Castle Aching

[burgundy]

With 6' coupled wheels, the Lynn & Fakenham A Class was perhaps the Beyer equivalent of the Sharp 'Large Bogie'/61 Class or 'Larger Seagull'/K2 Class.

 

I'd be looking to go one smaller for the West Norfolk, and it would seem quite credible to produce a 'freelance' version of the Steamroller - essentially similar, but with a more conventional bogie (presumably simply retain that on the model).  Such a locomotive, built from the early 1880s - would be a Beyer equivalent of Sharps 'Small Bogie' or 'Seagull'/K1.  

 

 

Have I got a deal for you guv'! Beyer Peacock, one careful owner, just run in  - only 600,000 miles on the clock, 20 years old. Being sold by Mr Stroudley himself.

If the Brighton had thought to offer these locos for sale, they might have fitted the specification for the quieter pastures of Norfolk. Dutch railways were regular customers of Beyer Peacock and I believe had some rather similar locos which lasted until after the First World War (although I think they had acquired cabs by then!).

Best wishes

Eric       

[Edwardian]

With 6' coupled wheels, the Lynn & Fakenham A Class was perhaps the Beyer equivalent of the Sharp 'Large Bogie'/61 Class or 'Larger Seagull'/K2 Class.

 

I'd be looking to go one smaller for the West Norfolk, and it would seem quite credible to produce a 'freelance' version of the Steamroller - essentially similar, but with a more conventional bogie (presumably simply retain that on the model).  Such a locomotive, built from the early 1880s - would be a Beyer equivalent of Sharps 'Small Bogie' or 'Seagull'/K1.  

 

 

Have I got a deal for you guv'! Beyer Peacock, one careful owner, just run in  - only 600,000 miles on the clock, 20 years old. Being sold by Mr Stroudley himself.

188-b (2).jpg

If the Brighton had thought to offer these locos for sale, they might have fitted the specification for the quieter pastures of Norfolk. Dutch railways were regular customers of Beyer Peacock and I believe had some rather similar locos which lasted until after the First World War (although I think they had acquired cabs by then!).

Best wishes

Eric       

 

Indeed!

 

So now you want me to tackle outside frames!!!!

 

Some of these were clearly 'Flyers', with 7' drivers, flying Dutchmen, in fact!

[NeilHB]

Mr Edwardian sir, I must ask you to desist from posting these oh so delightful photos of elegant Beyer Peacock locomotives - I want them all!

 

The BNCR example is particularly delightful...

[Donw]

Indeed!

 

So now you want me to tackle outside frames!!!!

 

Some of these were clearly 'Flyers', with 7' drivers, flying Dutchmen, in fact!

 

You cannot beat outside frames for a victorian look.

 

Bulldogs, Dukes and Armstrong goods lovely stuff.

 

Don

 

edit for misbehaving fingers

Edited September 8, 2018 by Donw

[burgundy]

Indeed!

 

So now you want me to tackle outside frames!!!!

 

Of course! They really are rather elegant.

Just out of interest, what is the third loco down in your sequence of pictures (the one in sepia)? The dome sitting far forward on the boiler is often a feature of Sharpies.

Best wishes

Eric   

[Martin S-C]

Outside frames really are the dog's nether parts. Lovely stuff.

[Nick Holliday]

With 6' coupled wheels, the Lynn & Fakenham A Class was perhaps the Beyer equivalent of the Sharp 'Large Bogie'/61 Class or 'Larger Seagull'/K2 Class.

 

I'd be looking to go one smaller for the West Norfolk, and it would seem quite credible to produce a 'freelance' version of the Steamroller - essentially similar, but with a more conventional bogie (presumably simply retain that on the model).  Such a locomotive, built from the early 1880s - would be a Beyer equivalent of Sharps 'Small Bogie' or 'Seagull'/K1.  

 

 

Have I got a deal for you guv'! Beyer Peacock, one careful owner, just run in  - only 600,000 miles on the clock, 20 years old. Being sold by Mr Stroudley himself.

