Crimson Rambler

@Compound2632 - indeed. First view is of the 890 class as built:- It only has outside bearings to the leading axle, whereas the following extract of a rebuilt 890 class - Johnson boiler, new cylinders etc, has the additional bearings. The bracket that acts as a stop for the inner bearing springs is bolted to the inside frame in a similar manner to Mr J's 2-4-0s. The inside guides protrude down considerably below the bottom profile of the inside frame. Crimson Rambler

I make no comment on later locomotive design practice, my observations are restricted solely to Midland Railway practice and I hope @Mrkirtley800 will agree to me replying to @DayReturn in this topic but as I am not sure how appropriate this is to the Midland Railway in EM Gauge I will keep it short. @DayReturn if, the Alistair Wright you refer to was formerly a LMSS member, then please pass on to him the compliments of a fellow member, although he probably will not know my nom de plume! The Midland 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts together with the 2-6-0s were provided with side control whereas the six wheeled engines such as 0-6-0s and 2-4-0s were not. Instead of pony trucks or radial axles they were simply provided with a degree of sideplay - restricted normally to the leading and trailing axles. This was obtained by permitting sideways movement of the axle in its 'boxes and in turn the 'boxes were given a degree of freedom to move sideways in their horn guides. Lower speeds, small/light engines allied with longish wheelbases, coupled also with the coning of the tyres and the inclination of the rails enabled this simple arrangement to function perfectly adequately. In my previous post I was referring specifically to 2-4-0s and 0-6-0s – engines incidentally that together formed the vast majority of the Midland's engines. When in service there is wear so there will have been limits on the permitted increase in sideways movement arising from that before repairs were needed to restore the design values. The wear primarily occurred on the faces of the axleboxes where the axle collars made contact and to a lesser extent on the horn guides. The bearing springs provided no sideways control of the axleboxes. Their purpose was to deal with the up and down movement of the boxes. The following photo (Summerson Vol 4) was taken of Johnson 2-4-0 No.1477 /227 being scrapped in May 1934 having been withdrawn the previous February. The first thing to notice is the impression worn in the face of the frame where the back of the leading wheel has made frequent contact with it. The one-inch thick frames were spaced 4ft – 1.5ins apart, so giving a nominal clearance from the face of the frame to the back of the wheel of 1.0625inch each side (Midland back to back was 4ft – 5.625ins.) The scarring on the frame records the axles have moved sideways in service more that 1.0625ins. By then these engines were very much second or even third tier units so they will not have been given as much attention as they would have received in their prime. Seen lying in the right foreground are the remains of the leading portion of the outside frame with its pair of horn guides still bolted to it together with the guide for the push bar that was interposed between the buckle and the top of the outside axlebox. There is also a hint of a second guide but unfortunately the drawings I have seen are unclear on this point, so while I strongly believe it was present this is not confirmed. Either way the push bar was made a reasonably snug fit within the hole provided in the guide. As it was acting in compression the slot in the guide would not accommodate over an inch of sideways movement and still permit the push bar be stiff enough not to buckle. A similar arrangement was fitted to Mr K's outside framed engines differing primarily in that two push bars were fitted – one on the inside of the outside frame and the other its outside. Two guides were fitted per push bar. These were simple 'top hat' brackets on the inside face. The upper one on the outside frame is usually partially hidden by the platform valance while the lower one was incorporated into the top of the hornblock. No sideways movement of the pushbars was provided for in these guides or the holes in the platform, so the springs had no influence on the sideways movement of the axles. A final item of interest are the additional two bearings Mr J provided on the leading axles of his 2-4-0s. The bottom legs of one of the guides associated with these bearings can be seen protruding below the 'ears' of the axle cut-out in the inside frame. The guides contained a small axlebox provided with vertical movement controlled by a pair of helical springs. The latter were restrained at their upper ends by an angle iron fitted to the inside face of the frame behind the slasher - so are not normally seen. However when Mr J rebuilt Mr K's 2-4-0's he introduced a modified version of this arrangement for his predecessor's engines. I can vouch that if you stand on the step of No 158A and peep down between the frames you can see the two additional bearings Mr J fitted. As the spring restraint in Mr K's engines was bolted to the back of the smokebox and the upper portion just peeped above the platform, ensures that it can be often seen in photos. Above is a view (Summerson Vol 2) of a 800 Class 2-4-0 No 825 /58 and the upper portion of the two push rods of the additional bearing can be glimsed between the Furness lubricator and the leading spring hanger and the horizontal limb of the L-shaped bracket that received the springs. The vertical limb of the bracket was bolted to the tubeplate - it is just visible. Also to be seen are the two outside push bar guides – those for the leading axle being very clear - together with the rectangular cross-section push bar. Crimson Rambler

