Peterborough North

[FarrMan]

Re lost lines, I was going to say the branch from The Mound to Dornoch, then there might have been more of a chance of the Dornoch Firth road bridge including a railway line, saving a lot of time on the far north line. At present it is quicker to go from Tain to Golspie by bicycle than it is by train.

 

I think I have to plump for the direct line through Glenfarg from Dunfermline to Perth. That would save quite a bit of time between Inverness and Edinburgh, making it more competitive that it is just now, whether via Stirling or Ladybank.

 

Lots to choose from, but not many giving a shorter main line between two cities.

 

Lloyd

[3rd Rail Exile]

2 hours ago, Bloodnok said:

I doubt it would have been the crack expresses going that way most of the time -- the route is longer and twistier, after all. So you probably wouldn't have seen expresses unless there was a closure somewhere.
 

 

During engineering work on the main lines was exactly the sort of scenario I had in mind.  One can dream...

[60027Merlin]

Gilbert,

 

Regarding lost lines - The Waverley Route. 

 

Eric

 

[Flying Fox 34F]

The GC extension and the Woodhead.

 

Paul

[Market65]

For myself, it is the closed Beverley, Market Weighton, Pocklington, Stamford Bridge to York line. A journey time of 40 minutes, which is now over one and a half hours going round by Selby and Church Fenton. It didn’t make sense back in 1963 the year of Beeching’s infamous report, and it certainly does not today with heavy congestion along the A1079. 
All this to save just £81,000 per annum. Such short sighted folly of the highest magnitude!

 

Best regards,

 

 Rob.

[great northern]

Tonight we see the 1130 Edinburgh at Platform 6, our very dirty A2/1 at the front.

 

 

The Duke won't be going anywhere for a while, and the J6 now passing it on the slow won't get much further either.

 

 

[robmcg]

6 hours ago, great northern said:

6th June. Central heating on. Here is the morning Cleethorpes-KX, well cleaned Immingham B1 as usual.

 

 

 

Lovely picture Gilbert. May I ask if the various Hornby B1s are produced with variations in smokebox fronts or are these things variable even on the same engine in different years?  

 

As I understand it Tony Wright is preparing a definitive work on the subject, but I wondered on seeing your photo above if there were any obvious things to note and be wary of, since quality RTR B1s are quite cheap at the moment.

 

I do enjoy spotting at PN !

[great northern]

This is something I'm researching all over again at the moment actually.  Hornby have done different smokebox doors - there are three types - but boiler changes occurred at every general overhaul, so apart from when the engines were new the only way to be sure what type a specific engine had at a given time is to find a reliably dated picture. Some B1s seem to have attracted a lot of attention, whereas others seem not to have been photographed at all.

 

The present Hornby B1, 61032, is only suitable for changing to locos up to 61189, as those built after that, apart from 61400-9, had full electric lighting and a prominent generator on the right hand side of the smokebox. 1400-09 when built had the type of door with the hinges much closer together, so the number plate was fixed much higher, which changes the whole appearance. There's a photo of 61200 a few pages back on the thread that shows that very clearly. Those boilers got moved to other engines in later years though, but often for only the period between two general overhauls. As I say, you need a reliably dated photo to be sure you get it right.

 

As always there is an exception which proves the rule. All the reference books will tell you that the engines from 1000 to 1189 did not have generators. Well, in my research I found a photo of 1075 taken in 1959 at PN, and it quite clearly does have one, and the full lighting kit. That may be the only exception, but who knows, really. How did it get it? Not from a boiler change, that seems certain. We shall ignore the Cowlairs fillet.

 

If anyone else has read this far, could you please let me know where there is a picture of 1060. I can't find one, and neither can Tim. If I take a risk and ask Tim to use 1032 as the donor, as it has the most common type of door, someone is bound to come up with a photo proving I've got it wrong. So can I have it now, please, and be saved the embarrassment?

[Woodcock29]

I'd like to say the East Lincolnshire line from Boston to Grimsby. But I think it has to be the Woodhead route. And it could have been reopened except for the power cables. They should have barred them from being put through the new tunnel more recently!

 

Am I allowed to actually say Manchester to London via Woodhead and the London Extension I wonder?

Andrew

[jwealleans]

6 hours ago, great northern said:

could you please let me know where there is a picture of 1060.

