Nick Holliday

In the UK, in my days on site, columns were usually cast in single storey lifts, it may be different in China. Here, the rebar would extend beyond the top of the cast concrete to allow for:- Slab or beam thickness + Allowance for a kicker (roughly 4 inches) + Lap length Lap length is roughly 45 times the diameter of the reinforcement bar, say 45 x 25 mm = 1.1m. Beam thickness could be anything from 300mm to 1m. Theoretically, columns using larger bars would have them extending higher above the new slab level to achieve the necessary lap. Don't forget that this only applies where the column or wall continues directly above. Where you've come to the top of the column there will be L bars which only protrude into the slab zone.

The WC&P actually had two Terriers. They would have run in the WC&P livery, probably their light green, until acquired by the GWR, along with the railway, in 1940, and only then received GWR livery. One survived into the fifties under BR.

Found another example of the second type on Gail Thornton's website, but only three horses. There are a couple of stage coaches on Shapeways, but only in HO and Z(!) at the moment.

The two vehicles are very different: I agree the second is a tourist design, but the first is definitely based on a stage coach. I've located a book published by the BBC in connection with a 1985 programme, and it appears the renaissance of coaching started earlier than I thought, around the end of the 1860's and lasted until 1928. It was more like the current preservation scene. The coaches were not expected to be particularly profitable, and were run mainly for the benefit of the owners who often took part in the driving, and for travellers to experience a way of life that had all but disappeared - much like riding behind a steam loco. It includes an advertising item from 1909, which shows the seating arrangement on the roof.

Surely this one is actually a stage coach, such as this kit - probably in HO though. Wasn't there a revival in interest in stage coaches in the 1890's, some years after the railways had forced the original ones off the road. Four horses and lots of attendants, including a post-horn seems a bit over the top for taking passengers from the station to their hotel. Welcome to Disneyland, Victorian-style!

Craven wasn't particularly fond of outside cylinders, producing a handful of locos. The nearest to the OP is this one: The 0-4-0 saddle tank that acquired trailing wheels before ending up as No 400, the Brighton Works 0-4-0 well tank. Bodies of these were available on Shapeways! There was this one from even earlier,

Don't forget the vast amount of sugar beet that was grown in the area and transported by rail during its season.

How about a couple of early Caledonian locos from the ETH Zurich website

The second video of the E2 discussion ends with an interesting attempt to design a Lawson Billinton version of his father's Radial tanks, based on the K Class 2-6-0. A creditable effort, but the use of 7.24m (gas meters?) diameter driving wheels is interesting, as is a water capacity of 7,000 letters! I'm not sure what its purpose might be, but it does look a bit like the outside cylinder tanks that some Welsh railways sourced at the turn of the century, some from America. None were particularly successful, and it looks terribly unstable, and likely to give a rougher ride than the E2's. However, the LBSC did draft a scheme for a 2-6-2 tank, which looks magnificent, although they were unable to get authority to build any, due to war time restrictions, despite being intended for goods traffic, and designed to fit on all the turntables on the line. To give an idea of this beauty, this drawing can be found in the HMRS collection. A model of this K2 Class loco would be interesting to see, a pocket goods version of the later L (Remembrance) Class 4-6-4 tanks.

Because the Terrier was sold to the Newhaven Harbour Company in 1898, and, although it may have retained its name for a short period, it definitely lost it in 1904, when painted in goods green livery. The E6 Radial of the same name appeared in 1905, so there was only one loco of the name running at any one time.

