Hornby K1

[robmcg]

My edited pic of K1 62024 in full forward gear....

 

https://www.facebook.com/brsteamphotos/photos/pcb.406034906228847/406034532895551/?type=1&theater

[jonny777]

the frodingham k1,s where mainly employed as pilot locos to help with heavy trains of iron ore between barnetby and Scunthorpe when I was a fireman there .....mali

 

As luck would have it, I have just purchased the Middleton Press book, Spalding to Grimsby. On the cover is a K1 (incorrectly captioned in the book as a B1) passing through Authorpe on what appears to be a local passenger working.

 

This might be a Frodingham loco, although I cannot read the number on the image, and gives me renewed hope that K1s did wander away from their normal duties.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Just look at the Frodingham tender loco allocations for the BR period. Overwhelmingly heavy freight eight coupled types; with a few six coupleds, J11s early in the BR period, replaced by K1s to the end of steam.

 

Now, the direct experience of a fireman of the typical use of the K1 is clearly correct. But if there was any lighter traffic that ever had to be worked from that shed, the J11 and K1 would be the most likely traction, I would suggest. Supporting evidence, look at the allocations at Doncaster, Immingham, Lincoln. None of them regularly had K1s, their MT loco was the B1, so a K1 on that patch is most likely to be one of the Frodingham allocation.

[coachmann]

Someone said earlier the K1 looked like a B1. It does, but in reality it is much smaller. Actually, the K1's were a very compact powerhouse, their 32,080 lbs of tractive effort making them 6MT, which was quite a tidy sum for a 2-cylinder job of their size. The K3 had a lesser TE of 30,030 lbs but it had 6" larger driving wheels. The B1 with 6' 2" driving wheels came in at 26.878 lbs TE and was power class 5MT. The BR Std. Class 4 2-6-0 had a mere 24.170 lbs Tractive effort with 5' 3" drivers and was not in the same league as a K1 despite similar overall size, but then again it had better route availability.

 

Comparing the K1 with LMS 2-6-0s, the 'Crab' and Stanier 2-6-0's had 4" larger driving wheels but only came in with 26,000+ lbs TE and so were rated 6P but only 5F. As I said, the K1 was quite a powerhouse with a weight equal to the LMS 2-6-0's, and so it must have been capable of stopping what it could haul. The fact that it wasn't deemed suitable for some areas (Manchester being one) was simply because the freight was generally hauled by 2-8-0's of 7F and 8F power rating and reverted to 2-8-0's after the K1's were transferred away. The K1 (and B1) was a feather in Thompson's cap by any standards.

 

Edited January 2, 2015 by coachmann

[micklner]

K1 was a Peppercorn modified design following  Thommo's K1/1

[coachmann]

K1 was a Peppercorn modified design following  Thommo's K1/1

I've been waiting all afternoon for someone to write that ha ha. Thompson not only developed the ideas but built working prototypes as well. After trials it was put forward as a standard production design. Peppercorns team merely revised designs and he happened to be in office when the K1's were signed off for production in 1949. He didn't design the K1 any more than Fowler designed the 'Crab' or Stanier the 1P 0-4-4T (or Duchess). A 6' 2" Class A2 pacific did not exist until Thompson designed one. Peppercorn's team merely revised the idea (and also avoided Gresley valve gear), and no doubt gave Riddles the idea for a 6' 2" 7P Pacific from which he could squeeze the required power rating out of just two cylinders.

Edited January 2, 2015 by coachmann

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 I have fallen to temptation, was going to wait for a March allocated specimen, but couldn't resist and will have to re-number and shedplate. About the only fault in appearance I can find is that the sandpipes to rear of the centre coupled wheel were behind the flanges rather than directed under the tyre. Easy to fix...

 

Only a very small mod required to have loco and tender coupled up at scale distance with all the benefit that brings to appearance. The close coupling option won't work as supplied, because the longer setting option then fouls the socket. But turn the drawbar around so the choice in settings is on the loco, and remove the tags both ends where it was cut from the etch, and it will just go. Then slightly file back the intermediate buffer mouldings to give enough clearance to allow loco and tender to swing sufficiently relative to each other for your layout's curves.

 

Lovely runner, even more so with a Lenz Standard fitted, and I have had the weight out of the tender as it is more than adequate unweighted at 60g now it has real coal in the bunker. The mechanism construction has more than a passing similarity with the style Bachmann have evolved on their small six-coupleds over the past three or four years. Some cross-fertilisation as a result of the closure of the former Sanda Kan facility, and presumably some dispersal of the staff? All these new manufacturing vendors Hornby are using must have got their experienced people from somewhere.

[New Haven Neil]

Expanding on Larry's post, a friend has a lot of firing experience (and some driving experience) of (6)2005, and expresses what a strong engine she is.  The K1's are impressive for their size.

[Porcy Mane]

 The K1's are impressive for their size.

... but a bit weak on braking of loose coupled freights.

