G&SWR Manson locomotive and carriage identification

[Compound2632]

I'm trying to put a date range on some photos of 381 Class and 128 Class Manson 4-6-0s on Midland Scotch expresses. These show engines with a circular handrail on the smokebox door which I take to indicate that they have the extended smokebox fitted in Whitelegg's time, after which, according to the second volume of D.L. Smith's Tales, they would not steam. Are dates for this modification known, ideally for individual engines? The photos show Nos. 497, 502, 510, and 511 - all 381 Class - and since they carry those numbers, must date from after the 1919 renumbering. What time of year did the renumbering take place? Or how quickly was it done?

 

Despite what Smith says, they're all on heavy trains of 10-12 54 ft corridor carriages and 12-wheel diners. He implies that only the two superheated engines 512 and 513 were anywhere near up to the job by the grouping but they don't feature in any of these photos.

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Compound2632
Carriages added to title

[DOCJACOB]

Will dig out my old book on Scottish 4-6-0 classes later & see if any help? 

[ian@stenochs]

The 1919 renumbering was applied quite quickly on the Sou,West, about the only positive thing Whitelegg did! The circular handrails were only fitted on new Whitelegg doors

The extended smokeboxes did not do much to improve steaming but there were alterations done to the blastpipe and chimney liners too.  Most of the drivers resorted, unofficially,  to fitting razors on the blastpipe to sharpen the blast and improve steaming.

I have checked through the engine records in my possession and see that 497 got an extended smokebox in April 21 but kept original boiler. I have a photo of this engine with the circular handrail broken, leaving only half, with the bottom left knob missing and signs of burning!

510 got a new boiler with longer firebox and a Whitelegg cab in May 1920.

511 got the same in July 1920 but is noted in August 1921 with the Smokebox door nearly burned off!

Ian.

.

 

[PenrithBeacon]

There was a theory amongst locomotive engineers in the early 20th century that extending smokeboxes reduced cinder throwing. AFAIK this theory was proved to be true. If Whitelegg's modifications to Manson's 4-6-0 reduced the capability of the engines then it must have turned them into truly poor engines as they had a dreadful reputation for high fuel consumption. To be fair, the same could be said of most early 20c 4-6-0s.

Edited June 28, 2021 by PenrithBeacon

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, ian@stenochs said:

510 got a new boiler with longer firebox and a Whitelegg cab in May 1920.

511 got the same in July 1920 but is noted in August 1921 with the Smokebox door nearly burned off!

 

If the Whitelegg cab has a smaller radius roof (peak higher) and a less pronounced side-sheet cut out, per this photo, then the photos of 510 and 511 are both after this rebuilding. Both look in good nick...

 

44 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

If Whitelegg's modifications to Manson's 4-6-0 reduced the capability of the engines then it must have turned them into truly poor engines as they had a dreadful reputation for high fuel consumption. 

 

... but with the coal piled up to the cab roof profile, in the case of 510 leaving Carlisle.

[DOCJACOB]

The Scottish 4-6-0 classes agrees re-build 3/20 for last two non-superheated 

 

510 had bogie tender and 511 a capuchon but didn’t help performance which was “mediocre” 
 

Not a lot +ve in book but nice drawing of projected NBR 4-6-0 

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, DOCJACOB said:

510 had bogie tender and 511 a capuchon but didn’t help performance which was “mediocre”

 

Looking at my four post-1919 photos, 497 and 502 have 8-wheel tenders and 510 and 511 6-wheel tenders. I can't see a capuchon on any of their chimneys. The photos of 502 and 510 have to be no earlier than 1921 as they include M&GSW Joint Stock dining carriages built in that year.

[pH]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Despite what Smith says, they're all on heavy trains of 10-12 54 ft corridor carriages and 12-wheel diners. He implies that only the two superheated engines 512 and 513 were anywhere near up to the job by the grouping but they don't feature in any of these photos.

 

There were no alternatives to the 4-6-0s on the G&SWR section until the first Compounds arrived in 1925 at Carlisle and in 1927 to Corkerhill. The 4-6-0s were introduced in 1903 because the loads on the Glasgow-Carlisle route were getting beyond the capability of the most powerful 4-4-0s of the time, doubleheaded. The Drummond 4-4-0s could not be trusted on the mainline due to problems with riding. The Baltics did not have the water capacity (though I've read somewhere of a suggestion to fit them with tenders for that work!).

 

11 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

If Whitelegg's modifications to Manson's 4-6-0 reduced the capability of the engines then it must have turned them into truly poor engines as they had a dreadful reputation for high fuel consumption. 

