RS&H 'Ugly' 0-6-0STs

O come on, there is only one place - and we have a small hill to play with....

 

Foxfield surely?

 

Dave, you'll have a PM by tomorrow ;-)

Oh, and regarding the most powerful industrials... No.29 must rank pretty high!

 

With all this talk about what is the most powerful, I think that the definitions need to be clear. 'Power' is force x speed, it is not about simple tractive effort. Then, are you talking about power in the cylinders, power at the rail or power at the drawbar? They are all different, and that isn't including boiler horsepower which is probably the most relevant criteria of all!
It is probably easier to stick with simple tractive effort, which is a measure of strength but, even here, there are complications. Hunslet always quoted the Austerity tractive effort at 21,060 lbf but BR quoted the J94 at 23,870 lbf. It's a fictional figure based on various parameters and, depending on what parameters you take, the answer will vary.

 

Quite true, and, short of finding an unlimited supply of wagons, a perfect crew who know each loco inside out, and perfect conditions, it's unlikely we'll ever know... But that's no reason not to try!

 

i'd be all for an industrial olympics but you'd need more than just enthusiasts turn up you'd need your average non enthusiast family to come and they probably wouldnt be interested in something so specialised and with no namers there. sheame because it would be great. i know in poland they have a locomotive olympics and have competitions like a pint of beer balanced on the coupling rods and the loco who gets to the finish line with most beer still in the glass wins. think they do haulage contests as well but not certain but yeah i'd love to put 2521 through its paces and show the rest of your mere mortal engines what its made of ha.

 

hmm i dont think it would beat the monster or the taff!

 

I vote off any industrials with fake BR no's to start with...

Having the power is one thing, having the b..ls to use the power as nature intended is another !.

 

must have been quite a sight seeing a steam loco in a steel works dragging a fully loaded ladle full of molten steel out of a furnace. the heat the smell every sense tingling as ? loco got to grips with it. awe inspiring stuff!

 

ARISE motto?

 

Still is in China....

 

yeah but how many of us can afford to go to china?

 

China doesn't have to be expensive as long as you avoid the tour groups. Flights are about £400 and then everything is very cheap when you get there. A small price to pay for a once in a lifetime experience. The problem is you will never look at preserved steam in the same way again. Just wished I had the time to go again ...

 

The reason for the short saddle tank on the Uglies was the firebox - its diameter was greater than the boiler.

 

I'm in the process of producing an Ugly using a Hornby J94 body heavily modified and a Hornby Terrier chassis. Did you know you can model the Austerity precursors by using Terrier wheels in the J94 chassis?

 

With regard to all the chat about most powerful industrial loco design the Industrial Railway Society featured a series of articles last year on this very subject. Written by Dave Holroyd they were in Issues 209-211 published last year. The webpage for the magazine is here.

 

Probably because the Uglies were designed from the Austerity precursor HE2411 which my late friend Percy Horne drove in the S&L quarries prior to S&L Minerals determining the specification and placing the final order - the same design which was the precursor for the Ministry of Supply Austerities from which the LNER purchased a number which they classified J94.

 

I don't think so Fred. From what I understand, the specification for the 56 class locos for Corby was drawn up as a development of the Manning Wardle/Kitson/ RSH 16 inch locos then operated by S & L Minerals. There are some similarities with the 50550 Hunslets: cylinder dimensions, wheel size and at the front a visual likeness above the running plate, but that's were it ends.

S & L wanted to retain some specific features of the Manning Wardle design, the main one being the raised Haycock firebox which necessitated the shortened saddle tank. Other differences on the 56 class are: compensated springing with coil springs at the rear, a higher boiler pressure, a longer wheelbase and an all up weight of 52.75 tons versus 49.5 tons.

Both superb industrial locomotive designs; thankfully, several of them survive in preservation.

Cheers

Alan

 

The "Uglies" may be a combination of both design concepts as S&L minerals followed the original MW design with 15" x 22" cylinders [ 34 / 35 / 38 = MW 1316/1317/1762] through the later MW series with 16" x 22" cylinders [ 41 / 42 = MW2009 / 2010], the Kitson series [ 44/45/46/47/48/49/50 = K5469/5470/54773/5474/5476/5477/5478] and the RSH series [51-55 = RSH 7003/7004/7030/7031/7032] before HE2411 was trialled and appropriate adjustments made to the draft specification prior to ordering the "Uglies" to work the "new" line to Harringworth.

My interest in the "Uglies" comes from playing with them [i.e. driving them] whilst I lived in Corby during the 1960s during which time I also became fond of MW1316/17 without realising that my grandfather had worked on those engines whilst serving as an apprentice with the company which built the Birmingham reservoir complex at Rhyader at the beginning of the 20th century. I made friends with the S&L manager - M Jones - who was a fount of knowledge which is reflected in his contribution to Eric Tonks' classic book [The Ironstone Quarries of the Midlands Vol VI The Corby Area and continued my interest in the Minerals System and its locomotive fleet through the class 14 era.