Manning Wardle 'L' Class 0-6-0

[Daddyman]

Harman is wrong. 

 

I'd say the fact that Bamburgh has a clipped s.box door and other Ls don't (Churchill, for example) suggests that the footplate is higher on Bamburgh, and the b.beam lower (the clipped door on Bamburgh is able to clear the low protrusion of the b.beam above footplate, whereas even a clipped door would not clear the high b.beam on a standard L). I'd say buffer centres on Churchill are about above footplate level (maybe), whereas on Bamburgh they are slightly below.  

 

The splashers on Bamburgh are barely necessary - perhaps only there to allow the wheels to spring up. The tops of the flanges seem to be level with the footplate:  

I started the scratchbuild trying to use the RT Models chassis, but rejected it in the end and kept only the rods. I can't remember if there was an axle height issue with the bought-in chassis, or it was just the outline that was wrong.  

[Daddyman]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

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?

Buffer centres 3'4" on Bamburgh. Can't read the footplate height. 

[Daddyman]

I'd say anyone wanting Bamburgh should just go for it - buy the Rapido model, repaint, and have fun. Fun's certainly not something I've had scratchbuilding it. 

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

Buffer centres 3'4" on Bamburgh. Can't read the footplate height. 

 

Hum. If my theory that Bamburgh is a standard L sitting 3" high is correct and the buffers are in the same position relative to frames and footplate as on a standard L then the buffer centres on a standard L would be 3' 1" above rail level which is improbable.

 

Perhaps the folk at Rapido who have been doing the research know.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Compound2632

[Daddyman]

Full sorry saga: 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=7935&start=50

 

[Not Jeremy]

That's a really lovely bit of work Daddyman, I hope you continue with it.

 

In the meantime, a quick Google search revealed a 2019 thread on RMweb from one Andrew Hardy, in which someone references an article by Don Townley (not known for being inaccurate) in MRJ number 8. I suspect this is more informative than the earlier article(s) in "Model Railways".

 

As an aside, it was the loss of "Model Railways" (in its wonderful mid 1970s style and editorial direction) which led to MRJ later being set up in a post exhibition meeting between Paul Karau Bob Barlow and Gerry Beale.

 

Parallax errors notwithstanding, this is from the MRJ article, which is itself 4 pages of loveliness.

 

 

 

Get building!

 

I am myself very enamoured of the MW 0-4-0 that was at Folkestone and other places, I have a very good article on it by the late great Colin Binnie (again in "Model Railways") and I'd like to make a model of it before I kick the bucket.

 

Simon

[Daddyman]

21 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

That's a really lovely bit of work Daddyman, I hope you continue with it.

It's very kind of you to say so, Simon. Comments like that will hopefully help me get back to it soon. 

 

23 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Don Townley (not known for being inaccurate) in MRJ number 8

Ah, that was well known, was it? This particular drawing is certainly inaccurate in key respects: the tighter radii on the tank wrapper are wrong, and the cab spectacles are too small. (I seem to remember one of the captions is misdated too.) Alan Wright in his book on the NSR (Oakwood) has a sketch of the tank, and I used the radii from his sketch, which look right. 

 

27 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Get building!

Yes, sir! I now have 3D printed springs and brake blocks/hangers from Justin at Rumney Models, plus splashers turned from brass bar by Jeremy Suter of the Scalefour Stores, who's also done some turning on the wheels for me, so there really is no excuse...  Maybe this weekend. 

 

 

[Not Jeremy]

3 hours ago, Daddyman said:

It's very kind of you to say so, Simon. Comments like that will hopefully help me get back to it soon. 

 

Ah, that was well known, was it? This particular drawing is certainly inaccurate in key respects: the tighter radii on the tank wrapper are wrong, and the cab spectacles are too small. (I seem to remember one of the captions is misdated too.) Alan Wright in his book on the NSR (Oakwood) has a sketch of the tank, and I used the radii from his sketch, which look right. 

 

Yes, sir! I now have 3D printed springs and brake blocks/hangers from Justin at Rumney Models, plus splashers turned from brass bar by Jeremy Suter of the Scalefour Stores, who's also done some turning on the wheels for me, so there really is no excuse...  Maybe this weekend. 

 

 

Apologies, that was a general exhortation to all of us, not aimed at you!

 

what Jeremy has done for you looks really nice from the scalefour forum.

