Things that seemed a good idea at the time, but in practice are pretty useless.

As did the Midland Compounds until withdrawal.

 

Thanks for pointing that out - I was unaware.

But now, I belatedly realise that we still have another Derby-designed engine that retains its tail-rods - I photographed it just a few weeks ago!

 

Good spot, the tail rods are quite difficult to see on most images because they are tucked under the front footplating. The small boilered S&D 2-8-0s did of course share the same boiler as the Compounds.

 

I wonder if the tail rods on the early Maunsell mogul family was another signifier of Clayton’s (Midland) influence on the detail design? They disappeared in later life as the locos were progressively given new cylinders.

Tom

 

I agree that it is likely that Clayton took the initiative to propose tail-rods for the SECR, drawing on his Derby experience. The Midland appears to have been among the most enthusiastic adopters of tail-rods at that period, extending them to the Superheater Class 2P 4-4-0s and 4F 0-6-0s. On the 0-6-0s, the tail-rods poked through the top of the buffer-beams, but were later removed.

I assume that none of the Wainwright 4-4-0s carried tail-rods? On the D1/E1 rebuilds, rods poked out from under the smokebox, but I am unsure if they belonged to the cylinders or to the piston valves.

The authorities at Eastleigh seem to have been in two minds over the subject, fitting tail-rods to only some of the Urie & Maunsell 4-6-0s (Most H15s plus the final batch of King Arthurs).

 

If I remember rightly, the 5AT group were proposing to use tail-rods, so they must have seen some value in them?

Unless I've made that up of course.

Dave

 

You've not imagined it. This from the 5AT faq's
"The key is optimum design of the reciprocating parts, and it can be revealed that the pistons, piston rings, piston rods and piston tail rods for the 5AT are already fully specified, the total mass of this assembly being only 200 lb., with a stress-based fatigue life equal to the full expected life of the locomotive. It would therefore appear that the target of 550 lb. for the total mass of the reciprocating parts per cylinder is going to be bettered."

 

These 550 lb was ca 800 lb on LMS class 5s.Is it possible?

 

With high strength steels why not?