Railway Quiz

[EddieB]

Assuming that we're talking steam, I'd suggest J38 class nos 65901 and 65929, withdrawn in April 1967.

[pH]

Assuming that we're talking steam, I'd suggest J38 class nos 65901 and 65929, withdrawn in April 1967.

Yes, Eddie, they're the engines I was looking for. Apologies to others - I should have specified steam engines - that was an unnecessary complication.

[EddieB]

The answer to this question is a British locomotive builder.

 

A family business dating back to the previous century, one of the family members became closely involved with a much bigger and well-known locomotive builder, before splitting off to build locomotives through the family firm. Although no complete works list survives, it is thought that just over 200 locomotives were built in a span of around sixteen years. The last batch of locomotives were of broad gauge and went to a railway in the UK whose enduring fame and tradition of operating unique locomotives finished in the 1970s.

 

Sadly none of the locomotives built by this business have survived. However two* European countries saw fit to build replicas of locomotives built by this firm. Some sources even give the original locomotives as being numbered consecutively (although the list given in Lowe disagrees).

 

*There are suggestions that a third replica locomotive, in a different country to the other two, is another copy of a locomotive constructed by the same firm, but on balance it appears that the original was from a differnt builder.

[DaveF]

Bedlington Ironworks, also known as Bedlington Iron and Engine Works.

 

David

[EddieB]

Bedlington Ironworks, also known as Bedlington Iron and Engine Works.

 

David

 

Yes, the company itself being R. B. Longridge & Co.

 

The two replica locos are 2-2-2 DE AREND (Long 119/1839, built Zwolle 1938) and BAYARD (Long 120/1839, built FS Firenze 1939) which are to be found at the railway meums in Utrecht and Napoli respectively.

 

The final locomotives were destined for the isolated Holyhead Breakwater Railway, originally broad gauge (seven foot), but later converted to standard and associated with the BR class 01 shunters in its last days.

[DaveF]

My turn.

 

This man worked for a major pre grouping railway company.

 

He was not the Locomotive Superintendent but he designed one locomotive. It was built in the company's works though he partly financed it.

 

The locomotive had unusual features.

 

I am looking for his name and anything you can tell me about the locomotive.

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

Sounds very much like a certain Mr Cecil Paget who was Works manager at Derby under Deeley who came up with a 2-6-2 using sleeve valves on its 8 inside cylinders

[DaveF]

Sounds very much like a certain Mr Cecil Paget who was Works manager at Derby under Deeley who came up with a 2-6-2 using sleeve valves on its 8 inside cylinders

 

 

 

Yes, that's correct. Apparently it was first mooted as a 4-6-0.

 

Your turn now.

 

David

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Right this one is a bit of a mixture - of the easy and the not so easy. So a multiple answer question -

1. Which railway company developed the electric train token instrument and name one of their employees credited with the invention?

2. Which signal engineering company was granted the rights to manufacture and sell such instruments?

and now the difficult bit -

3. Why did the staff of said Company invent the machine (it was designed for a very very specific reason - but why?)

[EddieB]

If we're talking tokens (not tablets or staffs) then it was the Great Western Railway, patented by AT Blackall and CM Jacobs and first used on the Marlow branch.

 

Tyer & Co were given licence to manufacture and sell these instruments.

 

Now for the specific reason - hmm. Generally something to do with multiple tokens allowing trains to originate from each end of the section (without needing to return a staff) or for trains to run "out of sequence". Compared to the previous versions, the new machines were more compact and had less moving parts.

 

Well, as Meat Loaf sang "two out of three ain't bad"...

[The Stationmaster]

If we're talking tokens (not tablets or staffs) then it was the Great Western Railway, patented by AT Blackall and CM Jacobs and first used on the Marlow branch.

 

Tyer & Co were given licence to manufacture and sell these instruments.

 

Now for the specific reason - hmm. Generally something to do with multiple tokens allowing trains to originate from each end of the section (without needing to return a staff) or for trains to run "out of sequence". Compared to the previous versions, the new machines were more compact and had less moving parts.

 

Well, as Meat Loaf sang "two out of three ain't bad"...

 

2 out of 3 is quite reasonable - as I said 'that's the easy bit'. But you're not there (at all) on the third one - just a hint for you and any others coming along hoping to snipe it at this stage 'think someone well known for his loco designs and alleged problems with them' ... and then perhaps translate ... well that might be too much of a hint

[EddieB]

Do you mean FW Webb and the LNWR having to pay royalties (£2 a go) to Tyer for infringement of patent?

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Do you mean FW Webb and the LNWR having to pay royalties (£2 a go) to Tyer for infringement of patent?

 

 

 

Right name - wrong stage in the game. Think earlier (in temporal terms) in relation to the works of FWW.

[EddieB]

Aside from his three patents on interlocking lever frames in the 1870s, there's nothing in the earlier output of Webb that seems relevant.

 

The differences in the GWR/Tyer no. 9 development were, as I see it, multiple "keys" instead of "tablets" (Tyer patent) or "staffs" (Webb) and more compact size.