188-b (2).jpg

If the Brighton had thought to offer these locos for sale, they might have fitted the specification for the quieter pastures of Norfolk. Dutch railways were regular customers of Beyer Peacock and I believe had some rather similar locos which lasted until after the First World War (although I think they had acquired cabs by then!).

Best wishes

Eric       

The Brighton did sell off a couple of this design of loco, although not the Beyer Peacock built examples, which apparently were the best performers of the bunch. (Dubs built 6, BP and Brighton Works 12 each)

Quoting Bradley (RCTS):

"Nos. 149 to 152 of 1862 (Built at Brighton) were not intended for express duties, but nevertheless use was occasionally made of their undoubted excellent haulage powers on the London-Brighton semi- fast services, including the 8.0 a.m. and 12.0 p.m. down, and 1.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. up trains.  After the fitting of steel tyres and the blastpipe modifications made by Craven following complaints of excessive fuel and water consumption, these engines gave excellent, if uninspiring service for some twenty years with an average mileage of 603,243. Nos. 149, 150/2 were renumbered 454/5/6 in 1880, while No. 151 became 120 in 1874 and again 363 in August, 1877.

Withdrawal commenced with Nos. 363 and 455, which were sold for £1,400 apiece to the West Lancashire Railway on 11th April, 1883, where they became Nos. 7 Blackburn and 8 Preston respectively.  Before departure, new Brighton pattern brass numberplates were fitted, as incidentally they were to other engines sold to the same railway in 1883-5, while the names were inscribed in Stroudley lettering.  Both worked until March, 1887, when Preston was laid aside and later sold for scrap. Blackburn, however, was given a general overhaul, when a stove pipe chimney of MS&LR pattern, a square cab, and a tender weatherboard were fitted.  It then gave excellent service until condemned in January, 1890, with the sale for scrap in February, 1893 realising £83 16s. 44. "

They also sold a couple of singles, similar to Burgundy's fine models. Again, Bradley says:

"The company received a request from the small West Lancashire Railway on 10^th January, 1883 for the sale of two singles, and offered Nos. 475 Dorking and 487 Horsham at £2,575 complete with tenders and delivered to Battersea. Agreement was reached on 31^st January, and the two engines were given minor repairs in shops before despatch.  The names were retained, as was the Brighton livery, but new standard pattern numberplates were supplied, the first mentioned engine becoming West Lancashire No. 5 Dorking and the latter No. 6 Horsham.  Both, like Nos. 474 and 485, had been fitted some years earlier with the Westinghouse brake, and this was retained.  In March/April, 1883 sixty old four-wheeled carriages were also purchased by the West Lancashire for £4,245.  By 1887 the singles were laid aside worn out and were replaced by two Kitson 2-4-2 tanks (Works Nos. 3072/3), which took their numbers, but not the names."

They'd also sold a "large Goods Loco" to the WLR. Again, quoting Bradley:

"Nos. 118/34 were laid aside in August, 1876, when their boilers were condemned, the former being broken up the following month, but No. 134 was returned to traffic carrying the ex-Stephenson boiler from No. 119.  Henceforth as No. 384 it worked from New Cross almost exclusively on ballasting or permanent way tasks in the London area until purchased for £800 by the West Lancashire Railway on 15^th July, 1885.  As No. 9, it gave long and satisfactory service, being fitted with the Westinghouse brake in March, 1893 at the same time as the company’s two second hand Furness Railway 0-6-0’s.  In August, 1895, a replacement in the form of a modern Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway 0-6-2 tank arrived, and the veteran was relegated to odd ballasting duties until converted for stationary duty in the Southport repair shops in February, 1896.  It was still so employed when the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway gained control of the West Lancashire and it was that company which finally scrapped the Craven relic."

 

All these locos were home built by the LBSC, and not by BP, but it does demonstrate the diversity of second-hand loco sales to smaller companies, and the comapanies' initials are almost the same!

