Richmond, NER

[Compound2632]

43 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Yes, complete with a Swindon safety valve cover! 

 

Is that a Swindon item or the genuine Gateshead fitting?

[Edwardian]

Sure I read somewhere it was Swindon, oddly enough.  If I can get at my books ......

[Caledonian]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The five-wheel trailing radial truck certainly would be!

 

Intended to confuse German spies

[Regularity]

Or, in model form:

[Edwardian]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Is that a Swindon item or the genuine Gateshead fitting?

 

You had to ask .....

 

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. 

 

 

Some reminder of the back ground to this engine might not be amiss in explaining how it ended up on a military railway.

 

The story of the famous 'Adams Radials' is, I think, fairly well-known. Originally on London commuter traffic and, like all engines introduced for that work, eventually superseded in the face of ever increasing train weights.

 

Like the Brighton Terriers, there was the chance of a second-wind due to motor-train working, but the Radials proved not as successful as other available SW classes.  Again, like the Terriers, there was a branch line that ensured the survival of a small minority of the class for a very long time.

 

In general, however, the writing was on the wall and in 1913 25 class members were part of a cull of surplus engines.  Progressively laid aside in the coming months, the traffic needs of the Great War granted them a reprieve and all but two of them were reinstated.

 

We are concerned with one of those exceptions.

 

The best known of the pair was and is 0488, a Neilson & Co loco of 1885. It went on the duplicate list in 1914 but did not re-enter traffic for the SW and was withdrawn in 1917.  It went to the Ministry of Munitions and the East Kent Railway purchased it in 1919. 

 

The other one, lacking the Colonel Stephens connections and ultimate preservation, seems to be much less well known, but this is the one that interests us. 

 

This was 0424. As 424 it had been built in 1882 by Beyer Peacock and was placed on the duplicate list in 1904, hence 0424. You'll note that the locomotive pictured has the distinctive Beyer Peacock semi-circular build plate. 

 

After being laid aside, 0424 was overhauled and hired to the Woolmer Instructional Railway at Longmoor (forerunner of the LMR, of course) in October 1914 and bought in June 1916.

 

Thereafter Eastleigh repaired the loco, out-shopped it in lined emerald green and lettered 'Military Camp Railways No 24' and it was sent to Fovant Military Railway.  Towards the end of the war it returned to Longmoor.

 

My source for all this is Bradley's RCTS volume, as I have managed to unearth this today (lucky guess as to which crate!). He states that in September 1919 the loco was laid aside pending heavy repairs. The War Dept. attempted to flog the engine back to the SW at this point. Urie was not keen and Eastleigh didn't seem to be able to accommodate the loco for repairs. Perhaps they were already over-stretched, perhaps they feared getting stuck with it!

 

Enter Swindon. The WD sent the Radial off to a proper railway works in November 1920. Bradley states that Swindon fitted a Great Western pattern safety valve cover and out-shopped MCR 424 in dark green paint with red lining.

 

Now Bradley has 424 spend the next 3 years at Longmoor, then offered for sale as scrap and last seen rotting in a siding near Erith in 1924.

 

What?!?

 

Yes, no mention of the time spent on the Catterick Camp Railway, yet the photographs show she was there. 

 

In searching for the missing part of 424's history, we find that the plot thickens in relation to the non-Adams safety valve cover. 

 

Turning to A J Ludlam's Oakwood volume:

 

Before arrival at Catterick it was overhauled by the NER, fitted out with one of their standard safety valve covers and painted brick red with the '0' of its number painted out.

 

It is further stated that 424 remained at Catterick until 1925, but thereafter may have gone to Erith.

 

So, we have some problems.

 

Was it green or was it red?

 

Did it last until 1924 or 1925?

 

I have at least one issue with Ludlam's account. He does not mention the previous history with the MCR.  He notes that all the other Camp Railway locos were painted black and that 424 does not seem to have been numbered in the WD list.  That is correct, but he doesn't seem to know why; it's in the MCR list due to the unmentioned prior history and so never wore WD black or a WD number. His account implies, however, that the loco came straight from the LSWR to the Camp Railway in 1916, carrying the SW's duplicate list's number, which had to be painted out.  This seems incredibly unlikely in the light of its previous history as related by Bradley. Surely it would have been renumbered when allegedly repainted red by the NER. Thus, I think this account lacks coherence, although it does not follow that all its details are incorrect. 

