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.

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

... hence the Class 5s being built in such large numbers prior to WWII (partly funded by government grants). Its was fast, fitted goods and parcels traffic that paid best in terms of revenue, so far more Class 5s in service by Sept 1939 than 8Fs.

 

Yes, I was speaking of the 20s; the demands of the operating department were shifting by the 30s. The Class 5s, introduced in 1934, were described as "improved Prince of Wales class", i.e. renewals of engines that were up to 23 years old, though the youngest were only 10 years old - not all replaced at once, of course.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Is that by my old colleague "Gauge 0" Brown of the Manchester MRS?

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.  

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

What a strange coincidence.

I was looking through "Steaming through Berkhamsted" about an hour ago.

My wife has just told me that she was in touch with Mrs Green earlier on and they will be having coffee together next week now that we are allowed out. 

(Mrs Green and Mrs Lamb are both German for those who are unaware).

Bernard

I've just started reading the new book, Bernard,

 

Fascinating, but I'm puzzled as to the 'blotches' on some of the pages. Do you think it's meant to make them look 'old'? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

I've read that - and then I later read an account by someone who was involved in the overhauling of locomotives at Doncaster that they set up a pacific using this new optical alignment equipment, then took it outside, parked it on a curve and found that the frames had deflected further than the official scrapping tolerance.   I'm not suggesting it did any harm, but it may not have been quite the revolution some have implied.

 

Incidentally I think you may be conflating two episodes of Doncaster learning from Swindon practice; Mr Cook changed the way the frames and cylinders were set up to be assembled; the lesson on valve events was during the 1925 exchange when (allegedly) the valves of the Castle locomotive were taken apart and examined overnight.

 

 

I certainly wasn't confusing it with 1925 affair, Jonathan; however, I  think you are right in that Cook's work was more to do with frame alignment. However, that included alignment of slide bars and correct setting of horn guides ... all of which will have been kinder to motion and valve gear.

 

I don't buy the bit about parking a loco on a curve. All you can do in a workshop is to set things up on straight and level track. Sure, frames flex round a curve and in fact the whole frame system is flexing all the time as the loco goes along, together with wheels constantly moving up and down on their springs - but straight n level track represents the average, central position  and that can only improve matters if it's set up right. Even more so considering that East Coast machines spent a lot of their time going in a nominally straight line anyway.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

There is an 'interesting' synopsis of Simon Martins revisiting of Thompsons work in this months Railway Magazine. Personally and speaking purely as an enthusiast my sole thought on Thompson remains 'funny looking Pacifics' :)

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

 

What you overlook here is that the LMS had a fleet of 210 4-cylinder 4-6-0s by 1924*, all but 60 of which were under five years old, along with 245 superheated 2-cylinder 4-6-0s, 90 of which were also only two or three years old, for the heavy express passenger work of the Western and Central Divisions. Likewise there were over 600 0-8-0s for heavy goods work, mostly under a decade old. So the pressure from the operating department (he who pays the piper calls the tune) was not, initially, for more of these big engines but for replacements of ageing 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s for the secondary passenger (express and ordinary) and goods trains. 

 

*By which date the GWR, generally acknowledged as being well ahead of the game at this period, had 82 such engines and the LNER just 29 4-6-2s, but of course in both cases with more under construction.

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. 

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

I've just started reading the new book, Bernard,

 

Fascinating, but I'm puzzled as to the 'blotches' on some of the pages. Do you think it's meant to make them look 'old'? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

Not wishing to be rude, but having some knowledge of photographic reproduction, I feel qualified to comment. I will confine myself to this short statement. I have not seen the new book yet but I think I know what you mean.

I have seen reproductions of his photographs where I find the printing to be rather substandard for a technical publication.

Bernard

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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? 

 

But all this is about the WCML expresses, which, whilst very much in the public eye and the enthusiast's eye, was really only a very small part of the company's business. The ex-Midland designs were what the operating department wanted and needed, for most of the business. Likewise, the LNER pacifics occupy a similar spot, while the locomotives of the Worsdells, Holden, Parker, Holms, Reid, Robinson and Raven were earning the bulk of the company's revenue. But as I've previously said, it's the ordinary that appeals to me. Of course, in the case of Little Bytham in the 1950s, pacifics are the ordinary!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something of possible interest..................