[runs as required]

Would Crewe type Allan and Buddicom framng be tolerated by the locomotive fundis of this parish?

 

2

I had the impression that railways (eg the London & Birmingham, Great Western) were not permitted (by their Parliamentary Acts ?) to sell engines newly constructed in their works to outside companies .

How did the Brighton apparently get round it?

dh

[Northroader]

There was a court case brought in Victorian times by a locomotive manufacturer preventing railway companies making new engines for other companies, but this didn’t apply to second hand engines. Generally these were sold after a useful working life on their parent line, but I think there was a nod and a wink between the LNWR and the L&Y involving some barely used DX locos.

Before we get to Buddicoms, here’s another two BPs from furrin parts:

[Argos]

Would Crewe type Allan and Buddicom framng be tolerated by the locomotive fundis of this parish?

 

2

I had the impression that railways (eg the London & Birmingham, Great Western) were not permitted (by their Parliamentary Acts ?) to sell engines newly constructed in their works to outside companies .

How did the Brighton apparently get round it?

dh

 

Hi Run as Required, I believe the ruling only applied to new engines and not second hand ones.

 

I seem to recall the LNWR completed the order for Newton 2-4-0s for the L&Y (it might have been the DXs that Northroader mentions above) which initially caused the legal challenge by using the engines themselves for a couple of months before  passing them cross to the L&Y.

 

The LNWR also sold a couple of freshly rebuilt Special DXs to the NSR.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Argos

[Regularity]

There was a court case brought in Victorian times by a locomotive manufacturer preventing railway companies making new engines for other companies, but this didn’t apply to second hand engines. Generally these were sold after a useful working life on their parent line, but I think there was a nod and a wink between the LNWR and the L&Y involving some barely used DX locos.

 

It was the building of DX locos by the LNWR for its close working partner the LYR which brought about the legal challenge from the independent manufacturers. I think they also built some 2-4-0s (Samson class?) Even back then, advocates of free market capitalism would act in a contrary manner when it suited their self-interest.

[St Enodoc]

Hi Run as Required, I believe the ruling only applied to new engines and not second hand ones.

 

I seem to recall the LNWR completed the order for Newton 2-4-0s for the L&Y (it might have been the DXs that Northroader mentions above) which initially caused the legal challenge by using the engines themselves for a couple of months before  passing them cross to the L&Y.

 

The LNWR also sold a couple of freshly rebuilt Special DXs to the NSR.

The case mentioned led directly to the founding of the Locomotive Manufacturers' Association, which continues today as the Railway Industry Association.

 

http://www.leedsengine.info/leeds/ilma.asp

 

Edit: Simon posted as I was typing this.

Edited September 9, 2018 by St Enodoc

[Nick Holliday]

Would Crewe type Allan and Buddicom framng be tolerated by the locomotive fundis of this parish?

 

2

I had the impression that railways (eg the London & Birmingham, Great Western) were not permitted (by their Parliamentary Acts ?) to sell engines newly constructed in their works to outside companies .

How did the Brighton apparently get round it?

dh

As others have noted, this didn't really apply to second hand locos. The various WLR acquisitions were well past their prime,yet they managed to give the line useful service for a few more years. The Brighton over the years sold quite a few of their redundant locos, ranging from an early 2-2-2WT to the Colne Valley and Halstead via chunky pannier tanks to Wales, to Stroudley D1, E1 and A1 tanks and a solitary C1 0-6-0.

[Regularity]

Edit: Simon posted as I was typing this.

Yeah, but you were more informative re the LMA/RIA!

[Nick Holliday]

I think it was called the Lynn & Fakenham!

Another real company that relied on BP products was the Wirral Railway. Apart from four locos, two second hand, bought for opening, they had a handsome fleet of BP tank locos, 2-4-0, 0-4-4, 4-4-4 and 0-6-4, until near the end of their independent existence when they acquired four LNWR 2-4-2 tanks and a solitary L&YR Radial. The Mersey also had a fleet of tank locos almost exclusively BP built.

