Current and Proposed New-Builds

The G16 had side-play on the trailing coupled axle to give some degree of flexibility - IIRC it was about 3/8" each way - a young Eric Langridge was all ready to work out a nice knuckle-jointed coupling rod and was slightly taken aback when the Finlayson (the Chief Draughtsman) told him to just give the trailing crankpin an extended journal surface. Clearly it worked. They were designed and built in parallel with Feltham yard, so a 7 chain radius had been agreed on. I believe the loco department were not best pleased when they found this had not been strictly adhered to and was causing derailments in parts of the yard, so the big tanks had to be given a bit more bogie side play. The spare G16 would also be used to cover part of an H16 diagram, if available, so they did get a bit further afield than just the yard.

 

There were a three of "might have beens' from throughout the history.

Firstly, in 1866 the GNR purchased two Avonside 0-8-0Ts for use on the Metropolitan widened lines, similar to two earlier locomotives provided to the Vale of Neath Railway. On hearing of these locos, Martley obtained permission from the LCDR Locomotive Committee to purchase two similar locos - provisionally to be named "Samson" and "Goliath" - for work on the LCDR. Alas, the GNR locomotives turned out to damage the track excessively, and Martley accordingly cancelled the LCDR order. There was quite a to-ing and fro-ing between the LCDR and Avonside who demanded compensation for the work expended to that point, apparently without success.

Next, there was a proposed Wainwright 0-8-0 goods, of which ten were ordered but then cancelled for a similar number of C class 0-6-0s. The design had the D class boiler, 20*26 cylinders, 4'7" wheels. That gives 28,100lbf TE against the C class 19,520lbf; and 20.25sq ft of grate area against 17sq ft. No reason for cancelling the order is given, but probably to do with preferring standardisation, given that there were relatively few duties for which an 0-8-0 was needed.

The last proposal - better known - was for better motive power than an N class 2-6-0 to work the Kent coal trains. A four cylinder 4-8-0 based on the Lord Nelson was worked out in considerable detail, with the drawings approved in early 1935. However, the design foundered when it was shown that to obtain the most out of the capabilities of the loco, a total of £113,000 would have to be spent in civil engineering extending loops and sidings. A trial of S15s on loan from the Western Section showed that they could work the heaviest trains for which there was line capacity, after which the seven 4-8-0s were cancelled and replaced with an order for the 838 - 847 series S15s which were built in 1936. There's a Matthew Cousins painting here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/46226-maunsell-proposed480/

Tom

 

Why a 4-8-0 when the other heavy freight locos were 2-8-0's

 

I suspect because the design is essentially a modified Lord Nelson, and from the outline dimensions I have, I think everything in front of the leading axle was largely unchanged. I suspect as well that a four cylinder design tends to be heavy at the front, so may have presented difficulties for a loco with a leading pony truck in having excessive weight at the front. Designing a 2-8-0 would have meant at the very least considerably more design effort as it would have been an essentially new design.

Tom

 

Pity about the PW millstone, as that's rather an impressive looking machine. Can't imagine it wouldn't have needed smoke deflectors, as per classes H15/N15/N15X/S15/LN/V and it's probably reasonable to suppose OVSB would have given it the Lemaîte treatment.

 

I think I have a better alternative: a Drummond 700 "Black Motor" 0-6-0:

 

Unless you count the 8Fs built by Ashford, Eastleigh and Brighton during the war? Did any of them operate for the SR at the time?

 

No I don't ..... damn foreign rubbish!

Jesting aside, I'd forgotten about those and short answer .... I dunno. Nor do I know if any 'austerities' ever trod Southern metals (or ROD 2-8-0's during the earlier spot of unpleasantness, for that matter).

Put me down as an 'I'd like to know too'.