 

however one looks at it, “Bamburgh” is a very appealing prototype.

 

Simon

[Ruston]

I'll just leave this here...

 

 

 

[fastforwardtt]

 Excuse me but does anyone have any more images and info of the E Class and its Differences between other Manning Wardle 0-4-0s such as the H, F and C classes

Edited October 12, 2023 by fastforwardtt

[Ruston]

54 minutes ago, fastforwardtt said:

 Excuse me but does anyone have any more images and info of the E Class and its Differences between other Manning Wardle 0-4-0s such as the H, F and C classes

Yes but this isn't really the place to be asking. Perhaps start a new thread in the Standard Gauge Industrial section?

[fastforwardtt]

On 12/10/2023 at 13:22, Ruston said:

Yes but this isn't really the place to be asking. Perhaps start a new thread in the Standard Gauge Industrial section?

Sorry but can you please show a link to that section?

[figworthy]

43 minutes ago, fastforwardtt said:

Sorry but can you please show a link to that section?

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/145-uk-standard-gauge-industrial-modelling/

 

Adrian

[alexl102]

On 05/10/2023 at 14:31, Wickham Green too said:

Have you got your priorities right - was an additional small human a sensible purchase ??!? 😁

Not saying I've applied for a new job to be able to afford both the human and the OO gauge models but...

 

On 05/10/2023 at 15:11, JShow said:

The Rapido website, not updated since the announcement a month and a half ago, says the model is in the final design phase. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we see it before 2025. Pure speculation, of course.

 

Congratulations on your impending additional small human.

Interesting, I had assumed mid-24 but that gives me more time.

 

On 05/10/2023 at 18:00, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Modelu aren't that expensive, surely?

Well, i've got to get the baby scanned and 3D printed haven't I?!!

 

On 09/10/2023 at 11:30, AMJ said:

@alexl102 you could always do my trick, if you want something place some cash into an account for each of your future models each month.  Only do that if you don't have expensive loans as these are best paid off due to the costs.  Hope that your little person arrives ok.

 

Actually, I've found a similar strategy - if I have a bit of spare cash at the end of the month, I buy a gift voucher for my chosen Rapido retailer. Hoping to stockpile vouchers so that by the time the models I want arrive, I don't really have to fork out any actual cash!

[Edwardian]

On 27/08/2023 at 14:01, whart57 said:

Mixed feelings.

 

1: Great to have a Manning Wardle 0-6-0T

 

I have always thought that a MW should be done RTR, so I am delighted. Much as I love the little Hornby Peckets and will gladly subscribe to the Dapol Hawthorn Leslie, there is nothing quite so lovely as a MW.

 

On 27/08/2023 at 14:01, whart57 said:

2: Shame it's not the "I" or "K" which were the real light railway locos. They were the ones Colonel Stephens had on the Selsey Tramway and the Shropshire and Montgomeryshire, that was what was on the Mawddwy Tramway before the Cambrian took over.

 

As the K was really the most populous class it is, perhaps, the most obvious choice; I must concede that, if you're only going to have one MW in RTR, the K would probably be the best choice. Still, Rapido's choice of the L at least means RT Models catch a break, Link. BTW, if anyone has built one of these, I'd be interested to hear their experience. 

 

Where I take slight issue is with the statement, "the "I" or "K" which were the real light railway locos".  That is fair comment, so far as it goes, and, indeed, we might add Ringing Rock (not the Q of that name) to our list of LR Ks, but this is a rather southern perspective!

 

The Isle of Axholme Light Railway, the Cawood, Wistow & Selby Light Railway and the North Sunderland Railway, all members of that other LR empire, that of Sebastian Meyer, chose Manning Wardle Ls. These, however, were special Ls with 3'6" wheels (neccessitating tiny splashers). This was MW's response to the LR boom, to modify what were fundamentally contractors' types to a LR type. Perhaps, then, these 'Special Ls' have some claim to be considered the real LR MWs.

 

Sadly, I do not expect Rapido will cater for this LR variant of the L class. I do not complain, it is too big an ask given the cost and complexity of RTR projects. I wonder, then, if a conversion may be practical, though I fear that modern state of the art models are not that easy to modify, but perhaps worth a thought. I wonder could one fit larger wheels to Rapido's model? It may in part depend on the construction of the running plate, which would probably need to be pierced. 