[runs as required]

It was the building of DX locos by the LNWR for its close working partner the LYR which brought about the legal challenge from the independent manufacturers. I think they also built some 2-4-0s (Samson class?) Even back then, advocates of free market capitalism would act in a contrary manner when it suited their self-interest.

I was wondering abt the Huish/Moon Euston 'Confederacy' as I asked my question on constructing in opposition to builders such as Vulcan Foundry and B-P..

DXs were built for the NSR, but you say the build for the LYR was challenged (an injunction to stop the practicewas granted on 16 December 1875.)

Was that because the Lanky (indeed as the Manchester & Leeds, a competitor to the LNW) was not judged to be in the 'Confederacy' as were lines through running into Euston such as the NSR and the Caley - . These, I believe, were capitalised by the LNW.

dh

[Argos]

Hi Run as Required,

 

I think we are in danger of conflating two incidents.

The Special DXs were sold to the NSR in 1900, so some 25 years after the ruling.

 

The batch of engines produced for the L&Y upto the ruling was quite considerable, 86 DX goods, 10 Newtons and 5 4' shunters

At the time the boards of the L&Y and LNWR had agreed too a merger only to have this blocked in Parliament, they tried several times and eventually succeeded in 1922 just prior to grouping.

Having a common locomotive stock would have benefited the merger.

 

As an aside I seem to recall reading that John Ramsbottom had a close relationship with Charles Bayer, they had both met when working for Sharps (where Ramsbottom was apprenticed).

It was Bayer who proposed Ramsbottom to the Manchester & Birmingham as a candidate for the post of locomotive superintendent.

 

When Ramsbottom was struggling to get board consent for his DX class ( 2-4-0s were deemed adequate for northern goods work) A couple of engines very similar in design to the DX suddenly became available from Beyer Peacock at a discount price. These were duly purchased and proved effective and Ramsbottom got his permission to build what became the numerically largest class of locomotives ever produce in the UK.

 

The only LNWR locomotives designed externally (apart form the very early days) were the 16 Bayer Peacock Metropolitan Tanks bought in 1871.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Argos

[brack]

"These were duly purchased and proved effective and Ramsbottom got his permission to build what became the numerically largest class of locomotives ever produce in the UK."

 

Careful now! There were more English electric shunters built and even more 20hp motor rail simplexes than those.

[Regularity]

Ah, but we’re the EE shunters built pre-grouping?

(I am not sure when the Simplex 20hp design originated, nor how long the production run lasted, but on a similar humourous tone, possibly not enough built int the Pre-Grouping era?

[Edwardian]

Of course! They really are rather elegant.

singles.jpg

Just out of interest, what is the third loco down in your sequence of pictures (the one in sepia)? The dome sitting far forward on the boiler is often a feature of Sharpies.

Best wishes

Eric   

 

These are stunning!

 

 

The Brighton did sell off a couple of this design of loco, although not the Beyer Peacock built examples, which apparently were the best performers of the bunch. (Dubs built 6, BP and Brighton Works 12 each)

Quoting Bradley (RCTS):

"Nos. 149 to 152 of 1862 (Built at Brighton) were not intended for express duties, but nevertheless use was occasionally made of their undoubted excellent haulage powers on the London-Brighton semi- fast services, including the 8.0 a.m. and 12.0 p.m. down, and 1.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. up trains.  After the fitting of steel tyres and the blastpipe modifications made by Craven following complaints of excessive fuel and water consumption, these engines gave excellent, if uninspiring service for some twenty years with an average mileage of 603,243. Nos. 149, 150/2 were renumbered 454/5/6 in 1880, while No. 151 became 120 in 1874 and again 363 in August, 1877.

