. It was management virtually sabotaging their own railway to get a cheap win over the enemy.

 

Notice that most LNWR and L&YR locomotives didn't get a repaint in to LMS livery until the scheme ended. They mostly kept pre grouping liveries or were painted plain black. Details in the Essery & Jenkinson books.

Also in the Talbot book which I'm sure everyone has.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ILLUSTRATED-HISTORY-LNWR-ENGINES/dp/B004CJN90S/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=lnwr+engines&qid=1605280252&s=books&sr=1-5

 

And Yeadon. This is the relevant volume

 

https://www.booklaw.co.uk/booklaw-publications/a-compendium-lnwr-locomotives-1912-1949-part-one.html

 

Five years is a short time. We've been waiting for the Bachmann 94XX far longer than that and keep being told it isn't long....

On BR Southern Region, during the 1950s, there was a fair amount of tender cascading, to ensure the best (Urie) ones were paired to locomotives with the greatest life expectancy.

 

Hence, the first batch of King Arthurs lost the Drummond Watercarts they ran with from new in favour of newer bogie tenders from Urie 4-6-0s (some via rebuilt Brighton Baltics) as those classes were withdrawn.

 

The loss of its Watercart tender meant that (30)453 King Arthur, which had been earmarked for the National Collection, was not restorable to as-built appearance, and "Scotch Arthur" (30)777 Sir Lamiel was retained in its place.  

 

AIUI, the view of the LNWR was that engine overhauls took much longer than those of tenders, and a loco in bits didn't need one. Hence there were only enough tenders to equip the active fleet plus a few spare to even out any flow issues. 

 

Similar considerations applied on BR (S) during the Bulleid Light Pacific rebuilding programme, further complicated by a policy of directing the larger tenders to rebuilt locos, though there weren't enough for all to get one as it turned out. Relatively few rebuilds therefore left the works with the same tender they had on arrival, and most remaining unmodified BR-built locos with 9' cabs ended up with SR-built 8' 6" tenders.  

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Midland Railway 158A would be more of a shoe in than the Spinner, less challenging to recreate without as much compromise and just as painfully pretty and is another 2-4-0. I believe 158A is still a National Collection engine too, although its been out of the limelight on loan to Butterley for decades so could potentially have gone the way of the T3.

 

These Precedents are a right royal conundrum...really can't justify anything other than Hardwicke for running with MR1000 in the '70s, but I can't for the life of me whittle it down below wanting all 4...

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 14:36, meatloaf said:

The 9F was almost the same.

 

92220 completed in 1960 and the first 9F withdrawn in May 1964

And the GWR moguls if you consider the side-window cab ones part of the same class. Last ones built in 1932; first ones withdrawn in 1936.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zunnan said:

I think Midland Railway 158A would be more of a shoe in than the Spinner, less challenging to recreate without as much compromise and just as painfully pretty and is another 2-4-0. I believe 158A is still a National Collection engine too, although its been out of the limelight on loan to Butterley for decades so could potentially have gone the way of the T3.

 

Oh yes please! And following the example of the Precedent, an as-preserved version and versions as in service (ideally with one with Johnson smokebox and chimney). That would, however, necessitate a range of tenders as the Kirtley one it's preserved with is wrong for any earlier condition - the 156 Class engines had Johnson tenders of various sizes from the 1890s at least.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Compound2632 said:

 

Oh yes please! And following the example of the Precedent, an as-preserved version and versions as in service (ideally with one with Johnson smokebox and chimney). That would, however, necessitate a range of tenders as the Kirtley one it's preserved with is wrong for any earlier condition - the 156 Class engines had Johnson tenders of various sizes from the 1890s at least.

 

158 very nearly made it to BR too, withdrawn in '47 wasn't it? The already tooled tender behind the 3F/4F might be a goer for an in service example, though I think its capacity could be on the high side perhaps; but its an already existing option. I do recall the surviving tender came from one of Bournvilles 700 class, 22846, withdrawn in '49. A shame the 700 didn't survive too!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zunnan said:

 

158 very nearly made it to BR too, withdrawn in '47 wasn't it? The already tooled tender behind the 3F/4F might be a goer for an in service example, though I think its capacity could be on the high side perhaps; but its an already existing option. I do recall the surviving tender came from one of Bournvilles 700 class, 22846, withdrawn in '49. A shame the 700 didn't survive too!