 

P

[New Haven Neil]

Not much of that around in preservation wold, Porcy!  Outside of Tanfield, anyway!!

[micklner]

I've been waiting all afternoon for someone to write that ha ha. Thompson not only developed the ideas but built working prototypes as well. After trials it was put forward as a standard production design. Peppercorns team merely revised designs and he happened to be in office when the K1's were signed off for production in 1949. He didn't design the K1 any more than Fowler designed the 'Crab' or Stanier the 1P 0-4-4T (or Duchess). A 6' 2" Class A2 pacific did not exist until Thompson designed one. Peppercorn's team merely revised the idea (and also avoided Gresley valve gear), and no doubt gave Riddles the idea for a 6' 2" 7P Pacific from which he could squeeze the required power rating out of just two cylinders.

Glad you didn't have to wait too long ha ha !!

 

Thommo modified a single K4 not a number of Locos. 

 

The K1  was not produced until 1949 and revised by Peppercorn before production .

 

http://www.lner.info/locos/K/k1thompson.shtml

 

As to the A2 and the later A1 they were designed by Peppercorn following the lead of Gresley not Thompson.  

[coachmann]

Glad you didn't have to wait too long ha ha !!

 

Thommo modified a single K4 not a number of Locos. 

 

The K1  was not produced until 1949 and revised by Peppercorn before production .

 

http://www.lner.info/locos/K/k1thompson.shtml

 

As to the A2 and the later A1 they were designed by Peppercorn following the lead of Gresley not Thompson.  

Eh?   

[Les1952]

I'm fairly sure that Peppercorn's mods involved a degree of work on the mechanical side, using the Thompson prototype.

 

Evidence?  I'm basing this on the similarities between the L1 and the K1- and the K1, whilst not altogether happy galloping along at passenger speeds on the West Highland and Summer reliefs, failed to shake itself apart while doing so in quite the way the L1 did- and for that matter J39s also did if Derby Works records were to be believed.

 

Family members worked both in Darlington and Faverdale works, but on goods workings from Darlington.  The K1 was popular there as a goods loco that could do a bit more if required and still be available for more goods work when it got back....

 

All the very best

Les

[New Haven Neil]

... but a bit weak on braking of loose coupled freights.

 

P

 

Rather OT, but perhaps not as bad as the Clayton that ended up jammed in Reyrolle's yard in Hebburn, eh? !!

[Porcy Mane]

Rather OT, but perhaps not as bad as the Clayton that ended up jammed in Reyrolle's yard in Hebburn, eh? !!

Dunno about that. 62027 had a lucky escape coming down the Lanchester Valley. Totally wore away a new set of engine and tender brake blocks but fortunately no trains in front of it. That's according to the driver, the late Harry Friend who used to be a neighbour. Reason given was only eight out of 34 loaded 16 tonners had the brakes dropped.

I think it should have been 18 sets of brakes dropped and pinned.

His account of the incident was written up for a magazine a good few years ago.

 

P

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

..and the K1, whilst not altogether happy galloping along at passenger speeds on the West Highland and Summer reliefs, failed to shake itself apart while doing so in quite the way the L1 did- and for that matter J39s also did if Derby Works records were to be believed...

Not just Derby, same story at all the works that repaired the J39. This class was probably the LNER's then new locomotive committee's worst decision, not least because it became the most numerous built during the LNER's existence. The story is simply penny wise, pound foolish.

 

What Gresley initially proposed for the medium freight loco for the LNER in 1923 was a 2-6-0; this was the fruit of his time with the GNR where he had produced a very successful 2-6-0 series, which had proven their worth for faster running than was sensible with 0-6-0 types. However, probably in view of the numbers that would need to be built, the cheaper option of an 0-6-0 type was preferred, and this was what became the J39. The problem with this loco was that a free steaming boiler and good front end meant they could readily go much faster than was really advisable without a leading carrying wheel.

 

I think it was someone of the rank of Gerald Fiennes who made the comment that they were altogether too potent for their own good, and the money saved on first cost by not having a leading truck was lost many times over on the consequent repair costs of excessive wear, particularly to the leading wheelset axlebox journals, hornguides and flanges. There's a fine description by Dick Hardy of his early experience of the class in vigorous use in passenger service, negotiating a junction in a series of straight lines; this ride harshness reflecting the lack of guidance a leading truck would have supplied.

 

In the Thompson/Peppercorn K1 theLNER finally got pretty much what Gresley would have preferred...

[Les1952]

 

 

As to the A2 and the later A1 they were designed by Peppercorn following the lead of Gresley not Thompson.  

 

Going OT for the K1 but it is a well documented story that the Peppecorn A2s were designed from the back forwards, and that drawings that did exist were hidden from Thompson up until his retirement.  the aim was to cure when even Thompson admitted were defects in his designs caused by using drives of equal length for the three cylinders.

