Jinties - Push - Pull Fitted.

Hello everybody. Something I been pondering:

Acording to an old issue of Locomotive Illustrated (no 125) which has the details on Jinties, five were fitted with the LMS's vacuum systerm of motor train control. Used between their construction until 1950 on train service between Swansea St.Thomas and Brynammman. Nos 7477 to 7481 (BR nos. 47477 to 47481)

Question: After this did they keep their control equipment aftwards and if so where they used else where on Motor Trains? Only thing the magazine says is two were used at Wolverton as works shunters.

Its just something that intreset me as love idea of some humble shunters in use on motor trains.

 

All were allocated to Swansea Victoria's sub shed at Upper Bank. They were transfered to other sheds as follows: -
47477 to 27A Bank Hall August 1957
47478 to Wolverton Works September 1959
47479 to Wolverton Works September 1959
47480 to 27E Walton April 1957. It later went to 27A Bank Hall in October 1958
47481 to 24J Lancaster Green Ayre April 1959
It is highly unlikely they were used on motor trains after their transfers.

 

Rated as 3F the Jinties were more than just "humble shunters". They were used on brach line services, ecs duties at main line stations, station pilots, local freight trips and many other areas of work. It's true that the Ivatt 2-6-0 was built to replace older 0-6-0s but the 3F Jinty was more powerful than, and still as useful as, its Class 2MT replacement.

 

Except the Ivatt 2-6-0 had a much bigger capacity in terms of bunker space and water capacity. Perhaps a better comparison would be with the 2-6-2Ts.

Having fired a Jinty and an Ivatt 2-6-0 I know which one is much better from the crew's point-of-view...

 

Except the Ivatt 2-6-0 had a much bigger capacity in terms of bunker space and water tank. Perhaps a better comparison would be with the 2-6-2Ts.

Having fired a Jinty and an Ivatt 2-6-0 I know which one is much better from the crew's point-of-view...[

 

Agreed the Ivatt designs were much better for crews given that (a) there was 22 years difference in introduction (b) there was more concern in post-war designs with with crew "comfort" and (c) the operating environments between the 2 classes was totally different. I don't disagree with your analysis of which is better to crew but I do disagree with your analysis of work ability; I think the KWVR crews might have a more relevant viewpoint given their experience of 47279 over the years.

 

The Jinties .were never called that at bedford loco and other sheds on the Midland they were known as "Jocks"

 

Since they also have an Ivatt 2-6-2 as well then the Keighley opinion would seem to be a valid one... both those are used on sets upto 5 bogies, they tend to have something bigger on for 6.
The KWVR did have push pull trains on it, and whilst it would be nice thing to have there now authenticity wise, not sure how much use they would get out of one. (even if the line is reopened to commuter trains during the week i would have thought, boringly, that a Deisel rail bus would be the answer to that task rather than keeping an engine in light steam to run a couple of trips a day all week , not to mention the mess that the hoi-polloi would make of valuable heritage vehicles....)

 

Intreseting comparsion between 2MTs and 3Fs. If someone wanted to recreate a ex. LMS motor train the KWVR might best place to for it to be, since as well as the Ivatt tank you could (sort of) fit the 'Jinty' or (maybe more approately) the 'Coal Tank' which if not that engine then certainly its sisters where 'motor' fitted.

Rolling stock is more of an issue as there no coaches as far as I know left from the orignal 'motor' fitted ones. There some bodies of ex.LMS surburban coaches around but proberley cost a bomb to restore...