LMS2968

I've never going back to the 1950s had the least interest in diesel or electric locos, so the end of steam was the cut-off date. Despite this, I did work as a guard on both forms of traction in the early to mid-1970s, but it didn't last long: the uninteresting motive power mixed with very degraded lines - four tracks down to single where still open at all - were not good for morale. I realise this won't be a universal viewpoint and if you do enjoy the modern scene, fair enough. It just wasn't for me.

Don't work with an automatic!

There might - or might not - have been harmony in the higher echelons but at ground level, men, certainly those who fell to the LMS, were very much wedded to their re-Grouping roots. This enmity was apparent not only LNWR - Midland but even LNWR - LYR, which two companies had been 'chums' for many years. The L&YR men liked the Midland influence no more than those of the LNWR; have a read of Eric Mason ('Rivington'), My Life with Locomotives (1962) Ian Allan Ltd.

A bit like the LNWR - Midland war but with extra snow. Had both the Caley and NBR finished up in the same group, it would hardly have stopped the squabbling, and if that group had been the LMS, they'd have had a civil war both north and south of the border.

In the Valleys, wagon brakes would be pinned down at the start from the top and then released at the bottom so the 56XX weren't doing a lot of braking. This would not be the case on the S&DJR where the loco did do the braking. The gradients were more varied between up and down on the S&DJR. Their 7F 2-8-0s had an immensely powerful brake and anything going there for trials would be compared with it. Even the Stanier 8Fs, which had a very good brake, were not really accepted until later on when traffic diminished and train weights had reduced.

There's no date for the video but prior to September 1990 - Barton Moss Jct box is still in. I suspect this platform might possibly have been part of the Rocket 150 celebrations. Various steam specials, including shuttles with the Coal Tank, ran in connection with that.

The Garratts weren't exactly poplar with crews, but what they'd have thought at getting a 1361 Class 0-6-0ST in exchange on a 1,500 tons train is probably not repeatable!

The slate blue-grey livery was applied to 6234 in March 1946. This seems to have lasted until 1948 when black replaced it and a further repaint came in March 1952 when BR green was applied. 6233 was given smoke deflectors while still carrying Crimson Lake livery but no others are known.

Where to classify an individual class could be problematic if simple formulae were followed. The Horwich Crab started life as 4 but this was soon changed to 5P4F as they could handle heavier trains than the Compounds, although still classed as only equal to the Derby 'Big Goods'. In 1938 the classification was again changed to 5P5F, although wartime brought them back to a simple 5F, no P classification. In BR days they were 5MT or just 5, but later reclassed for political purposes as 6P5F, thereby allowing them to work the heavier weekend excursion trains which otherwise required a Baby Scot or 5X Jubilee. No theoretical bases involved, either tractive effort or boiler ratios, but the results of experience in traffic.

You're right. Both Dave and I should have gone to Specsavers!

Nice to see a photo of 8666 in earlier times. I have several shots of this engine, which showed its displeasure at the coming end of steam and winning immortality by dropping off the track at Rose Grove on 2 August 1968.

Theoretical ability for steam locomotion was always at best a guide as there are so many other variables. Free gas area through tube bank and grate area are fixed values, but the actual tractive effort varies with speed, and isn't calculable anyway but must be measured, hence the need for a dynamometer car. Factors to be considered are the ability to raise steam, the cylinders' ability to use that steam at different speed rates, and the wheels' adhesion with the rails. Free gas area and grate area do indeed have an effect on the steaming ability but so too does the draughting, not included above, and the type and proportions of the chimney and blast pipe arrangements. Then there is the quality of the coal and the fireman's ability at feeding it through the firehole, not to mention the state of blockage of the grate, firebars and amount of smokebox char. Then there is the degree of superheat. The cylinders' abilities vary with the type of valve gear, the valve travel, the ability of the steam to enter and leave the cylinders without restriction and the driver's skill in choosing the optimal combination of regulator and cut off are all further factors. As an example, a diagram for the Midland / LMS 2Ps was to assist the Pacifics on the heavy overnight trains out of Euston. The Pacifics' drivers hated this: however useful the 2P was when climbing Camden Bank, once the train was into its stride the 2Ps' contribution diminished as speed rose to the point where the Pacifics were not only pulling the train unaided but actually pushing the 2Ps as well. The very constricted steam passages past the cylinders to the steam chests below did not allow the steam a free passage into and out of the cylinders. Generally, shed foremen knew what a class of engine, and often what an individual engine within that class, could do and allocated accordingly.

Was 'the pointy end' a technical railway term, as it was when describing ships by the Royal Navy?

The genuine article. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.6&lat=51.29720&lon=-2.42372&layers=168&b=1

Completely agree, but equally thorough and readable are 'The Skye Railway' (Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh) and 'The Callander & Oban Railway' by the same author.