 

You didn't specify in 1958, Gilbert, but I assume you've seen the one in Neil Dimmer's site?

 

 

[great northern]

3 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

You didn't specify in 1958, Gilbert, but I assume you've seen the one in Neil Dimmer's site?

 

 

No, I didn't know about that site Jonathan. Could you give me a llink?  Pity that is such an early picture, for me, that is.

[great northern]

Time for the Flying Scotsman to appear, and it does, diesel hauled again.

 

 

Then another M&GN service arrived, and our man decided he would get a shot of that too.

 

 

[great northern]

Not many stand outs in yesterday's poll, though a lot of different routes were mentioned.  Cambridge-Oxford got 4 votes, as did the London extension of the GC, coupled with the Woodhead line, so I shall call it a tie.

 

It occurs to me that we have judged locomotives on the criteria of attractive appearance, and of practicality and efficiency, but not looked at the failures, except where looks are concerned.

 

So today, let's look for the abject failures, the classes of loco that just didn't do the job they were meant to do, and either got hurriedly moved to minor duties, or withdrawn long before their natural lives were over. There are definitely a few that I know of, but you may know of more.

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, great northern said:

Not many stand outs in yesterday's poll, though a lot of different routes were mentioned.  Cambridge-Oxford got 4 votes, as did the London extension of the GC, coupled with the Woodhead line, so I shall call it a tie.

 

It occurs to me that we have judged locomotives on the criteria of attractive appearance, and of practicality and efficiency, but not looked at the failures, except where looks are concerned.

 

So today, let's look for the abject failures, the classes of loco that just didn't do the job they were meant to do, and either got hurriedly moved to minor duties, or withdrawn long before their natural lives were over. There are definitely a few that I know of, but you may know of more.

Are we including failed prototypes or one-offs, Gilbert, or just those that went into production?

[thegreenhowards]

10 hours ago, great northern said:

This is something I'm researching all over again at the moment actually.  Hornby have done different smokebox doors - there are three types - but boiler changes occurred at every general overhaul, so apart from when the engines were new the only way to be sure what type a specific engine had at a given time is to find a reliably dated picture. Some B1s seem to have attracted a lot of attention, whereas others seem not to have been photographed at all.

 

The present Hornby B1, 61032, is only suitable for changing to locos up to 61189, as those built after that, apart from 61400-9, had full electric lighting and a prominent generator on the right hand side of the smokebox. 1400-09 when built had the type of door with the hinges much closer together, so the number plate was fixed much higher, which changes the whole appearance. There's a photo of 61200 a few pages back on the thread that shows that very clearly. Those boilers got moved to other engines in later years though, but often for only the period between two general overhauls. As I say, you need a reliably dated photo to be sure you get it right.

 

As always there is an exception which proves the rule. All the reference books will tell you that the engines from 1000 to 1189 did not have generators. Well, in my research I found a photo of 1075 taken in 1959 at PN, and it quite clearly does have one, and the full lighting kit. That may be the only exception, but who knows, really. How did it get it? Not from a boiler change, that seems certain. We shall ignore the Cowlairs fillet.

 

If anyone else has read this far, could you please let me know where there is a picture of 1060. I can't find one, and neither can Tim. If I take a risk and ask Tim to use 1032 as the donor, as it has the most common type of door, someone is bound to come up with a photo proving I've got it wrong. So can I have it now, please, and be saved the embarrassment?

Gilbert,

 

I find the whole smoke box door thing very confusing. I have a 61032 waiting for renumbering, but ‘Sir’ put me off my chosen engine, 61097 by saying that the 61032 Hornby smokebox door is flat whereas 61097’s should be bulbous. So I have been looking at photos trying to work out which is which and largely failing. How do you tell from a normal 3/4 front view? Looking in Yeadon (p32), it seems that with the earlier (flatter) door the number plate could fit below the upper hinge strap Whereas not on the later ones. Is that a reliable identifier? The smokebox door on my two Hornby locos, 61138 being the other, is the same. Both have the number plate below the upper hinge strap and both have the same curvature.

 

My preferred subject, 61097, has the number plate below the upper hinge strap in the photo which inspired me (middle of Power of B1s), so if that is a reliable indicator, I can indeed renumber 61032 to 61097.

