Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

I never get involved in these discussions as my engines are almost always the smallest :-)

 

Jerry

 

Delusions of inadequacy?

 

I once heard a DJ say that on the radio and always wanted an excuse to use it!

 

Or was it "Delusions of adequacy"?

Edited October 25, 2019 by t-b-g
To add indecision and confusion in an already confused mind.

[Steamport Southport]

Back on the subject of LNER 2-8-0s.

 

I'm quite impressed with my Heljan 02/3 on first appearances. Not tested or run in yet, but apart from the tender body being a bit loose there aren't any issues with build quality.

 

I also noticed the "thanks list" in the instructions. Some of us do read then. 

 

 

 

Jason

[New Haven Neil]

6 hours ago, Denbridge said:

With respect, I wasn't mistaken. The thread was mentioning the 1948 trials. I find this interesting and will certainly find out more about these 1921 trials. The Q7's  were superb machined but in no way could they be described as superior to a 28 which was a far more modern and efficient machine.  The fact that they have often been described as being at least 20 years ahead of their time in engineering and design terms also explains why they were still the front line GWR heavy freight locomotive at the outbreak of WW2. In essence Swindon didn't need a new design, when they already had the perfect tools for the job.

 

I had to go back 5 pages to find a reference to it being '48 trials being referred to rather than in general, but in that case, yes.  The acid test would have been to put a 28 on the Tyne Dock iron ore trains, which killed several diesel classes also.  We'll never know....

 

 

 

[Headstock]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah, but it was your statement about the proportion of fitted stock owned by each of the grouping companies that I was really trying to get to the bottom of.

 

I was going from memory, memory cheated slightly. The LNER did have aprox 60,000 fitted wagons but almost three times the amount of fitted stock as the GWR, not the LMS. The figures according to the LMS society are LMS 39,039, LNER 59,964, GWR 23,776 and SR 6,912.

[bbishop]

Gentlemen,

 

May I apologise for misleading you.  The percentages I quoted earlier were for total freight stock excluding mineral wagons and brake vans.  The source was a table by Don Rowlands in one of the modelling magazines several decades ago.  From 1923 - 1947, there was a percentage or two movement away from the northern to the southern companies but these are the figures for 1931.  I've turned Headstock's numbers into percentages:

 

           FITTED     TOTAL

LMS        30%        44%

LNE         46%        33%

COR        18%        17%

SR              6%          6%

 

I am puzzled why the LNER percentage of fitted stock is significantly higher than the other railways and the LMS was significantly lower.

 

Bill

[Ravenser]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

@Headstock, please could you be a little more precise, as I'd like to follow this up - what publication?

 

I've had a look in P. Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2005); in his introduction he tabulates the number of wagons owned by each of the grouping companies and their approximate contribution to the pool. The total figure for LNER wagons at 31 Dec 1922 is 284,488, of which approximately 170,000 were in the pool (60%), and for the LMS, 303,797, with 217,000 pooled (71%). These totals decline down the years, never reaching the numbers you mention. (Figures are given for 1931, 1939, and 1946.) The LNER group had a much higher proportion of non-pooled wagons. My suspicion is that this was due to the North Eastern's contribution: a very large fleet of hopper wagons dedicated to circuit mineral traffic, in lieu of the PO wagons in which such traffic was conveyed in the southern areas.

 

Tatlow doesn't discuss the proportion of fitted wagons - but I only have Vols. 1 and 2 - maybe this question is addressed in the volumes devoted to LNER-built stock?

 

It's not mentioned in 4A, though there's a comment "On the LNER a great emphasis was placed on fast freight trains and many vacuum-brake fitted vehicles were built up to 1940" (the KX-Niddre Scots Goods and the Grimsby fish traffic come to mind. There was also a significant amount of agricultural perishables traffic in Eastern England)

 

The old one-volume Tatlow shows 284,488 revenue wagons at 31/12/1922 and another 15,966 wagons in service stock (Appendix 1)

 

For what it's worth I've tried to work to a ratio of 8:7:2:1 where pre-nationalisation freight stock is concerned (I'm light on SR and a little heavy on GW, which is actually  not unreasonable...)

