LMS2968

Nah! Definitely not.

Yes, rather like 'Train of Events' with Jack Warner!

While all that is true, except at sheds and possibly terminus stations, the columns would see long periods between use thereby allowing the supply tank plenty of time to replenish, but getting the water into tenders and tanks had a greater urgency. But note the word 'practicable' in my post above regarding the height of the supply tanks.

You made the supply tank as high above the columns as practicable to give a pressure head to the water. Having it only just above the level would give a very restricted flow rate, not ideal if you've put the bag in during a station stop. The higher the supply, the greater the pressure and the greater the flow.

The answers here on Page 127 of Michael R Bailey and John Glithero's The Engineering and History of Rocket (2000) National Railway Museum, York ISBN 1 900747 18 9. It suggests via Robert Stannard that the smokebox was fitted some time in November 1830 during repairs from an accident on Chat Moss. The reason was to ease the removal of smokebox char and also to allow a greater volume of it to be carried before this removal became imperative. It would also have smoothed out the pulses from the blastpipe giving a more constant vacuum. It's worth mentioning that both Novelty and San Pareil exceeded the Rainhill Trials requirements, but only for short periods. Their problems were more to do with reliability over a long distance, and in the latter case excess weight, a lack of springs and spark throwing.

The suggestion to use multiple tubes in Rocket's boiler came from Henry Booth, the L&MR Secretary and Treasurer, and not from either of the Stephensons although it was Robert who had to make it work in practice. It was on this basis that Booth claimed one third of of the £500 premium the engine won at Rainhill. Rocket's external firebox was also water jacketed around the sides and top, and was later fitted with a water jacketed backplate.

Love Vol1056

Many British engines used test cocks and a single gauge glass, the GWR especially, but they aren't easy to read, especially at night. Water tends to flash into steam at atmospheric pressure so making the distinction can be difficult.

Those engines loaned to the Big Four railways were worked as common user by there own men, same as all other types of engine. The first thing a crew had to do on reaching an S160 footplate for the first time was to figure out what the controls did as these were often very different to usual British custom. It helped if they were relieving another crew who had already been through this process and could drop a few hints.

Possibly, but you also need to bear in mind that the L&YR Coal Engines weren't tried either, although one of those would probably have scoured the roof of most Midland tunnels. The S&D 2-8-0, the G2 and the Austin Seven all weighed in about the 60 to 65 ton mark, the ROD was between 72 and 74 tons., which seems a more likely explanation.

That was all after the Grouping and under the management of a different - and more lenient - CCE. It could not have happened in Midland Railway days. Of course, there were several RODs on the LMS in the mid-1920s but I don't think they were used over the Midland Division. The trials for the basis for the new goods engine, which became the G3 a.k.a. Austin Seven, was between a Super D and an S&DJR 2-8-0; they did not involve an ROD, which must tell us something.

Ted Talbot in 'The LNWR Eight-Coupled Goods Engines' Edward Talbot (2002) Published by the author ISBN 0-9542787-0-4 has a bit to say on those engines taken into LNWR service, sometimes purchased but sometimes loaned and returned later. He suggests they were more popular with enginemen than is commonly suggested; despite the left hand drive and however comfortable or otherwise their footplates might have been, they would be palaces in comparison to a Super D! They had steel fireboxes, cheap to build but needing high maintenance and repair work in a time without adequate water treatment. Many did or soon would need inner firebox replacement, and then it was a case of do you replace a steel firebox with another expensive steel firebox or with a much more expensive copper one? The railways probably ran them until repairs were needed and then either withdrew or returned them. Being non-standard to the owning / borrowing railway hardly helped. In 1927, the LMS purchased 75 still unsold engines. Of these, twenty were put into traffic, but the remainder had been bought for their tenders alone, of which there was then a shortage. Repairs to the tenders cost £400 each - less than the LMS paid for the engine and tender together! The rest were dismantled to provide spares, including boilers, for the twenty purchased and the thirty already on the books but it was unlikely that this happened due to early withdrawal. Incidentally, they were known as 'Military Marys' on the LNWR from their more official designation of MM for Ministry of Munitions.

'Suitable' comes in many forms. The Midland had severe weight restrictions over its infrastructure, especially bridges, and a heavy engine such as the R.O.D. would not have passed the Chief Civil Engineer's restrictions, however low the individual axle weights might be. The Midland already had its own design of 2-8-0 used on the S&DJR but wouldn't use that on its own lines; there was a list of parts needed to be removed whenever one had to make the journey to Derby Works. We're talking about a railway which referred to the 4F as the 'Big Goods'.

c1952 JVol2024 A double chimney Ivatt Class 4 blowing - a very rare photo indeed!

Probably, but LMS Pacifics from Scotland were used on locals to Salop in order to turn on the triangle there, Crewe's 60ft turntable was too small to take them. This applied to engines from Scotland to allow them to make the return journey while 6202 was almost always confined to the Euston - Lime Street services. Scot 6142 is on Edge Hill shed: that coaler is unmistakeable!

Not exactly. The brake and whistle were both fed from the same manifold but that would still have provided plenty of steam to supply the whistle. But what was the code for stop pushing? The broken steam pipe was directing a jet of steam across the firebox backplate so I rather doubt that John Axon could have got close enough to reach the whistle handle, high up in the roof, even from the fireman's side. But even had the banker been coupled up and applied the brakes, I suspect that a breakaway would be the most likely result.

When running with a banker with a loose-coupled train there a few things you had to bear in mind. The couplings at the front of the train would be stretched while the buffers to the rear would be compressed, so care was need in both applying steam and starting to brake. So you needed to bear this in mind as you were running and how you could forget there was a banker attached is not something I suggest is likely.

This was particularly so with vans, which might be labelled as 10T but usually carry about three. That then left an issue od distributing the weight evenly across the floor so that one wheel wasn't heavily loaded while its diagonally opposite number was very light and likely to derailment.

I've been over both those bridges so many times. The railway bridge was called Ethelfleda.

Hmm? Don't try it with a 600 ton train behind you!

Indeed, as far forward as the firebox backplate!

'Trimming' was usually done after taking on coal to level the top and ensure it wasn't foul of the loading gauge or likely to fall over the sides. 'Pulling forward' would be carried out during the journey, usually on the move, and was also sometimes necessary on so-called self-trimming tenders. It was necessary to know where the overbridges were when doing this.

That's what I said! The units were rejects from down south somewhere. I don't really know; my knowledge of Springs Branch allocations stops at Black Fives in December 1967!

Or Springs Branch, 20 July 2020, brand new!