Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Breaking News - Talyllyn no.3?!


S.A.C Martin

Recommended Posts

It's from 1913 so, no, it didn't ;)

 

An interesting date! If it had been from a decade earlier I'd have guessed that it was because of the extra general demand for slate caused by the lengthy dispute at the Penrhyn Quarry (the Great Strike lasted from 1900 - 1903), but 1913 does seem very late - and for a six-coupled engine, too, although as the slate loads were 'with the gradient' there would seem little need for the extra adhesion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks rather like a miniature version of the 0-6-0Ts that Kerr Stuart supplied to the Mysore Railway in India, I would post a photo to give an idea of what it could have looked like but it would breach copyright, so I wont.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well heres a fine topic for a midnight muse....John makes an interesting point about the slate traffic and neatly answers his own question-so if not slate then what....Passengers,- I seem to recall reading that in the years leading up to the great war, a lot of the "Little Trains" -the Festiniog,Corris,N.W.N.G et al,were doing very nice summer tourist business...given that both of the existing engines are around a half century old at that time and business is looking good, a third engine seems entirey plausible.

As to the maker-Had the Corris ordered their `Tattoo` at that time- ??? I seem to think that was later...As to the 0-6-0 configuration:-it is common knowledge that `Tal-Y-Lyn` rode like a Texas bronco as delivered and ( Like Skarloey ) was sent back to the works for extra wheels and a cab..`Dolgoch` was chosen for long wheelbase-the company obviously understood the need for new power to be distributed through as many points of contact as possible.

It is interesting to surmise further-were there any new coaches on order ..??-perhaps more from Brown-Marshall or Lancaster..?-I doubt extra drawings would remain-they would just build more of the same.

 

JACK:- Yes thats `Jeanette`-excellent spot :D -I`m sure that `James` is based on the K/S `Tattoo`

 

Be happy

ATB

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

It is interesting to surmise further-were there any new coaches on order ..??-perhaps more from Brown-Marshall or Lancaster..?-I doubt extra drawings would remain-they would just build more of the same.

 

Be happy

ATB

Nick

 

By 1913 Lancaster Carriage and Wagon had already closed, though the drawings were possibly held at Metropolitan so could have been used.

 

Geoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite follow the comment about 'Dolgoch' and extra points of contact? However given subsequent experience regarding Tal-y-Llyn's trailing wheels, the Corris engines being fitted with trailing trucks and various details of the track gauge and tyre profiles at Corris and Towyn, I'd suspect that the whole subject of wheelbase, overall length, weight distribution and overhang were receiving quite rapid development around that time!

 

Designs like the Penrhyn 'ladies' and DHR 0-4-0STs show that it's quite possible to build quite large four-wheeled locos for service on steep and sharply curved lines, providing the basic design is right. The prevalence of close-coupled six- and eight-coupled designs from Continental manufacturers suggests that the British habit of providing a trailing truck ( because the 0-4-2T is a classically British type, largely unknown elsewhere ) is that hoary old chestnut of British engineering, a 'quick fix' for a known problem which remains part of the ongoing design. Sgt Murphy's subsequent acquisition of a trailing truck might be a case of this, too.

 

I know the Penrhyn 'ladies' have now acquired pony trucks and tenders, but I'd expect that their current loads and line speeds are somewhat higher than those used at their original home?

Link to post
Share on other sites

comments about the original TR locos being around 50 years old in 1913 and therefore, quite elderly, are worth bearing in mind. People these days tend to assume that steam engines were originally built for indefinite working lives, but this isn't actually true.

 

the original Beddgelert was described as being 'quite worn out' and beyond economic repair after only 25 years. The various small FR engines received extensive rebuilding from quite an early stage of their careers, and this continued. The GWR constructed new engines for VoR rather than rebuilding the original units. The various categories of at times, quite ancient locos which staggered on into BR days from pre-Grouping companies were a case of existing studs - their lives greatly extended by the exigiencies of depression and war - being driven into the ground on limited duties, with no expectation of repair or rebuilding when they finally failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The six coupled idea may have been a good way to spread the weight on their light track while keeping good adhesion with the third axle being powered rather than just a trailing wheel. Six coupled isn't always just about lots of power ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of the original VoR tanks and their GWR replacements is an interesting one. The worst feature of the originals was the valve-gear, which was both inaccessible and prone to undue wear, but they also had had problems coping with the traffic (the uphill journey had slipped from 60 minutes to 65 because they were so badly worn).

