Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

I'd better start off with an apology here, to two mates (at least).

 

Three friends have expressed an interest in the SR 4-4-2T, and it bounced around between an email and PMs. All three wanted it, and in the time between correspondences I accepted the first offer, only to have two other almost simultaneous ones.

 

I've apologised personally, but it's better that folk know. When I sell these things, I have no wish to get into a 'bidding war'. I usually set the price (in this case it was £75.00 for the 4-4-2T, which would probably buy just the motor). Despite my getting it to run well, a lot of cosmetic work would be needed because the odd bit is missing and the paintwork needs touching up. 

 

Anyway, such is the state of play.

 

Thanks to all, and, once again my apologies to those involved who have been disappointed. 

 

P.S. I've also been given some Kirk LNER non-gangwayed carriages to sell, including a Quad-art. These, too, though reasonably well-made and finished, need a bit of repair in places. I'll post images tomorrow and try not to upset anyone. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[PenrithBeacon]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'd go so far as to call it a scandal and a breach of trust by those responsible.

Just legatees wanting to get the best price, I think. It's easy to criticise but you don't know their financial circumstances, nor do you know HCC's attitude to his legacy.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't know John,

 

According to the biography the author has been a near life-long London resident and started as a Northern Line Guard in 1997. 

 

Probably not?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Definitely a different fellow. Thanks.

[St Enodoc]

28 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Just legatees wanting to get the best price, I think.

...which I believe the executors of an estate are obliged to do.

[MarkC]

On 06/04/2021 at 09:22, Blue Max said:

I appreciate its a kit and not ready to run, but assume you are aware of the A8 being developed by 52F models

I am indeed, and have built both an A8 chassis and a H1 chassis in OO, for use with old DJH bodies. Peter's kits are superb.

 

I was thinking of the RTR market though; as we have discussed before, not everyone can build kits, or indeed wants to. The A8 and B16 were seen all across the NE; they would, I am sure, sell well.

 

Mark

Edited April 9, 2021 by MarkC
To add something

[bbishop]

On 07/04/2021 at 13:01, Michael Edge said:

The axle spacing of the H16 is to keep the axles either side of the ashpan - nothing to do with weight distribution. The leading axle position is determined by fitting it in between the drivers and the bogie/cylinder position.

 

Sorry, I don't agree with you Mike.  The coupled wheelbase on all the Urie new build 4-6-0s was 6'3" + 7'6", which placed the rear axle under the firebox and ashpan.  (Bradley page 148).  So that would not have been considered a problem when the Eastleigh draughtsmen sketched out the H16.  There was likely to be an attempt to standardise on coupling rods.

 

It was weight restrictions on the West London Extension that caused the initial design to be rejected, the 6'6" + 8'6" coupled wheelbase was solely to spread the weight.  The rear bunker was longer that the G16s, permitting a well tank and smaller side tanks, which helped the weight distribution. (Langridge vol 1, page 64). 

 

Langridge designed the valve gear on both tank locomotives, adapting it a decade later for the LMS 2-6-4 tanks.

Bill

[Tony Wright]

The Kirk carriages which are for sale.

 

They're best described as 'reasonable' with regard to their construction and finish. However, none really has interiors (apart from the corridors in the compo), though the roofs will come off. They all run, mostly on Jackson/Romford wheelsets.

 

 

The Quad-Art.

 

 

And five others. 

 

As can probably be seen, some minor repairs are required (footboards, trussing, etc - plastic isn't much good for these). 

 

I'm looking at £12.00 each for all of these. I have no idea what the kits costs new (are they still available?), but, if they can be bought (with wheels) I'd imagine they'd be more than that.  

 

Anyone interested, please PM me.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[MarkC]

You have a PM, Tony

 

Mark

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, MarkC said:

You have a PM, Tony

 

Mark

Thanks Mark,

 

The separate five other coaches are yours.

 

Many thanks again.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[mattingleycustom]

22 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

Tony,

 

Have read the Thompson book and a very good read it is too.

