Crimson Rambler

Perhaps this booklet might be of interest also - ISBN 0 906585 01 S:- The cover photo shews a ball of puddled iron immediately after it has been taken out of the puddling furnace while on its way to be hammered. Iron puddling was reckoned to be the toughest job! Crimson Rambler

A question if I may please Stephen @Compound2632 - were the ED examples of the three-plank drop side wagons, as they were not in revenue service, given their own number series or were they just mixed up with the others? Crimson Rambler

I had hoped that @Compound2632 would have identified the wagon as one of the Midland's 4-plank examples but you have convinced me it wasn't. Thank you also for posting view B of the Sharnbrook accident - this was one of the two that I have not seen. There appear to have been five in the series - list attached is taken from the Pouteau catalogue:- With you posting view B the only one I have not seen is view D. Just for fun here are views A and C:- Originally I assumed this series of photos were Derby officials but the article in Railway Archive No 16 from which the list and view E were extracted suggests not. However, it would seem there may have been other photos taken - witness the photographer present in view E alongside the 4-plank wagon? Or is he taking view D? Crimsom Rambler

The following is a detail taken from View E of the series of photos published by Pouteau recording the Sharnbrook accident of February 1909. The four-plank open wagon caught my eye and I'm hoping that @Compound2632 will be able to say something about it - I'm thinking that it has a Midland look about it. It is standing on a goods yard siding while the road next to it gives trailing access to the down passenger line. Crimson Rambler

OK @Compound2632 I wrote the last post in a rush, so I shall expand. Yes the thirty Class S 0-6-0Ts had boiler-side clacks simply because they were fitted with condensing gear. In consequence they were fitted with two direct-driven feed pumps as well as a single injector on the fireman's side. As befits a later Johnson class the latter delivered through an internal feed-pipe. The pumps were fitted because at that time injectors could stop working if the entering feed was too hot - a very real risk when condensing. The Class U 0-6-0Ts, being non-condensing, were provided with two injectors and followed later practice with internal feed-pipes. In these and other later tank classes the clack valves were part of a common casting that included the steam valves. Crimson Rambler

In the early Johnson classes (and Kirtley rebuilds) the clack valves were mounted on the sides of the boiler and as remarked they served as non-return valves not least to prevent the contents of the boiler flowing out of the injector overflow when the latter were not in use. The injectors in these classes were usually fitted either behind the cab footsteps or underneath the dragbox. Later Johnson tender engine classes, identified by the absence of the boiler-side clacks, were fitted with combination injectors mounted as noted earlier on the 'backhead'. The clack valve was incorporated in the injector body while the feed delivery pipe was routed internally between the stays through the steam space before drooping a bit at its end positioned roughly halfway along the barrel. Tank engines were not fitted with combination injectors despite the absence of boiler-side clacks on the later classes. Hope this helps. Crimson Rambler

In answer to @Compound2632 while B boilers were nominally all the same dimension-wise externally there were differences between the various batches, most notably in tube numbers and diameters. There were some mostly minor external differences such as in the radii of the flanged plates - throat and 'backhead'- stay disposition etc. Regarding the original observation, B boilers fitted to passenger engines (initally 4-4-0s but early in twentieth century 2-4-0s once P boiler construction stopped [1904 from memory]) that had external clack valves, had them fitted to the first ring whereas the equivalent goods engine boilers they were on the middle ring in line with the dome. Sometimes as here when goods engines were rebuilt with an ex-passenger boiler this necessitated an extension in the feed delivery pipes to suit the different clack valve position. Simples! Crimson Rambler

I clean forgot about the Museum's 'Full Steam Ahead' event! But as things turned out I couldn't have gone anyway! Quite possibly the way round the wagons are configured is for the reason you suggest @Compound2632. Perhaps for an intended 'pin brakes down' stop at Ais Gill before the descent. A working timetable might give some information on this. What I wonder is why has No 3002 (ex1234) been given a passenger class B boiler? Normally this sort of lackadaisical practice happened under the LMS and other such abandoned parties not the Midland - the more so as the engine appears to be lined red. It would have new frames in 1911 (Summerson), which together with the red colour suggests the photo is no later than 1910 and I suggest probably a year or two earlier. Crimson Rambler