Edited October 25, 2019 by Ravenser
Add freight stock ratio

[Headstock]

9 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Gentlemen,

 

May I apologise for misleading you.  The percentages I quoted earlier were for total freight stock excluding mineral wagons and brake vans.  The source was a table by Don Rowlands in one of the modelling magazines several decades ago.  From 1923 - 1947, there was a percentage or two movement away from the northern to the southern companies but these are the figures for 1931.  I've turned Headstock's numbers into percentages:

 

           FITTED     TOTAL

LMS        30%        44%

LNE         46%        33%

COR        18%        17%

SR              6%          6%

 

I am puzzled why the LNER percentage of fitted stock is significantly higher than the other railways and the LMS was significantly lower.

 

Bill

 

Evening Bill,

it's an interesting one isn't it. I would suggest that it was of importance to the pre grouping company's that formed the LNER. Both the GNR and NER invested  in fast freight locomotives such as the K3 and B16 specifically to work fitted freight. I can't think of an LMS pre grouping equivalent, certainly in terms of length of service in the same role. It may be worth looking at piped stock in relation to the LMS, I always get the impression (though I have no direct evidence) that this was more of an LMS thing. I wonder if the amount of perishable traffic, such as fish, fruit, veg may have had an effect on the railways that formed the LNER.

[Mike 84C]

Could the greater number of fish trains run by the LNER have a bearing on it?

  I also am a fan of the L&Y 0-8-0 but with the large boiler they remind me of an elephant stood on a drum.

[Buhar]

I have a copy of the LMS Teach-in, the notes of a seminar in 1978.  Don Rowlands states in there that at Nationalisation the figures were:

LMS       39,039

LNER     59,964

GWR      23,776

SR          6,912

Total    129,691

Total fleet 1,223,634

 

In 1933 fitted wagons were still non-pool, which didn't change until1941.  However, the LMS and LNER had an arrangement for joint use.  So up until 1941 a fitted head should have evidenced some LNER vans.

 

In the same source Noel Coates reports that in 1919, the LNWR had 3,084 fitted wagons and 1,923 piped out of a total of 81,642 (6,3%).

 

Alan

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Nope. I'm going by what the MoS and WD picked as their engine of choice. The LMS 8F. Reliable, easy to maintain, efficient, modern, etc.

 

They then built a cheaper version in the WD 2-8-0 and 2-10-0s. If there wasn't so many of those built then I would have expected BR to have built a version as well.

 

If we're going by personal favourites then it's LNWR and L&YR 0-8-0s. As well as the GCR 2-8-0s, they all had their shortcomings, but looked right.

 

How about this wee beastie...

 

 

No. 12928 is a 7F 0-8-0, built by Hughes

Built 29 March 1919, withdrawn 6 September 1947

 

Photo from Wiki by Ben Brooksbank.

 

 

Jason

 

I remember seeing a lovelly L&Y layout at the Shipley show many years ago. It had a couple of the Hughes 0-8-0's running on it, superb models. I wish I could remember the name of the layout.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Headstock
O not 2

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

 

7 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

As for a Black 5  being an improved Hall, never in a month of Sundays.

Drivers I spoke to at Canton in the 70s reckoned that the Granges had the edge on the Halls, and it seems strange in that light that so many Halls were built and so few Granges.  I can't really comment on comparison between Halls and Black 5s (or between 28xx and Stanier 8Fs) but I am aware that the Black 5s had a reputation for 'interesting' riding at speed which the Halls seem not have suffered from.  

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

28XX? If they were so good, why did they get overlooked twice when we needed freight locos in 2 world wars, in favour of quicker, cheaper to build and easier to maintain designs?

Were they too wide over the cylinders for widespread (see what I did there) use?

[Dunsignalling]

23 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Were they too wide over the cylinders for widespread (see what I did there) use?

That and the inside valve gear which, on such other bits of UK railways where they would fit, or under the conditions encountered on foreign soil in wartime, would have been considered a darned nuisance and increase the risk of failure through neglect.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 

Drivers I spoke to at Canton in the 70s reckoned that the Granges had the edge on the Halls, and it seems strange in that light that so many Halls were built and so few Granges.  I can't really comment on comparison between Halls and Black 5s (or between 28xx and Stanier 8Fs) but I am aware that the Black 5s had a reputation for 'interesting' riding at speed which the Halls seem not have suffered from.  