Interestingly it's focus is much wider than the usual book about a CM&EE exploring Thompson's private life and the impact of his WW1 service in France on his character. Given the general low esteem in which Thompson is held by many it makes a refreshing change. It would have been difficult for anyone to follow Sir NG except perhaps Bulleid? Only kidding!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard

 

 

It's always been my understanding that had Bulleid not left the LNER to go south in 1937, he would have been favourite to succeed Gresley.

Is this assumption correct, or was ET always in line as the next CME?

 

Glenn

 

[SD85]

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Stephen,

 

My point (perhaps not well-enough made) was that it was only after Stanier took over (in 1933?) that the LMS started to get the express passenger locos it really needed. The 'Scots' were the only class which could meet the ever-increasing demands of the traffic department, and the faults in them were already starting to show. By then, the GWR (as you surmise) had all its 'Kings' and the LNER most of its A1s and A3s - more powerful than anything on the LMS at the time. 

 

Yes, the 'Princesses' weren't the final development (a slightly-enlarged 'King'?), and initially the 'Jubilees' were poor steamers, but nothing drawn on Tom Coleman's board ever came from Midland influence; the result being the peerless 'Princess Coronations'. 

 

Just about everything I've read about the LMS motive power situation in the '20s/early-'30s suggests it was 'in a mess'. Didn't the board want to buy 40 or so 'Castles' from the GWR? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I think I remember reading in the book 'Under 10 CMEs' by E.A. Langridge that the L&YR was the most technologically advanced constituent of the LMS when it came to locomotive design, and that the Horwich drawing office was basically a Swindon of the north, but less hidebound. The Chief Draughtsman at Horwich, John Billington, was apparently a brilliant designer in touch with modern practice and Langridge states that had Billington not died in 1925 then LMS locomotive design might have taken a very different direction.

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, SD85 said:

 

I think I remember reading in the book 'Under 10 CMEs' by E.A. Langridge that the L&YR was the most technologically advanced constituent of the LMS when it came to locomotive design, and that the Horwich drawing office was basically a Swindon of the north, but less hidebound. The Chief Draughtsman at Horwich, John Billington, was apparently a brilliant designer in touch with modern practice and Langridge states that had Billington not died in 1925 then LMS locomotive design might have taken a very different direction.

 

Interesting. It's certainly the case that the Hughes 2-6-0s - the 'Crabs' - were immensely successful engines. So one has to ask, why the Class 8 4-cylinder 4-6-0s weren't better than they were? They were the most powerful express passenger engines the LMS had and already on the LNWR/LYR amalgamation they were put to work slogging away on the Crewe-Carlisle section. They have to be the most overlooked express passenger engines of their day - perhaps because they didn't work into London, much. The Claughtons gather all the glamour but were no better - in fact, in a number of respects, considerably more unsatisfactory.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Compound2632

[SD85]

According to several sources the Hughes Class 8s were not that great in their original form. The L&YR rebuilt a bunch of them about 1919/1920 with Walschaerts gear and other improvements and apparently these were much improved engines, albeit not sparkling. One major problem seems to have been that they were notably heavy on coal.

 

On a related note to this, a lot of pre Grouping railways seemed to nail the 4-4-0 and Atlantic concepts very easily but when it came to designing 4-6-0s and Baltic tanks things went awry. The LSWR was the most obvious example of this, but quite a few other railways struggled too. From my reckoning it was only the GWR and GER who got it right first time with their 4-6-0s (Saints/Stars and the B12s) -  maybe the Scottish companies did too, I can't recall. What were the GCR's efforts in this area like?

 

The LBSCR had by far the best Baltic tanks to run on the British railway system IMO, I don't think any of the other designs came close to matching the L class.

Edited April 9, 2021 by SD85

[LNER4479]

13 minutes ago, SD85 said:

From my reckoning it was only the GWR and GER who got it right first time with their 4-6-0s (Saints/Stars and the B12s) -  maybe the Scottish companies did too, I can't recall. What were the GCR's efforts in this area like?

