How common were outside cylindered 0-6-0 tender engines?

[Nearholmer]

Found a bit on-line:

 

The company chief engineer visited electric railways in Italy in 1901 and in January 1902 presented a report to the board recommending OHL electrification (I wonder if he was pushing three-phase, based on Italian models?), which they accepted. They then got the former chief electrical bod from the BoT* onto their board in mid-1902, and by July 1903 had got far enough to put a bill for the first part of the suburban scheme before Parliament.

 

My surmise (I will try to check later) is that they appointed Dawson in 1902 also, and that he quickly buried any three-phase ideas that might have been around in favour of single-phase

 

They must have been jolly busy, because part of the scheme was to secure generating capacity by having additional, special purpose, generators at Deptford, which was the only ‘public’ power station of any size in the country at the time, so they must have been negotiating that in parallel with everything else.

 

*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cardew

Edited June 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[The Stationmaster]

According to Stephen Grant's book on the Brighton companys electrification they had obtained powers by 1902/3 'to electrify the entire network'.  contracts were clearly let for teh suburban scheme in the following couple of years and firther contracts to extend that scheme were let in 1906.

 

Electric services from Victoria commenced on 12 May 1911 and limited services from London bridge commenced on 1 March 1912 with the full electric service commencing on 1 June of that year.  THE Brighton board approved extension of the suburban xgme to Coulsdon and Wallington in 1913 but war intervened and then can ethe Grouping and the LSWR 3rd rail system became predominant on the new Southern Railway.

[bécasse]

45 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

THE Brighton board approved extension of the suburban xgme to Coulsdon and Wallington in 1913 but war intervened and then can ethe Grouping and the LSWR 3rd rail system became predominant on the new Southern Railway.

Although that didn't stop the temporary extension of the Brighton overhead system as an expedient until the whole system could be converted to third rail.

 

Post-grouping the Southern Railway fairly evaluated the three existing electrification schemes (two working LSWR and LBSCR and one planned SECR) against each other. My understanding is that when current and future costs (and benefits) were taken into account, the third rail system won hands down and that was why it was progressed - and quickly. Much of Herbert Walker's brilliance stems from the fact that he was able to demonstrate that electrification using third rail (and reusing as many assets, especially rolling stock, as possible) was cheaper than plain (and necessary) renewal. The steady roll out of electrification didn't rely on traffic growth, the fact that traffic growth almost invariably followed, even in the recession, was the icing on the cake and meant that even the Railway's most conservative Director was keen to see more, and it certainly placed the Southern Railway in a very different position to the other grouped railways in the inter-war period. Luck may have given the SR the plum, but exploiting that plum successfully was down to effective management. Herbert Walker was considered a hero to men that worked for the SR, the mere fact that he travelled around a lot and always knew the names of the men he met had, according to someone who was his "bag-carrier" for a couple of years, an electrifying effect of its own. Incidentally even the bag-carrier didn't know how HW managed the trick, although he did have a photographic memory, but manage it he did.

[Nearholmer]

The key factor in the victory of third rail over OLE on the southern was speed of deployment - the LBSCR schemes demonstrated that, however good it was in other respects, and it was good in other respects, it took too long to deploy OLE, and cost more in terms of civil infrastructure alterations, and, despite truly hair-raising working practices, it required engineer’s possessions that interfered with traffic.

 

A quick job, delivered almost unobtrusively, got to payback date far sooner. Think how quickly they dealt with the suburban area - all done by c1930.

 

 Walker was indeed smart, both to have the acumen to spot all that, then having spotted it to drive it through, even to the extent of uprooting the OLE to achieve standardisation. 
 

Sometimes, the inference is drawn from all that that the LBSCR “got it wrong”, which I don’t think is at all true. They made the right decision in their own context, and the SR made a different right decision in a different context. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 the SR made a different right decision in a different context. 

 

And had the knock-on effect of keeping plenty of vintage inside-cylinder 0-6-0s happily employed and not displaced by money spent on up-to-date steam.

[2251]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

According to Stephen Grant's book on the Brighton companys electrification they had obtained powers by 1902/3 'to electrify the entire network'.  contracts were clearly let for teh suburban scheme in the following couple of years and firther contracts to extend that scheme were let in 1906.

 

 

The powers (along with a lot of other powers) were conferred by the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Act 1903.

 

Section 38 provided that:

 

 

Section 37 enabled for the Brighton company to acquire land at Deptford to construct “stations for generating and transforming electrical power” and also to make “such works on their railways and lands as may be necessary for connecting such generating and transforming stations with the railways of the Company”.

