L&YR Hughes 4-6-0 - drawings

[PatriotClass]

Hello guys,

 

Compound2632 put my attention to an absolutely interesting engine, the Hughes 4-6-0. Except the great Millholme Kit of the 4-6-4T, I haven't found any 00 scale models of this class.

I learned, that the 1919 rebuilt engines were assigned to heavy express service on the northern section of the LNWR, so it matches to my hunting grounds.

The first thing, that has hit my eyes is the extraordinary valve gear. It seems to me beeing identical to the one used on the Crab, isn't it?

So using this spare part might ease the modelling job.

 

Now my question to the owners of a good british railway library: 

Where can I find a prototype drawing of the Hughes? On the web I saw several books of the L&YR. Which is helpfull to get information about this class?

 

Thanks

Have a nice day

Chris

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by PatriotClass

[Michael Hodgson]

Have you tried the LYR Society?

[rodent279]

I built the Millholme kit in the early 2000's, for my father, who served his time at Horwich. This was a 4-6-0 kit, not the Baltic tank kit- I think they did both at one point.

Hand painted and hand lined, I think I did a half decent job, though a couple of bits have fallen off & need gluing back on.

 

[kevinlms]

There is a short article in Model railway Constructor 1972 July, that will interest you, entitled 'Memories of the Grouping'. A late fireman/driver, Bill Eden talks about when the amalgamation between the L&YR & the LNWR took place in 1921 & the grouping proper.

 

He discusses the differences between locos from LNWR/L&Y/MR locos and he mentions 'losing' some Dreadnoughts to the LNWR and getting Prince of Wales locos in their place. The various classes worked totally differently, yet they were expected to 'just drive them'.

 

Also they had a PoW, used on a MR line and took the carvings off the station canopy at Sheffield, Brightside!

 

More info 1972 Sept & 1973 Jan.

[kevinlms]

Also find yourself a copy of Rail Model Digest No.4.

 

Prototype Study - Lanky Swansong - The last 20 Hughes 4-6-0 Express locos

 

Plans, photos & prototype info on the last 20 of Hughes's 4-6-0 tender locos. They were built in 1924/5 & 1st appeared in dark grey livery & mainly ran between Crewe & Carlisle. They were originally ordered as 4-6-4T, but the LMS altered the order to tender locos.

Edited December 23, 2020 by kevinlms

[LMS2968]

2 hours ago, PatriotClass said:

The first thing, that has hit my eyes is the extraordinary valve gear. It seems to me beeing identical to the one used on the Crab, isn't it?

So using this spare part might ease the modelling job.

Sorry, but you should have gone to Specsavers!

 

Compared with the Crabs, the slidebars are very different, and probably so too the motion bracket, largely hidden by the running steps of the Dreadnought. You also need to bear in mind that the expansion link on the Crab followed American practice and was much longer than normal for Britain, and behind the Dreadnought's steam chest the spindle connection had provision for the rocking lever to drive the inside valve.

[Compound2632]

Here's the comment I sent to @PatriotClass. These engines are really a bit outside my area of knowledge, such as it is, but my interest has been piqued by Jennison's book:

 

I was thinking of the 1919 superheated engines, which from 1922 were put to work on the northern section of the LNWR main line - Crew-Carlisle etc. - staying on the heaviest expresses until the arrival of the Royal Scots. There were 70 of them - the forgotten LMS express passenger class. (Possibly because they were rarities at Euston and so not in the public eye.) I've just been reading John Jennison's recent book on the Patriots - very interesting on their development. It's evident that despite the glamour attached to the Claughtons, they weren't really very effective engines with several significant design faults. The Hughes 4-6-0s may not have been the most wonderful express passenger engines of the 1920s but they could at least do the work the Claughtons couldn't.

 

What is interesting is that given the so-so performance of his other designs, Hughes and the Horwich LDO should have hit on such a winner with the Crab.

