Manning Wardle 'L' Class 0-6-0

[Compound2632]

The Midland Railway bought five Manning Wardles new between 1867 and 1873 and two more second-hand from Settle & Carlisle contractors. These were all Class H 0-4-0STs except one Class M 0-6-0ST, ex-contractor, Manning Wardle No. 195 of October 1866, bought January 1876 and given MR No. 1326, on the duplicate list as No. 1326A in August 1883 and broken up 1885. [S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 2 (Irwell Press, 2007) pp. 223-5.]

 

Two points from this:

• if Class M engines were being built in 1866, does not that imply that Class L engines were being built at least as early? 
• Midland green livery would look very nice, even if not prototypical for a Class L engine!

[Moxy]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Two points from this:

• if Class M engines were being built in 1866, does not that imply that Class L engines were being built at least as early? 
• Midland green livery would look very nice, even if not prototypical for a Class L engine!

 

If Manning Wardle were following the alphabet, yes it would imply that.  Unfortunately they didn't. The M Class predates the L Class by about 11 years.

 

I agree with your second point!

[Wickham Green too]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

... if Class M engines were being built in 1866, does not that imply that Class L engines were being built at least as early? ...

Depends when the 'Class' system was set up and by whom ............ Stirling introduced a new classification on the South Eastern with his latest express locos becoming 'A' class with older machines getting letters further down the alphabet - to be replaced with new-builds in due course.

[Compound2632]

Just now, Moxy said:

If Manning Wardle were following the alphabet, yes it would imply that.  Unfortunately they didn't. The M Class predates the L Class by about 11 years.

 

Thanks. I had a feeling the letter classification would have been a later thing - is it known when it was introduced? Presumably it was used in the company's catalogues?

 

There must be a book on all this I ought to read instead of asking random questions here!

[Moxy]

The 2 books I have on the subject are:

 

'The Locomotives built by Manning Wardle & Co - Vol 2 Standard gauge' by Fred W Harman  ISBN 0 9535313 17

and 'Manning Wardle & Co Locomotive Works List' by F W Mabbott ISBN 0 906829 08 9

 

 

[Ruston]

Manning Wardle classes are about the size and power of the engine, rather than simply using a letter of the alphabet for every new design.

If you compare the cylinder size and tractive effort of all the standard classes, they become greater as the class letter goes along in the alphabet.

 

Classes D and E predate A and B. M and N predate L. H predates F. The odd one out is Old Class I, which predates them all but is more powerful than all up to F.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[whart57]

Apologies if I have missed this mentioned before, but what class was Bamburgh of the North Sunderland Railway? My books say it was a Manning Wardle loco but not which class and the photos show a larger loco than an I or K

[Compound2632]

On 07/10/2023 at 22:10, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Approximately 100 between 1875 and 1919.

 

Source: http://www.leedsengine.info/leeds/locolist.asp [Builder] = MW AND [Class] = L Sort By [Year]

 

12 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Apologies if I have missed this mentioned before, but what class was Bamburgh of the North Sunderland Railway? My books say it was a Manning Wardle loco but not which class and the photos show a larger loco than an I or K

 

Yes, indeed, an L. Works No. 1394 of 1898.

 

Also, in the same vein, Elgie of the Isle of Axholme Lt Rly, Class L Works No. 1456 of 1899.

 

(See, I'm learning!)

Edited October 10, 2023 by Compound2632

[Not Jeremy]

As mentioned up thread, I think, these locos were “modified” (bigger wheels for one thing) so slightly different to what Rapido will produce. I think folk are sweating the details here, if all of this bothers you that much then build a kit, modify what is made or scratch build - we surely can’t expect everything to be done for us can we?? Silly question…..

[Daddyman]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Yes, indeed, an L. Works No. 1394 of 1898.

No: "Class L altered", with 3'6" wheels instead of 3', which means Bamburgh has splashers that normal Ls don't. Plus a Westinghouse brake.  

[Compound2632]

17 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

No

 

Ah, you, see, I wasn't learning as quickly as I thought.

 

Did the 3' 6" wheels simply result in the locomotive sitting 3" higher all round or were the frames different?

[Daddyman]

11 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

scratch build

Don't. Just don't. 

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah, you, see, I wasn't learning as quickly as I thought.

 

Did the 3' 6" wheels simply result in the locomotive sitting 3" higher all round or were the frames different?

Not sure, as Bamburgh is the only MW I need to know anything about... My guess would be the body is higher as a result: there seems to be less bufferbeam above the footplate on Bamburgh than on a normal L.  

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

there seems to be less bufferbeam above the footplate on Bamburgh than on a normal L.  

 

That is what I was suspecting would be the case.

[AMJ]

Buffer beam height in the middle is dropped on many MW (and others) so that the smoke box door can be opened as without doing so you limit the angle that you can open it to.