 

Under the circumstances the decision to 'rebuild' them (actually to make complete new engines which looked a bit like the originals!) was a sensible one under the circumstances. It's often forgotten, though, that one of the originals (No. 2) was indeed properly rebuilt at Swindon complete with GWR tanks and fittings, but then saw almost no use and was finally scrapped when there was no work for her and no-one wanted to buy her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a link to this topic to a friend of mine who is a regular volunteer on the line. He responded with the two emails that I have quoted below

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. As you can imagine, this has been discussed in Tywyn!

 

Can't remember where the drawings surfaced from, but have only been recently received from a private collection I think.

 

I'm not on RMWeb, so shant wade in with my twopenneth worth. However, 1913 is significant in that it's not long after the Railway and Quarries were sold from the McConnells to Sir Haydn Jones. Suspicion is that one or more locos required some fairly major work and quotes were received to consider the options of repairing an original loco or buying a new build. The same process happened in the 1940s with the railway on it's last legs and the only serviceable loco, No 2 broke it's frames, quotes were received for new locos, including a Kerr Stuart steam design from Hunslet and a Hudson-Hunslet diesel! If that had happened, I suspect that Nos 1 & 2 would've been scrapped to pay for the new aquisition and the TR today would've been a very different place!

 

By 1913, the best years of Bryn Eglwys slate were over, the boom of production during the Penrhyn lock out was behind them and the railway and quarry started it's slow run down to eventual closure.

 

So far, no proposals for new carriage stock have come to light. The existing stock could be made to do and were easier and cheaper to patch up locally than the steam locos. The main thinking behind tendering for new locos was to maintain the slate traffic, as that kept the men employed in the quarry which Sir Haydn also owned.

 

Should you wish to stir up a hornet's nest, feel free to put the comments on the thread! :D

 

 

Mike,

 

Further to your message, the drawings are in the Museum's collection, recently picked up at auction. Below is the email from the TR's heritage e-group.

 

 

The NGRM has recently purchased at auction at file containing the following:

 

1. Detailed specification dated 26th March 191? from Kerr Stuart for a 2ft 3in

gauge 0-6-0 saddle tank with 7in cyls. to drawing 22023

2. Print of drawing 22023 dated 19/3/13

3. Print of drawing 22098 undated for a 2ft 3in gauge goods van

4. Print of drawing 22097 undated for a 2ft 3in gauge slate wagon to carry 30

cwt

(note items 2, 3 and 4 show centre buffers)

5. Illustrated list of Locomotives in Stock, Kerr Stuart, April 1911, 24 pages

fully illustrated (very nice)

6. Quotation from W G Bagnall to messrs. Deakin and Howard Jones, Borth, dated

May 10 1912, for 2ft 3 1/2in gauge 0-4-0 saddle tank with 7 in cyls

7. Photograph No.1895 illustrating locomotive in 6. above

8. Quotation from W G Bagnall to D & J Daniels, Ironmongers, Tywyn, for 0-4-2

and 0-6-0 locomotives with 7 in cyls. Photos of both types

9. Quotation from Kerr Stuart to D & J Daniels, Ironmongers, Tywyn, "Tattoo"

class locomotive, 2ft 3in gauge with 7 in cyls, with drawing print

10 Photograph No. 1138 of loco in 9. above.

11. Specification (detailed) from Hunslet Engine Co dated 6/1/19 to Deakin &

Howard Jones, Borth, for 2ft 3 1/2 in gauge 4-6-0 locomotive (based on WD

design)

12. Large works photo no. A616 of Locomotive 1216 of 1916, WD no. 304 (very

nice!)