 

Equally indifferent by all accounts. Certainly the 4-cyl B3s (GCR 9P) were little better in performance than the 4-4-0 'Directors', strong on the banks but very heavy on coal. The mixed traffic version (B7; GCR 9Q) were arguably the best of the bunch but still very heavy on coal.

 

It seems to me that it took a while for designers to 'crack' the alchemy of boiler design aligned to 4-6-0s. Merely sticking an extra 18 inches on to the front end of existing designs has little effect as that's the comparatively 'cold' end of the boiler. The taper design (as per GWR) provides a neat solution in terms of getting a greater proportion of volume nearer the firebox but its ultimately a complex balance between firebox dimensions, surface heating area and degree of superheat. A J Powell in 'The Stanier 4-6-0s at work' records 17 different boiler permutations in the attempts to get the Jubilees 'right'. In the days long before computer modelling, hats off to the boiler designers who managed to crack that code!

 

 

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, SD85 said:

According to several sources the Hughes Class 8s were not that great in their original form. The L&YR rebuilt a bunch of them about 1919/1920 with Walschaerts gear and other improvements and apparently these were much improved engines, albeit not sparkling. One major problem seems to have been that they were notably heavy on coal.

 

It was the later engines I was discussing. Of the first batch of 20 built 1908-9, 15 were as you say rebuilt in 1919 and 5 withdrawn. A further 55 were built new at Horwich between 1920 and 1925, so they formed a large class of 70 altogether; the most powerful express passenger engines the LMS had at the time. 

[Coach bogie]

On 06/04/2021 at 12:31, Denbridge said:

I'd be happy with a decent kit. In fact it would be my preference. Though i do still find it puzzling that such an important design has been ignored.

There have been several kits over the years. I have built Saints from the Pro-Scale kit though the challenge was, it was designed for 24mm wheels when it needed 26/27mm wheels. I have one Saint from the Falcon Brass/Jidenco kit which did all fit but lacked slot and tab. The best detailed is the Westward kit which can be built with either straight or curved frames. Most of my Saints are from the Wills kit, which, although quite old and lacking detail, with additional work, can be made into a nice model.

 

With a week off, I have been inspired from all the contributions here to make another loco. There has been many images of the Hornby Star, and I do have a couple. I had a box of bits for a Wills Star with the cast chassis which did not run. I thought  I would see what I could come up with. I removed all the loose bearings from the cast chassis and soldered in some new ones. I played around with the motor mount and now have a quiet running MW005  powered loco. The body was built up as the kit but with replacement fittings from the spares box. Where the Wills kit is poor, is the front frames....well there are no front frames. I while back I retro built a Wills Castle with a no 1 boiler as a Star as the Castle kit has full front frame castings. I made my own from plastic to reduce the risk of the wheels shorting. I also used cylinders/slide bars from a Hornby Star for the same reason, supplied by Peter's Spares.

 

The Hornby has much more detail, but the main reason to build is this. I have a picture on my wall of a Star hauling 15 coaches. Most of my coaches are kit built and the Hornby is limited in its' haulage capacity.

Here is my Wills Star which has no issues with 15 on.

Mike Wiltshire

[bbishop]

1 hour ago, SD85 said:

According to several sources the Hughes Class 8s were not that great in their original form. The L&YR rebuilt a bunch of them about 1919/1920 with Walschaerts gear and other improvements and apparently these were much improved engines, albeit not sparkling. One major problem seems to have been that they were notably heavy on coal.  Were there any wholly successful 4 cylinder 4-6-0s?

 

On a related note to this, a lot of pre Grouping railways seemed to nail the 4-4-0 and Atlantic concepts very easily but when it came to designing 4-6-0s and Baltic tanks things went awry. The LSWR was the most obvious example of this, but quite a few other railways struggled too. The Drummond Paddleboxes were perhaps equivalent to the L&Y Class 8; the rest were hopeless on express passenger trains, but found a niche in WW1 on freight or mineral trains. Urie hired Jock Finlayson from the North British company, and his H15 class were the first 2 cylinder , outside Walschaert locomotives in the British Isles. From my reckoning it was only the GWR and GER who got it right first time with their 4-6-0s (Saints/Stars and the B12s) -  maybe the Scottish companies did too, I can't recall. The McIntosh 4-6-0s were extended 4-4-0s, could pull but little sparkle, the Pickersgills were awful.  The best were the Highland Railway Castle class, rejected by the Civil Engineer and sold to the Caledonian.  What were the GCR's efforts in this area like?  I honestly think the GER 4-6-0s were 4-4-0s with an extra pair of driving wheels but they were successful.  Were they build as an exercise in reducing the weight on an axle, in the same way that the War Department 2-10-0s were lighter per axle than the 2-8-0s?

