Jump to content
 

Aire Head

Members
  • Posts

    1,395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,414 profile views

Aire Head's Achievements

2.2k

Reputation

  1. Honestly how would you feel if someone wrote this about you? It's nothing to do with non payment as the website owner has made clear. Speculating on this and in doing so casting aspersions on someone's character isn't a good look.
  2. These would have been pooled in 1939 and promptly scattered to the 4 winds within very little time.
  3. BR took the number of the wagon as Nationalisation and added a prefix dependent upon where the wagon originated. E for exLNER W for exGW S for exSR M for exLMS stock and some Ministry of Supply Wagons. A P prefix was used for exPrivate Owner stock that was pooled during the war. A number was allocated to them when they went into repair. Repair locations had a series of numbers assigned to that location and the next one off the list was chosen. Ex private owner stock not pooled during the war but subsequently taken into BR ownership was renumbered into the M36xxxx sequence of numbers. A D prefix was added to stock taken into departmental use so DMxxxxxx would indicate an exLMS owned vehicle in departmental use. The number on the C10 was taken from a photo of one which was used as the basis for this model the number being assigned to it prior to BR ownership. Hope that answer your question?
  4. Oops that's something I need to get rectified then 🙃 The fact I missed the brakes would be taken off by application of the lever has really annoyed me! I shall return with it rectified shortly after I have suitably punished myself!
  5. Railway modelling requires knowledge beyond "I like trains" whereas scenic modelling doesn't and is therefore easier. I suspect this was always the case for most modellers, however with the advent of social media everyone can much more easily share their stuff and it's largely taboo to provide any sort of feedback which isn't entirely positive hence what I term "the rise of mediocrity". Anyway on a more positive note I have done some pregrouping modelling myself.... Well sort of the wagon is pregrouping but it's condition definitely isn't! A much abused NER C10 very much at the rear end of its service life.
  6. They look like conveyor belt rollers to me.
  7. The slowing off in 1930 also coincides with the end of D1666 production. My thoughts on that being the whole purpose of the D1666 program being to try and impose a degree of some standardisation across the wagon fleet while also eliminating older lower tonnage vehicles. I'm sure this isn't a revolutionary thought to be honest 😅. The decline of pregrouping wagons during this time confirms it, it would be interesting to see according to the returns exactly what wagons were disappearing around this early period of the LMS.
  8. Most certainly. This also coincides with a shift in wagon design too. Steel underframes, longer wheelbases, more vacuum brakes and more complex brake arrangements all appear at this time as well which indicates to me that a decision was made to make newer stock to a much higher standard as less was required aswell as a desire to increase train speed to increase competitiveness.
  9. You need to join this group Https://brcoachingstock.groups.io/g/main In the files on that group are actual period marshalling documents that may contain the information you are after.
  10. The thread is falling into the usual tropes about this subject. As enthusiasts there is a tendency to be blindsided by "bigger/faster/more powerful" is always the best and the railways was has the "biggest/fastest/most powerful" thing will automatically be much better. That isn't how a railway runs. A 4P Compound isn't the best at dragging 14 up Shap and Beattock because that isn't what it is supposed to do. It's meant to pull 4/6 coaches a middling distance at a middling speed and it does this pretty well and most importantly this is the most common type of express passenger train the company runs. Likewise the average goods train was around 30/35 wagons well within the capabilities of an 0-6-0. Another problem you have to factor in is the LMS had two major engineering tasks ahead of it. 1) the MML needs strengthening to handle heavier locos so that places a hard cap on how large the designs should be. 2) the WCML has insufficient block sections forcing it to run larger trains to meet demand as it cannot increase the number of services. They can build bigger locos but then they cant use them on a 1/3 of their network and they need to build a lot fast because the fleet is a total mess of different designs which are getting long in the tooth. The LMS inherited a bunch of pretty much brand new 4-6-0s and 0-8-0s in 1923 compared to a massive amount of ancient 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s which are doing the majority of the day to day work that pays for everything. The LMS 2P class was the cheapest loco per mile to run on the LMS so it's pretty obvious why so many of them were built, they share a boiler with the 4F so that's another saving not withstanding the fact that the 4F was also the most powerful 0-6-0 design available to the LMS in 1923, so now you have your basic smaller 4-4-0 for "local" work and an 0-6-0 that can handle most of your freight requirements so now you need a bigger more powerful intermediate loco to replace all the different ancient ones you have, the Midland have a design that has parts commonality with the other two designs that are the most logical to use and is known to work so its pretty obvious to build that too. Oh and in the meantime they have also designed a similarly powerful 2-6-4T isn't that fantastic! The fact that Compounds ended up on the WCML tackling Shap and Beattock to me speaks more about the problems with the existing fleet of supposedly superior 4-6-0 locomotives that never adequately delivered on what they said to be able to as far as I'm concerned. Yes Derby's designs were far from perfect but in the context of the situation faced by the LMS it pretty obvious why that's the direction they went. Railways aren't run by enthusiasts they are run by operating departments and 14 coach Anglo Scottish Expresses while "sexy" aren't really what's paying the bills. Suggesting that Compounds were a failure because they didn't adequately replace the Claughtons would be like saying the Sprinters were a Failure because they didn't replace the HST
  11. Royal Scots not counting as successful type 6 4-6-0 locomotives then? Built in 1927 only 2 years after Fowler had taken office so hardly a case of lethargy in its construction either.
  12. In regards of freight rolling stock really pretty much anything could turn up. "Block" trains like we see today were in the minority. Likewise no one cared to make sure the wagons were suitably identical, to the operations department and LMS 13T Open is the same as a GWR 13T open in 99.99% of circumstances. So your goods trains would be composed of a jumble of stock carrying whatever it was that needed to be moved on that particular day. Austerity 2-8-0s are typically going to be on Mineral workings (one of the few block trains) these would mainly be composed of Wooden bodied mineral wagons (7/8 planks) mostly formerly private owner wagons. These would be extremely decrepit mostly unpainted perhaps with fragments of their former owners livery peeking through. If not on mineral trains you would be looking at Class J and Class H unfitted goods trains, these would be composed of the jumble of stock I mentioned before. 9Fs would enjoy similar duties to the Austerities however they were also more capable of handling express freight trains and so could appear there too. To properly answer your question would require a lot more than I have written here however, I would heartily recommend you continue researching into this fascinating subject because there is so much interesting stuff to learn.
×
×
  • Create New...