 

As for the safety valve?

 

Does that look like a NER "standard" or a "Great western pattern" safety valve cover to you? 

 

I have my views, but provided I model something that looks like the one in the pictures, it doesn't really matter.  What does matter is the colour of the loco whilst at Catterick.

 

Does the answer to the safety valve question suggest the colour 424 wore?  Not necessarily. So, which? Brick Red or Dark Green?

 

Another point is that Ludlam credits 424 with "prodigious feats" with troop trains.  Now troop trains, especially during the War (though 424 was not there during the War) might comprise any company's stock. Troops came to train at Catterick from all over*. Unlike the Beyer Peacock 2-4-0T, WD No.94, I see no evidence that 424 was Westinghouse fitted or dual fitted, so it could not have worked NER stock. 

 

Ludlam has 424 as the train engine and 94 as the banker on heavy troop trains; one a vac-fitted loco, the other fitted for air brakes? 

 

 

* I came from London, but on my own, probably via the ECML to Darlington and thence via taxi, but I was way too hung-over to remember. 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom Burnham]

488 was overhauled at Swindon, but much later, when it was owned by the Bluebell Railway.

[Compound2632]

Well, I got my 50p's worth with interest*. Looking through Hoole's Illustrated History, I rapidly conclude that that safety valve cover is not the North Eastern pattern, which was altogether fatter. That in turn suggests Ludham leapt to a conclusion, in ignorance of the overhaul at Swindon. But that does beg the question of why Swindon used one of their valuable brass covers; I can only suppose that the safety valves were found to be in need of replacement, so standard valves were used from stock. the boiler appears to be the Adams rather than Drummond pattern, so not exactly new-ish.

 

*Sorry, even with the recent increases, at current rates that risks sounding demeaning, which it's not intended to.

 

EDIT: I was puzzled by the wagon behind the engine's front framing, in your photo, until I realised it was a drop-side wagon with the near side down.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Well, I got my 50p's worth with interest*. Looking through Hoole's Illustrated History, I rapidly conclude that that safety valve cover is not the North Eastern pattern, which was altogether fatter. That in turn suggests Ludham leapt to a conclusion, in ignorance of the overhaul at Swindon. But that does beg the question of why Swindon used one of their valuable brass covers; I can only suppose that the safety valves were found to be in need of replacement, so standard valves were used from stock. the boiler appears to be the Adams rather than Drummond pattern, so not exactly new-ish.

 

I concur.

 

As to value, the GWR scattered them liberally over the Welsh locomotives it inherited; it seemed quite averse to letting any engine out of Swindon without a 'proper' valve bonnet. 

 

I am more sympathetic to the assertion that there was a repaint to brick red, for no other reason than it is an odd detail to come out with if there was no basis for it.  One assumes someone remembers it running on the line in that colour.

 

However, I cannot see a repaint immediately following the GWR out-shopping it in green.  It might have run later at Catterick in red, but if one assumes it was there, not Longmoor, by 1921, then I suspect it ran there initially in green.  I'm guessing GW green. 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

*Sorry, even with the recent increases, at current rates that risks sounding demeaning, which it's not intended to.

 

I'm not easy to demean, 'cos I'm ever so 'umble!

 

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

EDIT: I was puzzled by the wagon behind the engine's front framing, in your photo, until I realised it was a drop-side wagon with the near side down.

 

This is probably one of the photographically elusive WD wagons as the one clear view I've seen of one is, indeed, of a dropside; 3-plank, wooden u/f, marked 'W D'. 

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

This is probably one of the photographically elusive WD wagons as the one clear view I've seen of one is, indeed, of a dropside; 3-plank, wooden u/f, marked 'W D'. 

 

Hum. I wonder where they got those.

[Edwardian]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Hum. I wonder where they got those.

