LMS2968

Some are born to greatness, others have it thrust upon them. 8266 complete with headboard wheels the Thames - Clyde Express into Trent following the failure of the diagrammed 5XP, 2 July 1955. Photo J Kent / Stanier 8F Locomotive Socy Archive. This must have come as a surprise at Paddington when 8387 brought in the 7.10 Salop - Padd following the failure of the D1000 Western, 30 July 1963. Photo George Staddon / Neville Stead Colletion / 8F Socy Archive. D1000 itself failed on the Padd - Wolverhampton and was assisted by 8179, as seen at Leamington. Date unknown, JRP Hunt / 8F Socy Archive. Possibly the biggest disaster befell the Down Caledonian. The Class 40 failed at crewe and a Big Lizzie went on. This suffered injector troubles and was replaced at Carnforth - by an 8321 running tender first, which got the train to Carlisle. You can read all about it in the caption, but I don't think that's Bill Starvis.

It isn't just the brackets. The rocking levers were quite noticeable and can be seen in a photo Page 29 of the Irwell Photographic Supplement to the Book of the Princess Royals (2007, Irwell Press Ltd, ISBN 1-903266-75-0). It us dated 28 May 1960 and the levers are still there. As withdrawal came 18 months later. it is very unlikely they were changed in the remaining time.

I believe the two-gear set up was fitted in 1937. I've heard it said that it was trial for the gear for the Coronations but it was converted after 6220 entered traffic, si that can't be the case. But it carried this system to withdrawal and never regained its inside gear; photos taken just before withdrawal prove this.

Ah yes, but now ask the fitters . . .

It was George Stephenson's reply to a question about a train should it hit a cow on the line. In his broad Geordie accent he replied, "It would be very unfortunate - for the coo."

Realistically, you wanted every pair of vehicles to take up the slack in the same manner, so all long (three link or Instanter in the long position) couplings or all short (screw shackle or Instaner in the short position).

Having a big interest in marine engineering, I do find all this very interesting, but wonder how we moved from locomotive cylinders to marine water-tube boilers?

Apart from the final two, all the Caprotti Black fives had a single central drive shaft to drive the valves on both sides; 71000 had a shaft each side but one also drove the inside valves. Whether or not you could make a single shaft strong enough to drive three or four sets of valves is a debatable point. It took time to get this gear right and there were problems even with those same Black Fives in the late 1940s. How it might have behaved earlier is a moot point, although it seems to have worked well enough on the LNWR Claughtons in the 1930s.

I remember seeing Class 4 tanks in Liverpool Central around this time, presumably from Trafford Park?

I'm not aware of such a rule, and it wouldn't be much use for very long, given that wagons would be resorted into trains for different destinations and often reversing the direction of travel. I don't recall lifting the coupling off one wagon just to drop on the opposing coupling.

If so, I didn't find it and I've looked, admittedly for parts from 6152. This is the bearing for the expansion link and seems to have once belonged to 6136.

Both - the rebuilt dreadnoughts at least - used rocking levers from outside to inside; the Dreadnoughts as built had the valve gear between the frames driving the outside valves. The Claughtons' rocking lever was ahead of the cylinders; the rebuilt Dreadnoughts had it behind. The way this was arranged was sufficiently robust to be used for Stanier's Big Lizzies.

My problem is Glazebrook and Glazebury!

I think you mean Gathurst on the L&YR Wigan - Southport line. Garston was quite a few miles away in south Liverpool!

No, we all make mistakes. It's called being human.

Really? When did that happen? It's news to me. Some Prince of Wales class got outside Walsheart's valve gear, but the cylinders stayed inside. Try 245 Horwich Crabs!

C.J. Bowen Cook designed the Claughton class with four cylinders, all driving the leading coupled axle, specifically to eliminate the need for balance weights in the wheels as these would cause hammerblow. Since there wouldn't be a dynamic supplement to the static axle load, he intended to take that static axle load above what would normally be acceptable to the Chief Civil Engineer. Unfortunately, this was beyond the CCE's understanding and he rejected the design, which then had to be redrawn with lower weights, most particularly in the boiler. Perhaps C.J.B.C. was ahead of his time?

Some LNWR Claughtons got 135 degree cranks too.

'Necessary' and 'Desirable' aren't always the same thing. Design of anything, including steam locomotives, is always a compromise, and each configuration, two, three and four cylinders has its own advantages - and disadvantages. Robin Riddles went for the simplicity and ease of servicing / preparation of two outside cylinders, but needed three to get the power for a Class 8 Pacific. This also gives more even torque, but four cylinders give better balancing and help eliminate weights and hammerblow (yes, I do know about Bulleid's system). It all depends . . .

Not at my time of life.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well with Horny Dublo three rail!

Or a gramophone and a stack of Transacord records?

Likewise the L&Y with Albert Hoy's 2-6-2Ts, intended to work the Liverpool - Southport services to the electrics' timings while the line was being electrified. They could do it too, but were redundant once the e.m.u's. were fully available and were then relegated to shunting, for which they were totally unsuited and so earned a poor reputation. So how did an inside cylinder 2-6-2T get into a discussion of outside cylinder 0-6-0 tender engines? Not a clue!

And a special like for JVol4140!

I'll agree that lubricant was an issue but so too was the design of the axleboxes, particularly in relation to the bearing surface area. It was marginal on the 4Fs and they did tend to run hot more often than other classes, but I'll agree that this tendency has been much exaggerated and overstated by many writers; generally the 4F were a decent, reliable engine. It was when these boxes were applied to the Austin 7s and Garretts that the real troublers arose as they were incapable of absorbing the piston thrusts of these much bigger engines.