I remember an Exeter driver commenting that, whilst Halls were versatile, their strengths were more apparent on passenger duties, and that a Grange would handle the Devon banks and goods work significantly better. His thought was that a hundred fewer Halls and a hundred more Granges would have been "useful". Also, perhaps, the relative rarity of the Granges got their virtues noticed when one was provided.

 

Talking to others, it emerges that SR men from Bournemouth area depots, who were known to "borrow" the occasional visiting Black Five off the S&D for Sunday runs to Waterloo, preferred the BR Standard equivalent for fast work but the LMS locos for hill-climbing ability.  

 

John

Edited October 26, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

What a lovely collection to have! I believe the missing number on the Bachmann O4 on Retford was because it was going to be renumbered. The last 2 digits got taken off the front but nobody ever got around to finishing the job. There were still some old O4 locos (based on the old Ks kit) that dated back to High Dyke and even Gainsborough Central days lurking around the GCR section. Possibly not up to modern standards in appearance, they still run superbly after some 40 years hard work. 

Thanks Tony,

 

In a way, it's way 'overkill', because the number of freight turns on LB is small compared with the passenger trains (as it was on the prototype). If one factors in the other types which work the freights from time to time - A1s, A2s, A3s, A4s (yes, all the Pacific types were used on the fully-fitted jobs), B1s, B16s, J6s, J11s, J39s, K1s, K2s, K3s and, of course, the V2s (and a 'Brit' or two), then most of the locos sit in drawers or on shelves. Why do I keep building them, then? 

 

Those old K's O4s of Roy's will go forever; brilliant modelling of its time and still acceptable today. I remember one comment being made about the lack of brakes on one or two of the great man's locos. Or it might have been about whether the right type of brakes were fitted. In true style, the answer was 'If I'm standing by the flat crossing at Retford, I can't even tell which f*****g class of loco it is at Babworth, let alone what its brakes are like!' 

 

I assume the anonymous O4 in the recent picture is Pete's work? 

 

Finally, in looking at the group picture of my 9Fs, I noticed something different about the one Roy built. He's not fitted a crossrail on the smokebox door! It does alter the 'face'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I believe the handrail issue led to the handrails being removed and replaced with LMS style grab holes on the LMR's Brits.   I have often wondered why similar modifications were not needed on DoG or the 9Fs, which had fatter boilers and I would have thought even more restricted forward visibility for signal sighting.  The 9Fs were quite capable of timing South Wales-Paddington expresses, as the timetable was not particularly fast.  You could lose a bit on the Severn Tunnel-Badminton climb and easily make a right time or early arrival at Paddington.  In that sense they were certainly the 'equal of the Brits' at Canton.

The removal of the handrails on the Brits' deflectors is interesting, because some retained then to the end.

 

It's a while since I read about the Milton accident, but didn't the driver 'forget' that he'd be 'turned inside' on the day (a Sunday), or forget to read the daily special notices? 

 

If the deflector handrails were an issue, why, as you say, did all the 9Fs so fitted retain them? Or DoG? Or, for that matter, all the Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics on the ECML (with the exception of the A2/2s and the A1/1, which never had them)?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

I remember seeing a lovelly L&Y layout at the Shipley show many years ago. It had a couple of the Hughes 0-8-0's running on it, superb models. I wish I could remember the name of the layout.

Was the lovely layout Calderwood, Andrew? 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

[Compound2632]

@Headstock, @Ravenser, @bbishop, @Buhar thank you all for helping to clarify those figures for fitted stock - the amount quoted for the LNER at first seemed rather surprising, which was why I pressed to get to the bottom of it, but is now intelligible. 

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Was the lovely layout Calderwood, Andrew? 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

thanks for the reply. I don't think that it was Calderwood. My recollection is that the layout was a Pennine scene but with the track bed raised up on an embankment, possible a bridge or viaduct and mills around about. I think that it was 4mm, possibly 3.5 mm.