I believe Ahrons is correct - the larger steam chest volume would have been of benefit. The inside frames on Mr K's last designs were continuous and extended from the front buffer beam to the drag beam but they rose up and/or were 'notched' as necessary to clear the leading and trailing axles. Some 0-6-0s which were built without continuous inside frames were later given them by adding a bit of new frame after the crank axle. Mr K's inside frames were usually spaced at 4ft 2ins apart whereas Mr J's standard dimension (but far from exclusive!) was 4ft 1.5ins. The cylinder bores could be spaced wider on the 800 class because the crank axle axlebox loading (the highest loaded) was shared over four 'boxes. Thus the inside 'boxes could be made a bit narrower to permit wider spaced cylinder bores. The designer does not have that opportunity on an inside framed engine because he has to create sufficient space between the outside face of the outermost crank web and the back of the wheel, for an adequate 'box length. Thus the 890 class, which were inside framed, had cylinder bores at 2ft 4ins centres, and in effect all of Mr J's 2-4-0s were simply tarted up versions of the 890/1070 classes, even retaining for example Mr K's long eccentric rods. Crimson Rambler

I suggest the main reason for the dissimilar number of leaves in the outside springs of Mr Kirtley's double-framed designs such as the 0-4-4T and the 0-6-0 is because he provided the crank-axle with an additional pair of bearings. Two axleboxes were fitted to the inside frames, so the corresponding outside springs only had to carry approximately half the load hence needed fewer leaves. In contrast the leading axle and the trailing coupled axle on the 0-6-0 (and 2-4-0s for that matter) had only axleboxes/springs mounted in the outside frames. Crimson Rambler

The following observation made by Overseer concening the value or otherwise of Werrett drawings appeared on the 'other' website (1/4/20). It appears in the S7 Group section under the topic Wagon Allsorts . Every Ken Werrett I have looked at in detail has been a work of fiction, very well drawn but little basis in fact and his claimed measure ups must have been very incomplete. To which I added (3/4/20:- Thank goodness - someone else who is very wary of Ken Werret's waggon drawings. They look so convincing - he obviously was a very talented draughtsman - but tragically the drawings' accuracy is not to the same standard. Alarm bells first rang when I saw his drawing of a Midland 10-ton brake van in which the sides were a foot adrift in height. Apologies for mispelling his name! Crimson Rambler

I should have explained 83-1890 was drawn in a little known Australian offshoot of Derby Locomotive Drawing Office! Crimson Rambler!

As far as I know there was no GA was issued for the larger 0-4-0 saddle tanks but one was produced (drawing No. 83-1890) for the smaller engines. This was available from OPC so now should be obtainable from the NRM. In the meantime please find two scans from 83-1890 shewing the purpose of the two 'reach rods'. Hopefully they will be of use - I believe both sizes of saddle tanks had the same brake arrangement. Apologies for them being upside down and one being canted. Crimson Rambler

I won a prize (liberal studies I think) in my first year as an apprentice and the book I chose was The Merchant Sailing Ship by Basil Greenhill & Ann Giffard. It caused one or two comments at the time as I was training to be a marine engineer! But as I explained its always useful to have a backup! Crimson Rambler

A steer for @Compound2632 and the cows for that matter, of our native breeds, such as Devon Reds, Herefords, Belted Galloways, Welsh Blacks etc, which were almost universal on farms in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were physically smaller than the present day cattle breeds (mostly foreign) that became popular after the Second World. In this respect HO cattle at approx 7/8ths the size of 4mm cattle might even be a bit overscale! Think Jersey or Guernsey compared to Friesan! Crimson Rambler

At a guess an embryonic sign of some sort - many were painted dark blue with white letters, while signal box name boards were ultramarine blue. Crimson Rambler

A total guess would be that it's in connexion with water treatment, but I'm far from certain. The photo dates from the LMS perhaps the hut is a post-1923 development? Crimson Rambler

