EddieB

Well Hercule Poirot might have been a Belgian, but I assure you there are no red herrings in my question. This locomotive (and its twin) originally belonged to a company which, after a change of name, passed into joint ownership of the LNWR and another company (I don't want to make it too easy!!!), these locomotives passing into LNWR stock. The railway itself remained a joint line until nationalisation. You were along the right lines with your suggestions of companies taken over by the LNWR, but it was neither of those you identified. The locomotives were neither DX, nor predecessors of DX (except that they were 0-6-0s). They were not built at Crewe (nor Jones and Potts for that matter), but by one of the major locomotive building firms extant at that time. As mentioned earlier, the "Portuguese connection" refers to a title borne by a very famous figure from the nineteenth century, and was taken up on the same day that he received the title he is more familiarly known by. Oddly enough, he is famously connected to a place in Belgium - purely coincidental to the sale of the locomotive there.

I'll take that as a compliment. But c'mon, have I not led you on an interesting little journey? No. 4 was a lovely Beyer Peacock 2-4-0 constructed new for the Malines & Terneuzen. Wouldn't the Malines & Terneuzen make an excellent prototype for a model? There are no less than five photographs of no. 9 in the second volume of the definitive French language work on Belgian steam and you'll find all the required information there too. Alternatively there was an article in the Locomotive Magazine in 1908, which I suspect is the ultimate source of the information published in the book. However there should be enough information to answer the question in various LNWR archives. I don't have the book of locomotive names, and can't lay my hands on my copy of Livesey - either could be of assistance. One further clue/warning is that the loco won't be found in Jack's work on locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division, as it was absorbed into the northern divsion. And as I'm in a generous mood, one more clue. The locomotive had a classmate "twin" that had a similar journey, also being sold to MT (becoming no. 10) in 1874. It received an LNWR name reminiscent of a famous working replica.

Back to locos, and I'll try something a little more tricky. The Malines & Terneuzen was a private railway company which finally was taken over by the national systems of Belgium and Holland after the second world war. In its early days it was notable for a fleet of ancient locomotives acquired second- or third-hand from the London and North Western Railway. MT locomotive no. 9 was a 0-6-0 built in 1858, which it bought from the LNWR in 1874. What was its original owner and number, and what was the Portuguese connection bestowed on it by the LNWR? (I'll add a clarification to the "Portuguese connection", that it relates to a title borne by a very famous Briton in the nineteenth century).

The Wiki entry for the locomotive 4771 "Green Arrow" is misleading, as it references but misquotes the RCTS "Green Book". Wiki describes it as an express freight service, when the source actually gives it as a "registered goods" service (as quoted verbatim here: http://www.lner.info/locos/V/v2.shtml). Green Arrow was actually a registered overnight transit service inaugurated by the LNER in 1928. It was a service not confined to a single route, and in some ways was similar to Red Star in that respect, although it was based on full wagon loads. Suspended during the war years, it was reinstated by BR in 1953.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Oops, what about the GER Decapod? Not in its original form - just a mere 17ft 7in 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".

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.

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).

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?

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).

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???

You've given me another one - the horrible bogie and trailing pony truck that still persists right through into Hornby's current "Princess" offering. (As remarked upon by the review in Model Rail, but not, no no no in Hornby Mag).

I note that the BBC report says "when" and not "if" a bus breaks down.

Phew! This thread is good, but becoming a little hard to trawl through. 37065 wasn't the only one to have different front ends at the same time. First, here's another of 37065, taken at Thornaby, 30th May 1986. Not a great photo, but at least it shows both ends are different. Now for two pictures of 37102 at Tyne Yard, also on 30th May 1986, from each end. This was a split headcode version that was given one plain front following accident repair.

Well, yes indeed. The French even hired a car stylist, Paul Arzens, to design some of their diesel and electric loco bodies. Having said that, one of my favourite electric locos - 2D2 5538 series (« Femmes enceintes ») appears in the first clip at Poitiers (just before the lineside shot you admired), but this was a pre-Arzens design.

An excellent find and some interesting material there. I think these videos may date from the late 'fifties as the CC65000 entered service in 1957, and the TEE network was set up in the same year (when Kraftwerk were still in metallic nappies). Reclassification and renumbering (e.g. from 060.DB to CC65000) took place in 1962, so the material must pre-date this. Incidentally the last examples of the Etat 231.F Pacifics (shown in the first clip) finished in 1965 - unfortunately none survive.

Well IRS 15EL (2009) gives the location as Carnforth, whilst "Surviving Steam in the British Isles" (Mundy, LCGB 2011) as East Lancashire Railway, Bury.

One of these locomotives (or more strictly the superstructure of one and the engine of another) survives in preservation on the Kent & East Sussex Railway: https://www.kesr.org.uk/stock-register/diesel-locomotives/102-bth-no-40-bo-bo.html

As far as I know, 05001 has been on static display at the DB museum, Nürnberg, since 1963, so would require substantial refitting to be returned to running order. Were it to be, then it should have the capability to be faster than 18201.

Ah, but there's always the option of not paying postage - whereupon the seller will deliver for free to a window near you!

Good points, I suspect that there were plans that never prevailed because of the intervention of the war. A similar situation prevented the E19 class of electrics from testing at 225km/h (which I think would have set a pre-war record). So the will was there, but never triumphed. Erm.

I'm probably not alone in hoping that Mallard's record will be kept sacrosanct, given that it was set during the Golden Age of steam traction and has remained for nearly three-quarters of a century. If the will existed, I'm sure that the Germans could take 18-201 near or near-abouts by risking running the boiler at higher pressure. Then again, for all its superb engineering, 18-201 doesn't represent the latest technological developments. The efforts of Chapelon, Porta and Wardale were primarily devoted to greater efficiencies than higher speed, but I'm certain that were they to be applied, then Mallard's record could be left trailing. Thankfully the proposed 5AT locomotive, if it ever gets built, seems to perpetuate the "mixed traffic" 4-6-0 concept (think Class 5/Modified Hall/B1) with greater efficiency, rather than a top link express which could challenge for the record.