 

Or a K7 Ckass 4-4-0:

 

You definitely aren't the only one who has that class on their list. There's much to be said for the humble 0-6-0. IMO it's a bit surprising (and very disappointing) that a 700 slipped through the net. The LSW 0-6-0 tender loco I like went much earlier, the old class 0282 Ilfracombe Goods. Later service for Col. Stephen's empire kept some going until spares from the Southern Railway dried up in the 1930's. When you see the photo in the attached link, it's hard to believe they were ever the answer to working a line with a 1:36 ruling gradient.

(Best grab a cuppa first by the way, it's a very readable site, even if it's navigation seems to be sulking at the mo!).

Sorry it's the index page (subject page won't load for some reason), just head for the menu link to the Site Map thence Locomotive Notes ... and the Ilfracombe Goods is lurking there.

http://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/index.html

 

http://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/locomotive notes topics/ilfracombe goods.html

 

Cheers for putting that up. I was having an odd time of it with my android and/or broadband connection last night.

So ..... original Ilfracombe Goods, or what I call the interesting choice (must be that 4w tender) or as rebuilt by Adams ... let's call that the sensible choice (probably more useful and still bags of character). Thinking about it, "as finally running on Stephens' Light Railways" should be an option too, as it casts the potential interest a fair bit wider.

After over 80 years, I wonder if there are any drawings left?

 

Going back a bit, the NYMR already has an ideal engine for its diners, albeit currently out of traffic, in the form of 80135 - 80136 is contractually barred from the heavier trains (it is limited to 7 coaches) but it would be interesting to see how a 3-cyl Stanier 2-6-4T would perform by comparison - a smoother ride for the diners?

What would be really, really nice to build, though, would a fully working hump shunting yard for some of the mammoths to perform on - now there's a lost sight and sound would be a marvel (apart from the fatalities among the operating staff - they might be hard to recruit!)

 

Since I have a soft spot for steamlocos with six coupled driving wheels, it would be lovely to see one of these:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_Prince_of_Wales_Tank_Class

Knut

 

USA S160 on the Southern ?

 

Ooh ..... nice! There's always a bit of a nagging question about pre-grouping Crewe designs in my mind. How much of the limitations inherent as a result of that frequently mentioned 20 year design life would be reflected in any recreation?

The wholesale culling of so many LNW classes under Stanier may simply reflect the LMS standardisation drive, but the sheer number of '20th century LNW' fatalities, especially those more modern superheated classes, during 1932-48 seems disproportionately high.

.... or am I just being misled by thinking in terms of the necessity driven LNE, Southern and GSR (Ireland) policies of keeping older classes serviceable as long as humanly possible? Any thoughts, folks?

 

I'm not really qualified to comment beyond the obvious, that locos designed to be flogged up and down the WCML for 20 years would probably last a lot longer well maintained pottering around on a heritage railway!

 

The Southern certainly had some Austerity 2-8-0s on loan, both in 1943/44 and from 1947. J W P Rowledge's book on the Austerities has details. There were 32 mostly on the Eastern section in 2/44. They also had around 50 after they were returned from Europe

 

I wouldn't get too hung up on the twenty years life span of LNWR locos: take the Super Ds as an example. When the Midland 'took over' in 1923, LNWR types became persona non grata and withdrawals of most classes started long before WAS appeared on the scene, and they would have continued even if he hadn't taken up his post. In any case, they were flogged mercilessly in LNWR days; kinder treatment might have helped their longevity.

I always thought that the Prince of Wales class would be a decent type for preserved lines: simple to build, capable of being used hard and more of a mixed traffic type than the George the Fifth under construction, so better at preserved lines' speed. I said this at the time but big wheels won the day.

 

I confess I'm a tad surprised the newly formed LMS had enough locos to begin dumping LNW designs that early on.

There certainly was an awful lot of territorial scent marking, with a distinct waft of Derby, going on from day one. It's almost a wonder Euston Station survived ... if the GCR had gone to the LMS, perhaps it wouldn't have!

The Southern seems to have managed grouping far more sensibly.