 

The LBSCR had by far the best Baltic tanks to run on the British railway system IMO, I don't think any of the other designs came close to matching the L class.  Another horses for courses.  Excellent on the 50 miles from London to Brighton, but when rebuilt to 4-6-0s (and given the designation N15X) they couldn't cope with King Arthur diagrams - small fireboxes, inadequate ashpans - and were relegated to the Waterloo - Basingstoke semi-fasts.  Bill

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by bbishop

[Bernard Lamb]

Sleek, green and very fast and also associated with the eastern part of the country.

Not an A4 but the East German pacific 18201. 

It was built in the early 1960s mainly from various left over parts. I once said cobbled together and upset somebody, but basically that is what happened regarding its birth.

It was built to test the performance of high speed rolling stock, in particular the braking systems being developed for them. It was based at the test plant in Halle but did work normal services when not required for test work.

For many years it was the fastest steam locomotive in the world in respect of permitted top speed.

AFAIK it is out of use at present due to being out of boiler certification.

In the 1980s a delegation from Halle test plant visited the UK to discuss their projects.

My wife comes from Leipzig which is very near to Halle and she was invited along, not in an official capacity but just to make the East Germans feel at ease with a person who could speak the local dialect.

Bernard

 

 

 

 

[SD85]

(replying to bbishop) - I forgot about Urie's 4-6-0s; they were truly successful. The Paddleboxes as you say were OK though not stellar.

 

The L Class Baltic tanks were as you note designed for a specific route and task; a real shame that they were rebuilt but electrification made them redundant on the Central Division and the LSWR main line didn't lend itself to tank engine express running. Billinton was I think planning to design a 4-6-0 tender engine; I wonder if it would have turned out similar to the N15X rebuilds.

Edited April 9, 2021 by SD85

[SD85]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It was the later engines I was discussing. Of the first batch of 20 built 1908-9, 15 were as you say rebuilt in 1919 and 5 withdrawn. A further 55 were built new at Horwich between 1920 and 1925, so they formed a large class of 70 altogether; the most powerful express passenger engines the LMS had at the time. 

 

If I'm right in my thinking, the Scots basically displaced them (and the Claughtons). I suspect regional preferences meant that until the Scots were introduced Claughtons were preferred south of Crewe, though I'm sure one of the Hughes engines found its way down to Euston once.

 

I think the Class 8s might have had more of a front line career had Hughes not retired in the mid 1920s; after he left the CME post Horwich lost most of its influence on the LMS and the Fowler/Derby influences took over. Fowler introduced the Scots in 1927 (I think), so the Hughes engines despite being built in large numbers were relegated from top end duties only a couple of years later.

 

The politics of the LMS are fascinating. It would have been very interesting to see what an essentially L&YR led engine policy on the West Coast route would have been able to achieve in the 1930s had Hughes not retired or Billington lived. One problem however seems to have been that while the CME was based at Horwich, corporate policy was decided elsewhere, with Euston calling the shots. Allowing Horwich total control of the locomotive angle could have possibly produced better results...?

 

Here is some info I was able to find about Billington (copied over from https://www.steamindex.com/people/horwich.htm):

 

 

"Billington, John Robert

Marshall states that Billington was born at Freckleton (Lancs) on 18 April 1873 and died at Horwich on 22 March 1925. Cox (Locomotive panorama V. 1 p. 15) states that he was of humble parentage but had a brilliant mind and "did not suffer fools gladly and could be sharp and acid on occasion".  Marshall claims that Billington was mainly responsible for the Hughes/Fowler 2-6-0.