 

Nevertheless, I shall embrace what is on offer here, MWs at last!

 

On 27/08/2023 at 14:01, whart57 said:

Still if Mr Rapido is chasing his Middleton Railway loves then who am I to stand in the way. Must get that pre-order in, the North Sussex could easily have one.

 

I have fond memories of the Middleton and rode behind a certain MW when last there, so, yes. 

 

[Edwardian]

On 10/10/2023 at 20:12, 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

 

Special L Class, one of the three mentioned in my post above. Bigger wheels to be sold as a LR passenger loco!

 

EDIT: Apologies for any repetition. I was going through this topic in happily slow time replying as I went along. I see that the differences of Bamburgh with a standard L have been referred to and some useful drawings added. 

 

It was still, I think, worth mentioning that Bamburgh was one of three such Ls modified for the LR market. It is, arguably, the appropriate choice for a northern freelance LR scheme, therefore, though other northern LRs went for Hudswell Clarkes for passenger locos.  

 

I note also that Bamburgh was Westinghouse fitted, on the right, which apparently meant moving the handbrake column to the left, and the addition of an air reservoir cylinder under the rear mainframe, seen clearly on the photograph and drawing posted by Not Jeremy. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

According to the MW work's list, compiled by F W Mabbott, the Meyer L Class locos that went to the Isle of Axholme (1456 of 1899) and the Cawood, Wistow & Selby (1360 of 1897) were standard 3' Ls, , with only the North Sunderland (1394 of 1898) having the 3'6" wheels, but listed as an M Class varian, showing the vagaries of categorisation! Mark Smithers in his Locomotive Builders of Leeds tome has all three down as 3'6" special Ls intended for LR use, which makes a lot more sense to me than for these enterprises to buy 3' contractors' locos new. 

 

Well, nevertheless, I have come across a standard L Class in Light Railway use in the North.

 

In the first decade or so after the LR Act, there seems to have been some uncertainty as to what suitable LR stock would be, with manufacturers producing novel types, or adapting from their catalogues, to provide something suitable.  That is why we have the 'special' L, with larger wheels as MW's answer to what a LR might buy new; the adation of a contractors' locomotive to a passenger engine, as acquired for three of Sebatian Meyer's Northern LRs. 

 

Of course, it was not long before a combination of failed innovation and failing receipts drove even the most optimistic LRs into the realms of anything they could get second hand and this is where we might expect to see second hand industrial or contractors' locos popping up.

 

Bradford Corporation managed to acquire three MWs, which sported suitably patriotic names, for the Nidd Valley Light Railway in 1921. One of these, 1669 of 1905, appears to have been a standard L Class named Beatty.

 

According to Wiki, Beatty worked between the concrete plant and dam at Scar, then supplied steam to a pump in 1924, and later worked in the quarry. She was sold 1934. Thus, she seems to have fulfilled a traditional role and not served on characteristic LR duties that would have included passenger work. Only one of the three 1921 acquired MW had larger than standard wheels, but even that, like the other, worked in the quarry. 

 

Another second user of an L seems to have been Sheffield Corporation's Ewden Valley railway, though this seems to have been a purely construction railway, with no regular passenger service.

 

Moving south, I think the contractor's loco that was used to inaugurate passenger services on the Mid Suffolk was an L, but that does not really count. The line soon had its own Hudswell Clarkes. 

 

All in all, it seems fair to conclude that the standard 3' L Class was not really a LR type. Old Is and standard Ks were probably more likely to turn up on a LR.  

[AMJ]

Subject to the usual proviso a date for your diaries is 1/1/2024 when Sir B is planned to be running at the Middleton.  Let's hope the weather was better than yesterday as we had snow in Leeds.

[Daddyman]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Bradford Corporation managed to acquire three MWs, which sported suitably patriotic names, for the Nidd Valley Light Railway in 1921. One of these, 1669 of 1905, appears to have been a standard L Class named Beatty.

 

According to Wiki, Beatty worked between the concrete plant and dam at Scar, then supplied steam to a pump in 1924, and later worked in the quarry. She was sold 1934. Thus, she seems to have fulfilled a traditional role and not served on characteristic LR duties that would have included passenger work. Only one of the three 1921 acquired MW had larger than standard wheels, but even that, like the other, worked in the quarry. 