 

The Deptford land (“delineated on the deposited plans”) were described in the Act as:

 

 

That appears to be this area, as shown on this 25” map:

 

 

I don’t think the power to build the power station can ever have been used. That triangle of land was where the old Milwall FC ground was built before the First War.

[Nearholmer]

They concluded an agreement with the London Electricity Supply company, who built and operated specifically designed 25Hz alternators at their site at Deptford for LBSCR use (domestic mains in London were 83.34Hz at the time!).

 

The 25Hz system continued to be used for the replacement dc electrification, the rotary converters at the traction substations having 25Hz primaries, and the railway traction supplies weren’t converted to 50Hz until the 1950s, when all the substation kit was renewed. The connections to Deptford finally came out in c1983-4, when intake was transferred to New Cross Grid. I should, but don’t, remember the  exact date of that last scheme, because I was project engineer on it …… very intimidating, because I had to oversee all of the BR-side works, but when I went to meetings with London Electricity, they had a separate engineering expert for every facet of the job. Fortunately, their guys were decent chaps and actually taught me a lot about their end of the job, which came in useful on other things for years later, including when we had a massive falling-out with them over money when I was with LT!

 

 

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

And had the knock-on effect of keeping plenty of vintage inside-cylinder 0-6-0s happily employed and not displaced by money spent on up-to-date steam.

 

That's what they were replacing though.

 

Those 100 extra 0-6-0s were to eradicate all those ancient 0395s, C2s, C3s, Os, O1s, etc.

 

Only those that had been rebuilt such as the 700s and C2Xs, and the more modern Cs were to survive.

 

You've got to ignore what actually happened and get into the 1930s mindset. 

 

 

Jason

[Nick Holliday]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

According to Stephen Grant's book on the Brighton companys electrification they had obtained powers by 1902/3 'to electrify the entire network'.  contracts were clearly let for teh suburban scheme in the following couple of years and firther contracts to extend that scheme were let in 1906.

 

Electric services from Victoria commenced on 12 May 1911 and limited services from London bridge commenced on 1 March 1912 with the full electric service commencing on 1 June of that year.  THE Brighton board approved extension of the suburban xgme to Coulsdon and Wallington in 1913 but war intervened and then can ethe Grouping and the LSWR 3rd rail system became predominant on the new Southern Railway.

The South London line started operation with the overhead electrification in December 1909, I think the 1911 dates are thassociated with the extension to Crystal Palace. The next expansion was to be to Cheam and Coulsdon, and much of the work towards Cheam had been virtually completed by the time the Great War started, and, as all the vital missing bits were to have come from Germany, which rather stalled things. Recovery after the war was slow, and the scheme was trimmed back to Sutton, eventually opening under the aegis of the Southern Railway in 1925.

Returning to the original topic, I don’t think the North Staffordshire’s single example has been mentioned. Hookham designed a four cylinder 0-6-0 tank in 1922, in an attempt to achieve electric-style acceleration on commuting services. Like the Decapod it was not a success and the LMS quickly rebuilt it as a tender loco, retaining its four cylinders, and its rather unusual front platform arrangement. There’s a video-style piece by Stephen Dawson on YouTube that has a number of photos.

[Buhar]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

I don’t think the North Staffordshire’s single example has been mentioned.

See the first response to the topic. 😉

I think that remains the only 20th century example.

 

Alan

Edited June 20, 2023 by Buhar

[Nick Holliday]

1 hour ago, Buhar said:

See the first response to the topic. 😉

I think that remains the only 20th century example.

 

Alan

Sorry. Missed that, rather hidden by the #### advert.

[lanchester]

On 19/06/2023 at 11:40, Flying Pig said:

 

The Lambton trains worked over railway metals to a connection with the Lambton staithes on the River Wear at Sunderland.  The locos used were, from the late pre-grouping era, largely inside cylindered 0-6-2s like the preserved examples: essentially a tank version of the classic 0-6-0. 

 

Similar engines were used extensively in South Wales for exactly the same kind of work and there is a preserved Taff Vale locomotive, which survived because it was sold to the LH&JC in the late 1920s (Wikipedia suggests it was sold to the NCB, which is a neat trick in 1928).

 

Of course, up till (and beyond) the early 20th century, Lambton was using a variety of 0-6-0 tender engines on their own, and presumably the NER, 'main line' to the staithes. There would though be obvious advantages, on a cramped site, of using non-tender engines, and clearly these were bought (Kitson and RS) as they became available.