Billington, Chief Draughtsman of the LYR following the retirement of Zachariah Tetlow was according to Rutherford a home-grown engineer from a modest background, who returned to the Drawing Office at Horwich in 1912. He was a brilliant scholar, gaining many examination honours and becoming a lecturer at Horwich Mechanics' Institute on top of his full-time work. He was responsible for redesigning the 4-6-0s and also, as Chief Draughtsman, LMSR, for the first new design for that company, the Hughes standard 2-6-0 (known as the 'Crab').

During 1923 a further 'improved' version of the 4-6-0 was schemed, as a 'Pacific with a wide firebox boiler. Associated with this was a four-cylinder 2-8-2 for heavy passenger traffic and a four-cylinder 2-10-0 for heavy freight. The latter was resuscitated from a pre First World War project based on 2-10-0s of Jean Baptiste Flamme of the Belgian State Railways whose work on superheating and testing methods had influenced Hughes.

No interest in any of these proposals or a later 4-6-2 was shown by Euston although the operators thought that a freight version of the 2-8-2, but with three-cylinders, might do for the Toton-Brent coal traffic and so the design was re-schemed, together with a matching 4-6-2.

Billington died at the early age of 52 in March 1925. John Marshall suggests that Billington's death contributed to Hughes premature retirement.

Langridge stated that Billington's death had been a shock to the design staff. He was a brilliant designer very much au fait with what was going on in America and one who was not afraid of applying their ideas. The Horwich DO was probably at its best at that time and the works also being very modern one felt that this was a Swindon of the North - but much less hidebound than the GWR later became."

Edited April 9, 2021 by SD85

[SD85]

This is an Wikipedia article on the 2-10-0 that Hughes drew up for the L&YR and Billington worked on as a proposal to the LMS in the 1920s. Would have been very interesting had it been built. The L&YR seem to have been pretty progressive and willing to look abroad for influences and inspiration when it came to locomotive design.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%26YR_2-10-0_(Hughes)

Edited April 9, 2021 by SD85

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, SD85 said:

If I'm right in my thinking, the Scots basically displaced them (and the Claughtons). I suspect regional preferences meant that until the Scots were introduced Claughtons were preferred south of Crewe, though I'm sure one of the Hughes engines found its way down to Euston once.

 

I think the Class 8s might have had more of a front line career had Hughes not retired in the mid 1920s; after he left the CME post Horwich lost most of its influence on the LMS and the Fowler/Derby influences took over. Fowler introduced the Scots in 1927 (I think), so the Hughes engines despite being built in large numbers were relegated from top end duties only a couple of years later.

 

I don't really buy into the language of preference and favouritism. The LMS was a hard-nosed business, struggling in the 20s to operate the WCML with the locomotives it had to hand - those large numbers of recently built  Class 8s, Claughtons, and Prince of Waleses represented a substantial financial investment that had to be made the best of. The Class 8s were depolyed where they were most effective - on work that had become beyond the capacity of the Claughtons, the deficiencies of which were becoming rapidly evident. It's a fascinating period. Two recent books that I would thoroughly recommend to dispel the folklore and mythology:

 

J. Jennison, A Detailed History of the LMS Patriot 4-6-0s (RCTS, 2018)

D. Hunt, J. Jennison, and R.J. Essery, LMS Locomotive Profiles No. 15 - The 'Royal Scots' (Wild Swan, 2019)

[LNER4479]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I don't really buy into the language of preference and favouritism. The LMS was a hard-nosed business, struggling in the 20s to operate the WCML with the locomotives it had to hand - those large numbers of recently built  Class 8s, Claughtons, and Prince of Waleses represented a substantial financial investment that had to be made the best of. The Class 8s were deployed where they were most effective - on work that had become beyond the capacity of the Claughtons, the deficiencies of which were becoming rapidly evident. It's a fascinating period.