A couple of early maps, one dated 1846 and the other 1848-50. New Bailey prison is still there pre-dating the L&YR goods yard which would occupy both sides of the L&MR viaduct from Ordsall Lane. In both cases the L&YR terminates at Salford and only the LNWR goes on to Victoria, but without platforms at Salford.

I've never understood how anyone could think that they were semi-streamlined!

The Jubilees could be 5Xs or Red 'uns to distinguish them from the Black 'uns; this went all the way to 1967 by which time they'd been green longer than they'd ever been red! The Patriots were ALWAYS Baby Scots. The Coronations were referred to as Big Lizzies in Carlisle but simply Big 'uns at Crewe. 6201 was 'Corky Liz' because of the number of oiling points on her four sets of valve gear, all sealed by corks. Black Fives, besides Black 'uns, were more usually 'Fives' and 8Fs 'Eights'. Enginemen referred to a loco by its number, not its name; it was the number which was on the shed arrangements board when they went to see what they were taking. Bob Essery recalled being told by an engineman in his early days as a cleaner when pointing to their engine's nameplate that it was just more weight to carry around. On the LMR the number would be the previous LMS number devoid of the 4 prefix. It was easier to say; for example, sixty-two thirty-three than four-six-two-three-three. It should also be realised that the situation in the Works wasn't the same as what happened in the Running Department. For example, the Stanier Crabs, as previously mentioned, were known to enginemen as Crabs, same as the Horwich version. They did the same work with equal ability so to them, there was no real difference. But things were otherwise in the Shops: very few parts were interchangeable between the two classes, despite one having been developed from the other. To the Works they were very different machines and treated accordingly.

The 'Skem Jazzer'.

Only in the enthusiast world. To railwaymen they were simply Crabs, same as the Horwich version.

'Caribbean Class' is a new one to me, and that doesn't mention that the Crabs were designed by George Hughes and merely 'interfered with' By Henry Fowler. There are two origins to the name, which was used both on and off the railway: the steep inclination of the very large cylinders and valve gear reminded people of that crustacean; and those same cylinders and their offset thrusts threw the back end from side to side when steam was on, thus giving them a visible sideways movement.

Difficult to answer. Several of the current preserved lines were established before the end of steam, two in 1960 so predated steam's end by eight years. Would there have been a Dai Woodham? Probably not in the 1960s but who knows in the 1980S?

The plate frames ended just ahead of the leading coupled wheels but were carried forward by extension bar frames. The cylinders sat on top of the extension frames. But I agree that the 'plate' behind the slide bars is a splasher for the trailing wheels in the bogie.

Cox's job was, to some extent, fault finding on the mechanical side so he tended to report all the negatives of the designs of various companies, as well as new LMS ones. The Horwich Crabs and Baby Scots were both new designs at the time and had had little opportunity to develop defects over time; the Crabs developed few of these although the Baby Scots, after an excellent start, went very much downhill post war. He was very critical of LNWR engines which were mostly lightly built and then worked hard, so maintenance costs were high. On the whole, they did the work well but from a crew's point of view, footplate conditions were extremely poor, a result of their great age (Old Midland and L&YR engines were probably little better). He was generally appreciative of Midland designs with their comparatively low maintenance costs. To at least some extent, these engines were being underworked on their home railway and had not been on the other lines long enough for problems to become acute. Contrary to popular belief, the 4F axleboxes were not bad (they weren't particularly good either) until their use was extended to bigger engines, such as the Garratts and Austin Sevens. The original Royal Scot boxes, bigger but Midland inspired, had problems too but could be and were replaced by the Stanier type.

I think you're being a bit over simplistic here. The Claughtons dated back to 1913 and did a lot of excellent work, particularly during the First World War. After that war, traffic demands rose and certainly they were then found wanting. Moreover, they hadn't aged well and design defects, not previously apparent, began to appear, exacerbated by their being pushed beyond their designed criteria. The Hughes Dreadnoughts were designed for L&YR conditions: relatively short runs at medium speed with frequent restarts, often against severe gradients; they were never intended for the long distance, high speed, non-stop runs of the WCML. Both suffered heavy coal consumption but due to the single Schmidt valve ring, the replacement of which brought the consumption of both classes down to reasonable figures. E. Stewart Cox, no fan of anything from the L&YR, although (or possibly because) he served his time at Horwich, reported on all the Dreadnoughts' faults but admitted that the cures were both simple, quick and inexpensive, but by that time withdrawals had already begun so far too late. The Midland Compounds, good engines for the Midland, were even less suitable for the heavy ex-LNWR conditions, and if you want to talk about sluggish, look no further than the Midland 2P. I don't know why but we seem to have settled on the wrong side of the Pennines for this thread!