Osgood Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 This is an odd one. I can't decide if it is a foreigner or not. The IRS names list shows only two BERNARDs - a Black Hawthorn 1033 and Hunslet 587. Any ideas? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osgood Posted November 29, 2018 Author Share Posted November 29, 2018 (edited) To quote Victor Meldrew: "I don't believe it!". Look what I've just found - I never thought to do a search for Black Hawthorn 1033 before posting, but this worksplate sold at auction a week ago (£2,250), with the following description: Worksplate BLACK, HAWTHORN & CO ENGINEERS GATESHEAD ON TYNE No1033 1891 ex 0-6-0 ST OC used at West Hallam colliery Ilkeston and named Bernard believed scrapped circa 1941. Oval cast brass face restored. I'm not convinced this is the one, so any ideas? The weather board looks a bit Hunslet-like with those square windows, but not much else. Edited November 29, 2018 by Osgood Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcD Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Very in testing loco. You would have very little problem fitting a motor in it. The chimney looks a bit Heath Robinson. Not the original is suspected. With the extra dead buffers it was either running with civil engineering wagons or the like of the NER P1 hopper. Any idea of the date of the photo? Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 (edited) Interesting - I have no clear sense, but the chimney cap and nameplate lettering style look quite 'Hunslet' to me but that's less than conclusive. The loco pictured is clearly a side tank and not a saddletank and clearly has inside rather than outside cylinders which rather rules out the Black Hawthorn... The better way to confirm would - I reckon - to find the appropriate IRS handbook and see which of the two machines worked with a Hudswell, Clarke saddletank (in the shed) and what may well be a Manning, Wardle. Adam Edited November 30, 2018 by Adam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon A Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Do you know the location of the photo? Gordon A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osgood Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 No information at all, sorry. Unfortunately I do not have the IRS books. Chimney looks like it might have come from another locomotive - why the odd flange near the base if original? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
decauville1126 Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 I've reposted the image on the IRS e-group so maybe something will be forthcoming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 30, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2018 (edited) To me, the overall look of the thing has a distinct whiff of the garlic about it, and there's more than one way to pronounce "Bernard".... As for the chimney, I don't think it's been changed. The joint falls exactly where any sheeting between the tops of the tanks would have come if such was originally provided to prevent the large voids on either side of the boiler filling with soot, ash and rubbish. John Edited November 30, 2018 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 30, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2018 (edited) Duplicate post deleted. Edited November 30, 2018 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Apart from the absence of outside valve-gear, it bears more than a passing resemblance to a product of Pinguely of Lyon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted November 30, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2018 What is inscription on lamp....looks like Kwai..... Phil What is inscription on lamp....looks like Kwai..... Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted November 30, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2018 Do you know the location of the photo? Gordon A The shed in the background looks very UK architecture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osgood Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 (edited) Solved - thanks to a decent library. It turned out to be the Hunslet - Wks no 587. One of a pair, built with 586 in 1894. I realised I had a copy of The Hunslet Engine Works by DH Townsley (Plateway Press - highly recommended by the way). Here is a deliberately low res image of a page from the book, showing a convertible locomotive - one of a pair - supplied to the contractor S Pearson & Sons Ltd for use on the construction of the LD&EC Ry Chesterfield to Warsop line. Later used by them on the GWR Patchway to Wootton Bassett contract (which employed over 45 locos). The chimney and dome were collapsible to permit use in driving tunnel headings, hence the flange at chimney base. Looks to be equipped for condensing (for underground work). So the photo is quite possibly taken on one of these contracts, explaining the rustic shed! Edited November 30, 2018 by Osgood 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
decauville1126 Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Solved - thanks to a decent library. It turned out to be the Hunslet - Wks no 587. One of a pair, built with 586 in 1894. I realised I had a copy of The Hunslet Engine Works by DH Townsley (Plateway Press - highly recommended by the way). Here is a deliberately low res image of a page from the book, showing a convertible locomotive - one of a pair - supplied to the contractor S Pearson & Sons Ltd for use on the construction of the LD&EC Ry Chesterfield to Warsop line. Later used by them on the GWR Patchway to Wootton Bassett contract (which employed over 45 locos). The chimney and dome were collapsible to permit use in driving tunnel headings, hence the flange at chimney base. Looks to be equipped for condensing (for underground work). So the photo is quite possibly taken on one of these contracts, explaining the rustic shed! Convertible.jpg Beat me to it! But for the sake of any additional info, here is the response from Peter Holmes on the IRS e-group: "That's Hunslet 587 of 1894, contractor S.Pearson & Sons, used on building part of the Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway (later part of the Great Central). The loco was capable of conversion to reduced height to fit a small tunnel heading, somewhere in the Bolsover area from memory. Photos exist of the loco in use and there are HE 'officials' of it, see D.H.Townsley's 'The Hunslet Engine Works' (Plateway 1998) page 54. It had a twin, HE 586, called FRANCIS. I suggest, from its condition, the photo was taken relatively late in the loco's life. The two were apparently later used on the construction of the GWR Patchway to Wootton Bassett contract. " 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osgood Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 Thanks very much for getting this information DC - much appreciated. And please thank Peter H. I'm sorry I beat you to it (only just though!!). I read a year or two back that DT was working on a second book on Hunslet, featuring their diesel locomotives. I keep searching for info but nothing yet, has anyone heard anything? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brack Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 (edited) As for the chimney, I don't think it's been changed. The joint falls exactly where any sheeting between the tops of the tanks would have come if such was originally provided to prevent the large voids on either side of the boiler filling with soot, ash and rubbish. John Or where the base would be if it had a saddle tank extending over the smokebox? Either way, inside cylinders doesn't strike me as a common black, hawthorn trait, nor a saddle tank extended over the smokebox. Perhaps worksplates had migrated over the years and confused later observers? Edited November 30, 2018 by brack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcD Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 I wonder if there are any drawings touched away in a cupboard some where? Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall5 Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Try the Hunslet Archive at Statfold Barn. Ray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcD Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Try the Hunslet Archive at Statfold Barn. Ray. Please tell me more about the archive? I was unaware of it. Where is Stalford Barn? Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mike Bellamy Posted November 30, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 30, 2018 Please tell me more about the archive? I was unaware of it. Where is Stalford Barn? Marc Near Tamworth - a very large narrow gauge collection. Only open on specific days by advance ticket. Well worth a visit http://www.statfoldbarnrailway.co.uk/ . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcD Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Sounds interesting so how do get into the archive? Do you contact them and make an appointment like you did at York before searchengine? Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon A Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 If you contact them with the details of the engine they will let you know what drawings they have. This lady proved very helpful;- <Molly.Goodall@statfold.com> It pays to quite the works number and year of build. Gordon A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcD Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 Hi Gordon Thank for that I will email her and see what they have. Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 Since 587 was on the Patchway job, I have the relevant IRS guide! From that, I can quote some of the dimensions: 2' 9" wheels, 11" x 15" cylinders and a 9' 6" wheelbase. From Patchway it apparently went to Kirk and Randall (Contractors) c.1905. This begs one or two questions about the photo - there was only one Hudswell, Clarke on the Patchway job and that was an 0-4-0ST (444 of 1895). The loco' pictured seems to be an 0-6-0ST so it must be somewhere else... Adam Link to post 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