Guest Belgian Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 It was involved in the Locomotive Exchange Trials and it was the first Merchant Navy to be Rebuilt. No to both. There were three MNs involved in the Exchanges and being the first of anything is hardly something I would describe as unique! JE And your qustion trainsnadco? He's got to get it right first! JE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainsandco Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 *comment removed* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 16, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 16, 2011 I don't know much about the Southern but it's worth a go so I'll try for the self-weighing tender before rebuilding (which i'm fairly certain on) and the two piece handrails on the smoke defectors after rebuilding (which I'm not too sure of the uniqueness of but they were certainly unusual). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I don't know much about the Southern but it's worth a go so I'll try for the self-weighing tender before rebuilding (which i'm fairly certain on) and the two piece handrails on the smoke defectors after rebuilding (which I'm not too sure of the uniqueness of but they were certainly unusual). Again no, I'm afraid. The self-weighing tender was attached to a number of MNs before rebuilding, and that's the first I've heard about two-piece handrails (did they look any different to those that came later?). My first answer relates to the locomotive "as built" (I believe the engine was unique amongst all Bulleid locomotives, but was definately so amongst MNs), the second is to very visual differences. JE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 After rebuilding the placement of sandboxes and their fillers was unique on 35018 (and a source of problems that were never rectified). Not sure what was unique before rebuilding, but I think it was the last of its batch to be named. Or was it the only Bulleid to pull a royal train??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 After rebuilding the placement of sandboxes and their fillers was unique on 35018 (and a source of problems that were never rectified). Not sure what was unique before rebuilding, but I think it was the last of its batch to be named. Or was it the only Bulleid to pull a royal train??? Well, you're partway there, being correct about the rebuilt engine, although it was the length of the sandbox fillers which were unique. There were other differences, one of which I'll record here: the pipework on the left side of the boiler was the most obvious, being kinked halfway along, whilst all the others had the kink just short of the smokebox. Can anyone recall the other difference (these made this locomotive instantly recognizable from either side). It was unique when built, although that state didn't last until rebuilding and wasn't instantly obvious. Can anyone get that plus the other unique rebuilt feature?? If not, I'll pass the wand to Eddie. JE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Well, you're partway there, being correct about the rebuilt engine, although it was the length of the sandbox fillers which were unique. There were other differences, one of which I'll record here: the pipework on the left side of the boiler was the most obvious, being kinked halfway along, whilst all the others had the kink just short of the smokebox. Can anyone recall the other difference (these made this locomotive instantly recognizable from either side). It was unique when built, although that state didn't last until rebuilding and wasn't instantly obvious. Can anyone get that plus the other unique rebuilt feature?? If not, I'll pass the wand to Eddie. JE Ah, you mean that it had multi-part welded wheel centres when first built, as opposed to cast centres employed on the rest of the class? (All still to the Boxpok pattern, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Ah, you mean that it had multi-part welded wheel centres when first built, as opposed to cast centres employed on the rest of the class? (All still to the Boxpok pattern, of course). Yes. Now it's over to you legitimately! (The other difference after rebuilding was the shape of the clack pipes on the right hand side, which were kinked for no apparent reason. All the others had straight ones) JE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Ok, a nice straight-forward question first up. Which British steam locomotive or locomotive type (and by that I mean saw service on the railways of Great Britain) had the longest coupled wheelbase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 17, 2011 Ok, a nice straight-forward question first up. Which British steam locomotive or locomotive type (and by that I mean saw service on the railways of Great Britain) had the longest coupled wheelbase? I presume you mean coupled within the same set of frames? But if you don't then the answer is the LNER U1 class Garratt with 61'9" which was longer than the LMS Garratts with a touch under 61ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Clarification needed - by "coupled wheelbase" I mean the maximum distance between sets of driving wheels rigidly coupled together (by a coupling rod, no less), and with no articulation in between. So no Garratts (unless the coupled wheelbase of each engine unit exceeded that of the longest non-articulated locomotive(s) - which it didn't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 17, 2011 BR Standard 9F 21'8"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold LH&JC Posted July 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 17, 2011 Dub Dee 2-10-0 maybe? 29ft 8in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 BR Standard 9F 21'8"? No. Dub Dee 2-10-0 maybe? 29ft 8in No - that's the total wheelbase, including the leading pony truck. The coupled wheelbase was 21ft. Both answers around two feet too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold LH&JC Posted July 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 17, 2011 Oops, what about the GER Decapod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS239 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Hi, Would it be the G.E.R. 'Decapod' after it was rebuilt as a 0-8-0 tender loco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Oops, what about the GER Decapod? Not in its original form - just a mere 17ft 7in Would it be the G.E.R. 'Decapod' after it was rebuilt as a 0-8-0 tender loco? Correct! According to C. Langley Aldrich the coupled wheelbase was 23ft 3in. As far as I can see all driving wheels were flanged and I don't know how much sideplay there was (certainlty the original had some lateral movement and the centre wheels were flangeless), but this must have one difficult loco when it came to negotiating curves. To you "DS239". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS239 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Thanks EddieB, Trouble is I've now got to set the next question,and I have been trying to come up with one that was suitable..Hmmmm...harder than it sounds! Anyway,here goes:- Which Manning Wardle steam loco had the largest cylinders? and what size were they? Good Luck! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Hi Phil, As I now knew your question was coming.... I think there were two of them, both built for the Littleton Collieries, Staffordshire. MW 1759/1910 LITTLETON No. 4 MW 2018/1922 LITTLETON No. 5 (Now at Foxfield) Both had cylinders 18" bore x 24" stroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS239 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Hi Phil, As I now knew your question was coming.... I think there were two of them, both built for the Littleton Collieries, Staffordshire. MW 1759/1910 LITTLETON No. 4 MW 2018/1922 LITTLETON No. 5 (Now at Foxfield) Both had cylinders 18" bore x 24" stroke. No,sorry,..nearly there though, correct bore but a longer stroke required..[now,where have I heard that before...? ] As well as the ones you mention above,there were another 2 MW loco's with 18"x24" cyls:- 1813/1913 'GRIFFIN' J.Lancaster & Co., Blaina 1990/1920 'A1' United National Collieries Ltd.,Nine Mile Point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Er, so near and yet so far. (Should have gone to the "18 inch Specials" section in volume 2 of Harman's work, rather than straight to the works list in volume 3). Ok then, MW 1853/1914, which was an inside-cylindered 0-8-0T named "KATHERINE" and built for the Earl of Ellesmere, Walkden. 18" bore x 26" stroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS239 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Ok then, MW 1853/1914, which was an inside-cylindered 0-8-0T named "KATHERINE" and built for the Earl of Ellesmere, Walkden. 18" bore x 26" stroke. CORRECT! [Thought I'd carry on with 0-8-0's.. ] Well,back to you then, Eddie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I've a few lined up, but I'll do a fairly easy one to keep the thread moving. What was the name of the LB&SCR employee who patented a locking device for levers and ground frames, widely adopted and used by railways across the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 19, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 19, 2011 A certain Mr Annett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 A certain Mr Annett. Indeed, but I have no knowledge whether Mr J E Annett was of certain or uncertain disposition! I thought you'd get that one. Over to you, Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now