If I remember correctly, the concrete plant was beyond the end of the Light Railway proper, whose terminus was at Lofthouse, so the loco perhaps can't be counted as having worked on an LR.  

[Edwardian]

28 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

If I remember correctly, the concrete plant was beyond the end of the Light Railway proper, whose terminus was at Lofthouse, so the loco perhaps can't be counted as having worked on an LR.  

 

Indeed. Owned by the Corporation, but not actually utilised on the LR proper seems about right. 

 

Goole & Marshland seems to have run the contractor's Q at the opening and, perhaps, beyond. The Cawood Special L might have started their too.

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, Edwardian said:

All in all, it seems fair to conclude that the standard 3' L Class was not really a LR type. 

 

But ideal for one's colliery exchange sidings?

 

Or is it really exclusively a contractor's locomotive, so only really of use to the modeller when first building their layout?

Edited December 5, 2023 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But ideal for one's colliery exchange sidings?

 

Or is it really exclusively a contractor's locomotive, so only really of use to the modeller when first building their layout?

 

Exclusivity was not intended to be implied, but I think it's fair to view these MWs as primarily a contractor's type. Certainly it seems to have been predominently so during our period of interest.

 

A very non-scientific survey of the locos Mabbott lists as Ls shows that there were about 15 supplied new to industry versus about 73 new to contractors.  There are also ones supplied to other sources, overseas, LRs and Ministry of Munitions etc. 

 

However, throughout the 1880s-1890s and into the 1900s, those supplied new to industry represent 10% or less of the listed L Class locos supplied new to contractors and are in single figures. Gradually the proportion of those sold new to contractors diminishes. This seems logical given that fewer railways of any size are being built. If one sees the Light Railway Act of 1896 as recognition that, by this time, only the economically marginal districts lack railways, it is understandable that other than an Indian Summer of these short lightly constructed lines c.1897-1914, it is largely work to increase capacity on the mainline railways that all that's left to do. The GCR London Extension of the 1890s being the last new mainline, and the last great glory of the contractor's loco in the UK.  

 

The initial industrial users of new Ls were brick works and collieries - so your suggestion is perfectly apposite - and latterly quarries and chemical and cement works as well. 

 

An important point, however, is that these were the initial users, those who bought a L new. Second or third users could be other contractors, but are quite likely to be indutrial users, so, by the 1910s-1920s,  the L might be a more typical industrial class. That said, even if not buying new ones in former volumes, contractors seem to keep their Ls, or sell them to other contractors, until scrappage, perhaps into the Grouping period. This suggests to me that contracors are still finding work, but the boom years are long over.

 

Thus, the earlier ones may have expected to spend their entire careers as contractors' locos, e.g. 1034 of 1887, which was owned by 3 contractors before going to the Ministry of Munitions in 1915, or 1035 of 1888, which, again, was owned in turn by 3 contractors.  The next L listed was owned by 2 contractors, the next by the same contractor until scrapped in 1936.  By 1890 we have a L that goes third-hand, after two contractors, to a colliery, though how late this was the list does not reveal*, and that seems quite typical of those Ls of the period that do leave contractors' service, and most of them do not seem to. Just glancing at the list, other MW classes seem motre likely than Ls to go into industrial service, new or second hand, than Ls. I think, thus, for the pre-Great War modeller, and L in industrial usage is perfectly possible, but not the most representative MW for industry or the most representative use of the class.   

 

So, yes, generally, and especially for the pre-Great War modeller, I think it's fair to see the L as prediominently a contractor's type. 

 

The forthcoming Sir Berkeley just makes me want to model an unfinished extension with a train of RT Models tipplers:

 

 

* 1152 of 1890 appears to have gone to the Loughor Colliery Co. Ltd (extant 1890-1905) c.1900, after it had finished working on the LB&SCR Quarry Line for its second contractor owner. It is possible, thanks to a useful IRS dcument, to match contractor locomotives to specific contracts. 

[AlfaZagato]

Could always mount your L on a horsecart.

[JShow]

Of everything Rapido's working on (that we know of,) the L Class is the model I'm most eager for. Those tiny wheels...

[alexl102]

The above has made fascinating reading but I’m afraid mine will be treated as a light railway loco! Rule 1 applies! 
 

@JShow - me too. I’m hoping to get a 2nd batch Hunslet, then holding off for a MW because I think they’ll be a bit more expensive so  time for saving up is needed!