I am not sure where this is going, but to put a different point of view (apologies for the length). It wasn't just used for shunting only, it was also used for short freight trains to get the goods where they needed to be. The emphasis here is “short”. Most were allocated to London depots, generally piloting around Victoria and London Bridge, with the odd trip out to Norwood Junction, to act as shunter there. A couple went to Brighton, where the highlight of their day might be a trip to Hassocks or Worthing. It mustn’t be forgotten that the second phase of the electrification opened in 1911, before the E2’s appeared. This would have released the E4 Radials used on passenger services around London for other duties, and they were recognised as an excellent mixed traffic loco, and could handle the goods trains, alongside the E3 and E6 Radials, and the various 0-6-0 classes. The E tanks were old and worn out, so they weren't being used for shunting/goods trains at the ports. Yes, they were old, but not exactly worn out. Of 79 built between 1874 and 1891, 63 survived to Grouping, and 30 made it to BR days. If they weren’t being used for shunting and goods trains, where were they hiding for 50 years? As for shunting at ports, not one of them, in Brighton days, was allocated to Newhaven, the LBSCR’s major port, although they would have reached Battersea and Deptford Wharves as part of their New Cross and Battersea duties. The E tanks were going to be rebuilt into E1Xs but only one was rebuilt, because of Marsh's declining heath. It was rebuilt back into a E tank in 1930 after the boiler was condemned. The E1X was a bit of a failure. The higher boiler made its riding habits worse than the others, and it was rapidly confined to goods duties, after a short spell at West Croydon. The unaltered E1’s were occasionally called upon for passenger duties, even after their initial spell as emergency cover, so the additional expense of the conversion was not considered worthwhile. As above, some managed to survive another 50 years Back to the E2s, L.B. Billington wanted to improve the working class E1s, thus introducing the E2s. They were great, except for the range, only 3 tons of coal and 5000 liters to work with, not to mention the high water consumption, which led to the tanks on the sides to be extended. Mr. Billinton, without the G, was merely trying to create a modern equivalent of the E1, to replace those that were worn out. He kept within his brief of a shunting loco, making use of an existing I2 boiler design for simplicity. I take it you are referring to the extended tanks on the second batch, the first examples seemed to have struggled on with their 1,090 gallons, hardly missing the extra 166 gallons (755 litres). The actual coal capacity was noted as 2½ tons, although no doubt more could be carried if carefully stacked; this capacity was the same as the Radials, and ¾ tons more than the E1’s. The stability was okay, if kept under 50 mph, and like I said earlier with the I2 boilers, they were garbage, dropping pressure after a few miles. It seems unlikely that they would be expected to reach 50 mph. I have a book on German steam locos, which handily gives the maximum speeds for each class, and for a loco with 4’ 6” wheels (1.37m) they range from 50 to 65 kph, which equates to 30 – 40 mph. Hence any loco of that wheel size would have trouble at 50 mph, unless specially balanced. As for the Marsh boilers, their reputation was stained by the performance of I1 No 600, which, when new, was given the task of running the Royal Train from Victoria to Epsom Downs, and failed miserably. However, it had been given a rather unfair challenge for what was intended to be a suburban tank; a fairly long non-stop (hopefully) run on a severely graded line with a heavy train and a passenger who expected the utmost punctuality. Since the comment about the boilers being “garbage” seems to be derived from one person’s opinion of a 20-year-old, “foreign” loco design foisted on ex- SECR crews, I would be tempted to take the idea with a pinch of salt as it smacks of someone with an axe to grind. Even with the best boiler design, various minor problems can give rise to dropping pressure; poor coal, clinker in the grate, priming, scale, mechanical failure or fireman’s mistake, so condemning the boiler design on this basis could be a little unfair. The boiler was only part of the equation, the rest of the design played a great part, as shown when later they were rebuilt as I1X with much better boilers, but only regarded as then having “acceptable performance”. The I2 boiler was an enlargement of the I1 design, which itself was based on Robert Billinton’s Radial tanks’ boiler, although with larger tubes which gave a smaller surface area, and increased water volume. As others have noted, both gave reasonable service when used as replacement boilers on such classes as the E4 Radials. The even larger boiler that Marsh designed for his C3 0-6-0’s, although initially less than perfect when combined with the rest of the machine, proved an excellent beast after some minor tweaking, when applied to the C2X, B2X and the E5 and E6 rebuilds. The last class, E6X, were considered the best Radial tanks the company possessed, and the C2X were the mainstay of Brighton goods workings into the fifties. Meanwhile, the C3’s just poodled around the Weald before disappearing soon after Nationalisation. The reason why they lasted so long was because of the war and money issues. They weren't the best or revolutionary, they were good enough for whatever the task was, except push-pull passenger trains. A life of nearly 50 years is very good going for a steam locomotive, whatever the circumstances. They evidently eventually, if belatedly, found their niche at Southampton Docks, alongside the USA Tanks. They weren't meant for that type of work. This last comment rather sums up the whole situation.

