Tyseley Single Wheeler.

I'm ready to chip in then.

 

Some definite statements about this should be revealed at the L&NWR Society's Annual Open Meeting
on Saturday 29th July 2017 in the Kidderminster Railway Museum. The meeting (together with displays of photographs, models, nameplates etc) is open to the public from 10.30am till 5.30pm - and it's free.

At 12.45pm Mr Michael Whitehouse, Tyseley's Chairman, is to give a talk: "What next for the Bloomer?"

Harry Jack.

 

With Tyseley open day this weekend, wouldn't be surprised if more info comes available then.

 

Have just seen the final presentation in advance of Saturday's meeting. Wow!

 

I do like the idea of this but its been hanging about for a long time now,
Who will it belong to when its finished?

The Melter

 

After the flurry of recent magazine articles about vague intentions, it will be interesting to hear something definite at Kidderminster on Saturday.

Looking forward to it.

 

Well unless any major changes are announced on Saturday, it would still belong to Tyseley as they are the ones who've paid for it up until now and they are the people who've actually done the work.

Keith

 

not all of us forget . well its not memory exactly . , I aint that old , but the bloomers were a quick bit of kit , running well into the 70s . some thought they would have done a better job on the first race to the north than the engines actually used.
the Lady of the Lake class ran well into the 80s when used as pilots, and who cannot rub their eyes at the exploits of Jeannie Deans , one of Webbs much maligned compounds.
the SECR passenger engines were gorgeous . lucky we have 737.and the Clauds. lots of others of course .
go forward to 1911 and the Georges ,capable of doing work that would not disgrace Staniers' 4-6-0s
I would love to see a Teutonic new build with the cylinder ratios sorted - and a re-draughted small boiler Claughton . oh well - dream on

if I had a choice that is the railway era I would choose to live in-1880 to 1914

 

I think you mean Jeanie Deans. Some of Webb's compounds deserved to be maligned but the Teutonics appear to have been useful machines.

 

this I can manage - Coventry (changed a bit) station with large bloomer Apollo, and a DX goods to keep it company

 

most were heavily criticised- with some justification , but you cannot escape the fact they shifted the heaviest traffic in the country , and kept time ,in spite of their shortcomings . strange though Webb didn't do what Whale did. which was put another set of wheels under a Precursor with a bigger boiler -simples (pun intended)

 

The Compounds were, some of them at least, a lot better than given credit for. The really strange thing is that FWW had just about got the three-cylinder engines worked out when he moved on to four-cylinder types - and had to start again.

Their main problem was their size. Adequate, as were the Jumbos, into the 1890s, but after that, tare weights of passenger trains rose massively with the coming of bogie, corridor stock. Several railways suddenly found that their locos were no longer adequate, but the Compounds' problem was that, unlike the Jumbos and all other LNWR types, they could not be thrashed; attempts to do so simply flooded the receiver and produced high back pressure on the rear of the HP pistons.

As to why he didn't do what Whale did in producing the Precursors, by this time he had been in office for a long time and carrying a huge weight of responsibility, not helped by an ongoing fight with the General Manager, Frederick Harrison. His health was failing, and it's probable that he couldn't make the mental leap from the small, cheap locos he had always provided to the big ones then needed.

 

me , 'frinstance !

 

As the Teutonics had slip eccentric valve gear on the lp cylinder, which was always in full gear, it would be surprising if it was possible to flood the receiver on those.

 

I understand (vague memories possibly from a Rutherford article in Backtrack?) that the LNWR management of Moon and Harrison insisted on light trains well into the 1880s/90s. So there wasn't a need for anything bigger than a 2-4-0. When bogie carriages were introduced, rapidly and after Moon's death, Webb did try bigger locos (2-2-2-2 and then 4-4-0).
Both had some good ideas in them. The rear carrying wheel to allow a deeper grate was the same idea which produced good Atlantics and Pacifics, while the 4-cylinder compound was later shown to be a very good idea over the Channel (and Mr Churchward's de-compounded versions turned out well).
That was the thinking with Webb, he had many very good ideas, but didn't always combine them into a good loco.
He had to move into four cylinders as there wasn't space for the cylinders on the three cylinder design to get bigger. Smith of course produced the right answer to that question.
I also understand that, size for size, Webb's compounds (especially the better ones) were at least the equal of anything else around. It's mainly that they just didn't increase fast enough in power in the last decade to keep up with the trains.
Let's also remember that most of Webb's locos weren't compounds, but were excellent.
Although Whale's designs for the LNWR out of a bit of a hole (sometimes exaggerated in reporting), the design school from then on at Crewe was essentially to build something cheaply which could, if slogged, produce the required power, but would thrash itself to bits in the process.

 

Thanks I kind of guessed that but not really any the wiser,
Tysley the museum, the business or someone's private property?
With all the work that Tyseley have done in the past decade or so they could have done work on this too
At almost no cost,it's a simple machine after all.
Yet all the responses on here about why no work has been done in the past however many years are said to be a lack of money, so Tyseley started it, stopped it, stored it. Are they saying that they will finish this loco for themselves if
Someone else pays for it first?

The melter

 

I thought it was said that someone left them a bequest to pay for it? Or did I miss read that? If so and the money is ringfenced as that was what the money was donated to (you have to spend it on that if it was requested) then the final amount of money left to finish it after that is so small that you might as well do it. And didn't someone say that Tyseley is to go back it it's routes and re look at the museum side (is it the Birmingham railway museum charity that owns the loco?) And the Bloomer would be good for shuttles on their running stretch.

 

That's the situation as I understand it Gav. I think all the locos are owned by the museum.


Keith

 

That's what they've always said, I think, since they stopped work on it. No different, in principle, from any other charity fundraising appeal.

 

and Gresley was a Crewe apprentice under Webb. maybe that expl............Noooooooooooooooo