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Were they too wide over the cylinders for widespread (see what I did there) use?

You could of course argue that the loading gauge of other railways was too restrictive for their widespread use.  They were, after all, designed and built for use on the GW, where they became the standard heavy freight loco until the end of steam.

 

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The removal of the handrails on the Brits' deflectors is interesting, because some retained then to the end.

 

It's a while since I read about the Milton accident, but didn't the driver 'forget' that he'd be 'turned inside' on the day (a Sunday), or forget to read the daily special notices? 

 

If the deflector handrails were an issue, why, as you say, did all the 9Fs so fitted retain them? Or DoG? Or, for that matter, all the Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics on the ECML (with the exception of the A2/2s and the A1/1, which never had them)?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Precisely my question, Tony.  There are, I submit, two conclusions to be rationally drawn, one, that the WR's and LMR's decision was a knee-jerk reaction to the Milton accident, which was primarily caused by driver error and not by any part of the locomotive design, or two, that the precise alignment of the handrails with regard to sightlines from the cab varied from loco to loco and was an issue on the Brits but not on the 9Fs, or DoG, the Thompson/Peppercorns, or the Royal Scot that had BR type smoke deflectors.  

 

A driver who cannot see signals because there's a handrail in the way has every right to complain about it and suggest an improvement if he can think of one, but he must lean out of the window or alter his position to see the signal or ask the fireman to sight it; this is clearly his responsibility.  At Milton, the issue was complicated by his forgetting that he was on the relief road, something that had happened before at Norton Fitzwarren, and the siting, as opposed to sighting, of GW signals was criticised in the reports for both accidents.

 

AFAIK no driver had complained about the position of handrails on the WR Brits prior to the Milton accident, and by 1955 they'd clocked up a good mileage with them.  Not only that, but they were looking for faults on locos they did not like much.  I'd say that forward visibility is better from the cab of a Castle or King than a Brit, and from the cab of a 28xx than a 9F, but in none of these cases is it particularly good.  As the WR and LMR each came up with different solutions, I'd suggest that the alteration was 'locally' driven and not something from Marylebone Road.  The LMR clearly adapted existing practice from Duchesses and big 4-6-0s.

 

I did think and still do that the WR solution with the brass rimmed hand holds enhanced the look of what were to my view very handsome locomotives, and a Canton Brit turned out for the Red Dragon with them all gleaming was a lovely thing to see on a sunny morning at Cardiff General.  

Edited October 26, 2019 by The Johnster

[APOLLO]

There was a layout featuring Gauxholme viaduct (near to summit tunnel on the L&Y Rochdale to Halifax line) I seem to remember.Can't remember the scale.

 

Like to see big freight locos at speed ?, this video has some superb (but a bit grainy) shots of Big Boys pulling 4000 ton+ freights at 70 + mph Some shots of double headed Big Boys also. Apparently they ran like swiss watches.

 

 

There are some shots of Big Boys double headed with Big Blow turbines, another interesting, powerful & fast freight loco. Their story is in these interesting films.

 

 

 

 

Although I model in American O scale I can only dream of running these behemoths - just too BIG !!

 

Brit15

[St Enodoc]

58 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Apparently they ran like swiss watches.

I always liked clockwork trains.

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

thanks for the reply. I don't think that it was Calderwood. My recollection is that the layout was a Pennine scene but with the track bed raised up on an embankment, possible a bridge or viaduct and mills around about. I think that it was 4mm, possibly 3.5 mm.

 

I recall that the good people who built Calderwood had a layout that matched that description before they built the current layout. I just can't remember what it was called but it had a big mill type building at the LHS (viewing) which the track went off scene behind. The track came out from behind the mill/wharehouse, crossed a bridge/viaduct by a signalbox and then went along the top of a high retaining wall. There were some exchange sidings, with a saddle tank shunting up and down as the trains ran behind. It was a very nice layout.

 

It may even have been called Mill Sidings or something similar but I really can't be sure!

[Tony Wright]

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Once again, I'm unable to create a new post without an earlier one coming up. It must be me!