[The Stationmaster]

Aside from his three patents on interlocking lever frames in the 1870s, there's nothing in the earlier output of Webb that seems relevant.

 

The differences in the GWR/Tyer no. 9 development were, as I see it, multiple "keys" instead of "tablets" (Tyer patent) or "staffs" (Webb) and more compact size.

 

Best answer this bit myself then. The Webb & Thompson train staff instrument (original version) was indeed much larger, and heavier I would think, than the ET instrument but the GWR found it had a very nasty flaw (which I think also extended to the miniature version?) in that once the instrument and the staffs were getting a bit worn it was possible, and not too difficult, to illegally get a staff out of the machine without being given a release to do so by the Signalman at the other end of the section. So Reading Works folk decided to devise their own machine which would not be subject to that flaw plus it would use a smaller token (as you noted), could have a much larger magazine, would - after development - offer a secure method of transferring tokens, and would avoid any existing patents. Net result the GWR/Tyer electric token instrument. (although W&T train staff instruments could still be found on the GWR in the 1920s albeit in decreasing numbers).

 

So pretty near Eddie - you'd best have the next one.

[EddieB]

Mike, thanks for that, I wouldn't have found the additional detail.

 

This question concerns a very unusual and indeed unconventional locomotive.

 

1. It was built in Britain for a British railway company, which became part of a larger company to whose ownership the locomotive passed.

 

2. It carried a name.

 

3. The third clue is to the works where it was built. Only four locomotives have been identified as built there, the other three being more conventional - albeit with domeless boilers and haycock fireboxes. There are more familiar works and locomotive factories sharing the same name - but this one wasn't in Maribo, Wilkes-Barre or Szczecin (Stettin) - nor was it the bigger Brittish one that was until a year before the locomotive in question was built named for its founder (you'll also find a word pun there). However the builder is generally referred to by the company name taken from its partners.

 

4. The final clue is to be found by reference to the Burgess Shale and a patent.incorporated into the locomotive design.

[EddieB]

No takers so far?

 

Ok, the first pair of clues aren't specific in themselves but will help to validate answers obtained from the other pair. The third is quite specific and contains enough information to Google your way to the right answer.

 

Perhaps the final clue is more cryptic, but again it should generate a word which will lead to the identity of the locomotive.

 

At this stage, the only thing I'll add is that the loco was standard gauge.

 

I can add more clues, but don't want to give the game away without at least a serious attempt - and I trust that, once found, the "merits" of the locomotive will provide some interest, perhaps even amusement.

[pH]

From the third clue - the loco was built in 1848 in a works with 'Vulcan' in its name, but not the Vulcan Foundry at Newton-le-Willows. Can't get beyond that.

[pH]

'Albion', built by Thwaites Bros of the Vulcan Foundry in Bradford in 1848. Had 'vibrating vane ' pistons, patented as the 'Cambrian' system..

[EddieB]

'Albion', built by Thwaites Bros of the Vulcan Foundry in Bradford in 1848. Had 'vibrating vane ' pistons, patented as the 'Cambrian' system..

 

Yes, well done. Thwaites & Carbutt as they were at that time, of the Vulcan Works in Bradford.

 

The locomotive had a transverse cylinder arrangement, located between the two pairs of driving wheels,with diametrically opposed cranks driving connecting rods to each of the four driving wheels giving an 0-2-2-2WT configuration. This so-called "Cambrian System" (which might have been found from the clue about the Burgess Shale) arose from a patent taken out by John Jones of Bristol, and was designed to fully balance out the reciprocating parts (in comparison to a conventional locomotive). According to Lowe (British Steam Locomotive Builders), EB Wilson & Co. had been approached, but declined to build the locomotive, leading to the first locomotive to be built by a company that otherwise turned out a variety of machinery.

 

It was delivered to the South Yorkshire Railway as their no. 5 "ALBION", becoming Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire no. 156 in 1864. It apears to have been withdrawn in 1870, but may have been rebuilt as a more conventional locomotive at some point in its life.

 

There is a detailed side elwevation drawing in Lowe, which would be a good starting point should anyone fancy building a model...

 

To you again, pH.

[pH]

What were the BR numbers of the first and last Black Fives to enter service?

[EddieB]

Assuming that the locos entered service in the same sequence that they were built and delivered....

 

The first batch were built at Vulcan Foundry (nice tie in!), with 5020 (BR 45020) being the first. Last batch were built at Horwich in 1951, with 44687 bringing up the rear.

[pH]

Assuming that the locos entered service in the same sequence that they were built and delivered....

 

The first batch were built at Vulcan Foundry (nice tie in!), with 5020 (BR 45020) being the first. Last batch were built at Horwich in 1951, with 44687 bringing up the rear.

Correct. I hoped someone would get to guess 45000 from Crewe for the first one (it was supposed to be first) - fat chance of that!

[EddieB]

Right then, where (generally or specifically) can you find the last steam locomotive built by Manning Wardle?

[jwealleans]

Kidderminster Railway Museum? ( I don't remember seeing it).