 

Harman has Bamburgh as a standard L

 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Harman has Bamburgh as a standard L

 

Yes indeed, that's the source I was misled by in my ignorance.

 

14 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Buffer beam height in the middle is dropped on many MW (and others) so that the smoke box door can be opened as without doing so you limit the angle that you can open it to.

 

With the body sitting 3" higher and hence the bufferbeam 3" lower relative to the frames on Bamburgh than on a standard Class L, if the smokebox door clears the bufferbeam on a standard L, it certainly would on Bamburgh. Looking at photos of the preserved Sir Berkeley, I see that the top of the bufferbeam is straight and the smokebox door has a straight section on the bottom to clear, rather than being perfectly circular. So clearly there was more than one way to skin this rabbit.

 

I'm therefore interested to find a post-1923 photo of Bamburgh that shows this flat on the bottom of the door; perhaps @Daddyman can comment?

[Moxy]

There is picture of Bamburgh in this blog :

 

https://mattditchblog.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-north-sunderland-railway-1898-1951.html

 

This shows a flat bottom to the smokebox and although undated, the wagon in the background shows 'LMS,' so it is clearly post 1923.

[Not Jeremy]

Surely the answer to this conundrum is splashers? There was a very good constructional article on “Bambugh” in the old “Model Railways” magazine in the 1970s.

[Wickham Green too]

13 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

..., if all of this bothers you that much then build a kit, modify what is made or scratch build ...

No harm in establishing whether kit building, modifying Rapido or scratch building is actually necessary ! 😁

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Moxy said:

There is picture of Bamburgh in this blog :

 

https://mattditchblog.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-north-sunderland-railway-1898-1951.html

 

This shows a flat bottom to the smokebox and although undated, the wagon in the background shows 'LMS,' so it is clearly post 1923.

 

The very photo I had been looking at! (Perhaps the way I phrased my comment could be read as meaning I was looking for such a photo, rather than that I had seen one.)

Edited October 11, 2023 by Compound2632

[whart57]

The fact Bamburgh has small splashers means that the footplate is the same height irrespective of whether 3' or 3'6" wheels are fitted. The problem for us modellers is that it won't be a case of just fitting larger wheels, the undergubbins will need some modifying to get the body to sit at the right height. The internals might cause problems, and I recall an earlier comment from the Rapido guy that they did an L rather than an I or K because there was enough trouble getting all the works inside already. There may therefore not be that extra millimeter available.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, whart57 said:

The fact Bamburgh has small splashers means that the footplate is the same height irrespective of whether 3' or 3'6" wheels are fitted. 

 

If the locomotive simply sat 3" higher - i.e. 6" larger wheels fitted to the standard frames - then the footplate would be 3" higher above rail level than on a standard engine. But splashers would still be needed, presuming that on a standard engine the wheels just cleared the underside of the footplate, as the larger wheels projected 3" higher relative to the footplate.

[whart57]

Possibly, but my point about the innards of the model still stands.

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Possibly, but my point about the innards of the model still stands.

 

I don't think so, because the model's body and chassis would remain in the same relative positions: everything 1 mm higher above rail level. "All" one would have to do after fitting the larger wheels would be to cut holes in the footplate part, make splashers, and modify the buffer beams. 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

@Compound2632's logic is fine, but the presence or otherwise of splashers doesn't tell us much, and whether the splashers are big enough to cope with the top of the wheel being 3" or 6" higher relative to the footplate is more than I can tell. However, the Bamburgh photograph provides a good view of the relationship between the buffers and the running board, and when this is compared with photographs of Sir Berkeley (or, for that matter, Matthew Murray or Forward (https://rcts.zenfolio.com/industrial-and-light/industrial-steam/national-coal-board/other/hA0FD02FA#ha0fd02fa), it is clear that Bamburgh's running board is the same height above rail level as a standard L,

 

Bamburgh's axleboxes presumably sit 3" higher in the frames. It looks to me that the springs are at the usual height.

 

I have no idea how much harder this makes fitting a mechanism if designing from scratch. The interior space is the same, but the axles are 0.75 mm higher relative to it. Modifying an RTR model would be rather tricky, I think (although you wouldn't have to do much to the body).

[Compound2632]

57 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

However, the Bamburgh photograph provides a good view of the relationship between the buffers and the running board, and when this is compared with photographs of Sir Berkeley (or, for that matter, Matthew Murray or Forward (https://rcts.zenfolio.com/industrial-and-light/industrial-steam/national-coal-board/other/hA0FD02FA#ha0fd02fa), it is clear that Bamburgh's running board is the same height above rail level as a standard L,

 

Or rather, that Bamburgh's buffers are in the same relationship to the footplate as are those on a standard L, which is not quite the same thing as being the same height above rail level...

 

Measurements, anyone?