A good 'un from a bad 'un

Interesting comments about 45110 and Ivatt frames. No doubt all will be revealed in circa 2018 when it starts its "heavy general" overhaul at Bridgnorth.

 

Different companies! A Terrier is LBSCR, originally built starting in 1872, but with their genesis in a design for the Highland Railway from the late 1860s. A P class is SECR, built in 1909. Supposedly Wainwright built what was a close copy, though interestingly it is slightly lower TE while slightly higher weight. But inevitably, the more modern design has certain features that make it more user friendly.

Briefly, those are:

- Reversing: A Terrier has a lever reverse, and moreover, the motion is not counter-weighted, so it goes with a rush as soon as you release the catch handle from reverse to forward, but is an almighty tug from forward to reverse. You have to brace yourself properly to operate it and, in my experience, it is almost impossible to change the reverser setting without first shutting off steam to release the pressure on the valves. A P class has a steam reverser, so can be controlled practically with one finger, and accurately as well.

- Regulator: A Terrier regulator tends to be very stiff until it opens, when it suddenly becomes very easy. So it is easy to tug and tug and have nothing happen, then it opens in a rush. A P class regulator is much smoother in operation.

- Injectors. A P class has a simple handweheel for a water control. A Terrier has a counter-weighted lever, held open with a wing nut and situated awkwardly to access. (These are the remnants from the old feed pumps, pre-injector days). So it is much easier to get the injector running on a P class.

- Firehole door: On a Terrier, it opens backwards into the fire using ratcheted lever. On a P class, it is a pair of sliding doors. So to inspect the firebox before lighting up, the whole fire hole door and shelf assembly has to be removed (three bolts, and very heavy) to take a good look inside; on a P class there is none of that palaver. So I reckon a P class is about 30 minutes quicker in the morning to prep, from a fireman's point of view.

- Cab: There are no doors on a Terrier! Both cabs are really too cramped with three people, though fine with two. A P is a bit higher, which helps if you are tall.

The P class had a poor reputation when originally built. However, I don't think it was an inherent fault of the engine: rather, they were built for light passenger services and were so successful in attracting passengers that the loadings went up until they were beyond their capability.

I seem to recall when Clive Groome was running footplate courses on the Bluebell, he was always angling for a P class to be restored, as he considered it a much easier engine for a person with no experience to drive. Ironically, by time we got a P class, he had stopped running courses there...

Given the choice, the romantic in me would prefer a Terrier, but my head would prefer a P class.

Tom

 

Ask Santa for a small vanity mirror for Christmas. Or, if you're a bit embarrassed at that, you can get pukka inspection mirrors on handles at a bit more cost! You need a torch to go with it but I'm assuming that you've already got a Bardic or similar. If not, that's something else to add to your Christmas list.

 

Clive was able to use Bluebell during the 1990s. I went on one of his one-day courses and a "refresher". As I've never driven a loco before (or since) I can't claim to be an expert, but having been on a few footplates over the years and watched different drivers in action, it did strike me as a relatively simple engine to handle. I've heard serveral Bluebell crews say that although the LBSCR engines have the obvious historic link with the line, the SECR Wainwright engines are much easier to drive. It sounds like they're easier to fire as well.

 

All excellent stuff, making for interesting reading! Thanks again for all your replies. Tom, did you have the opportunity to experience both 1618/1638 or 8o151 & 80064?

Chris

 

Before my time I'm afraid. Did have a go on 80154, but I think that was cheating!

More seriously, I reckon 34059 was better than 34028, but that could have had as much to do with the relative freshness from overhaul as anything else (when we had 34028, she was already a long way into her ticket as I recall). With such big locos it is difficult to tell on the Bluebell, because they aren't really fully extended. I reckon 21C123 was better than either, especially in how it accelerated. She also seemed to roll more freely, picking up speed downhill more quickly.

Tom

 

I have heard it said that 1618 was a bit stronger than 1638. But it's already nearly 20 years since anyone had a go on 1618!