It appears that in many (most?) cases neither Skinley nor Roche had access to official drawings other than (I suspect) weight diagrams in the case of locos or diagram books for wagons and carriages. Conversely for the remainder of their ranges they probably used nothing other than photos as the basis in conjunction with presumably one or two known dimensions. Hence the observation regarding the vehicle number on the drawing being the same as that in the photo. For these reasons I agree with David Hunt regarding the accuracy of Skinley drawings and as an extension of this I do wonder about the HMRS's involvement with these drawings. Sure, preserve them as recording the situation in a period in railway modelling extant before their (and Roche's) appearance when modellers struggled to have any information, but following the OPC/British Rail arrangement together with the line societies, the NRM and even the HMRS itself, I think a strong case can be made for consigning both ranges to history. Due to the style of presentation/draughtsmanship Roche drawings tend perhaps to inspire more confidence - in this respect they resemble Werrett's work - but a line drawn the wrong length or put in the wrong place is still rubbish no matter how neatly executed. Regarding the wheelbase discrepancy on the Roche drawing and with tongue firmly in cheek, substituting a wheelbase of 11ft - 6ins in place of 10ft is an error of similar magnitude to adopting 18.83mm in place of 16.5mm! Crimson Rambler

Further to @Rail-Online and @Compound2632 - adrawing by F J Roche of a Midland weighting machine van. Hopefully it may be of interest but do please be aware Roche drawings (like Skinley's) were variable in their accuracy. This example looks reasonable but........! For example it bears the same number as the Derby official photo also the end window is on the opposite side but only one of the latter is drawn. Crimson Rambler

Thank you for taking the trouble to unearth these photos @Compound2632 although I must admit none is quite how I see what I have in my mind's eye! Must be getting old. Crimson Rambler

Am I making things up? But I seem to recall seeing a long time ago an official Midland Rly photo of a crane carrying a replacement girder in a bridge replacement job. Crimson Rambler

Many thanks to @Compound2632 for providing the links. So the Midland had five of these cranes - I wonder where they were allocated. From the Graces Guide website it is interesting to see that they are referred to as a Permanent Way Locomotive Crane. Just a thought - I wonder if it was primarily intended for track maintenance and the 'locomotive' bit in the title is because it could drive itself along the track? As the following confirms, the company had previously provided equipment for building St Pancras Station. W H Barlow previously the Chief Engineer (1844 - 1857) was retained by the company to oversee the construction of St Pancras. Did he suggest the advantages of (Appleby) steam cranes to J S Crossley the the Chief Engineer? The Locomotive Dept stayed with hand operated cranes for a little longer? The image in the bottom left shews an Appleby winch chocked up at St Pancras - but what is it pulling? The obvious thing would be the huge timber staging on which they erected/assembled the roof girders. E G Barnes in The Rise of the Midland Railway states (p260) the staging was in three parts, ran on rails and was manhandled by teams of men working to the beating of an iron plate to mark time. Was this wonderful image subsequently replaced by something so prosaic as an Appleby winch? Crimson Rambler

Recently I re-encountered a book I had been given some years ago entitled The Practical Dictionary of Mechanics. It seems it was a multi volume American work although I only have Division VIII, which was a supplementary volume covering the period 1876-1880. The following engraving is taken from it together with the accompanying short descriptive entry. Last summer there were some postings concerning cranes so I thought it might be of interest (or not!). I can happliy admit that I know next to nothing about cranes but the drawing strongly suggests to me it was created by an artist copying a photograph. The goods locomotive appearing in the background is a very fair representation of a Dubs-build Class B 0-6-0. It shews the engine without brakes which is how they were built. The artist has made a good stab at the profile of the footstep plate although he has gone a little awry with the tender. The wagon frame is unusual for the period being of iron but that probably made it easier easier accommodate the drive gearing to the wheels. It is fitted with what appear to be Ellis 8A axleboxes. My suspicion is the crane was tested on the Midland - apart from the engine, the roundhouse has a 'Derby' look about it to my mind - but did the company buy one/some? Crimson Rambler

@Compound2632 with of Mrs Crimson Lake's help I can provide the following pair:- In truth, I'm not sure if these are that much better but for now its probably the best I can do. However I will see if a better picture is possible - focus of the original permitting. In the meantime, my interpretation is that the final digit is probably a 7 while the third could well be an 8, which if I'm correct, would fit your analysis. What do you wagon people think. Crimson Rambler