 

Adding to that, Jennison says the final batch of 20, having been ordered as 4-6-4Ts, had longer wheelbase, different bogie, front frames and footplate, and cabs fitting within the LMS composite loading gauge. So the book mentioned by @kevinlms shouldn't be relied on for the first 50 engines. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Compound2632

[PenrithBeacon]

I believe that the February 1987 issue of RM  has 4mm drawings.

http://www.brmna.org/xrefs.shtml

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Railway-Modeller-Magazine-February-1987-/203210435390?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49292

Edited December 23, 2020 by PenrithBeacon

[rodent279]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Adding to that, Jennison says the final batch of 20, having been ordered as 4-6-4Ts, had longer wheelbase, different bogie, front frames and footplate, and cabs fitting within the LMS composite loading gauge. So the book mentioned by @kevinlms shouldn't be relied on for the first 50 engines. 

Hmm. I'll have to check out my model then, as it is numbered 10460, & therefore is one of the last 20.

Edited December 24, 2020 by rodent279

[pH]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

What is interesting is that given the so-so performance of his other designs, Hughes and the Horwich LDO should have hit on such a winner with the Crab.

I’ve always understood that Horwich did not design the ‘Crab’ from scratch. Instead, they took the design for a Caledonian Railway 2-6-0, which was quite advanced at the Grouping, and modified it to fit the loading gauge of English constituents of the LMS.

[LMS2968]

Several things: the Dreadnoughts were designed for L&YR use, not exceptionally fast but with frequent restarts, often against steep gradients, over relatively short distances. They were not intended for long, fast, non-stop work which is what they got on the LNWR main line, and they didn't react well to it, hence their rarity south of Crew and confinement to the northern hills, which was closer to the L&YR conditions. It isn't correct that the dreadnoughts could do anything the Claughtons could.

 

The myth about the CR 2-6-0 turns up occasionally, and stems from the fact that George Hughes found this design on the drawing board at St Rollox, close to finished, and looked at it carefully. However good it might have been north of Carlisle, it was out of gauge south of there and with axle loadings far above what was acceptable, especially over Midland routes. It could not have been modified to suite the all-line LMS system, and a fresh start was made on what became the Crabs.

[Michael Edge]

O.S.Nock's "British Locomotives 1900-1930" has GA drawings of the original Dreadnought and the Baltic tank.

Part of the "peculiar valve gear" appeared later on the LMS Duchesses - the rocker drive to the inside valves was taken directly from the L&Y design.

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

It isn't correct that the dreadnoughts could do anything the Claughtons could.

 

The real problem was that despite the glamour they attract, the Claughtons had significant defects that became more and more apparent as time wore on. The management of the LNWR and early LMS were desperate for anything that could reliably work 300+ ton trains between Crewe and Carlisle. It wasn't just a question of Hughes having been preferred over Beames in 1922 and over Fowler in 1923.

[LMS2968]

Yes, they were a typical LNWR design: cheap, cheerful and lightly built. But they did do a lot of good work in their earlier days, especially during WWI, but the list of problems rose with age, something which happened to the Baby Scots too.

 

Their light build resulted in parts working loose - cabs and those big splashers needing constant attention. Their very high coal consumption was cured by the substitution of multi-ring valve heads for the original wide Schmidt ring, some having already been converted to Caprotti gear which achieved the same result, just a lot more expensively, but their main problem, although far from only one, was hot trailing coupled axle boxes. This was down to the oil feed to them in the very confined space around the firebox and ashpan, and wasn't easy of solution. By 1930 they were an old design anyway and so the baby Scots appeared and it was all over for the Claughtons.

 

It wasn't that they were a failure, but far from a 100% success. A similar comment could be made about the Dreadnoughts. They both did their jobs - at a cost - but other engines did it better and cheaper.

[Compound2632]

53 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

But they did do a lot of good work in their earlier days, especially during WWI, but the list of problems rose with age, something which happened to the Baby Scots too.

 

Sir Gilbert Claughton entered traffic in January 1913, with nine more by July. The second batch of ten entered traffic between August and October 1914, with a further forty in 1916-17. The remaining seventy - over half the class - were built in 1920-21 and so were among the youngest express passenger engines in the LMS group and could certainly not be considered worn out by war service!

