Anybody looking for a GWR project ?

This one indeed.... She's seen little love in Britain which is a shame.

 

I have found an article by CP Atkins in the March 1976 "Railway World"
The Mersey Railway 0-6-4Ts ( designated "class 1") were the most powerful locomotives in the UK at time of construction, believe it or not! This is largely due the unprecedented size of the their large inside cylinders. To avoid inadaquate bearing surfaces (with the lubricants of the day) the locos were double framed. Cylinders were inclined down towards the crank axle at 1 in 8.5 with their slide valves mounted directly underneath and inclinded upwards. Mersey Railway crews prefered to work bunker first partly because the chimney was beind them and partly they tended to sit on the rear bogie when climbing chimney first thus loosing adhesion. They always had open cabs with spectacle plates with MR - actually prefered to enclosed cabs in tunnel conditions.

Locos had condensing equipment requiring 8in of air space to be left at the top of the tanks.

Maintenance was an issue due to difficulty accessing the inside cylinders and a high rate of flange wear.

• Cylinders 21in x 26in (later bored out to 21.5 in)
• Bogie wheel dia: 3ft
• Driving Wheels: 4ft 7in
• Boiler Pressure: 150 lbs
• Boiler Dia: 4ft 7in
• Boiler Barrel Length: 14ft 3 in
• Tube heating surface: 1516 sq ft
• Firebox heating surface: 118 sq ft
• Total heating surface: 1634 sq ft
• Grate area: 21ft
• Rigid wheelbase: 12ft 1in
• Total wheelbase: 26ft 4in
• Overall length: 38ft 6in
• Max height: 13ft 6in
• Max width: 8ft 3.5in
• Max axleload: 17t 10c
• Adhesive weight: 51t 12c
• Total weight: 67t 17c
• Empty weight: 54t 10c
• Coal capacity: 97 cu.ft
• Water capacity: 1250 gal
• Tractive effort (85% BP) 26,600lb
• Valve gear: Stephenson link
• Reverser: Stirling steam reverser (mounted horizontally in the cab).
• Injectors: 1x Gresham & Craven cold water injector and 2 x crosshead driven feed pumps (capable of lifting the boiling water from the tanks)
• Gravity feed sanders, later upgraded to Gresham & Craven steam sanding.
• Copper capped chimneys (#5 stove pipe was a colliery addition)
• Cost was £2775 each.
• Livery: Green above running plate and brown underframes. (Various shades of green have been described).
• Lining: Dark green edged with red and black.
• Company creast on leading sand boxes.
• "The Major" was Major Samual Issacs an engineer associated with the building of the railway.
• "Cecil Raikes" was Company Secretary of MR and the local MP.
• Average mileage: 17,274 miles per year.
• Coal consumption: 64lb per train-mile (South Wales or Staffordshire). Due to the nature of the railway economy was poor as the locos had little opportunity for expansive working
• Length of line 4.8 miles
• Minimum curve: 6 chains
• Gradient: 1 in 30 in several places, 1 in 27 on the Liverpool side.
• Train weight: 141 tons, 150 tons max. (seven 4-wheeled coaches)
• 8 train per hour off peak
• 12 trains per hour peak
• Running time Liverpool Central to Rock Ferry 12.5 minutes
• Average speed 16.25 mph
• Maximum speed (MR line speed) 20mph

Upon closure the 18 locomotives and carriages were offered for sale by auction at Bidston, but failed to meet reserve prices. All locos were subsequently sold by private treaty - none were scrapped.
5&8 to Shipley Colliery
2, 3, & 6 to Alexandra Dock Rly (GWR 1346, 1345 and 1344 respectfully)
1, 4, 7 & 9 to J & A Brown Ltd.
(Alexandra Dock and Whitwood colliery bought the 2-6-2Ts)

Details of ADR and GWR service is in the April 1976 Railway World.

