Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

Here's a 9F on it's own coal train pushing a Class 24 with an iron ore train at South Pelaw Junction:

 

pelawjctclass25final.jpg

 

Photo copyright Bill Watson.

 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
14 minutes ago, johndon said:

Here's a 9F on it's own coal train pushing a Class 24 with an iron ore train at South Pelaw Junction:

 

 

 

 

Interesting and a nice head on view, although the type 2 train is very short and the wagons appear to be empty. Also there seems to be diesel exhaust/fumes from the loco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Interesting and a nice head on view, although the type 2 train is very short and the wagons appear to be empty. Also there seems to be diesel exhaust/fumes from the loco.

 

I'm not sure if the 24 had, effectively, got stuck as the 40 waiting alongside is there to bank it.  I've not been able to find out if the wagons were empty or not - the density of the iron ore changed depending on where it came and, with the heaviest stuff, fully loaded wagons (56T each) could appear empty from this angle.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bbishop said:

 

I did the stats many moons ago.  Excluding  mineral wagons, the percentages in 1930 were: LMS 44%, LNER 33%, COR 17%, SR 6%.  This barely changed over grouping with the SR nudging up at the expense of the northern companies.  A couple of facts:  at grouping, most companies had about 10% of their wagons comprising covered vans; but this was 20% for the LSWR, many of which were fitted for the Southampton Docks traffic.  Then the L&Y was possibly the most progressive railway for wagon design and construction.

 

Bill

 

ps: COR = certain other railway.

 

If I've understood that correctly, these are the percentages owned by each company of the total fitted stock running at the time? (Seeing as that was the point at issue.) However I'm confused by "excluding mineral wagons" which would be most unlikely to be fitted anyway.

 

Tatlow, op cit., gives the proportions of total wagon stock for 1931 as 42.6% : 39.6% : 12.6% : 5.1% excluding PO wagons - so the Great Western had a disproportionately high number of fitted wagons whereas the LNER proportion was on the low side (pace Headstock) - again explicable by the use of company rather than PO wagons for mineral traffic in the north east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are seemingly convinced that their favourite is "the best".

 

Each and every design has its shortcomings. In the case of the BR 9F, the return on the construction costs must have been poor as they were only in service a few years. They must have been just about the most expensive way to move goods around that there ever was. No doubt a good design but can they really be "the best"? Would they ever have lasted for 60 years of hard slog like some of the pre-grouping classes did? We shall never know now.

 

Kestrel? A white elephant nobody wanted or could find decent use for. Got sold off to the Russians.

 

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?

 

It is like saying a Rolls Royce is a better car than a Ford Focus. Not if you are hard up and need to get around as economically as possible it isn't. Perhaps it is if money is not a matter for concern. With the railways, it always was.

 

Overall, the most cost efficient, effective freight loco is probably a humble 0-6-0, like a Dean Goods, LNWR coal engine or a GER/LNER J15. 60 years service, no frills, reliable, cheap and easy to maintain in works or at local shed level. That Thompson adopted a 40 year old GCR design as the "new" LNER small goods loco speaks volumes. Does that make them the "best" freight locos ever? Of course not. They were the most numerous, the type built over them most years, from the dawn of railways up to the 1940s. Yet other types were stronger or faster. So they cannot be "the best".

 

Anybody who thinks they know which is "the best" is only really ever saying "it is my favourite" and there is nothing wrong with that until they start insisting their favourite is better than that of somebody else based on the facts that suit their case, ignoring those that don't. 

 

 

  • Like 14
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

People are seemingly convinced that their favourite is "the best"..............

 

Anybody who thinks they know which is "the best" is only really ever saying "it is my favourite" and there is nothing wrong with that until they start insisting their favourite is better than that of somebody else based on the facts that suit their case, ignoring those that don't. 

 

Spoil sport!   And we were having such fun...   ;)

  • Like 4
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

As promised, some shots of Little Bytham's freight/goods locos............................

 

As always, I'll credit the origins of each.