[LMS2968]

I was referring to the age of the design rather than build dates. Although introduced in 1913, it went back before that as, when the design was sent to the Chief Civil Engineer for approval, he rejected it on the basis of its axle load. There was then considerable redesign, mostly in producing a smaller boiler, so by 1923 the design itself was over twenty years old, originating in 1911. And being a Crewe product, longevity  was not built in. It wasn't so much that they were worn out, just that the inbuilt defects had begun, and some cases were well established, by the mid-1920s.

[Compound2632]

32 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

when the design was sent to the Chief Civil Engineer for approval, he rejected it on the basis of its axle load. There was then considerable redesign, mostly in producing a smaller boiler, 

Jennison, while repeating this story ("according to some writers"), quotes an alternative story from the September 1928 number of The Railway Engineer: "we believe that the actual fact was that Mr Bowen-Cooke had to decide the point as to whether expenditure on boiler shop appliances*, such as would have been necessary if an enlarged class of boiler had been introduced, was justified".

 

*Flanging blocks for firebox and front tube-plate.

 

But as you say, design work on the Claughtons was well under way when the Prince of Wales class were introduced as something of a stop-gap.

[PenrithBeacon]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Jennison, while repeating this story ("according to some writers"), quotes an alternative story from the September 1928 number of The Railway Engineer: "we believe that the actual fact was that Mr Bowen-Cooke had to decide the point as to whether expenditure on boiler shop appliances*, such as would have been necessary if an enlarged class of boiler had been introduced, was justified".

 

*Flanging blocks for firebox and front tube-plate.

 

But as you say, design work on the Claughtons was well under way when the Prince of Wales class were introduced as something of a stop-gap.

I've always thought that this is a very silly story originally written by one who didn't have a clue about how the railway, any railway, worked and one that I'm utterly amazed JJ would repeat. It would cost a lot of money  for flanging blocks and only the board could authorise such a sum. In any case Fowler was CME and it would have to go through him first. The drawings are initialled HH 

[LMS2968]

Now I hadn't heard that one before, but it is interesting and, at least, feasible. I've checked the drawings and the boiler diameters of the Precursor / Georges is the same as the first Claughton boiler throughout its length, so it works out in practice. But the fireboxes on the Precursors '/ Georges and even the Princes were round topped, while the Claughtons were always Belpaire, so how many of the firebox flanging plates could be used is debateable. But I would suggest that it is unlikely that the additional costs of the flanging blocks, while not inconsiderable, would be allowed to potentially jeopardise the viability of the new design, especially if those costs could be ameliorated over many locos (the initial order was for ten only, but undoubtedly more would follow - as happened).

[Poor Old Bruce]

My drawing list shows there was an item for "Rebuilt 4-Cylinder 4-6-0s" in BRM for January 2001.

 

The Ian Beattie drawing from RM in Feb 1987 was repeated in the RM book of his drawings published in 2001

[Compound2632]

22 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I've always thought that this is a very silly story originally written by one who didn't have a clue about how the railway, any railway, worked and one that I'm utterly amazed JJ would repeat. It would cost a lot of money  for flanging blocks and only the board could authorise such a sum. In any case Fowler was CME and it would have to go through him first. The drawings are initialled HH 

 

i don't follow. The writer in The Railway Engineer was discussing the events of 1913.

 

The flanging blocks question is interesting. The boilers for the Royal Scots used flanging blocks made for the two Lickey Banker boilers (the blocks were sent to NBL for the purpose, IIRC from the recent LMS Locomotive Profile No. 15) - but that was more for speed than economy. It must have been felt worth-while at Derby to make bespoke flanging blocks for the Lickey Banker boilers.

[LMS2968]

I think PenrithBeacon was referring to the large Claughton boilers built by the LMS, and of course requiring new flanging blocks.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, LMS2968 said:

I think PenrithBeacon was referring to the large Claughton boilers built by the LMS, and of course requiring new flanging blocks.

 

Perhaps the date of The Railway Engineer article confused him. The G9½S boiler used on the Claughtons from 1928 were, as I understand it, carried over to the Patriot design.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

I was referring to the age of the design rather than build dates. [...] so by 1923 the design itself was over twenty years old, originating in 1911. 

 

No older, dare I say it, than the design of several LMS standard classes!

[kevinlms]

40 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No older, dare I say it, than the design of several LMS standard classes!

Except they were the preferred Midland ones!