 

So, as someone who cannot tell radii of curvature from a front 3/4 view, can anyone help me ‘spot the difference’ When I’m searching photos.

 

Andy

[great northern]

10 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Are we including failed prototypes or one-offs, Gilbert, or just those that went into production?

I would think those that went into production, on balance. Something like the W1 in its original form was a real leap into the dark, and there were other attempts like that too, so there is some excuse for the gamble not coming off. No, I think we need the ones that were supposed to be the latest and best development of what already existed, and turned out not to be.

[bigwordsmith]

Steam failures or diesel Gilbert, or both?

[Clive Mortimore]

A nice looking class of loco, that had the potential of being good performers considering there pedigree but were in reality useless and unwanted where ever they were sent, Sir William's class 3 2-6-2 tanks.

[jwealleans]

1 hour ago, great northern said:

I didn't know about that site Jonathan. Could you give me a link?

 

I did post it as a link and the forum then went and fetched the picture.   The main LNER page is here.

 

An excellent resource, I find, which is regularly added to.

[great northern]

11 minutes ago, bigwordsmith said:

Steam failures or diesel Gilbert, or both?

As in my previous reply Peter. BR's fault for ordering in bulk before the prototypes had been properly tested, not that of the manufacturer.

[great northern]

12 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

A nice looking class of loco, that had the potential of being good performers considering there pedigree but were in reality useless and unwanted where ever they were sent, Sir William's class 3 2-6-2 tanks.

Thank you Clive. That is precisely the kind of thing I was looking for.

[JamieR4489]

Crosti 9F. Even when they had the preheat drum sealed off they weren’t as good as a standard 9F.

Edited June 7, 2020 by JamieR4489

[jwealleans]

The Webb compounds on the LNWR.

[great northern]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Gilbert,

 

I find the whole smoke box door thing very confusing. I have a 61032 waiting for renumbering, but ‘Sir’ put me off my chosen engine, 61097 by saying that the 61032 Hornby smokebox door is flat whereas 61097’s should be bulbous. So I have been looking at photos trying to work out which is which and largely failing. How do you tell from a normal 3/4 front view? Looking in Yeadon (p32), it seems that with the earlier (flatter) door the number plate could fit below the upper hinge strap Whereas not on the later ones. Is that a reliable identifier? The smokebox door on my two Hornby locos, 61138 being the other, is the same. Both have the number plate below the upper hinge strap and both have the same curvature.

 

My preferred subject, 61097, has the number plate below the upper hinge strap in the photo which inspired me (middle of Power of B1s), so if that is a reliable indicator, I can indeed renumber 61032 to 61097.

 

So, as someone who cannot tell radii of curvature from a front 3/4 view, can anyone help me ‘spot the difference’ When I’m searching photos.

 

Andy

Much though I dislike disagreeing with 'Sir', I'm a bit puzzled as to what he is saying here. So far as I know, there are the three types of door. Looking at RCTS 2B, and I know it isn't always correct, it says that the first ten engines had a door 4ft5 and a half inch diameter, and 11ft curvature radius. The centres of the hinge straps were 2ft apart. That is the one sometimes referred to as the Darlington type, and is pretty easy to identify. 

 

From 1010 onwards, again according to RCTS, the doors were 4ft 9 diameter, and the curvature was 10ft 2 and a half inch radius.

 

On 61350 onwards the curvature was reduced to 6ft 5 and a half inch radius, and the centres of the hinge straps were 1ft 3 apart. That resulted in the number plate being positioned far higher, and again the difference is easily noticeable.

 

So, three types of door, the second one being by far the most numerous, and all three being easy to distinguish except in side on views.  I checked 61032 before committing to buying one, and was satisfied that it did not have the Darlington door. Tim has since had that engine sent to him, and confirms my view. I don't know of a fourth type of door, it isn't mentioned by RCTS or Yeadon, and I can't for the life of me see it in the many photos I have studied, so 1032 to 1097 sems OK to me, based on the photos of 1097 I have seen, and it was a very often photographed engine.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, great northern said:

I would think those that went into production, on balance. Something like the W1 in its original form was a real leap into the dark, and there were other attempts like that too, so there is some excuse for the gamble not coming off. No, I think we need the ones that were supposed to be the latest and best development of what already existed, and turned out not to be.

That makes sense. Otherwise I think Bulleid's Leader might have won by a distance.