Narrow gauge loco design

The article mentions that Fire Queen was owned by John Smith MP. Was this the same late lamented John Smith, who was leader of the Labour Party?

 

Not him. The "Fire Queen Man" was, I seem to recall, M.P. for Westminster.

PH

 

This one I think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(Conservative_politician)

 

Thanks, Felix and Paul. I didn't know about this guy, but he sounds like quite a character, particularly his ingenious methods of fundraising for the Landmark Trust.

 

I think that your announcement of the demolition of Fire Queen's shed may be premature as it was still there (at the base of the A1 Vivian incline) last time I was there and still appears on Google Earth. FWIW Fire Queen was entombed in there from 1886 to 1969 when she went to Penrhyn Castle. The side tanks from one of the 4'g. Hunslets also survive.
Ray.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.1...4!1sttL-9iSlox4DMTYaw4qv0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Also see my post 696! One of the problems with putting the smaller wagons on the large is that it really only works if you have a particular set traffic pattern in mind. The Padarn railway only conveyed wagons between the quarry and the port - it couldn't physically go anywhere else. The LNWR's transporters only worked between Blaenau and Deganwy and required special loading/unloading facilities at each end. Any attempt to take the narrow gauge wagons to, say, Manchester or elsewhere would have resulted in a lot of wagons, both large and small, being scattered around the country not very economically.

Steve B

 

Cheers Ray. Original post duly corrected.

 

.... as well as hanging around the quarries, just as 'not very economically', if repeated communications from the old FR management to the quarry managers are any indication of things!

Add that to unavoidable delays due to marshalling / shunting and you begin to understand why wagonload freight was a sitting duck as soon as all those WD lorries hit the market, post-WWI. Not something transporter wagons would have improved one single jot.

 

Thanks, you saved me a trip to the Library...
Now I need another excuse to go!
Apparently the article mentions the regauging of the RDR 0-6-2 MW locos, but is this just a passing comment?

 

Either the reference is incorrect or it has been misinterpreted. The article is purely on the new NW loco.

 

Thanks.
In any case, it seems to me that the L&B Manning Wardles are very much of a type with other NG locos for Britain and Ireland of the same period - including numerous broadly similar sized 2-6-2T, 2-6-0T, 0-6-2T, 2-4-2T, etc.
So unless someone takes a trip to York to check the order book and finds BNR crossed out and "flogged off to some suckers from Devon" written above, I think we can assume they were designed and built for the L&B - and presumably in response to a specification from someone? I thought other loco manufacturers had also quoted - isn't there a 7mm scale NG layout with locos based on the Hunslet proposal for the L&B?
A few of the NG books I looked at quickly seemed to praise the L&B locos, although they were all written well after their scrapping. Adhesion aside, what makes us think they were unsatisfactory?
Adhesion may be an issue when thinking of heavy tourist trains, but since too much traffic was not exactly the L&Bs main issue, why do we think they were unsatisfactory?

 

That's easy, just look at the load limits. The climbs on the L&B were nowhere near as severe as those on the W.H.R. and W.&L.L.R. or as prolonged as on the upper stretch of the V. of R. Using any one of the comparative haulage tables produced by various makers or dealers (such as Arthur Koppel) it is clear the L&B machines would have failed utterly to cope with the challenges of the two steeper Welsh lines. Even in their original form the V.of R.machines were permitted considerably heavier loads.

This matters because in a situation where, on the occasions when there is a high level of business, double heading has to be resorted to, bang goes the opportunity of making some money.

PH

 

Hi Andrew, well that is part of the difficulties we have, in that we can't prove it, but we do know for instance that the L&BR was supposedly designed for 2-4-2 Tanks and not 2-6-2T's. Once again I am not an engineering in that field, but if you look at the specification for LYN, then that is the specification so I am lead to believe was the same one drawn up for the like's of Manning Wardle and other Leeds based locomotive builders. I will however lay odds on that this story is far from over and I would not be surprised if that it has yet another different ending to this story that the conclusions we currently have.

Colin

 

Hi Guys I hope this thread will allow the discussion of narrow gauge locomotive development over the past 100+ years.

I also hope that the Mod's can transfer part of the LYN new build thread to here so we can carry on the discussion of locomotive development on a new thread.

Colin

 

Hi Al is it possible to untangle this thread a bit from the last genuine post about LYN and start a new thread? I have started one but I am not sure how we cut and paste part of this thread over to the new thread (narrow gauge loco design)

regards

Colin

 

I don't think that's how things worked. Hunslet offered a 4-4-0T. I imagine the specification wasn't very specific on wheel arrangement, and the manufacturers offered what they thought best suited.

 

In WW1 the British specified 4-6-0 T's from Baldwin for trench railways. The septics had 2-6-2's for the same job. The so-called double-enders proved much more tolerant of curved, badly laid track. At what point did British engineers understand this? I wouldn't fancy one of those Trangkill type 4-4-0's in reverse over the twisty bits of the L&B...

 

Trangkill type 4-4-0's eh where are these from please enlighten.