Whereas I'm pretty sure the second digit is an 8, which given how long she reigned, the odds are therefore making it a Victorian wagon! Joking apart, while I don't have a smartphone I know someone who has. I will borrow it when she returns later today. Crimson Rambler

@Compound2632 after a number of attempts this is about the best I can obtain with my rather basic scanner:- Hopefully you might be able to interpret something! Crimson Rambler

Herewith, in response to @Compound2632's request, the photo of a D299 wagon with the bolt heads visible in the internal ironwork:- It has suffered after being contacted inappropriately by 0-6-0 No 1045 at Breadsall Crossing in (I believe) 1906. It seems the door bang has been fitted with countersunk bolt heads. In this view the wagon has a central strapping present between the stanchions. Conversely in this second view of the accident there is no strapping strip present:- It wasn't removed as a result of the accident, instead it seems to be a deliberate act by possibly 'depot 5' (?). Some of the lower planks exhibit what seem to be plugged bolt holes where the strapping was once present whereas the top and third planks appear never to have been drilled. Am I glad I like exploring Midland locomotives - they are far simpler! Crimson Rambler

Thank you @Compound2632 for the date and name of the accident. I had forgotten the latter and not sure if I ever knew the former! Sorry if the number is a problem - apologies. One other thing I also came across today was another accident piccy which has a partial view of the internal ironwork of a D299. What struck me is that the bolt heads are proud and don't have countersunk heads. I assumed (wrongly I now know) they were always flush. Crimson Rambler

I have not been able to pursue RM Web for a little while, however earlier today going through some photos earlier today I came across this view of a D299 - one for @Compound2632 I thought, (just in case he hasn't already seen it) and I hope it might also be helpful to @magmouse. There doesn't appear to be that much rust on the wagon - but there is a barrel! The engine is No 2344 - Neilson Class M - built in March 1897. The accident took place between 1903 and say 1905/06. I like the enigmatic chalk marks added by shunters etc. I'm not certain of the details but I think the number (14) painted on the solebar within the leading crown plate and also the one immediately behind the headstock (at least I think it's a digit) were something to do with where it was maintained and when it was last done. Ken Werrett did describe a method on one of his drawings that he advised was used by the Midland but I can't readily recall ever seeing what he described on a wagon. Crimson Rambler

Further to @Compound2632 - So, if I'm reading this correctly, with my nose in pp. 26-27, the 1142 / B Class and the 1357 / H Class are identical above footplate level, barring possibly some subtle differences in boiler mountings (which I suspect were smoothed out down the years as boilers were changed); the 1357 sits 2" higher simply because it's got wheels 4" greater in diameter. Looking through photos, the most visible consequence of this is that the buffer beam is deeper - the buffers on the 1327 are visibly below centre-line, as indeed they are on all subsequent classes. Yes, starting with the Dubs Class H effectively the whole engine was jacked up as you describe Stephen. There were a number of other changes - mostly these concerned items between the frames. Incidentally, had the platform remained at its original height then the larger wheeled 0-6-0s would have required crank throw splashers a la 0-4-4Ts and SWJ's earlier GER 0-6-0s. The buffer beams remained 1ft 3ins deep with the buffers dropped in the later classes - buffer centre height above the rail in the 'B' being 3ft 4ins and 3ft 5ins in the 'H'. Having standardized on the higher platform position, the 1698 class was a Class H with the lower edge of the frame dropped by 2ins for the smaller driving wheels. The lower profile of its frame finishing 1.25ins above axle centre height - the well known drawing by Ken Woodhead recording curved profiles between the wheels is incorrect in this respect. Starting with the 1698 class the boiler was pushed forward by an inch. The motion etc essentially was unaltered but longer piston rods etc were fitted and the back of the cylinders revised. This was later accompanied by widening the cab upper side sheets by 3ins - first appearing in the 1798 class. The J and J2 were essentially Neilson Goods but with the vacuum brake omitted and the boiler pitched 2ins higher - they also marked the introduction of cast steel wheels wheels on goods engines. The Class M, comprises two frame designs - all had deeper frames wherein the extra bit appeared above the platform between the leading and driving wheels. However apart (I think) from the first batch Nos 2093-2132 (built by Sharp Stewart in 1892/3) enhanced depth was added in the later engines to the frame where it passed over the crank axle. However this was strengthening not visible externally. RJE/DJ (Midland Locos Vol IV) state the first batch of Class M 0-6-0s had shallow frames (p65) but this is incorrect as inspection of the two Class M photos on p24 will confirm. There were odd detail differences between the batches so modeller beware - examples being deeper outside frames on some, cranked reach rods. Midland engines are fun, while tenders are another story! Crimson Rambler