 

D.L. Smith doesn't mention high fuel consumption before those modifications. After some teething troubles, he says they did competently what they were designed to do, on a consumption of 50-55 lbs per mile, without comment on that figure. 

 

Reduced maintenance during WW1 meant their performance suffered. Then Whitelegg's modifications, mainly the fitting of the extended smokeboxes, just added to the problems. 

 

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, pH said:

There were no alternatives to the 4-6-0s on the G&SWR section until the first Compounds arrived in 1925 at Carlisle and in 1927 to Corkerhill. The 4-6-0s were introduced in 1903 because the loads on the Glasgow-Carlisle route were getting beyond the capability of the most powerful 4-4-0s of the time, doubleheaded. 

 

Though the two original Smith-Johnson compounds, sent to Leeds and Carlisle to work the Scotch Expresses, had the job in hand... Is the South Western main line a harder road than the Settle & Carlisle? Dining carriages had been put on these trains in 1893 but the real whammy was the introduction of corridor carriages in 1899. I was looking through the reports of the Midland half-yearly shareholders' meetings at the Midland Railway Study Centre last week. I wasn't particularly looking for this but my eye was caught by an exchange between a shareholder and the Chairman: "of course none of us like corridor carriages". I'm afraid I didn't note the year but I think late 90s. 

 

All the photos in question are either of down trains leaving Carlisle or up trains near Gretna; I suppose any pilot engine would have been attached or detached at Dumfries.

 

The LMS assigned the Manson 4-6-0s to power class P3, the same as their contemporaries, the LNWR Experiment class, also noted coal-eaters. Bowen Cooke found a partial solution in the form of superheating, producing the Prince of Wales class; it's notable that Manson's two superheated engines, 128 Class, came out at the same time, but it was never though worthwhile to rebuild the 381 Class engines with superheating.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Compound2632

[PenrithBeacon]

There is an excellent two part article on Manson's locomotives in the January/February 1964 issues of Railway Magazine. 

The  pictures attached give a good idea of why the engines were unsuccessful,  boiler not big enough,  ditto firebox, ditto grate with the latter being very cramped too. Essentially an enlarged 4-4-0  rather than a clean sheet design. Manson was typical of his era but his engines were very beautiful. 

[Compound2632]

58 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is an excellent two part article on Manson's locomotives in the January/February 1964 issues of Railway Magazine. 

The  pictures attached give a good idea of why the engines were unsuccessful,  boiler not big enough,  ditto firebox, ditto grate with the latter being very cramped too. Essentially an enlarged 4-4-0  rather than a clean sheet design. Manson was typical of his era but his engines were very beautiful. 

 

Yes, typical of his era in not making the transition from 4-4-0 to 4-6-0 successfully. He was in good company there - Dugald Drummond, dare one even say it hereabouts John McIntosh... It took that west country farmer's son to do the job successfully.

 

Peter Drummond with his Castles for the Highland wisely followed David Jones' lead with an unbalance coupled wheelbase giving room for a long grate. But those engines were built for slogging rather than fast running.

[ian@stenochs]

10 hours ago, pH said:

 

Reduced maintenance during WW1 meant their performance suffered. Then Whitelegg's modifications, mainly the fitting of the extended smokeboxes, just added to the problems. 

 

It wasn’t just during wartime that maintenance on the Sou West was a problem.  Kilmarnock works was too small and I’ll equipped to handle routine maintenance almost from the start. By the turn of the century there are accounts of rows of engines at loco sheds waiting a place at the works.  The multiplicity of boiler types didn’t help.  Boilers took about three times as long as the mechanical work on an engine so if there wasn’t a suitable boiler to hand delay was inevitable. The major sheds did undertake quite a lot but even they struggled.

 

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is an excellent two part article on Manson's locomotives in the January/February 1964 issues of Railway Magazine. 

The  pictures attached give a good idea of why the engines were unsuccessful,  boiler not big enough,  ditto firebox, ditto grate with the latter being very cramped too. Essentially an enlarged 4-4-0  rather than a clean sheet design. Manson was typical of his era but his engines were very beautiful. 

 

Of the Scottish 4-6-0s they were head and shoulders above in looks!  In my opinion only the GCR Imminghams come close and much of their appeal is in the elaborate multicolour livery.

 

[Compound2632]

What's that Wild (Sou') West saloon?

[ian@stenochs]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

What's that Wild (Sou') West saloon?

