Aire Head

On 16/03/2024 at 09:35, Big_Bad_John said:

That's the second time this has happened since I started using the site, I guess Philip K. Dick is hoping to get something for nothing, we'd all like that I'm sure! lol

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 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

ocal coal Merchants such as Laycock of Skipton.

These would have been pooled in 1939 and promptly scattered to the 4 winds within very little time. 

15 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Did BR renumber wagons into a new number sequence when they went into service use, as the GWR did?

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?

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

End-straps! That had me reaching for Tatlow Vol. 2. There's an official of C10 No. B102, brand new in 1909, sporting this feature, and also of No. 79003 with post-36 small lettering. (This latter still has its NER numberplate.) But R406, in its Charles Roberts official, is innocent of such adornment. 

 

As far as I can see (but good end views are hard to come by) no other NER wagons had this single end-strap but the standard 4-plank opens, diagram C2, and their close relatives the Q1 loco coal wagons had a pairs of end-straps between the end pillars.

 

 

All four photos of C10s in Tatlow (there's also a broadside view of No. 127891 with first LNER lettering) show Morton brake levers with brake blocks on the direct side only. Yours, however, has the brake blocks on the cam side and with the push-rods arranged such that depressing the lever will move the blocks further away from the wheels.

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!

They look like conveyor belt rollers to me.

1 minute ago, MarcD said:

I have met a lot of people who would say this was "fake news". I was told by one potential customer that Pre-Grouping wagon didn't last very long after 1923 and any way only GWR wagons got onto the GWR. 

Marc

Have you tried punching them in the face?

Usually works 🤷

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yet there was very little change in the total size of the LMS wagon fleet over its quarter-century of existence - hovering around 300,000 plus or minus a few 1,000. 

 

 

Note that the number of LMS-built wagons did not exceed those of its consituents until the late 1930s and at grouping its stock was still nearly a third of pre-grouping origin - over 25 years old.

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.

On 13/02/2024 at 16:02, corneliuslundie said:

Thanks. I wonder if one reason for the LMS wagon building programme slowing was the general state of the economy, fewer wagons being needed, plus loss of business to road haulage. 

Jonathan

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.

Rapido have just announced Caledonian Railway D67s 10T vans today.

Great choice with a lot to choose from!

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.

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

On 22/01/2024 at 10:12, DenysW said:

I actually think the LMS could have designed sucessful 6Fs and 6Ps as 2-8-0s and 4-6-0s or 4-6-2s respectively - if they'd wanted to. But they didn't.

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.

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.

10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Yes, but could the Act not have split the LTSR away from the Midland and put it in with the LNER?

There is no reason to split off the LTSR from the LMS and such a move would have ilicitied much protest too and set an uncomfortable precedent. It would have bogged down the grouping even more by causing bickering over who gets to have what. After all if you can arbiterily remove a bit off one company what's to say you can't do it to another one?

4 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Given the chance what railway experience would you go back in time to do?

Walk through sidings with a camera and take pictures of every damn wagon I could find 😂

26 minutes ago, Barry O said:

not force feeding

I'm intrigued to know what part of "don't say that kids don't have the aptitude and try educating them instead" is force feeding?

I haven't suggested that your club isn't engaging young people I've stated that it is an issue across the hobby. Young people aren't joining clubs and societies by the large and it is an acknowledged issue and I don't know why it should be so controversial to say that. 🤷

30 minutes ago, Barry O said:

I think that's a huge generalism. We have a number of junior members and do engage with them at our Club. 

Baz

The club of which I am a member has a number of juniors. That doesn't mean there isn't a broader issue of a failure to properly engage and encourage juniors. Having them at a club is one thing but if "they don't have the aptitude" that's a failure in education which is fundamentally the fault of the person that is supposed to be teaching them. So laugh all you want and be the problem rather than the solution.

10 hours ago, sixteen 12by 10s said:

having read I a lot of comments on this subject, and been privileged to know some additional information, the problem is not the lack of young people getting involved in the hobby, but the lack of young people who have the skills or the aptitude to carry it out running a large exhibition 

That's a failure of the older generations to engage with the younger not the other way around.

6 minutes ago, Metropolitan said:

Or forums.😀

Other forms of social media exist.

55 minutes ago, Metropolitan said:

Where are all the young people entering the hobby as you suggested? I

I run the Facebook group "Realistic Railway Modelling" our admin team has 5 members of which 4 are 35 and under and 2 are in fact under 30. There is also an array of social media influencers including Sam's Trains and Francois Bourgeois to give examples. 

At Warley while manning the LMS society stand I noticed that a lot of young people were visiting the show. The age issue isn't that people aren't getting into the hobby it's that they aren't joining societies and clubs.

4 minutes ago, stan williams said:

Or build a smaller layout, or better still, build two small layouts, then you can rotate them and attend more shows.

That whoosing noise was the point sailing over your head.

People like big exhibition railways, people like making them, people like operating them and they can show a different aspect of how the railways were/are than small layout can do.

The hobby is a broad church and that should be encouraged. Your comment is about as helpful as telling someone with depression to smile.

The LMS society now has a presence on Facebook.

Check out our page where we post regular content at 

https://www.facebook.com/LMSRsociety

We also have a discussion group too!

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1412885489274145/?ref=share

Look forward to see you all!

1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

 

Of course tiktoks with identity influencers saying "I identify as a railway modeler and my pronouns are choo/chuff".

Hmmm That would probably work actually....

And this is a physical embodiment of one of the reasons young people get deterred...

I'm sure you find it very humourous but it tedious and degrading to those it is targeted at.