Kind regards,
Gareth

 

All of the locos had their crosshead driven pumps removed, as these were no longer needed because the locos didn't need to condense in their new homes.
I have in my collection a hand-written copy of Beyer Peacock's specification & quotation for these locos & also for the 2-6-2 tank locos, the contract for which was awarded to Kitsons. The document was signed by Richard Peacock. This document was originally the copy belonging to Charles Fox, the Mersey Railway's engineer.
The original boiler on 'Cecil Raikes' was renewed in the 1930's. The one on 'The Major' is quite possibly the original.

Bob.

 

That's sad.

The UK lead the world in railway technology, but outside its own borders, the UK has scant regard for that history.
It's amazing to see so many home made products around the world, yet the people in the UK have no way to appreciate it, I believe it harks back to the denial of Britains international role in history (you know we stop teaching British history in 1666 and pick it up again in 1914) and fill in the gaps with Napoleon, Renaissance and The history of the USA (ignoring who they got independance from .. Oh yeah those Canadians - and who's passport and coins were they all carrying at the time again ? !) - and all because they wanted an MP, because we said no, some one dropped a cup of typhoo and the French decided to take us on in a fight in our own back yard.

Back on subject, I think there's a more urgent need to preserve British history about to be scrapped in South Africa, then starting a fight down under to extricate a safe member of Ozzie history solely to be bringing back an O4 and doing a "Turkish 8f" job on it to ensure it loses its history, identity and become native British.

If the purpose was to bring it back and restore it looked In Australia I'd be much more I favour, its educational, functional, cultural and interesting at that point. Same goes for that Iraqi 8f that just resurfaced and is waiting for that " lets make a new 48518 out of it" project.
Whilst I'm on my soapbox, pity we missed this RSH product in Iraq...
Tell me this ain't interesting, and British made, and one exists..ish.
http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/sunday-streamline-69-taurus-express

 

Thank you for this information, Bob. The Charles Fox letter sounds facinating.

I have just found my copy of "The Line Beneath the Liners" by John W. Gahan. Those not familiar with the MR may like to know that according to Gahan the locomotives had to dump the contents of their side tanks at Liverpool Central after every trip and be refilled with cold water, otherwise the steam would not condense. The discharge of hot water in the station area required a 12 foot diameter Guibal fan driven by a compound steam engine to disperse the clouds of steam and engine smoke because this operation was carried out beyond the platform well out of reach from the main fans at James Street. When a train arrived at Central the engine was detached and drew ahead into the tunnel for discharge of water and refilling, the train being taken away by the engine of the previous one. Although the large fans were removed when the line was electrified the the small fan at Central was almost forgotton for 70 years, being finally disposed of in the 1970s (its motive power long gone).


Kind regards,
Gareth

 

Alright you blokes...

Bob, I'm the bloke who sent you those pictures of JABAS 5.

For everyone:

We've got a few locomotives of interest to you people, all standard gauge unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

1) 1033 and 1042. Both Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts. There's a 5'3" version on South Australia too, P 117. You'd call them IOW locomotives. We'd call Sydney or Adelaide suburban locomotives.

2) 2510 and 2535. Both Beyer peacock 2-6-0s. You'd call them something like 'sisters of Galloping Alice.' We'd call them mid-Victorian era heavy goods locomotives. We've also got 2408, 2413, 2414 and 2419. These are a Dubs version of the same locomotive type, with minor differences. Just for variation, there's 2605 and 2606, 2-6-2ST versions of the 24 class locos.
The 25 Class locos might have some MR relevance in that the MR had 2-6-2T versions for itself, which appear to be based on the Z-25 Class design.

3) JABAS 5. Beyer Peacock 0-6-4T. You'd call it an MR Liverpool suburban loco. We'd call it a JABAS colliery locomotive, which, on introduction to service here was a member of the largest (in numbers) class of private locomotive.

4) JABAS 20 (ROD 1984), 21 (23 (ROD 2004)) and 24 (ROD 2003). NB and GCR Gorton built 2-8-0s. You'd call them 04 class locomotives. Some of you would call them 8K class locomotives. You'd be wrong. Others would correctly call them ROD locomotives. We'd call them JABAS ROD Class heavy mineral/colliery locomotives.