 

According to Summerson, the 2,000 gal Kirtley tender came from No. 22834 and had since 1936 been the last Kirtley tender in service. It's a hybrid: a 2,000 gal tank on the frames of a 1,600 gal tender, probably originally off a passenger engine. In 1927, of the 19 survivors, 14 had 2,750 gal tenders and five 2,950 gal. Johnson 0-6-0s rebuilt as 3Fs were given 3,250 gal tenders; Midland 4Fs had 3,500 gal tenders of various origins including off the 115 Class singles. That takes us on to the issue of the preserved Spinner's tender, which is not the 3,500 gal type with which it was built but a petite 2,950 gal one that it ended its days with. So the Spinner has the ideal tender for 158A!

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

According to Summerson, the 2,000 gal Kirtley tender came from No. 22834 and had since 1936 been the last Kirtley tender in service.

 

There were certainly more than one Kirtley tender in service past 1936 -

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrb487.htm

 

Two of them in 1947 at Bournville

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrb674.htm

 

22846 still running into BR days, seen prior to withdrawal in 1949. At this stage there was 4 of them left, the very last going in 1951 with 58110 carrying BRITISH RAILWAYS lettering to boot!

 

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=68&product_id=70048

 

edit~ I believe you're right about the source of the tender with 158 though, my reference to it coming from 2846 comes from a book about Cadburys I was reading recently...Thinking logically its more likely to have come from 2834 as that was withdrawn at a similar time to 158 while 2846 still had a few years left to go.

Edited by Zunnan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zunnan said:

There were certainly more than one Kirtley tender in service past 1936 -

 

OK. Reading Summerson more closely, the 2,000 gal tender now with 158A was the last survivor of the original Kirtley tender configuration with "horseshoe" tank - i.e. tank running round the sides and end with a central well for coal. Many tenders attached to the double-framed 0-6-0s were rebuilt around the turn of the century with new tanks having the usual Johnson arrangement of a sloping full-width coal plate. These tenders can be distinguished by the lack of visible lines of rivets on the tank sides, per the Bournville photos you linked to.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

OK. Reading Summerson more closely, the 2,000 gal tender now with 158A was the last survivor of the original Kirtley tender configuration with "horseshoe" tank - i.e. tank running round the sides and end with a central well for coal. Many tenders attached to the double-framed 0-6-0s were rebuilt around the turn of the century with new tanks having the usual Johnson arrangement of a sloping full-width coal plate. These tenders can be distinguished by the lack of visible lines of rivets on the tank sides, per the Bournville photos you linked to.

 

That sums up the reading I did when I bought an ancient built K's kit with a view to stripping and rebuilding it (still in the 'to do' pile...well, on a display shelf in as bought condition). The K's tender is a rivited horseshoe tender, which coupled with desperately needing a better chassis is what stopped me in my tracks for a bit as it suddenly became a bit more than a simple strip the rivets off job and needs quite more substantial surgery to build a late LMS condition runner.

 

 

58110.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

The issue with buying Lucknow is the longer 4 digit number if you want Hardwicke. Painting the roof is the simple option really and with thinned paint a couple of coats should give a nice finish even with a brush. I’ll probably spray mine. 

 

Additionally I really am a fan of the coal rails so I will be going down the painting route...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally caved and ordered Lucknow and will have to build a small end to end for it to run on. 
 

One thought it did have in terms of a layout theme was somewhere near the Chance &Hunt factory in the Black Country as I’ve a number of wagons. Dad’s from Tipton took but am I safe to assume these would have run in the area? 
 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RateTheFreight said:

I finally caved and ordered Lucknow and will have to build a small end to end for it to run on. 
 

One thought it did have in terms of a layout theme was somewhere near the Chance &Hunt factory in the Black Country as I’ve a number of wagons. Dad’s from Tipton took but am I safe to assume these would have run in the area? 
 

 

1519 'Duchess' was shedded at Monument Lane for a time, it is listed there in 1912 (according to Warwickshire Railways), as well as dozens of photos of them at New Street. Its not too far of a stretch to suggest they regularly made it to Wolverhampton and beyond. Its not much more than a stones throw from Tat Bank to the Stour Valley line.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

What recommendations do folk have for replacement name and numberplates?

 

364 Henry Pease, 864 Pilot, 869 Llewellyn, 512 Lazonby, 861 Amazon, 1517 Princess Helena, 1677 Badajos, 1685 Gladiator, 2185 Alma

Edited by Brassey
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brassey said:

 

364 Henry Pease, 864 Pilot, 869 Llewellyn, 512 Lazonby, 861 Amazon, 1517 Princess Helena, 1677 Badajos, 1685 Gladiator, 2185 Alma

see Brian’s post ;)

 

8 hours ago, 247 Developments said:

We are always Happy to Etch plate to order If there is Name you would like let us know & we can add it the list we etch

 

so :) 

8 hours ago, 247 Developments said:

Please Email 


http://www.247developments.co.uk/#

 

  • Like 3
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.