Withdrawal commenced with Nos. 363 and 455, which were sold for £1,400 apiece to the West Lancashire Railway on 11th April, 1883, where they became Nos. 7 Blackburn and 8 Preston respectively.  Before departure, new Brighton pattern brass numberplates were fitted, as incidentally they were to other engines sold to the same railway in 1883-5, while the names were inscribed in Stroudley lettering.  Both worked until March, 1887, when Preston was laid aside and later sold for scrap. Blackburn, however, was given a general overhaul, when a stove pipe chimney of MS&LR pattern, a square cab, and a tender weatherboard were fitted.  It then gave excellent service until condemned in January, 1890, with the sale for scrap in February, 1893 realising £83 16s. 44. "

wlr 7.jpg

They also sold a couple of singles, similar to Burgundy's fine models. Again, Bradley says:

"The company received a request from the small West Lancashire Railway on 10^th January, 1883 for the sale of two singles, and offered Nos. 475 Dorking and 487 Horsham at £2,575 complete with tenders and delivered to Battersea. Agreement was reached on 31^st January, and the two engines were given minor repairs in shops before despatch.  The names were retained, as was the Brighton livery, but new standard pattern numberplates were supplied, the first mentioned engine becoming West Lancashire No. 5 Dorking and the latter No. 6 Horsham.  Both, like Nos. 474 and 485, had been fitted some years earlier with the Westinghouse brake, and this was retained.  In March/April, 1883 sixty old four-wheeled carriages were also purchased by the West Lancashire for £4,245.  By 1887 the singles were laid aside worn out and were replaced by two Kitson 2-4-2 tanks (Works Nos. 3072/3), which took their numbers, but not the names."

wlr horsham.jpg

They'd also sold a "large Goods Loco" to the WLR. Again, quoting Bradley:

"Nos. 118/34 were laid aside in August, 1876, when their boilers were condemned, the former being broken up the following month, but No. 134 was returned to traffic carrying the ex-Stephenson boiler from No. 119.  Henceforth as No. 384 it worked from New Cross almost exclusively on ballasting or permanent way tasks in the London area until purchased for £800 by the West Lancashire Railway on 15^th July, 1885.  As No. 9, it gave long and satisfactory service, being fitted with the Westinghouse brake in March, 1893 at the same time as the company’s two second hand Furness Railway 0-6-0’s.  In August, 1895, a replacement in the form of a modern Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway 0-6-2 tank arrived, and the veteran was relegated to odd ballasting duties until converted for stationary duty in the Southport repair shops in February, 1896.  It was still so employed when the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway gained control of the West Lancashire and it was that company which finally scrapped the Craven relic."

 

All these locos were home built by the LBSC, and not by BP, but it does demonstrate the diversity of second-hand loco sales to smaller companies, and the comapanies' initials are almost the same!

 

The West Norfolk has its fair share of second, or third, hand locomotives.

 

'Additional' locomotives might be found to have been going spare, or, locomotives thought to have been scrapped, were sold on the WNR. One, the Fox Walker, was 'diverted' to the WNR, .

 

For example, two of the several Cornwall Minerals Railway 0-6-0Ts bought by the Lynn & Fakenham went to the WNR rather than to scrap. 

 

It is always possible that a Brighton locomotive bought be the West Lancashire might have a similar fate!  Thanks for pointing these out, I should really have picked these up from Bradley, but will go back and read up.

 

 

Would Crewe type Allan and Buddicom framng be tolerated by the locomotive fundis of this parish?

 

 

dh

 

Yes!

 

You have unwittingly uncovered my latest dastardly plan!

 

To produce one of M&GN Nos. 42 and 43, 2-4-0 Crewe types, Lancaster & Carlisle veterans of 1857, bought from the LNWR in 1883 to the Eastern & Midland! The M&GN were said to have scrapped the pair circa 1895.

 

I have a cunning plan, the feasibility of which I am presently assessing.