The director and officers saloon,  unofficially the ‘Shebeen’ Built on a standard 43’ underframe with the balconies tacked onto the ends.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by ian@stenochs
Wrong picture uploaded

[Compound2632]

A handsome-looking vehicle. Speaking of G&SWR carriages, of which I know very little, I deduce from your mention of a 43 ft standard underframe, that that is the length of these two 7-compartment thirds, seen strengthening a down Scotch express approaching Gretna behind No. 120 of the 381 Class in original condition, so between 1910 and the 1919 renumbering and probably before the Great War:

 

 

They're almost indistinguishable from the Midland's 43 ft 7-compartment thirds, D490, built in the 1880s - the lamp tops and the door ventilator hoods give them away. When would these have been built?

 

This seems to be a carriage of the same general type. It's behind the rebuilt No. 511 at an unidentified location; there's an elliptical-roofed M&GSW Join Stock diner in the train, so no earlier than 1921:

 

 

There is visible panel space between all six compartments, so by comparison with the previous photo I don't think any of the compartments are thirds, which would imply it's a full first. (When did the G&SWR abolish second class?) If it's 43 ft long, the compartments would be 7 ft between partitions (compared to 6 ft in the thirds) which is a bit on the mean side for first class. It's odd to see an all first as a strengthener; I wonder if it's been downgraded to third?

 

Apart from identifying the carriages in these photos, I'm interested in understanding when the G&SWR started building bogie carriages. This is in relation to the 6-wheel luggage composites that were built at Kilmarnock in 1883 to Midland drawings as a contribution to the Midland Scotch Joint Stock. I'm trying to see what the logic in building 6-wheelers was, given that the carriages build in 1879 for the MSJS were bogie vehicles and the Midland was building bogie carriages for main-line work from the mid 1870s onwards. It seems rather retrograde to be building 6-wheelers for such prestige trains as the Scotch expresses. I've wondered if there was a technical limitation at Kilmarnock works - unable to manufacture bogies, or a limit on length that could be accommodated in the carriage shop at the time?

Edited June 30, 2021 by Compound2632

[ian@stenochs]

There are a lot of photos of trains on the long road principally consisting of M&GSW stock with Manson bogies top or tail.  I have always thought that these would be for the local traffic and would come off at Carlisle leaving the posh coaches to go on to St Pancras!  
 

James Manson designed the 43’ bogie stock and introduced them in 1893.  The first ones had square corners to the panelling below the waist very like the Smellie six wheeled stock but then all got the oval panels below the windows.  The bogie stock were built to the same profile as the six wheelers which continued to be built until 1900.  

 

The bogie stock were either 6 compartment 1st or 7 compartment 3rd with both Brake 3rd and Brake composites.  In 1899 a series of corridor stock for the Stranraer service was built to the same profile.      These were longer at 47’ 6” 

The panelling was similar to Midland but the Sou West always had square corners at the bottom of window and door panels and the commode handles were distinctly L shaped as opposed to the loop of the Midland. Another similarity was the use of Clayton bogies identical to the MR except the axlebox covers had G&SW cast on..  I don’t know if these were built in house or bought in.  Carriage work was done at Kilmarnock works until 1901 when the new C&W works opened at Barassie. 

[Compound2632]

Thanks to @ian@stenochs for the reply re. carriages which I have to apologise for not having seen until now. I now know at least seven times as much about G&SWR carriages than I did before!

 

I've changed the topic title again as I have another G&SW question...

 

I've a photo taken at St Enoch in LMS days, which I'm trying to date as well as identify the locomotives. In the background is LMS Standard 2P No. 576, which I presume must be the second of the class to carry that number, built to Lot 67 in 1929, not the engine built as part of Lot 49 in 1928 and quickly transferred to the S&DJR. D.L. Smith, Legends of the Glasgow & South Western Railway in LMS Days (David & Charles, 1980) lists the 2Ps sent new to ex-G&SW sheds in 1928, which include all of 570-579 apart from 575 and 576, which went to the S&DJR along with 580. He also lists the engines delivered in 1930, numbered in the 6xx series, but makes no mention of the second Nos. 575, 576, and 580. Were these also allocated to ex-G&SW sheds from new, i.e. in 1929?

 

The main feature of the photo in question is a Manson 4-4-0 with, I think, a large Drummond or Pickersgill boiler, and an 8-wheel tender. It has no smokebox numberplate but is in second LMS livery, with its number on the rear splasher. The leading digits are definitely 142, then almost certainly 2, the fifth digit being completely obscured. According to Wikipedia, Nos. 14220-7 were 336 Class and Nos. 14428-9 were 194 Class. Here's a crop from the full photo:

 

 

Can anyone confirm the class or even identity of this engine? The withdrawal date (or range) would also be useful to know.