 

Here is the photograph:

 

 

Really only the locos shedded at Richmond for the construction of the Camp Railway in 1915 can claim legitimacy on the Richmond layout.  Camp construction traffic could, presumably, go straight to the Camp Railway railhead from Catterick Bridge, without travelling down to Richmond, however, I was minded to allow some of these WD dropsides into Richmond yard. 

 

Subsequent traffic for the Camp would not go to Richmond and would presumably the Camp Railway marked the end of NER-hauled troop trains to Richmond.  Richmond saw a lot of these pre-War, even before the camp was built, due to Territorial battalions coming up to have annual camps in the area. 

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Here is the photograph:

 

 

That shape of the brake vee hanger was a characteristic Gloucester RC&W Co. feature but otherwise I see nothing particularly Gloucester-ish about it, so I expect it is from another builder.  That round-bottomed grease axlebox speaks of venerability. My guess would be that it has been bought second-hand. The various WD covered goods wagons built by the trade during the Great War were copies of railway company vehicles, or designed specifically for the WD, and were of a rather more modern specification. 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Here is the photograph:

 

 

Really only the locos shedded at Richmond for the construction of the Camp Railway in 1915 can claim legitimacy on the Richmond layout.  Camp construction traffic could, presumably, go straight to the Camp Railway railhead from Catterick Bridge, without travelling down to Richmond, however, I was minded to allow some of these WD dropsides into Richmond yard. 

 

Subsequent traffic for the Camp would not go to Richmond and would presumably the Camp Railway marked the end of NER-hauled troop trains to Richmond.  Richmond saw a lot of these pre-War, even before the camp was built, due to Territorial battalions coming up to have annual camps in the area. 

 

Given the apparent age, I would assume braked only on one side and I see no sign of brakes on the far wheel.

 

Something like this ballast wagon kit could be readily adapted, though I ought to survey more options before deciding:

 

[Compound2632]

It's the unequal spacing of the hinges that is unusual and also to my mind suggests antiquity. Note how worn the top of the curb rail and lower edge of the side are, especially towards the middle. It's seen some use.

[Caledonian]

22 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

You had to ask .....

 

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. 

 

 

 

Ah splendid. Very interesting - and useful

 

Both this and the other photie do suggest a rather dark livery, ie; green rather than brick red, but it I suppose it doesn't rule out a repaint at some point. Either way, its too good a locomotive not to find an excuse to run it

 

[Edwardian]

TMC/Bachmann Class O livery sample:

 

 

[Compound2632]

That's a lively shade of green!

[Edwardian]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

That's a lively shade of green!

 

Yes, I'm not sure it's quite right, but then I suspect it's the same as Bachmann's fake:

 

[Compound2632]

Difficult to tell unless one sees one in the flesh in natural light, though one might learn something from a photo of the O and E1 together.

[Annie]

 

24 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

TMC/Bachmann Class O livery sample:

 

 

Ooooo that's nice.  I've got a virtual one of those and it's very much a favourite of mine.

[micklner]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, I'm not sure it's quite right, but then I suspect it's the same as Bachmann's fake:

 

That is fake, as the photo of the J72  they  used/copied was really in Photographic Grey livery.

 

No idea re the G5, it does looks a tad bright , but it maybe the photo, and as usual it is a sample , not a production version.

Edited July 18, 2022 by micklner
grammar

[Edwardian]

9 minutes ago, micklner said:

That is fake, as the photo the photo they  used was really Photographic Grey.

 

No idea re the G5 does looks a tad bright , but it maybe the photo, and as usual it is a sample , not a production version.

 

That was what I was referring to, yes. It was not unusual to line out in the passenger style for photographic grey, even where, as here, it was a goods class to which a different livery was mandated.  I know you know this!

[Annie]

This is one of mine.  I have several NER engines in green from two or three different makers and none of them are exactly the same shade of green.

 

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Annie said:

none of them are exactly the same shade of green.

 

Which, I think, is authentic.

[MarkC]

You need an F8 for NER period trains, and some 6 wheelers. Has anyone built the Poppys Woodtech NER offerings yet?

[Compound2632]

47 minutes ago, MarkC said:

You need an F8  A for NER period trains, and some 6 wheelers. 

 

An F8 might do for the LNER period.

 

He's got an A.