 

The A2s and A1s kept divided drive but with as near as they could get to a Gresley layout- it being known to all (though Thompson denied it) that the problem with the Gresley 3-cylinder designs wasn't the derived motion (derived motion was after all good enough to work the outside cylis on Castles and Kings) but the middle big end.  With divided drive it was though by many impossible to  use Gresley valve gear.

 

Thompson set the LNER on a path of simpler locos, with a budget that Gresley could only have dreamed of.  Peppercorn added the best of Gresley to the best of Thompson.   However the B1 and K1 were made entirely of Gresley parts, just applied in a simpler manner.

 

All the very best

Les

[MarkC]

Dunno about that. 62027 had a lucky escape coming down the Lanchester Valley. Totally wore away a new set of engine and tender brake blocks but fortunately no trains in front of it. That's according to the driver, the late Harry Friend who used to be a neighbour. Reason given was only eight out of 34 loaded 16 tonners had the brakes dropped.

I think it should have been 18 sets of brakes dropped and pinned.

His account of the incident was written up for a magazine a good few years ago.

 

P

 

That must have been a scary ride

 

[Les1952]

That must have been a scary ride

 

 

62027 wasn't going to have a lucky escape from this, sadly.  Taken with a box brownie at Arnott Young, Dinsdale with 43101  standing in front of it.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Les1952

[Guest G567281]

62027 wasn't going to have a lucky escape from this, sadly.  Taken with a box brownie at Arnott Young, Dinsdale with 43101  standing in front of it.

I see the tender has the "T" sections or angle-iron reinforcing on the rear plate of the coal space. An interesting site, many thanks to all of the contributors.

 

Regards

 

Alan

[D9020 Nimbus]

I've been waiting all afternoon for someone to write that ha ha. Thompson not only developed the ideas but built working prototypes as well. After trials it was put forward as a standard production design. Peppercorns team merely revised designs and he happened to be in office when the K1's were signed off for production in 1949. He didn't design the K1 any more than Fowler designed the 'Crab' or Stanier the 1P 0-4-4T (or Duchess). A 6' 2" Class A2 pacific did not exist until Thompson designed one. Peppercorn's team merely revised the idea (and also avoided Gresley valve gear), and no doubt gave Riddles the idea for a 6' 2" 7P Pacific from which he could squeeze the required power rating out of just two cylinders.

The Peppercorn A2 was of course considerably revised from the original. I'm not aware of feh differences between the K1/1 prototype and the K1 proper, but suspect they were minor. Of course CMEs didn't always design locomotives to which their names were attached; Fowler for example (the Crab was largely the work of his predecessor George Hughes, except of course for the tender); Lemon and Fairburn didn't design 'their' loconorives either.

 

Perhaps the best way of understanding how locomotives were actually designed—on the LMS at any rate—can be gained by reading Locomotive Panorama by E S Cox.

[Porcy Mane]

 Of course CMEs didn't always design locomotives to which their names were attached;

Things don't change.

 It always struck me when walking through any drawing/design office that there could be dozens, if not hundreds of personnel beavering away at their drawing boards/workstations, distilling ideas, yet it would always be the guy in the top office that would be given the credit.

 

Adrian Newey is a name that pops into my head when thinking about this a little deeper.

 

I've always seen the man in the top office as the leader that brings everyone together and has them pulling in the same direction. Seems like Thompson couldn't do this (for a multitude of reasons, both personal and engineering wise,  according to what's been written and documented) yet Peppercorn could.

 

I wonder what they would have thought about the Hornby model?

 

P

[The Black Hat]

Thompson set the LNER on a path of simpler locos, with a budget that Gresley could only have dreamed of.  Peppercorn added the best of Gresley to the best of Thompson.   However the B1 and K1 were made entirely of Gresley parts, just applied in a simpler manner.

 

All the very best

Les

 

Not quite sure, but willing to learn more on this. Were the B1 and K1 not built from parts that already existed, as group standard rather than parts deliberately designed by Gresley. The signature, or hangover, of the NER style standardisation is what I can see, being a group standard tender, cab, dome, buffers, etc. Boilers could be swapped between similar classes, like L1, as could wheels etc. I would suspect that Darlingtons drawing office and ideas played a large part in the use of standard kit to keep designing simple, repairs easy, replacements quick and costs down.

[newbryford]

 

 

Adrian Newey is a name that pops into my head when thinking about this a little deeper.

 

 

 

I wonder what they would have thought about the Hornby model?

 

P

 

"Not quite sure if it's aerodynamically efficient............"

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Mike J]

K1 renumbered to the preserved example and weathered for my mate Nick Skelton for his new layout, Lomond Street. (Silverlink's renumbering, my weathering)

 

 

Still some straightening out to do, but she's just about ready.

I used the photo on the 'Jacobite' website as a reference, showing 62005 at Grosmont NYMR. (Except for the crest and warning flashes)

 

http://www.westcoastrailways.co.uk/jacobite/locomotives-and-coaches.cfm