5) 5069s, 5096s, 5112 and 5132. Beyer Peacock and Clyde built 2-8-0s. Dunno what you'd call them. We call them D-50 Class heavy goods locomotives. These ones are a little 'out there.' I've included them because the last 10 built by NB were appropriated by the British Army in 1917 and went to France for ROD service. They were then purchased by Belgium and saw service until the 1940's or later. The 's' suffix indicates saturated locomotives, not quite as wet as the 8Fs in the Med.

There's a lot of others that have as much relevance to you as the locomotives in India or South Africa.

Don't bother trying to get any of them. We've got laws in place to protect export of objects deemed to be of cultural importance to Australia. All of the above mentioned locomotives are much loved here and they raise as much rabid enthusiasm as do your own locomotives, presently in the UK, do there. You'd do things to each of them that would cause them to lose their Australian identity and thus history, which in every case mentioned above is the most significant period of their existence.

That Tasmanian M Class loco (M2 - originally M10) pictured is an example of how 'repatriation' of irrelevant locomotives get treated. There's a couple of ex-SA locos in similar condition in the UK. You do have some examples where you've done the right thing by repatriated locos though, the Garratts on the WHR are a prime example. Need and relevance in the UK now exists for those locomotives, which does include Tasmanian K1.

 

Thanks for that, Spinner. I for one appreciate you taking the time to tell things as they are.

 

The condition of the Marley Hill M2 - which I understand is destined for the proposed Tanfield museum - illustrates the problem with the majority of Cape Gauge machines in this country: there is simply nowhere to run them, which means that there is very little incentive to restore them unless undercover space is available. So all but three of the 3'6" locos in this country are mouldering away outdoors. Meanwhile, the only standard gauge Aussie locomotive in this country - the ex-New South Wales Government Tramways Beyer Peacock 0-4-0VBT at Crich - has run in preservation, is under cover, and is well maintained.

A comprehensive guide to surviving Australian steam can be found here: http://www.australiansteam.com/

 

The parochialism of railway enthusiasts never ceases to amaze me. Why do railway enthusiasts - not just in Britain, but in all nations - tend to shun locomotives and stock from any other country whilst jealously guarding "native" items?

I realise that on the standard gauge, loading gauge is often an issue in this country. But look at the Nene Valley Railway, which used to be able to field locomotives from several major Western European nations. It was a truly unique selling point - probably nowhere else in Europe could one compare engines from so many different countries side-by-side. Now all those engines are either rusting in sidings or have been returned to their country of origin, while the NVR relies mostly on ex-BR or industrial engines and Mk 1s - like most other British SG lines. Why? Is it because they can't find volunteers to work on the foreign stock, or money to restore them - or both? Either way, I'm sure that lack of interest from UK enthusiasts is the root cause.

Similarly, personally I was disappointed that the Turkish 8F had most of her Turkish modifications removed at her last overhaul, to make her look just the same as all the UK 8Fs. Ok, it's her owners' prerogative to do what they want with her - I'm just saying that if I'd had the money to buy and restore a Turkish 8F, I'd have done things differently!

I have to say, this is one of the reasons I tend to prefer the narrow gauge scene, which seems to be far more open-minded about restoring and running foreign engines. As a result, our narrow gauge railways can come far closer to telling a truly universal railway story. Look at the Welshpool & Llanfair, for example. They can present a complete selection of authentic stock to tell the W&L's own story as a British light railway - but then they can also present stock from Austria, Antigua and Sierra Leone, giving both enthusiasts and the public the chance to compare and contrast stock built to do the same job in different parts of the world. Or look at that beautiful Baldwin Pacific at the Brecon Mountain - I've not yet had the chance to go the USA, but thanks to the BMR I've had the chance to sample a classic example of American engineering, completely unlike anything built in the UK. I realise that the export of NG engines and stock from their home countries has not always been without controversy, but I think in most cases the engines have genuinely been far better looked after here than they would have been elsewhere.

Thank heavens we have at least a few restored and well-looked-after foreign engines in our major museums - the Chinese KF7 at York and South African locos in Manchester and Glasgow - so that the non-enthusiast public can be educated in Britain's history as a great exporter of railway equipment. And thank heavens the North American A4s will going home this year! Don't get me wrong, it's be great to see them back - I've seen them at York and hope to do so at Barrow Hill and Shildon. But part of the reason the Great Gathering was so special was because it was truly once-in-a-lifetime. And once they're back overseas, I'll be pleased to know that we once again have such fine ambassadors to represent the excellence of British engineering to our North American cousins.