I also had one of the Ks Johnson 0-6-0T kits - cost me 30/- if I remember correctly. My second scratch built loco was a Johnson 0-4-4T built like @David Hunt from the Skinley approximation but that along with Roche's efforts, which looked better but were often hardly any more accurate, was largely all that was available. It was built to OO gauge with 1/16in brass frames - very much inspired by John Ahern - so that dates it to the late sixties when I was about fifteen or sixteen. Later engines had thinner frames. Recently, while tidying up I came across it along with one or others I made (well started at least!) over the next few years. Warts and all here's a photo:- You will notice I got round the problem of the missing second Salter balance by not getting so far as to need them! Crimson Rambler

Looking at the photo via the link kindly provided by @Western Star, I think @Regularity is correct. In place of conventional V-hangers there is an iron casting with a vertical rib on the front that melds into a boss to receive the brake shaft. I predict there will be a repeat of this on its rear face thereby supporting a (probably) longer rearward boss to support the shaft as @Compound2632 commented. If this is correct then that leaves the 'round thingy' - my thought is that we could be looking at a removable cap fitted to a tank emptying (or warming) pipe that passes through the solebar - but what are your thoughts? It is though a most excellent model. Crimson Rambler

Excellent David - and an inspiration to all of us who follow the Master! Crimson Rambler

If you visit the 'Other Place' aka Western Thunder and go to the S7 Group you encounter a page or two down a topic entitled 'Midland Railway 0-4-0ST (Burton Tank) posted by Rambler. I understand he is using/modifying an ABS Zero Zephyr kit - don't know anything about the kit I'm afraid but the post is well worth visiting. Crimson Rambler

In addition to providing slop aka 'generous working clearances', the pull rods were usually run as near to the longitudinal centre line of the vehicle as practical since this minimized the degree of bogie turn to be accommodated at the rod ends. In addition the length of the rods compared to their cross-sectional area meant they could flex laterally quite readily, again helping to absorb bogie swing. Crimson Rambler

A very generous act David. Crimson Rambler

Sorry @Compound2632and @jamie92208 are misinformed:- SPQR was a Roman railway Crimson Rambler

Of course @Compound2632 Midland S7 chairs are company marked:- Crimson Rambler

@Compound2632 wrote earlier "As I understand it, this was also the finish for those unlined non-vac-braked goods engines that were about around the turn of the century." Whilst it is true the majority of the recorded examples of unlined goods engines were steam brake only, there are sufficient piccies of vacuum braked engines finished in the same way (or versions on the theme) to suggest to me it was more complicated. Perhaps its only to be expected - after all we are dealing with the Midland! I am tentatively forming a theory that for the earliest instances at least, it was a geographically inspired solution to overcome (a) local shortage(s) of goods engines. Crimson Rambler

Appearing below, for @Compound2632 are all the ED wagons captured in the St Albans shed photo. No 164A was a 156 Class 2-4-0 rebuilt (in effect renewed) in 1895 and lived at Wellingborough during the 1890s while No 1049, a Dubs built 700 Class 0-6-0 was at Cricklewood in the 'nineties until 1902 when it went to Leeds. What I find interesting is that while No 1049 is vacuum fitted, it doesn't appear to have any lining. It seems quite a few of the 0-6-0s employed on the London Extension in the 'ninties were unlined. The engine peeping out of the shed is an 800 Class 2-4-0 - I think its number begins with an '8' suggesting it is one from the series 820 to 829 which were all at Bedford at that time. Crimson Rambler

Our discussion was about the colours used rather than the use of dark framing with pale coloured inner door. Below is St Albans shed about 1900:- Together with some wagons for @Compound2632 Crimson Rambler

Certainly I can say that @David Hunt and I have discussed it in the recent past - I suggest @Tricky contacts David via a pm. Crimson Rambler

I think David Hunt has discussed the painting of engine shed doors earlier in this forum. Crimson Rambler

Two large multi-storey brick buildings that still stand in Newtown, near the station and dominate it, are former Pryce-Jones warehouses. If you visit the rival vineyard (Western Thunder) and look in the topic Workbenches including workshop techniques, and find Ian Rathbone's Workshop forum, you will come across a delightful model of a LNWR six-wheel parcel van carrying Pryce-Jones headboards Newtown-Euston. Its the fourth or fifth picture from the start but to view the photos at a decent size may need you to sign in. Crimson Rambler