Bradley (RCTS Volume 3) notes the use of four E2's in London, as per @tythatguy1312 's listing above, during the coal strike of 1926, as well as 2109 at Tunbridge Wells West on local passenger duties. No doubt their use depended on their being easily accessible from the shed - it might have been difficult to do much movement of locos on shed with only limited personnel available, and passengers were probably grateful to have any train running.

Thankyou for posting those two links. The amount of disinformation on both of them has confirmed the wisdom of me not getting too close to YouTube, and especially makes me very glad I have never used Facebook or Twitter, with their rather unsavoury underclass of participants. Whoever would have thought that in a sane world there would be gang wars concerning Thomas! At least they explain the amount of negative ideas you have been spreading. The writer of that Southern book "Footplate Days on the Southern", Harvey Norman, was recounting his experiences of the class at Herne Hill on the SE&CR. The E2's were only allocated there in 1936, once electrification of the Brighton lines to Victoria was virtually complete. They replaced the venerable Kirtley T Class 0-6-0T class, that had been the mainstay of the LCDR and later SECR piloting work at Victoria and Herne Hill for almost fifty years. The E2's thus arrived already 20 years old and past the first flush of youth, and placed in the hands of ex-South Eastern men, who, no doubt, were a bit put out by the newcomers, which, admittedly, were not a great advancement. It has been shown, almost from the beginning of steam, that many depots are reluctant to accept any change, and will occasionally do almost anything to register their disfavour, whilst others embrace the opportunity and take advantage of the new(er) equipment. A prime example was the LMS Compound, which was detested at many of the depots they were sent to, with stories of various failures being circulated, yet the crews on the Glasgow & South Western embraced them with open arms and extracted phenomenal performances from them. So we might have a jaundiced view of the newcomers, with crews relishing in stories of their pitfalls, perhaps ignoring the fact that such failures could happen to any loco, no matter how famous or well maintained. They may not have bothered to get to grips with the foibles of the locos, each perhaps having its own quirks, and maybe not giving them the attention they deserved, such as ensuring that the grates were not blocked with clinker after long periods on shunting duties. Comments on their braking habits might also have been influenced by their experience of the T Class, which had both Westinghouse and vacuum brakes, with the latter, a rather less powerful brake, probably more used in service. On the Brighton line, before the transfer date, there don't appear to be any negative stories, apart from rough riding on passenger duties; one account describing them as "good engines".

Four E4's received the I2 pattern boiler, and were subsequently known as E4X, and the larger boiler required various modifications to the tanks etc. The result was fairly expensive, and not very successful. Bradley (RCTS) noted "It may only have been an impression, but in Brighton days the E4X's always appeared to work more than their share of goods duties as well as frequently spending quite lengthy periods yard shunting." All subsequent re-boilering involved the smaller I1 boiler, which seemed to give adequate service for the rest of their lives. There were also two D3X rebuilds using the I2 boiler design, another unsuccessful experiment, partly because the higher pitched boiler affected the centre of gravity, making them unsteady at speed. Part of the problem with the boiler design was its small heating area, combined with a greater water content, which would have reduced its capacity to deliver sufficient steam when working hard. It should be noted that both these rebuilt classes had larger driving wheels than the E2's, reducing the r.p.m. for any given speed, and perhaps making the steaming easier.

Found this collection which may be useful - https://www.vintag.es/2016/09/treasures-from-grandmas-attic.html colour photos from 1939 such as these Lots of other pre-war gems, including the rails on the quay at Wells-next-the Sea

Why do you want to fix it? The E2 was intended as a shunting tank, and, with 4' 6" diameter wheels, it seems a rather rash experiment to see whether it might work as a commuter train loco, when a wide open regulator would be required. They weren't even superheated, which might have helped the situation. Interesting photo though, as it appears to have only four head-code irons, missing the ones that should be on the smokebox door.

This drawing of M S & L R origin (pre-GCR) from the Swithland Signal Works collection might be of interest. Helpfully it states "Slope variable" but all, apart from the hedging and ditching bits, are drawn as 1:1.5, or 34° from the horizontal.

Distant views but these may be of interest, both taken from https://www.vintag.es/2017/09/29-incredible-color-photos-that.html The second one is actually from the fifties, but I don't think things changed much in the countryside.

