Prairies on t’ Southern?

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

 

... No, they weren't.  Having looked through photos of Panniers working on the SR I can't find any evidence of a joggle or inwardly bent cab steps. ....

Try, for instance, 'Collett & Hawksworth Locomotives' ( Ian Allan 1978 ) : a clear joggle to the FRONT step of 4672 on p60 ( even mentioned in the caption ) - not so clear on 4626 & 4616 in the picture below.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Wickham Green too

[Steamport Southport]

2 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Try, for instance, 'Collett & Hawksworth Locomotives' ( Ian Allan 1978 ) : a VERY clear joggle on 4762 on p60 ( even mentioned in the caption ) - not so clear on 4626 & 4616 in the picture below.

 

What's 4762?

I appreciate it's a typo. Just wondering what one it should be.

 

 

Jason

[Wickham Green too]

4672 - corrected.

 

Sorry, Mike, when I said 'similarly' I wasn't specifically referring to cab steps - but looking, again at that photo, I think they may have reduced the width there by narrowing the bottom step.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Wickham Green too

[Steamport Southport]

Look normal and straight to me, realised I have that book within easy reach.

 

Don't forget the later ones had different types of steps from the earlier builds with the cut outs and revised size. Maybe due to snagging platforms?

 

A rear view of the same engine, but difficult to see if there is any pronounced "lean".

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p416923824/e5eb1ea2a

 

 

Jason

 

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Steamport Southport
Posted the wrong link!

[Mike_Walker]

Well you learn something every day!  I hadn't realised that the front steps of 57xx/8750 Panniers on the SR had a joggle in them.

[Hal Nail]

4 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

But looking through all my 45xx/4575 photos it would appear that the most common form of this modification is a joggle below the middle step (as visible in this shot of 4566 as preserved - it was the same in service days) which suggests the problem was over the bottom steps.

 

As an aside, this wasn't a St Blazey loco, which suggests that the Wadebridge branch wasn't the only one where the 45xxs had an issue.

[lapford34102]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

Maybe due to snagging platforms?

Memory might be playing tricks but weren't a number WR classes banned east of Basingstoke because of clearance.

Stu

[Rivercider]

The 45XX tanks formerly allocated to Yeovil Pen Mill GWR shed were transferred to Yeovil Town SR, do they count?

 

cheers

[lapford34102]

18 hours ago, Rivercider said:

The 45XX tanks formerly allocated to Yeovil Pen Mill GWR shed were transferred to Yeovil Town SR, do they count?

When Weymouth shed transferred to the Southern there were still 45XX's, eg 4562, at Bridport sub-shed so terchnically SR loco's.

 

Stu

[whoppit]

Praries also worked over the Southern section of the M&WSJR from Andover Junction towards Southampton

[rodent279]

On 29/05/2022 at 23:31, The Stationmaster said:

Large prairies only were permitted from Enborne Jcn to Shawford Jcn  over the DN&S- which effectively meat they couldn't work beyond Winchester Chesil

 

On 29/05/2022 at 23:31, The Stationmaster said:

Large prairies only Exeter St Davids - Exmouth Jcn (note small prairies were specifically prohibited)

Why would small  Prairies be banned, but not large Prairies?

Would it be to do with the lower wheel centre line meaning the cylinders were set lower, & therefore were wider at a lower point than on a large  Prairie?

[Hal Nail]

On 30/05/2022 at 14:20, Mike_Walker said:

 

 

Any idea when that photo is dated? Extended bunker but no packing piece which is rare for that batch.

[Mike_Walker]

1936 apparently, It is a Colour-Rail image (GW69).