 

And to boost the fleet (although some of the 0-6-0s lasted until the sixties), LHJC number 52, now I think on the Worth Valley Railway, was indeed acquired, as were others,  by my great grandfather, Sam Tulip, (my name also) in his capacity as Chief Engineer of the Lambton, Hetton and Joicey.

 

Amusingly (or scandalously if you think that familial connections should automatically rule you out of things), my father, Geoffrey Tulip,who was a partner in a Newcastle firm of engineering agents which had amongst other clients North British Loco, had the pleasure of selling to my grandfather, Winston, who had succeeded his dad as CE, and subsequently with the NCB in the equivalent role,  a NBL diesel hydraulic as a potential replacement for 52, which at the time was engaged on the lower, non-cable, stretches of the old Hetton Railway. (Dad wrote a little article about this - presumably for some NBL newsletter or similar - whether it was ever published don't know).

 

The experiment was, I understand, only partly successful - the NBL loco went on to other things, but 52 stayed in service (although not necessarily on the Hetton, which in any case closed only a little later).

 

Incidentally, my grandfather was 'Winston', not 'Walter' as quoted in the IRS books, and as I explained to Colin Mountford post publication - I think the confusion arose because he used to sign letter WLT, for Winston Leonard Tulip, and if you are taking notes of documents and then reading them back you might well think that was Walter. (Family says that old ST was travelling home, who knows from where, and passed through the village of Winston, thought 'that's a good name for a lad'. )

 

There is another slightly surprising thing about my great grandfather's appointment, back in 1897 or there abouts. Joicey, later Lord Joicey, had essentially chiselled the Earls of Durham out of the ownership of the company, using methods (concert parties and the like) which might not be strictly legal these days. And yet he appointed ST (who was only in his early thirties) as Chief Engineer, even though ST was undoubtedly a 'Lambton man' - his father William was an engineman or enginewright for Lambton, his grandfather had got himself killed being a sinker in 1854 when they were widening the shaft of the Lady Anne at Lumley and there was a cave-in (my father who could be a callous b*gg*r said we should claim the record for the fastest hundred yards in pit boots!)

 

Meanwhile, or more accurately later, great great grandfather William, reaching his Diamond wedding anniversary in 1918, received a rather maginificent print, finely framed and with presentation plaque, of the well-known picture of the first Earl of Durham as a child (all red velvet and stuff) with a dedication from the then Earl. Bear in mind this is twenty years after the Durhams had had any control over the pits, and William was only an 'enginewright' anyway. It casts a slightly different picture on the relationship between at least some coalmasters and their employees?

 

Meanwhile, I would like, before I am brought to bank, to see 52 with her Lambton style cab refitted, reunited with 5 and 29.

 

Oddly, my Dad's favourite engine, when he was growing up at Bunker Hill, was the 'Victory' Kerr Stuart tank - I think Lambton 41? I seem to remember he reckoned it was a good'un because it shoved coal wagons up to the top of the well-known coaling stage at Philadelphia. It must have been valued - I have inherited a very well framed picture  - it's only the KS publicity shot of the first in class, but it seems to have justified decent framing. No record of anything like that for the Kitsons or RSH 0-6-2T, for which the system is more famous.

 

 

[Forward!]

Don't forget the MSLR/GCR's pretty little Class 4 and 5 (LNER J61, J63)

 

They are typical dock shunters, but I believe the J63 was at least initially also intended for station pilot work and the first few fitted with condensors. If they did perform that work, they didn't do it for long as the class rapidly became concentrated at Grimsby and Immingham.

 

Will

[Compound2632]

55 minutes ago, Forward! said:

Don't forget the MSLR/GCR's pretty little Class 4 and 5 (LNER J61, J63)

 

The Class 4 engines (J61) were standard inside-cylinder Manning Wardles; it was the Class 5 engines that had outside cylinders. They came in two batches: Pollitt, with saddle tanks; and Robinson, with side tanks (J62 and J63 respectively). But none of them had tenders.

[Forward!]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The Class 4 engines (J61) were standard inside-cylinder Manning Wardles; it was the Class 5 engines that had outside cylinders. They came in two batches: Pollitt, with saddle tanks; and Robinson, with side tanks (J62 and J63 respectively). But none of them had tenders.

 

oops. clumsy typo!

[Lambton58]

On 19/06/2023 at 11:40, Flying Pig said:

Similar engines were used extensively in South Wales for exactly the same kind of work and there is a preserved Taff Vale locomotive, which survived because it was sold to the LH&JC in the late 1920s (Wikipedia suggests it was sold to the NCB, which is a neat trick in 1928).