I have a bit of a soft spot for the L&Y 'Dreadnoughts', having built one. I agree that their use over the WCML 'big hill' is indeed a fascinating part of the early LMS story (not forgetting that new build Compounds were also in the mix). However, I would offer this from C.P.Atkins 'West Coast 4-6-0s at work':

 

'The last 20 4-6-0s (10455-10474) were sent new to Carlisle Upperby, where they remained until 1932-35. With their smaller coupled wheels, larger diameter boilers and generally more up-to-date design, the Hughes 4-6-0s should have put the 'Claughtons' in the shade north of Crewe. In reality, [they] barely measured up to the 'Claughtons' and suffered from similar ills for slightly different reasons.

 

'Long non-stop runs had been unknown on the old LYR and the lubrication arrangements ... were simply not up to the long hard slog over the Westmorland fells (there's then a bit comparing axlebox dimensions which appear to have been broadly similar). A survey in 1930 showed that the Hughes 4-6-0s 'enjoyed' the highest incidence of hot boxes of any major LMS passenger design, with on average on casualty per 38,600 miles run compared to 133,000 miles by the new 'Royal Scots'.

(the account highlights that it was the intermediate (ie middle) boxes which were most at risk - presumably more of a 'pain' to remove for repair?)

 

'Steaming, as in the 'Claughtons', could be erratic due to ingress of air into the built up smokebox, which rested upon a fabricated saddle. The breeches pipe, which conducted the exhaust steam to the blastpipe nozzle, were each secured to the base of the smokebox by only four studs, With steam shut off, smokebox char could become drawn into the cylinders with unpleasant results.

 

'As in the 'Claughtons' also, performance and efficiency would noticeably fall as mileage advanced since last shopping, again due to piston valve design. Horwich piston valves incorporated a Hughes-patented compression release mechanism within their heads which each incorporated several small steel balls. These wore into irregular shapes over a period of time resulting in very severe wastage of steam. In the 1930s these were replaced on several engines by new-style piston valves with six narrow rings.'

 

As written, not a flattering account! And I think gives an indication of the sort of situation Stanier walked into in 1932. I would however be interested to know if you consider the above to be accurate / factual ... or not?(!) Genuinely interested to know. 

 

Irrespective, I do have another 'Dreadnought' kit in stock and, if I ever find enough hours in the day, plan to build it to run alongside the Claughton we already have running (somewhat noisily!) on Shap as part of the projected 1930s procession of trains.

[Ray Flintoft]

On 08/04/2021 at 11:09, MarkC said:

Continuing the present tangential diversion regarding ET; whilst Peppercorn takes the credit for the production K1s - and we know from 62005's sterling service over the years (and the wonderful work that NELPG and others do to keep her in good condition) how good the design was/is- I believe that much of the work was done before Pepp stepped up to the top job? Do we know what fine tuning, if any, was done by Pepp and his team before the design was signed off?

 

I must read Tim Hillier-Graves' new book too.

 

Mark

The prototype was rebuilt by ET  & the class was part of his standard range . The production batch had a different (4.200 gall) tender  , a cut out front end , a different arrangement of mechanical lubricators & a single slidebar . Sounds a lot but actually only minor ; I always credit Thompson with the K.1 .

   Incidentally , Tony, this was to replace the J.39 which was not that successful  , with high maintenance costs , heavy front axlebox wear & a valve gear which regularly tied itself in knots . The J.11/3 was for lighter goods work & excursion traffic  .

  One point regarding the conjugated valve gear . Whilst in good order it did a very good job , but  keeping it in that condition had a cost imperative . It is notable that neither Peppercorn nor Harrison were prepared to use it in future construction .

                               Ray .

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, mattingleycustom said:

It's always been my understanding that had Bulleid not left the LNER to go south in 1937, he would have been favourite to succeed Gresley.

Is this assumption correct, or was ET always in line as the next CME?

 

Glenn

 

Good afternoon Glenn,

 

Had Bulleid not left the LNER, he would have succeeded Gresley, being his deputy. Goodness knows what sort of locos we might have seen had that been the case!

 

One thing is certain; he'd have left the P2s alone, though he might have improved the front truck. It would have meant I'd have seen them in BR green.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.