 

There is a certain logic to these disposals and re-acquisitions; the newly fledged M&GN was able to dispose of a number of its odds and ends in second-half of the 1890s because, it could look forward to supplementing its 4-4-0T Hudswell Clarkes  and 4-4-0 Beyers with Midland Railway classes. 

 

The West Norfolk had no such external support, and around the turn of the Century is known to have sought to supplement its fleet with a number of second-hand purchases.

[runs as required]

Hi Run as Required,

 

I think we are in danger of conflating two incidents.

The Special DXs were sold to the NSR in 1900, so some 25 years after the ruling.

Ah! I hadn't appreciated there was a 25 year time lag between the Injunction and the NSR buying rebuilt very well used DX machines.

 

But as you point out

86 DX goods, 10 Newtons and 5   4' shunters..

.was quite considerable - no wonder old chums of Ramsbottom in the Independent sector sought their 1875 injunction.

dh,

[brack]

Ah, but we’re the EE shunters built pre-grouping?

(I am not sure when the Simplex 20hp design originated, nor how long the production run lasted, but on a similar humourous tone, possibly not enough built int the Pre-Grouping era?

They started in 1916 and had churned out over 900 by the end of hostilities, so I'm afraid they would have.

[Donw]

They started in 1916 and had churned out over 900 by the end of hostilities, so I'm afraid they would have.

 

Yes but we have been taliking about proper locomotives      Hides behind parapet. Still it is well after the time period chosen for CA.

 

Don

[wagonman]

These are stunning!

 

 

 

The West Norfolk has its fair share of second, or third, hand locomotives.

 

'Additional' locomotives might be found to have been going spare, or, locomotives thought to have been scrapped, were sold on the WNR. One, the Fox Walker, was 'diverted' to the WNR, .

 

For example, two of the several Cornwall Minerals Railway 0-6-0Ts bought by the Lynn & Fakenham went to the WNR rather than to scrap. 

 

It is always possible that a Brighton locomotive bought be the West Lancashire might have a similar fate!  Thanks for pointing these out, I should really have picked these up from Bradley, but will go back and read up.

 

 

 

Yes!

 

You have unwittingly uncovered my latest dastardly plan!

 

To produce one of M&GN Nos. 42 and 43, 2-4-0 Crewe types, Lancaster & Carlisle veterans of 1857, bought from the LNWR in 1883 to the Eastern & Midland! The M&GN were said to have scrapped the pair circa 1895.

 

I have a cunning plan, the feasibility of which I am presently assessing.

 

There is a certain logic to these disposals and re-acquisitions; the newly fledged M&GN was able to dispose of a number of its odds and ends in second-half of the 1890s because, it could look forward to supplementing its 4-4-0T Hudswell Clarkes  and 4-4-0 Beyers with Midland Railway classes. 

 

The West Norfolk had no such external support, and around the turn of the Century is known to have sought to supplement its fleet with a number of second-hand purchases.

 

 

LNWR Crewe Goods locos – in tank and tender form – found their way onto several impecunious railways in the 1880s, including my old friend the M&MR. They also, later, acquired a couple of Coal engines...

[Argos]

They started in 1916 and had churned out over 900 by the end of hostilities, so I'm afraid they would have.

 

846 DXs were built to fairly uniformed design so not far off the total!

I suspect the EE shunters and the Simplexes might have been varied?

(clutching at straws....)

 

Ah! I hadn't appreciated there was a 25 year time lag between the Injunction and the NSR buying rebuilt very well used DX machines.

 

But as you point out

.was quite considerable - no wonder old chums of Ramsbottom in the Independent sector sought their 1875 injunction.

dh,

 

When converted from DXs into Special DXs (as bought by the NSR) they were fitted with new firebox and boiler, chimney, wheels retreaded, new coupling rods etc. So frames, smoke box and cab side sheets were about all that remained from the original engine (although having said that Webb fitted the cab and smoke box in the 1880s so these weren't original), which is just as well as the engines were built between 30 and 40 years before the NSR bought them at which point they were virtually new engines.