 

Apologies for the visual distortions caused by the necessity of using a wide-angle lens.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/9Fs.jpg.5d5b5f6335725909899b35efcfa8e9f2.jpg

 

LB's five 9Fs. From left to right: Kitmaster/Comet/Crownline/Alexander. Built, painted and weathered by my elder son Tom when he was 15 (with a bit of help from me carving off the handrails and making the valve gear), 23 years ago: DJH, built by Roy Jackson, painted/weathered by Geoff Kent: Bachmann 9F, modified/detailed, weathered by me: Model Loco, built by me, painted and weathered by Geoff Haynes: DJH, builder unknown, painted by Larry Goddard, detailed by me and weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Austerities.jpg.5c10585597dc699856a66bf02ddbfe13.jpg

 

The three LB Austerities. Clockwise: two DJH examples, built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary (a privilege to have such lovely, natural locos on my trainset): DJH, built, painted and weathered by me.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/O2s.jpg.f53d3b379a968b5eb822aee0567b04fc.jpg 

 

Five of LB's O2s (a sixth, an O2/2, is currently being borrowed by Geoff Haynes as a guide for a Heljan conversion for a customer). Top, then left to right: PDK O2/4, built and painted by me, weathered by Tom Wright: Nu-Cast O2/3, built, painted and weathered by me (very old): ACE (?) O2/2, built and painted by me, weathered by Tim Shackleton: Heljan O2/3, modified/detailed/renumbered by me, weathered by Geoff Haynes: Nu-Cast O2/1, started by Rob Kinsey, completed and painted by me, weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1034488682_Robinson2-8-0s.jpg.995de453c6f93b4067db6b755913985d.jpg

 

Little Bytham's Robinson 2-8-0 family. Top, then left to right: Little Engines O4/1, builder unknown, mechanically rebuilt, detailed, painted and weathered by me: K's O4/2, built and painted by Rob Kinsey, weathered by me: Little Engines O4/3, built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary: Little Engines O4/7, built and painted by Rob Kinsey, weathered by me: O1; scratch-built, painted and weathered by me: Hornby O1, detailed, renumbered and weathered by me: K's O4/3, built, painted and weathered by me (very, very old): O4/8; part-scratch-built, painted and weathered by me. 

 

It's interesting to see how few RTR locos are in the collection. My choice, of course, and those that remain are destined to be sold-on because I never use them

 

A great user of ex-LNER 2-8-0s was the late, great Roy Jackson..............

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1200741923_Retford12101923O21onGN.jpg.befbc141f02cae0b7a1fc2fbe24b7c30.jpg

 

What looks to be a Nu-Cast O2/1. That's me waving, to the right, by the way (though my school blazer was black, nor red)! 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/2004712893_Retford12101925O4onGC.jpg.df65a137f263533ce9c37527285f96e8.jpg

 

And what looks to be a modified Bachmann O4/1 (though where the missing bits of the front number have gone, I've no idea!). 

 

Speaking of the great man, some bits and pieces of his have started to be sold on behalf of his family (nothing off Retford, as yet). 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1821352596_ABSL101.jpg.0eb81bbfaf4c47fe99a3868491120998.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1594779684_ABSL102.jpg.ea3f473d51ec80e7fe0813b7b06e9514.jpg

 

I've acquired this, for the princely sum of £40.00! It was Roy's property, but not his work. It was built in EM from an ABS kit, and ran (if at all) like a bag of rusty spanners, powered by a creaky XO4. I've converted it to OO (heresy!), and with its Mashima motor and High Level gearbox it now runs beautifully. Why the bodywork is in such a state, I don't know, but I'll strip it, detail it and repaint it. 

 

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I read today that GWR have just done it in 1 hour 33 minutes.

The Red Dragon loaded up to 14 bogies, 16 with assistance from Severn Tunnel to Stoke Gifford, with 7P power until it's very last year when Kings were available.  Stop at Newport and continuous climb from the bottom of the Severn Tunnel to Badminton, speed restrictions at Patchway, Wootton Bassett, and Reading.  The best HST timetable including the Newport stop was 103 minutes.  

 

GWR have not stated that the train stopped at Newport, but we are not comparing like for like.  The steam schedule moved about the same number of people from Cardiff to Paddington over a given time period as the HST did with shorter but more frequent trains.  The best pre-HST timetable, incorporating the easing of the speed restrictions mentioned above and timed for 90mph running, was achieved with class 47s and 9 bogies, with traction power lost to air conditioning; it would be interesting, but academic, to have seen what could have been achieved with an 8P steam loco with this load.  

 

This is not to decry GWR's 93 minute achievement, which is marvellous and something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.  As the wires extend into South Wales and acceleration improves, even this could be beaten; my congratulations to GWR and Network Rail for this feat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

It was getting a bit "My engine is bigger than your engine". "But my engine has bigger wheels than your engine".

 

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

 

Jerry

  • Like 2
  • Funny 8
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

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

 

Jerry

But it's not the size of your engine that matters - it's how the crew handle it...

 

Hat...coat...gone...

