Help need with loco class/design please

Can someone help me out with the designer and class of this loco



LMS 4-4-2 10319 I cannot find any info on it


https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMS-Scotland/TO-ID/TO-ID-LMS/i-7NWq2NK

TO ID LMS - Railway-Photography
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years
Many thanks

Neil

 

is it 16319?

 

Ex-LYR Aspinall "Highflyer", not sure of the class number but will consult my books tonight....

Richard.

 

L & Y 1400 Class. 10319 was built in 1899 and withdrawn in 1930. Its L & Y number was 737.

 

class no 7 you just beat me

737 was reckoned to be the first British superheated loco, which is interesting

 

Thanks everyone

Neil

 

According to B.C. Lane (Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Locomotives), 737 was completed in October 1899 as a member of Aspinall's 1400 class (Hughes class 7 from 1920), superheater removed 1910. Tubeplate left recessed until 1916.
Withdrawn July 1930 as LMS 10319, from Low Mooor, where it was sheded all its working life.

Richard.

 

I don't think anyone could describe the 1400s as pretty engines, but they were certainly impressive. The later batches with the narrow running plate angle matched with the same on the tender did look better. They seemed happy enough on the L&YR's steep Pennine gradients, despite 7' 3" wheels. But the 7' 3" 4-4-0s rebuilt with superheaters and long travel Walsheart's gear proved to be at least their equal, and the superheated 2-4-2Ts introduced by George Hughes were worked in the Atlantics' links, probably the only such case in Britain.

 

I've always preferred the look of the later batches, simply because inside axleboxes on a rear truck look ungainly to me.
At the time of their construction, they were equipped with the largest boilers than placed on a British steam locomotive, and the high pitch of the boiler has always given me a sense of impressiveness. The straight running plate probably makes the engines look larger than they actually were, despite the large drivers.
The only thing which I think mars the appearance is the adoption of the later dog-clamped smokebox door... I always thought the dished LYR smokebox doors were a thing of beauty!
I think the drivers of the day must have been pretty brave souls to open the front cab door and venture out onto the running plate whilst travelling at speed...
I wonder if a new-build would be allowed with opening front doors?!

Yep, I'd love to see one of these as a new build - sorry for the WIBN!

Richard.

 

Well, the alternative, and it was common practice, was to clamber along the running plate beside the cab to reach the lubrication points ahead , then having attended to those on one side, cross the front of the loco in front of the smokebox, attend to the lubrication on the other side, then return to the footplate by clambering past the cab on the fireman's side. Old hand drivers did this long after it was no longer needed.

On 1st September 1913, Driver Caudle had just completed doing this when he ran past the Ais Gill signals to run into the rear of the train in front, stopped due to shortage of steam.

 

As an aside to 'questionable' crew aids, the large spectacle windows on the Ffesterbahn's fairlies were provided to permit crews to vacate the locos, at need, in the stygian darkness of the less than ample Old Moelwyn Tunnel. Whether or not they were ever used in anger in that confined location, I don't know.

 

As it happens I was musing on those very smokebox door clamps in my shower this morning...
The lines which resorted to them are, AFAIK, the L&Y, the Midland, and the LSWR. I don't know much about the latter, but the first two had very handsome smokebox doors before, especially the Horwich locos. But Horwich did have serious and persistent problems with maintaining smokebox vacuum - hence the modified doors with rims around, and the later dog clips. Presumably the dished doors, although attractive, didn't seal so well. There were also issues with leaks at the saddle, I think.
Thankfully 1009 is preserved with the proper door!

 

Handsome too, those superheated 4-4-0s. But very hard to find good photos of them. Pretty hard to find many good photos of the 7'3'' 4-4-0s even in original condition...

 

I have always wondered why the superheated 4-4-0s were only two and those didn't last long. How did this come about? Was it that the 2-4-2 was so
good? Or was there something else - very possibly some weak spot was found by the extra power.

 

There were actually four 'Flyers' rebuilt with superheated boilers, Walschaert's gear and piston valves, and while they were superb performers, wear of the slide valves was excessive. This was a symptom of the lubricants available then not being adequate for the steam temperature, and to alleviate this, they returned to saturated form and - and this was unfortunate - the six inch valve travel was abandoned.

George Hughes did though continue to experiment with superheating and within a couple of years, the quality of superheater oils hade improved sufficiently to allow application to 0-6-0s and 2-4-2Ts. These latter were very powerful for their size and worked express passenger trains turn and turn about with the Atlantics, a practice curtailed when one of them failed to negotiate the curve at Charlestown.

 

Thank you indeed, the why has been nagging me for years. There is surprisingly little on the basics of the oil you need despite the calibre of some of the
railway chemists - very thick is not the answer, the first consideration is to use as little as possible i.e. to meter it exactly to just where its needed.
I suspect there may have been considerable expertise on the LNER: while the pressure wasn't very high - 180 psi - the final superheaters that
Gresley treated the GNR Atlantics to were generous indeed and this must have been reflected in the steam temperature. (One intriguing apercu lately has been that the new superheater header needed for the Atlantic boiler for Beachey Head is very close indeed to that needed for a Bullied Light Pacific: did the steaming abilities owe something to what Doncaster had arrived at ?)