 

Thinking a bit more about this, the bluebell probably has (had) one of the best opportunities for back to back comparisions (3 x P, 2 x Terrier, 2x U, 2x Std 4) there cant be many other lines with as many multiples of the same class?

 

Yes, though we don't often have two of the same class running simultaneously, so comparisons are harder. Did have a turn on both P classes in a day though, when they were running in "double-fairlie" mode, and I changed engine mid way through the day and fired a trip on each - that was fun!

Tom

 

34012 Tavistock, 34043 Combe Martin and 34065 Hurricane were widely considered to be wrong 'uns.

 

There have been a few posts on here about merchant navy's and I'd be interested to learn any memories of 35006. This MN was unique in being the only MN to stay at the same shed the whole of it's working life (Salisbury). Being a relatively early withdrawal it didn't get the same stardom as the 66/67 locos. Again it must have had a quiet existence ax there aren't many photos of it either! Any one got any notes? Did see a picture once of it with what I think was the boat train for the Ss Canberras maiden voyage.

 

Non-railway interjection: IMHO nobody did as much as Lord Dowding - but an awful lot of his involvement was before the shooting started. Many people don't realise that he was the Air Member responsible for funding and guiding the development of Radar and was behind the Command and Control system that enabled the battle to be fought as efficiently as it was. Park was the man at the sharp end but it was Dowding that forged the point and kept it sharp, by rotating squadrons and finding more and more pilots as losses mounted and men began to suffer from Combat Fatigue. Park couldn't have done what he did without his pilots or Dowdings preparation and support but then all Dowdings planning, preparation and support would have been for nothing if he hadn't had men like Park and his pilots working for him (he, and Park, could have probably done without the likes of Bader and Leigh-Mallory making his life more difficult than it needed to be though). In reality, when you get to men like Dowding and Park its invidious to choose between them, much like choosing between certain locomotives or the great CMEs.

 

What about 35018?Wasn't it a Nine Elms engine all its working life?

 

Apologies to all for continuing the non-rail interjection, but a quick note that i) this was already touched on in the Sir Keith Park thread, and ii) Dowding's major accomplishments also included a role in the monoplane fighter (Spitfire, Hurricane) procurement while he was Air Member for <something or other>, just before he went to build Fighter Command, and also putting his foot down (to Churchill, no less!) in keeping the RAF from being frittered away in the German invasion of France.

I (and others) think he should have had an Earldom (at least - Wellesley got a Dukedom); he never really got the recognition he deserved (although he is buried next to Trenchard in Westminster Abbey, which is a nice touch).

I must respectfully disagree. Much as I honour Park's very considerable achievements (see other thread), I don't think one can put them on the same plane (no pun intended) as Dowding's.

Noel

 

Re 35006, I'm too young to have any memories of it in service, but following your post, I have been trawling through my various railway books covering the 1940s-60s, and I am surprised how few pictures there seem to be. Ivo Peters (in Southern Steam Album page 38) recorded it in rebuilt form working the 1PM Waterloo-Plymouth on the 1 in 80 descent from Milborne Port to Sherborne on 1st August 1964. In the Bradford Barton Southern Steam Locomotive Survey series Bulleid Merchant Navy Pacifics, it is featured on Page 12 as 21C6 working the Devon Belle near Milborne Port, on Page 54 working a freight out of Buckhorn Weston Tunnel in June 1962 and on Page 55 working a Salisbury-Exeter stopper out of Sidmouth Junction on July 1963. There are two colour pictures by Peter Gray in Steam on West of England Main Lines: one on page 3 was taken in 1960 on Honiton Bank with a Templecombe-Exeter stopping train, and there is another view of it on page 13, again on Honiton Bank on 3rd August 1964 with the 1PM Waterloo-Plymouth.

I hope this info may be of help to you and/or the owning group. While I would be more than happy to scan the images and send them to you, this is probably illegal as a copyright infringement. Still, it would be good if a throrough pictorial record of 35006's earlier career could be produced to mark its return to steam.