 

Mark

  • Like 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

People are seemingly convinced that their favourite is "the best".

 

 

 

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...

 

640px-Normanton_Locomotive_Depot_survivo

 

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

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Perhaps because they were few in number and they weren't really 'heavy goods' engines but very much 'heavy mixed traffic' as an enlargement of the 43XX 2-6-0.  But they were very much the GWR's 'fast/fitted freight' engine as a more powerful supplement to the 43XX 2-6-0s (and thus a very different idea from the 28XX which was  a 'heavy freight/mineral' engine of the lower speed variety) as they were intended to work the fast and vacuum fitted services although they were all too quickly overshadowed by the 'Halls' which were suited to a much wider range of mixed traffic work than the 47XX.

 

And the 47XX were not much liked by enginemen compared with many other GW engines - with the lever reverse Drivers had a tendency to be less willing to notch them up so they often proved hard work for Firemen, especially on Summer Saturday passenger turns and they didn't ride as well at any sort of speed unlike the far better riding 4-6-0s.  But when all that is said and done they lasted as long as w enough work existed for them.  However it is interesting to note that they shared quite a few route restrictions with the 9Fs and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever about which was far and away the better engine out of those two - as Tony has already noted.

Yes, the timings were pretty slack but then things were very different back then and maximum speeds were still relatively restricted.  as it happens one of my past supervisors was the man who put 92220 on 'The Red Dragon' when he was a Panel (i.e relief stepped up from Driver) Foreman at Canton on a day when they literally ran out of suitable engines to work the train.  So he said to the other Foreman on duty 'why not use the 92 - it's green and fairly clean' so that was what happened.  Canton men were I think fairly happy with 9Fs, which were the subject of rather mixed feelings at various sheds (and not just on the WR) because of the way they needed to be fired to get the best out of them.

 

And not difficult to regard 92220 as at least the equal of a Brit as they had a mixed reputation at Canton.  They had resented being lumbered with the Brits - some said more 'Castles' would have been much preferred) by their DMPS (District Motive Power Superintendent) who was of course anyway based at Ebbw Junction at that time and who had sat at a Superintendents' conference listening to his colleagues bemoaning the Brits and had said that he would gladly take them, so he got them.   Even at Canton the left hand drive was far from universally popular for various reasons (as was the case at other Western sheds) and the Milton derailment didn't add to their reputation although at least it got the smoke deflector handrails removed and replaced by hand holds.    The main thing iI remember about them from a lineside perspective was the amount of slipping which took place when trying to start a Down train away from Reading, it occasionally got quite spectacular.

 

The Milton derailment Report should anyone be interested -

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Milton1955.pdf

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.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the input and interesting comments that have been made after my puzzlement remark about LNER  2-8-0 classes. And of course it has brought up interesting  facts on fitted wagon numbers etc;

  I think it was Headstock who commented on O4 disposal times being very quick. If that's because the disposal crews pulled the firebars out and pushed the fire through the ashpan, yes that's quick but I never saw it done on the Western.

The fire droppers always had their own individual long shovel and arms like my thighs!

  As for preperation  times I seem to remember a small engine was 45 minutes, a 4 cylinder was 1hr 15min and the rest were an hour.

  9fs did need a certain style of firing which involved keeping the back corners as full as possible which often meant scorched overalls even if you blacked the fire in under the, large door!,with slack or small coal. Several drivers at Banbury would let you drive one part of a trip if rostered  long firebox locos. I never got to drive a 9f on the main line!

  As for a Black 5  being an improved Hall, never in a month of Sundays. And  steam was not at its best when I was a fireman! Although there were exceptions.

Mick on 9F full pic.jpg

  • Like 9
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

If I've understood that correctly, these are the percentages owned by each company of the total fitted stock running at the time? (Seeing as that was the point at issue.) However I'm confused by "excluding mineral wagons" which would be most unlikely to be fitted anyway.

 

Tatlow, op cit., gives the proportions of total wagon stock for 1931 as 42.6% : 39.6% : 12.6% : 5.1% excluding PO wagons - so the Great Western had a disproportionately high number of fitted wagons whereas the LNER proportion was on the low side (pace Headstock) - again explicable by the use of company rather than PO wagons for mineral traffic in the north east.

 

Not the total percentage of fitted stock, the total percentage of all stock owned by the big four.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Not the total percentage of fitted stock, the total percentage of all stock owned by the big four.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by t-b-g
To add indecision and confusion in an already confused mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :laugh:

 

 

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ravenser
Add freight stock ratio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


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.