 

Having resurrected the L1 recently featured, I've now turned my attention to an A5 from Roy Jackson's estate (though not an actual Retford loco). 

 

 

 

A bit like me, Roy must have taken pity on locos built by others. And locos built a long time ago, because the mouldering orange box for this has 'Millholme Models, £18.37' stuck on it! 

 

Nobody seemed to know who built this loco, but Roy had scratch-built a set of compensated frames in EM for it, complete with Gibson drivers and a bogie, but no pony (anyone interested?). The original (OO) white metal chassis was also in the box. Normally, I'd not touch such a thing, but I bushed it with one eighth top hat bearings and, amazingly, with its Mashima motor and High Level gearbox, it runs superbly. I'm astonished! Since I cannot get on with friction-fit driving wheels, I've fitted my standard Romford/Markits (not a matching set with regard to the live side ones being older, and therefore not blackened). Stripping, detailing and repainting awaits. I paid the princely sum of £50.00 for this, which included the motor/gearbox. A bargain indeed! There was another EM chassis in the box, as well. One for an A1, complete with Gibson drivers. Anyone interested in that? Any proceeds will go to CRUK.  

 

 

Grantham had one or two ex-GC A5s during LB's period, so I might well finish it as this example.

 

 

It won't suit a NER-allocated one, because these had detail differences and LH drive. Also, in this case, round buffers. 

 

I saw these lovely locos at Manchester London Road and Guide Bridge. It's a great shame none made it to preservation. 

 

The third loco I acquired from Roy's estate was one he'd started - a Nu-Cast B16/2 or B16/3. I'll finish that (in OO, obviously, which will mean making a chassis). I hope when I'm gone, folk will complete any projects I've started. Anyone interested in an EM B16/2 or B16/3 set of frames (no wheels)? And/or a Steve Barnfied etched NER tender kit? I have a spare NER tender. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Stanley Melrose]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

You could of course argue that the loading gauge of other railways was too restrictive for their widespread use.  They were, after all, designed and built for use on the GW, where they became the standard heavy freight loco until the end of steam.

 

Precisely my question, Tony.  There are, I submit, two conclusions to be rationally drawn, one, that the WR's and LMR's decision was a knee-jerk reaction to the Milton accident, which was primarily caused by driver error and not by any part of the locomotive design, or two, that the precise alignment of the handrails with regard to sightlines from the cab varied from loco to loco and was an issue on the Brits but not on the 9Fs, or DoG, the Thompson/Peppercorns, or the Royal Scot that had BR type smoke deflectors.  

 

A driver who cannot see signals because there's a handrail in the way has every right to complain about it and suggest an improvement if he can think of one, but he must lean out of the window or alter his position to see the signal or ask the fireman to sight it; this is clearly his responsibility.  At Milton, the issue was complicated by his forgetting that he was on the relief road, something that had happened before at Norton Fitzwarren, and the siting, as opposed to sighting, of GW signals was criticised in the reports for both accidents.

 

AFAIK no driver had complained about the position of handrails on the WR Brits prior to the Milton accident, and by 1955 they'd clocked up a good mileage with them.  Not only that, but they were looking for faults on locos they did not like much.  I'd say that forward visibility is better from the cab of a Castle or King than a Brit, and from the cab of a 28xx than a 9F, but in none of these cases is it particularly good.  As the WR and LMR each came up with different solutions, I'd suggest that the alteration was 'locally' driven and not something from Marylebone Road.  The LMR clearly adapted existing practice from Duchesses and big 4-6-0s.

 

I did think and still do that the WR solution with the brass rimmed hand holds enhanced the look of what were to my view very handsome locomotives, and a Canton Brit turned out for the Red Dragon with them all gleaming was a lovely thing to see on a sunny morning at Cardiff General.  

What a pity the type of video camera now commonly fitted to cars to aid reversing wasn't available in steam days.  At least one could have been mounted on the front of a loco (suitably protected from rain and snow, etc.) with a screen inside the cab to enable the driver to see ahead without peering through a possible mucky window or hiding behind a little glass screen.  The camera could even have included night viewing facilities and even be effective in fog.