@Compound2632 wrote:- "Now, there's not currently a kit for the M (which would also do for the Neilson Goods). London Road Models do do a Johnson 0-6-0 but it's 4'11" mineral variety, the Derby-built 1698 class of the 1880s." Just to pontificate if I may please Stephen, the boiler in the Class M was pitched (in round figures) at 7ft 2ins whereas the Neilson Goods retained the earlier dimension of 7ft - 0ins (again rounded). I know RJE/DJ in their Midland locomotive book Vol IV say they were the 'same' but they hadn't referred to the drawings - vide the table on pp26-7 which was produced from original drawings. The 7ft 2ins boiler pitch appeared with the Dubs/Kitson Class J series of 1891/2 - Nos 2023-2092 Incidentally, the Class B had their boilers pitched at 6ft 10ins above the rail because their platform was 2ins lower than the later standard introduced in the Dubs class H. The lower platform results in these engines having deeper splashers than the 1698 class even though both classes had 4ft 10.5ins wheels. I think 'straight link' in L&NWR parlance referred to Allan valve gear while 'curved link' was Stephenson gear. Crimson Rambler

@Rail-Online reminded me of the Settle Speakman article and prompted me to look for it - copy appears below:- Crimson Rambler

With the kind agreement of @Mrkirtley800 I will add a little more in reply to @PenrithBeacon At present I cannot recall an example of a Midland engine where a cylinder was combined with an axlebox guide (but that might mean I'm just not thinking hard enough!). Certainly in several designs the top corners of the guides were cut away to enable the gap between the two to be made as small as practical. During the Kirtly era and for much of SWJ's, the cylinders were cast as 'lefts' and 'rights' and were provided with on their 'sides' with two flanges. One was for where they bolted onto the frame and the other was where the lefthand and righthand castings met on the longitudinal centreline of the engine. This latter flange is visible for example in the two previous photos - (890 Class). Appearing below is a section from the plan of an as built 800 class 2-4-0. There is no bearing fitted to the inside frame and the rear of the cylinder, which coincides more or less with the back of the tubeplate/smokebox, is clear of the leading axle. The following plan extract is of an 890 class 2-4-0 again as built. Once again there is no bearing and the rear end of the cylinder is well clear of the leading axle. As an aside it is interesting to see how close the two designs are. It is clear that the 890's were essentially an inside-frame-only version of the 800s with the cylinder bores put closer together as mentioned earlier by @Compound2632. The final extract shews the equivalent area of a rebuilt 890 class. The additional bearings have now appeared along with new cylinders but this also ends clear of the guides for these auxiliary bearings. The latter clearly had a small lateral clearance in it guides while its outbord face was recessed to accommodate the collar on the axle as the latter slid across as the engine ran around curves. The outside bearing was given 0.5in sideplay in its guides while the axle would have been given only a nominal clearance in its bearing. On 0-6-0s the equivalent side play was half that but was normally shared between the axle and the box and the box and the guide. I believe the practice of providing four bearings on the crankaxle was to minimize the risk of the engine derailing in the event of its failure - a quite real prospect in the early days and one which I believe Mr Buddicom experienced. I suppose although we oftimes refer to Mr K's designs as being double-framed, to be strictly correct they should really be called outside framed with an inside subsidiary frame that supported the crankaxle. Later of course this subsidiary frame was extended rearwards so that it became continuous from buffer beam to dragbeam thereby stiffening up the complete frame structure while at the same time releasing the boiler so enabling it to expand freely. Crimson Rambler

@PenrithBeaconWhen rebuilt the 890 class were given new cylinders of an SWJ design. These can be distinguished by the valves becoming inclined even though the cylinders remained horizontal. The normal story (Summerson) is that some engines (Nos 890-909) were 'said' to have been given new frames during the 1885-88 rebuilding period while others received them later. Interestingly there are different radii appearing at the bottom of the outside frame in way of the step plate - in the as built engine it is 4.5ins but in the rebuilt engine it has become 5ins. At face value this suggests the outside frames were also changed which I'm not sure about. Crimson Rambler.