I've done a bit of manipulation and guesstimation and come up with the following dimensions. Partly based on the adjacent Open A(?) and the fact that the GWR seemed to standardise on having the end platforms on their Crocodiles around 9' 6", the overall length of the Crocodile scales at around 53', which suggests they are Crocodile F's, of some variety or other. The loads appear to be around 48 feet long, 6' 6" wide and around 8' 6" high, possibly less given the timber baulks underneath. If they are intended for military use, I would suggest that they might have been involved in the infra-structure works in preparation for the main building of the MOD site, perhaps tanks, culverts, underpasses or shelters, although, as @Nearholmer has pointed out, they don't appear to be particularly robust to be simply buried. If they are more military orientated, it seems unlikely they would have been delivered before the MOD sidings were in use, and simply parked in the nearby goods yard.

Whilst browsing through Britain From Above, fortunately back on line, I came across a series of views of Warminster station, and noticed two rather strange loads in the goods yard, and wondered what they might be. I have searched the forum for "Warminster" and nothing has come up, so I am hoping it hasn't been discussed before.

I don't think the Highland "River" class could have caused any damage to the track before the sale to the Caledonian. There was confrontation between the Mechanical and Civil engineers at Inverness, the latter complaining that the locos were too heavy for the structures on the line. The situation wasn't helped by the two that turned up at Perth on delivery being found to be some 6 tons heavier than the designers had calculated. As a result they only ran clearance trials, and wouldn't have had many opportunities to spread any track. The Civil Engineer got his comeuppance after Grouping, when the Rivers returned to the Highland, and ran perfectly satisfactorily despite there being only minimal upgrading of the infrastructure, principally the Tay Bridge (not that one) at Dalguise, which was in need of repair anyway. The later "Clan" class, although over 10 tons lighter than the "Rivers", as @Metropolitan H says, had a higher hammer-blow, and thus had a greater impact on the underline structures, although whether this could be said to actually damage the track itself is debatable. It was some time before the full understanding of the differences between dynamic and static loading on structures was fully appreciated.

This may have been true in the early days, when the engineers were struggling to match growing traffic with the equipment available, but regarding the singles under discussion, the second wave as it were, this wasn't so prevalent. Most survived around thirties years, by which time they were thoroughly worn out, and there would have been little that could be recycled, as the technology had advanced, although on some lines, such as the GWR, there had been periodic improvements, such as boilers, and it is possible they were compatible with other classes, and could be re-used. I don't think any of this era were rebuilt as 2-4-0's, and only a couple of experimental GWR singles were rebuilt as 4-4-0's, the others of this persuasion were 2-4-0's. The reconstruction of the Sir Daniel class of single into useful 0-6-0's was an exception to the rule, and would make fascinating subjects for RTR! As regards the tank engines cited, the Stroudley "Pre-Terriers" only two of the three used boilers from earlier locos, the Raigmores 2-2-2, the third receiving a totally new boiler. The initial batches of the GNR J23 Class (later LNER J50) 0-6-0 tanks, consisting of 20 locos, did use re-used boilers, but these were all taken from the notorious 0-8-2 tanks, which had been rebuilt with larger boilers. The third batch of ten similarly used this type of recycled boiler, but three had been ordered for fitting to Stirling singles, but only one of them actually reached a single (No 872) the others having served time on the 0-8-2 tanks instead. (Courtesy N Groves RCTS GN Locomotive History)

As @Gordonwis suggests, there were around 26 classes under the 89 banner, although some were minor variants. The only other 0-6-0T outside this range was the BR 80 - the Einheitslok shunter equivalent. There was another class the model might be considered representational of, the BR 89.80, just two Borsig built clones for the Mecklenburgische Staatsbahn, small beer compared with the over 200 Prussian T3's.