 

This morning, a friend brought over some OO SR stuff for me to sell on behalf of a widow. 

 

823126987_SR4-4-2T.jpg.373d832e91ba85abd743db28d91103b9.jpg

 

I have no idea of this loco's provenance. It didn't work, though it has a (quiet!) Portescap.

 

I've replaced the dodgy pick-ups, cured a tight spot and eradicated the short circuit. Even though I say it myself, it now runs rather well, though there's almost no sideplay in the rear pony set. 

 

On first inspection, I considered lifting out the Portescap and sending the rest to the bin, but that would be too unkind. The Portescap certainly has value. 

 

1441672949_oldHornbyTerriers.jpg.43c9b3e656b45b987bb14cd3669792ca.jpg

 

Next was a pair of (older) Hornby 'Terriers'. When they last ran must have been in the last century because they sounded like stuck pigs! Anyway, a clean and oil and they now run quite well (they do have cheap mechanisms). 

 

1711754685_1stClasscarriage.jpg.61f28af19356800cd1bad7905c6fc2cf.jpg

 

This was also in the collection. It appears to have been built from a Roxey kit. Is it SR, and, if so, why is it red? 

 

There's also an old Hornby 'King Arthur'. That runs, too. It has an X04 motor.

 

If anyone's interested in any of these, please PM me.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Tony,

Not wishing to be rude, but having some knowledge of photographic reproduction, I feel qualified to comment. I will confine myself to this short statement. I have not seen the new book yet but I think I know what you mean.

I have seen reproductions of his photographs where I find the printing to be rather substandard for a technical publication.

Bernard

Thanks Bernard,

 

Some of the images in this latest book aren't what one normally expects from Casserley's work, but the whole thing is of terrific interest. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PupCam said:

As I know the area well even though "it's the wrong railway" I thoroughly enjoyed that book when I received it as a birthday gift a few years ago.

i was at the school shown on the front piece map from 1954-1959. Although most of the photos are from earlier times many of the locomotives and certainly almost all of the surroundings are well known and imprinted in my brain. I was checking on the gas works railway. There is a thread on the forum about abandoned rails and I was checking the location in order to go and take some photographs as I believe the track still exists.

Bernard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

the locomotives of the Worsdells, Holden, Parker, Holms, Reid, Robinson and Raven were earning the bulk of the company's revenue. 

 

Apologies, I should have mentioned Stirling and Ivatt there! Some smaller engines by young Nigel himself were also doing their bit.

 

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

This was also in the collection. It appears to have been built from a Roxey kit. Is it SR, and, if so, why is it red? 

 

SECR.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

...

 

In the end, he left, to become.............. guess what? An adviser! Yes, he was promoted out of the classroom. The irony was he returned to my school in that advisory role, but never came near me.

 

 

My "second career" with a Local Authority began in the Education Department; Tony, if you substitute 'Education Adviser' for 'Management Consultant' as seen in the Private Sector then your understanding of the concept will be pretty close indeed.

 

The only material difference I could find was that at this point (early 'Noughties) Schools had fairly recently been given control of their own budgets and the Advisers (nine of them for our Authority, all broadly on Head or Deputy Head equivalent salaries) were therefore supposed to charge the Schools for their services, in order to recover the cost to the Council of employing them.  Most of the Advisers, however, were professionally and (I suspect) politically opposed to the idea that anything in Education should come with any form of price-tag (Council Tax payers' pockets being, of course, a bottomless barrel ...).  In practice, therefore, it wasn't that the Schools wouldn't and couldn't have paid - they'd been given money to do so, after all - but rather that the Advisors frequently just ignored the requirement to charge for their 'consultancy' services; and my superiors in the LEA didn't have the 'bottle' to make them, so the Department constantly ran at a loss and services in other areas had to be cut instead ...  

Edited by Willie Whizz
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Something of possible interest..................