 

What is the object hanging down the cab side? (The 2P seems to have something similar.)

 

The profile of the carriage behind will I think give the clue as to why I'm interested in this photo! (It is an ex-M&GSW Joint Stock 50 ft composite, D468 of 1900.)

Edited July 26, 2021 by Compound2632

[Caley Jim]

Can't help with loco identities (not my company of interest! ) but could the object on the cab side be a Manson tablet catcher? 

 

Jim 

[Curlew]

Looks like a hosepipe to me, if I have identified the correct thing - used for washing down the coal and the cab

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Curlew said:

Looks like a hosepipe to me, if I have identified the correct thing - used for washing down the coal and the cab

 

Sounds feasible - and the sort of thing you'd hang outside the cab rather than having it drip all over the footplate. I'd wondered if it was the weighting chains of a jemmy but that's probably not something you'd risk having on view at the principal station, where senior officials might see it!

 

20 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

could the object on the cab side be a Manson tablet catcher? 

 

This photo shows the Manson apparatus, which was used on the NCC:

 

 

[Photo by E.N. Calvert-Harrison, via Wikipedia.]

 

But by the LMS period, the G&SW section was using the Bryson exchanger.

 

27 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Can't help with loco identities (not my company of interest! )

 

The other LMS-period photo of St Enoch I'm looking at has a McIntosh 139 Class 4-4-0 No. 14442 (first LMS livery) starting out on a train that is mostly made up of ex-LNWR carriages still in LNWR livery, apart from an elliptical-roof MR third and a clerestory M&GSW third.

[ian@stenochs]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Thanks to @ian@stenochs for the reply re. carriages which I have to apologise for not having seen until now. I now know at least seven times as much about G&SWR carriages than I did before!

 

I've changed the topic title again as I have another G&SW question...

 

I've a photo taken at St Enoch in LMS days, which I'm trying to date as well as identify the locomotives. In the background is LMS Standard 2P No. 576, which I presume must be the second of the class to carry that number, built to Lot 67 in 1929, not the engine built as part of Lot 49 in 1928 and quickly transferred to the S&DJR. D.L. Smith, Legends of the Glasgow & South Western Railway in LMS Days (David & Charles, 1980) lists the 2Ps sent new to ex-G&SW sheds in 1928, which include all of 570-579 apart from 575 and 576, which went to the S&DJR along with 580. He also lists the engines delivered in 1930, numbered in the 6xx series, but makes no mention of the second Nos. 575, 576, and 580. Were these also allocated to ex-G&SW sheds from new, i.e. in 1929?

 

The main feature of the photo in question is a Manson 4-4-0 with, I think, a large Drummond or Pickersgill boiler, and an 8-wheel tender. It has no smokebox numberplate but is in second LMS livery, with its number on the rear splasher. The leading digits are definitely 142, then almost certainly 2, the fifth digit being completely obscured. According to Wikipedia, Nos. 14220-7 were 336 Class and Nos. 14428-9 were 194 Class. Here's a crop from the full photo:

 

 

Can anyone confirm the class or even identity of this engine? The withdrawal date (or range) would also be useful to know.

 

What is the object hanging down the cab side? (The 2P seems to have something similar.)

 

The profile of the carriage behind will I think give the clue as to why I'm interested in this photo! (It is an ex-M&GSW Joint Stock 50 ft composite, D468 of 1900.)

 

The engine is a Manson 240 class, basically an 8 class with a bigger boiler, built 1904-6.  Some of the 8 class were also given the bigger boiler and corresponding higher cab by Manson.  None ever got Caley designed boilers.  However some did get the Whitelegg treatment, modified valve motion, new standard boiler and commodious Whitelegg cab. The object threaded through the handrail and dangling on the cab side is the slaker pipe for damping down the dust and washing the floor.  It was worked off the firemans side injector via a simple plug cock on the top of the splasher.

 

The Manson tablet catcher wasn't used on the Sou' West.  Where a catcher was employed it was the Bryson apparatus but most often just the firemans arm!

 

There were two of the 8 wheeled tenders. Manson brought the design with him from the Great North, the Sou' West versions differed in detail like standard buffers,  axleboxes and springs.  Also the handbrake was on the left, firemans side on the G&SWR.  The tenders went on locos use on the Diner which ran non stop so needed extra water capacity.  The started on the 8 class and then the 240s when they replaced the 8's.  By LMS days they were only on two engines 14246 & 14248.  The engine in the picture is 14248.  14246 was a Whitelegg version.  379class. Both were withdrawn in 1932.

 

Ian.