To complete the piece regarding Caledonian thirling:- HE WAGONS INVOLVED Eight coal companies entered thirling arrangements with the Caledonian. The CR numbers of 4,371 wagons and their dedicated users are shown in the table below. The numbers allocated to these wagons occupied two large blocks from 51725-54124 and 57200-58670, plus 56500-56999. These numbers indicate that they were charged to the capital account. The 900 old wagons in the table were taken over by the Caledonian from the coal companies. The new wagons were all built by the Caley except for one batch of 200 from Pickering. The CR numbers were 52825-53024, originally Cadzow Coal numbers 500-699, but probably taken over by the CR as soon as they were built. Solid buffered wagons to Diagram 22 predominated, with the exception of the 800 wagons numbered 57400-57999, 58271-58370 and 58371-58470, all of which were built to Diagram 46, the sprung buffered development of Diagram 22. Random numbers, mostly in the 50XXX series, were allocated to a further 749 wagons, making 5,120 wagons in total. When the thirling arrangements reached their expiry date, John Watson Ltd threatened legal action over a claim to purchase the 1,000 thirled wagons from the Caledonian. The Board of Directors wrote to Watson, stating their willingness to facilitate settlement.4 The remaining parties to the thirling agreements seem to have handed the rights to their wagons back to the Caledonian.

Returning to railways.... This is the full wording from the Railway Archive magazine article Thirled Wagons (Railway Archive No 34) The term `thirled wagons' referred to a peculiarly Scottish practice and related to a system introduced by the North British Railway in 1887, in which the company purchased traders' wagons and then assigned them solely to the traffic of that trader. In some cases, new wagons were purchased with funds loaned by the trader and then `thirled' to that trader. In one case, the NBR actually paid for new wagons to be thirled to a trader in an area where competition for traffic was particularly fierce. Indeed, it was competition for traffic with the Caledonian Railway, or rather the avoidance of it, that lay at the root of the NBR's adoption of the thirling system. The NBR had long enjoyed a virtual monopoly of traffic in the mining area of New Monkland, which lay between Bathgate and Airdrie. However, the CR had plans to tap into the area and it was the purpose of these thirling agreements to bind traders to the NBR for a number of years, usually twenty-five, or for the duration of the trader's coal lease. The agreements usually included a clause requiring the trader to oppose, or at least not support, any scheme of new lines by a rival railway company, i.e. the Caledonian. In the years 1887 to 1891, the NBR spent £166,578 acquiring 5,891 wagons from twenty-six coalmasters. Some of the agreements included provisions to increase 'the number of thirled wagons as traffic grew and, by 1910, the total number of such wagons on the NBR had grown to 7,662. Not to be outdone, the CR retaliated by securing thirling agreements with coal masters in the heart of the Lanarkshire coalfield, around Hamilton, Motherwell and Wishaw. Agreements were made in 1890 to 1892 with eight coal masters for a total of 4,770 wagons but these were of much shorter duration than those of the NBR and most expired before the end of 1911. In 1910, the number of CR thirled wagons had reduced to 3,275 wagons on the traffic of four coal masters. In contrast, some of the NBR thirling agreements, particularly those with James Nimmo Ltd and William Baird & Co. Ltd, lasted well into the post-Grouping period. It is believed that Baird's agreements were terminated only on the formation of Bairds & Scottish Steel Ltd in 1938. In March 1892, the general managers of the NBR and CR agreed not to enter into any further thirling agreements but those already in place had to be left to run their course. The topic is also covered in Mike Williams' book on Caldeonian Wagons, including this extract: DETAILS OF THE THIRLING AGREEMENT (From Caledonian Railway Wagons – Mike Williams) The following extract from the agreement with John Watson covers the salient points of the relationship. The first party was the Caledonian Railway; the second party was Watson. The CR General Manager reported in July 1890 that the agreement had been signed.' The first party shall, with all reasonable despatch, provide and thereafter maintain and renew at their own expense not less than 750 eight-ton coal wagons, that is to say, 500 during this season, or by 31st December, 1890, and the remaining 250 in the following spring, or by 31st March, 1891, which wagons shall, during the subsistence of this Agreement, be appropriated to and used or employed by the parties hereto exclusively for the traffic of the second party's collieries at Eddlewood, aforesaid, and at Earnock on the first party's Railway, consigned by the second party on and by the first party's Railways, and shall not be used or employed for any other traffic than that of the second party on or via the first party's Railways. The said wagons shall be the exclusive and absolute property of the first party, and shall at all times be maintained and renewed by them, and shall bear their ordinary nameplate, and shall also be marked as follows, vizt., John Watson's Eddlewood and Earnock Collieries.'