Indeed, at least 5 Lambton 0-6-2Ts were from the Valleys;  according to Colin Mountford (The Private Railways of County Durham) Nos 52, 53 & 54 were ex Taff Vale Railway and Nos 55 & 56 were ex Cardiff Railway and were bought around 1930/31.  As you say,  they were bought by the LH&JC not the NCB - vesting day was 1 Jan 1947!

[Lambton58]

On 21/06/2023 at 15:54, lanchester said:

 

Of course, up till (and beyond) the early 20th century, Lambton was using a variety of 0-6-0 tender engines on their own, and presumably the NER, 'main line' to the staithes. There would though be obvious advantages, on a cramped site, of using non-tender engines, and clearly these were bought (Kitson and RS) as they became available.

 

And to boost the fleet (although some of the 0-6-0s lasted until the sixties), LHJC number 52, now I think on the Worth Valley Railway, was indeed acquired, as were others,  by my great grandfather, Sam Tulip, (my name also) in his capacity as Chief Engineer of the Lambton, Hetton and Joicey.

 

Amusingly (or scandalously if you think that familial connections should automatically rule you out of things), my father, Geoffrey Tulip,who was a partner in a Newcastle firm of engineering agents which had amongst other clients North British Loco, had the pleasure of selling to my grandfather, Winston, who had succeeded his dad as CE, and subsequently with the NCB in the equivalent role,  a NBL diesel hydraulic as a potential replacement for 52, which at the time was engaged on the lower, non-cable, stretches of the old Hetton Railway. (Dad wrote a little article about this - presumably for some NBL newsletter or similar - whether it was ever published don't know).

 

The experiment was, I understand, only partly successful - the NBL loco went on to other things, but 52 stayed in service (although not necessarily on the Hetton, which in any case closed only a little later).

 

Incidentally, my grandfather was 'Winston', not 'Walter' as quoted in the IRS books, and as I explained to Colin Mountford post publication - I think the confusion arose because he used to sign letter WLT, for Winston Leonard Tulip, and if you are taking notes of documents and then reading them back you might well think that was Walter. (Family says that old ST was travelling home, who knows from where, and passed through the village of Winston, thought 'that's a good name for a lad'. )

 

There is another slightly surprising thing about my great grandfather's appointment, back in 1897 or there abouts. Joicey, later Lord Joicey, had essentially chiselled the Earls of Durham out of the ownership of the company, using methods (concert parties and the like) which might not be strictly legal these days. And yet he appointed ST (who was only in his early thirties) as Chief Engineer, even though ST was undoubtedly a 'Lambton man' - his father William was an engineman or enginewright for Lambton, his grandfather had got himself killed being a sinker in 1854 when they were widening the shaft of the Lady Anne at Lumley and there was a cave-in (my father who could be a callous b*gg*r said we should claim the record for the fastest hundred yards in pit boots!)

 

Meanwhile, or more accurately later, great great grandfather William, reaching his Diamond wedding anniversary in 1918, received a rather maginificent print, finely framed and with presentation plaque, of the well-known picture of the first Earl of Durham as a child (all red velvet and stuff) with a dedication from the then Earl. Bear in mind this is twenty years after the Durhams had had any control over the pits, and William was only an 'enginewright' anyway. It casts a slightly different picture on the relationship between at least some coalmasters and their employees?

 

Meanwhile, I would like, before I am brought to bank, to see 52 with her Lambton style cab refitted, reunited with 5 and 29.

 

Oddly, my Dad's favourite engine, when he was growing up at Bunker Hill, was the 'Victory' Kerr Stuart tank - I think Lambton 41? I seem to remember he reckoned it was a good'un because it shoved coal wagons up to the top of the well-known coaling stage at Philadelphia. It must have been valued - I have inherited a very well framed picture  - it's only the KS publicity shot of the first in class, but it seems to have justified decent framing. No record of anything like that for the Kitsons or RSH 0-6-2T, for which the system is more famous.

 

 

Thanks for sharing this.  A fascinating insight.  My Grandad and great-grandfather also worked for Lambton Collieries, but not on the railways.  Both were miners at Harraton Colliery (Cotia Pit as it was known locally) and Grandad eventually became Overman Underground.  The vague relevance of this is that the Lambton (and later NCB) trains used running powers over mainline to get the coal  from Harraton to the Lambton Staiths at Sunderland.