 

Also included were:

 

13. Specification from Deakin and Howard-Jones to TR Co. dated September 1919

for repairs to Wharf Road Bridge

14. Hand coloured architects drawing of details relating to 13. above

 

It would appear that Sir Haydn at least considered buying new rolling stock,

but, presumably, despite several quotes, could not afford to do so. For anyone

who may not be aware, D & J Daniels was a company owned by Sir Haydn. Deakin

and Howard Jones is a new one on me, but it would appear that they were in some

ways connected with the TR at that time.

 

I was hoping to exhibit these items at the AGM, but was unwell at the time. I

will be submitting a more detailed article in the December "Talyllyn News". The

papers will in due course be deposited in the TR archives at Dolgellau.

 

Don Newing, Archivist

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The six coupled idea may have been a good way to spread the weight on their light track while keeping good adhesion with the third axle being powered rather than just a trailing wheel. Six coupled isn't always just about lots of power ;)

 

 

one possible problem with six-coupled locos with low axle loadings is slipping, due to equal weight distribution. 0-4-2 designs do not usually have equal axle loadings, an 0-6-0 with equal loadings may slip due to low adhesion on the driving wheels. See remarks elsewhere about Alco and Baldwin locos suffering from slip and rough riding, and the preference for eight-coupled locos in German fekdbahn designs and also US usage

Link to post
Share on other sites

one possible problem with six-coupled locos with low axle loadings is slipping, due to equal weight distribution. 0-4-2 designs do not usually have equal axle loadings, an 0-6-0 with equal loadings may slip due to low adhesion on the driving wheels. See remarks elsewhere about Alco and Baldwin locos suffering from slip and rough riding, and the preference for eight-coupled locos in German fekdbahn designs and also US usage

 

One thing that's always struck me as peculiar was the habit on some lines of 'decoupling' one set of drivers, usually to convert an 0-6-0 to a 2-4-0. Both Terriers and Buckjumpers underwent this change at various periods in their careers, and probably other locos as well that don't come to mind at the moment.

 

Simple question - why was it done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but in that case I believe the diameter of the drivers was changed to make them more suitable for passenger work as well as the (consequent) change to 2-4-0; the Bucks and Terriers on the other hand retained the same drivers - indeed I think the only change in the case of the Terriers at least was the removal of the front section of the coupling rods. So the mystery remains!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but in that case I believe the diameter of the drivers was changed to make them more suitable for passenger work as well as the (consequent) change to 2-4-0; the Bucks and Terriers on the other hand retained the same drivers - indeed I think the only change in the case of the Terriers at least was the removal of the front section of the coupling rods. So the mystery remains!

 

well, that was the only thing I could find on the subject....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know! Thanks for the link anyway, it's an interesting oddity. :D

 

I've also seen photos of industrial 0-6-0STs with the rear section removed to make them 0-4-2ST and at least one piccy of an industrial diesel shunter (was an ex 08?) with the same mod.

There must be some reason for it.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of the original VoR tanks and their GWR replacements is an interesting one. The worst feature of the originals was the valve-gear, which was both inaccessible and prone to undue wear, but they also had had problems coping with the traffic (the uphill journey had slipped from 60 minutes to 65 because they were so badly worn).

 

Under the circumstances the decision to 'rebuild' them (actually to make complete new engines which looked a bit like the originals!) was a sensible one under the circumstances. It's often forgotten, though, that one of the originals (No. 2) was indeed properly rebuilt at Swindon complete with GWR tanks and fittings, but then saw almost no use and was finally scrapped when there was no work for her and no-one wanted to buy her.

 

According to Russell No.9 (GWR 1213 ex No2) was a rebuild as the original frames & wheels were supposedly used although the boiler, cylinders, valves & valve gear were all new and it still exists. RCTS part 10 pages K77-8 corroborates this. (1212 was only slightly modified but scrapped in 1932 after being on the sales list.)

7 & 8 were built new to more or less the same specification.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...