 

 

1711754685_1stClasscarriage.jpg.61f28af19356800cd1bad7905c6fc2cf.jpg

 

This was also in the collection. It appears to have been built from a Roxey kit. Is it SR, and, if so, why is it red? 

 

There's also an old Hornby 'King Arthur'. That runs, too. It has an X04 motor.

 

If anyone's interested in any of these, please PM me.

 

 

 

I think it's a SE&CR 45 foot 1st class coach, Tony, in which case that's SE&CR red.

 

https://www.roxeymouldings.co.uk/product/139/4c77-secr-45ft-first/

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The ex-Midland designs were what the operating department wanted and needed, for most of the business.

As if to emphasise that point, the 4F was retained as the LMS Standard (as opposed to 'heavy') goods loco and the final batch were authorised in 1937 under Stanier's tenure, the last built not taking to the rails until 1941.

 

I'm with Stephen on this - we go all misty-eyed at the very mention of Class 8 pacifics (myself included!) but the reality is that it was the less glamorous goods and parcels traffic that made the greater contribution to the coffers (two-thirds, in the case of the LNER). As each year passes on our modern, multiple-unit dominated railway, so it gets steadily more difficult to appreciate that historical point. Made worse by the fact that the average photographer back in the day saved his precious camera frames for the glamorous and let most of the goods traffic plod by with scarcely a murmur, giving us a distorted view of history.

 

The stretch of ECML through Little Bytham probably had a greater percentage of passenger trains than most. Elsewhere, your average stretch of double track railway was dominated by goods traffic - and passenger trains (especially express ones) were a bally nuisance as they went so much faster that goods traffic had to be looped or recessed to create a path for them.

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Bernard,

 

Some of the images in this latest book aren't what one normally expects from Casserley's work, but the whole thing is of terrific interest. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Agreed.

It was such a pity that the collection could not be kept together and was auctioned off in some rather odd chunks. I am biased as I was brought up on both the images and the real life trains and spent my schooldays in sight of both his house and the station. As an historical collection the photographs are priceless. 

Bernard

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

It was such a pity that the collection could not be kept together and was auctioned off in some rather odd chunks.

 

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

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

As if to emphasise that point, the 4F was retained as the LMS Standard (as opposed to 'heavy') goods loco and the final batch were authorised in 1937 under Stanier's tenure, the last built not taking to the rails until 1941.

 

I'm with Stephen on this - we go all misty-eyed at the very mention of Class 8 pacifics (myself included!) but the reality is that it was the less glamorous goods and parcels traffic that made the greater contribution to the coffers (two-thirds, in the case of the LNER). As each year passes on our modern, multiple-unit dominated railway, so it gets steadily more difficult to appreciate that historical point. Made worse by the fact that the average photographer back in the day saved his precious camera frames for the glamorous and let most of the goods traffic plod by with scarcely a murmur, giving us a distorted view of history.

 

The stretch of ECML through Little Bytham probably had a greater percentage of passenger trains than most. Elsewhere, your average stretch of double track railway was dominated by goods traffic - and passenger trains (especially express ones) were a bally nuisance as they went so much faster that goods traffic had to be looped or recessed to create a path for them.

 

It's the trainspotter in me, Graham,

 

You're right about the likes of Little Bytham being dominated by passenger trains, particularly in the summer. Long, long-distance passenger trains at that. 

 

I have a copy of BRILL somewhere where Peter Coster and Brian Bailey write about a trip (admittedly on a summer Saturday) from Kings Cross to Peterborough, thence to Grantham, stopping off at some of the intermediate stations. I think it was the summer of '58 because one of the trains they caught was a DMU. They listed everything they saw, and it was dominated by Pacifics and V2s. Apart from (obviously) a few smaller locos at Peterborough, I think there are a couple of B1s and a K3 listed, plus a C12 at Essendine.

 

Great days!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

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

Since I have no idea of the circumstances, and it's really none of my business, I'd prefer not to comment.

 

I'll just review the book.

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Friendly/supportive 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MarkC
To add something
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
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.