Restoring the balance...

Sorry but i have to take issue with that, when Tyseley had 4472 for a bit in it's last ticket it was slipping and sliding a great deal on the occasions I saw it and was only on a modest load of 6/7, the sort 4965 just strolls away with.

 

Well I'd humbly suggest that it was down to other factors and not the design of the loco but, as I wasn't there, I can't come to any conclusions as to what.

 

The records seem to be clear that when it came to getting out of Kings Cross past Finsbury, both in 1925 and 1948, the GWR engines comprehensively took the honours, both in acceleration and freedom from slipping. Maybe its the 4-6-0 weight transfer bit, although I can't really make the sums work in my head, but contemporary GWR engineers gave most of the credit to Churchward's regulator design.

 

And I've been behind a 100% sure footed 4472 with loads that would make a Hall struggle whilst equally I've experienced a Castle slipping and sliding all over the show. Neither observation proves that one loco is superior/inferior to the other though. How familiar a crew is with a particular design can be a significant factor at times.

 

i can't argue with the idea that a Churchward regulator is better than those fitted to the LNER pacifics, and, I agree, that makes a lot of difference. As for weight transfer and the supposed disadvantage of a pacific over a 4-6-0, I'd suggest that the height of the tender drawbar relative to axle centre height is perhaps of more importance and that info seems to be hard to come by, at least for me.

 

I think that's the clincher. When 34053 came to the SVR last year, the first few months saw - and no criticism meant to the crews - some difficult starts, to put it mildly. But I haven't seen him slip since Christmas, and over half term he was making very sure-footed departures from Bewdley.

A sadly deceased acquaintance of mine once told me the trick with Bulleid's is to ensure that the steam chest pressure never exceeds 160psi when starting. Can anyone confirm/challenge this?

 

I think starting south from Bridgnorth is the real test for any loco. Bewdley is pretty straight until past the box while you have a curve to battle against at Bridgnorth. I saw 34053 on a damp, grey day starting away without a problem a few weeks ago. It was one of those days where the railhead has a clinging layer of moisture on it rather than being washed clean by heavy rain.

 

I agree, Bridgnorth is the acid test, but the reason I remarked on Bewdley was that I was there, and had seen some less than impressive departures from Platform 2 earlier in SKP's stay.

 

That's interesting. I've never seen any poor departures from Bewdley - hence why I haven't associated it as a place that's hard to get away from.

 

If you are expecting a difficult get away, such as from Grosmont, you are generally wary that you might slip and make a cautious start. If you are somewhere where it is an easy start, such as at Pickering, you tend to be a lot less cautious on the handle. it's not a struggle to get away but it might well induce a slip It's probably a trap that I and many others fall into.

 

But I haven't seen her slip since Christmas, and over half term she was making very sure-footed departures from Bewdley.

(And yes, I do know what she's named!)

 

Just as well there are no hard and fast rules and we can all do as we please with regard to this particular corner of the language. I think he's great

 

Maybe, but it's a shame that followers of a pastime that is founded on traditional practice should forget the traditional language!

 

But my point is that there were no hard and fast rules then, and some engines were referred to as "he" in steam days. I am using the traditional language.

 

Interestingly "locomotive" is a feminine noun in German, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.

 

You remember that? I don't recall an old steam man ever referring to a loco as he. And mostly they didn't refer to names but numbers eg "No 7, she's a goodun.".

 

That is certainly far from universal. Certainly on ex-LBSCR lines, the old Stroudley and Billinton locos were often referred to by their old names, long after those names had been painted out.

I have a photo of a sign erected at the entrance to Newhaven Harbour that was erected as recently as 1956. It reads "No engines other than the A1/X Fenchurch class to pass this board". Fenchurch had lost her name 39 years previously...

Tom

 

Of course I don't remember that, I think you probably well know that I am one of the younger generation of enthusiasts. But not being there does not render my knowledge of railways in the past null and void. I'm not saying that it was common practice to refer to male-named locos as masculine, just that it was not unknown, and there is therefore a mandate for me to refer to SKP as I choose.

 

My understanding was that, in English, anything which can contain people - a ship, a country, an engine - is referred to as 'she.'

 

A bit late I know, but earlier we discussing the whys and wherefores of why certain locos got officially preserved, and why there might me a bias towards one or other company in the national collection.

In that light, this is interesting:

Article from Railway Modeller, 1961

Interesting that the list (which is a mixture of what was already in the national collection, and what was proposed fro collection in due course) includes both "Duke of Gloucester" and an example of a Caprotti Standard 5.

Tom