Now to step down from my soapbox and retreat to my flame-proof bunker...!

 

I've also got the original spec. & quotes for the Guibal fans.

Bob.

 

Hello Brett,

I've still got the photos , all printed & in my file

Bob.

 

In fairness to the NVR, the Swedish 2-6-4T and the Danish 0-6-0T are undergoing overhaul, the Swedish B has recently been cosmetically restored, plans are afoot to overhaul the Danish pacific, the Swedish railcar has been returned to the line and is now in running order and looking superb, the Belgian coaches are being overhauled as part of a rolling programme, and work is in hand on the Wagons Lits coaches. It is however a shame that the Nord Compound has returned to France, but then I don't think that the Science Museum should have deaccessioned her in the first place.

As to 'The Major,' if Thirlmere doesn't want her and in the unlikely event that no Australian buyer can be found for her then there would be nothing in principle wrong with bringing her home, but doing so and then turning her into a copy of something else would be disrespectful both to the locomotive and to the country which preserved her. There's also something to be said for sorting out 'Cecil Raikes' first.

 

Only this week there was 4 pages or furore that 5972 was going to be exported to the US..

Why we don't want to see them exported.. We care
Why they don't want to see them exported.. they care.

But when they don't care, and if it was made here.. then we should care.. but we generally don't.
South Africa should be the focus (they don't care and are scrapping) , not Australia (they care, they want and they are not scrapping).

it would appear we only care when we can run it, conservation doesn't seem to strong in our hobby our own or international.

 

There's that Cape Gauge problem again. I recall that, in its ambitious early days before it pulled its horns in, the Plym Valley was looking at being partly dual gauge; some sort of 3' 6" running line seems to me to be essential if a real effort is ever going to be made to save South African engines in reasonable numbers. Also, if we want nice little Victorian standard gauge locos to run on our preserved lines, we really ought to be looking at Paraguay.

Has that Jersey Railway loco in South Africa survived the attention of the scrapmen?

 

This statement has a lot of merit, but I would add that should be assessed against each individual locomotive - what are we preserving the iron fabric (Agenoria), paint (34051 46235), machining tolerances achieved on individual components made using the pre-CNC tools of the day (4073) or the design (6229). I think there are arguement for all four, I personally would draw the line at preserving asbestos insulation, but I am sure others would disagree with me. Fortunatly there are specialists such as Anthony Coulls and his colleagues who have sympathy in both camps, and can make these academic and practical judgements.

Getting back to the MR locos #5 would be better proposition for a) a runner since it could have a newer boiler, b) closer to the Mersey Rail spec because it still retains the iconic condensing equipment. Has any organisation actually asked Liverpool Museum about restoration or know of her condition, I know she lived at Steamport for several years but was that on the basis of storage/display only?

Kind regards,
Gareth

 

Absolutely...it's rightful place is Australia but failing that option, only Mersey Railway condition will do.

 

I don't see why, if she was repatriated, she couldn't run in this country in JABAS livery, with 'Cecil' cosmetically restored or overhauled in Mersey Railway condition.

 

yes that would be another option I agree.

 

And that pretty much answers your own question. Very few standard gauge locos from overseas will fit on the vast majority of UK heritage lines and that really is the end of it. Little point in importing something, restoring it and then having to stick it in a siding because you've got nowhere to run it.
Parochialism is understandable though. Many volunteers/preservationists in all countries will no doubt be wanting to recreate a bit of their past and locos from elsewhere will not be a part of that past for many. To be honest, I'd rather go to Germany to see an 01, 44, 50 etc. than have one running in this country.

 

Ok Steve
Big question for you.
If and I repeat If Merseyside museums ever considered letting Cecil Raikes out would it be a suitable Tank Engine for the Moors?
Bearing in mind discussions elsewhere about this tank and that tank not having the water capacity or not being powerful enough?