LBSCR Craven/Stroudley 0-4-0WT no.400

Does anyone have any details on the aforementioned? There is a model in existence, reportedly property of the Bluebell - it looks a bit like a cross between Baxter and Shannon. Pretty little thing. Anyone know what size the wheels or cylinders were, or the boiler pressure?

 

It was outshopped as an 0-4-0ST in August 1868 as No. 27 at Brighton Works, but incorporated some components (notably the boiler) from a locomotive built in 1853. Returned to works in April 1869 and converted to an 0-4-2ST, presumably on account of poor riding.

At that point, the principal dimensions were:

Boiler pressure - 120psi
Driving wheel diameter - 3'2"
Trailing wheel diameter - 2'4"
Wheelbase - 6'0" + 5'4" = 11'4"
Water capacity - 320 gallons
Weight - 19T 10c

Worked on various branch lines, originally Polegate - Hailsham; latterly Littlehampton - Arundel.

Rebuilt 1874 as an 0-4-0WT for use in Brighton Works (an earlier Manning-Wardle 0-6-0T had been sold). At that time no number was carried; it was referred to as the "Brighton Pilot" in the repair books.

Driving wheel diameter 3'6"
Weight 15t 2c

Overhauled 1877 and numbered 400, sent to Earlswood as a station goods yard pilot.

Reduced to stationary pumping engine at Tunbridge Wells November 1893.

Sold for scrap April 1896.

Livery apparently Improved Engine Green between the Stroudley rebuilding and 1877; thereafter LBSCR Goods Green.

Tom

 

Right... what was LBSCR Goods Green? I only know IEG and umber!

I realise tiny tank engines are of limited usefulness, but this is one I would like to see return from the dead if possible...

I take it no info on cylinders?

 

It was a darker green that the goods engines were painted in, said to have been based on the colour of a ivy leaf.

Definitely had them ...

Forgot to write the numbers down above: 9 * 12" I think, but I'd have to check.

This is a photo of the model you referred to (not my photo - or indeed model!)

https://rlkitterman.deviantart.com/art/LBSCR-0-4-0-Well-Tank-400-593448301

Tom

 

What a beautiful little engine.

 

It is a good looking little loco. What intrigues me is that running number, as No.400 looked 'out of sequence' for 1877. I seems from new until 1873, it carried No.27, from then to November 1877, the loco was identified only as "Brighton Pilot" (what a great name!).

This sent me straight to the "Brighton Circle" website, High Temple of all things LBSC related, et voilà... details of (distinctly haphazard) renumberings comes to light. My first thought (a new Stroudley numbering sequence) rapidly got blown out of the water. The oft mentioned 'chaos' of the Craven era evidently wasn't confined to the plethora of non-standard locos and as far as renumberings went, didn't end with Stroudley's appointment. Several Craven locos ran under four different numbers within 20 years. What fun for the works foreman looking for the correct record cards whenever a loco came in for repair!

The well known LBSC 6xx 'duplicate list' didn't come into being until the latter years of Robert Billinton's reign. No concise summary of Craven/Stroudley renumberings is remotely possible, so, if interested, have a butcher's for yourself:

http://www.lbscr.org/locos/Craven.html#Craven-36

 

There were several duplicate lists before the 600 series came into being, the LBSCR seemed to keep underestimating its requirement for numbers.

My hunch is that it was 27 when built and in passenger traffic. Round about 1874, it came out of revenue traffic to become essentially a departmental loco at Brighton Works, so the number in the traffic series was removed (departmental stock didn't take numbers in the traffic sequences). That freed up the number 27 to be used for a D tank, which was outshopped shortly afterwards in 1876.

Then in 1877, it was returned to traffic use, and a new number in the traffic series was required: 27 was already being used, so a numbering sequence starting at 400 was used. Given the nature of the original loco (assembled from parts of older engines) no doubt it was fully written down for capital by then so needed a number removed from the main capital list. Other Craven locos seemed to take numbers in the 400 series during the 1870s, freeing up their numbers for new Stroudley locos.

One area where I suspect the model might be wrong is the combination of livery and number: the wording is somewhat ambiguous in Bradley, but I strongly suspect that it should be either "Brighton Pilot" in Improved Engine Green, or "No. 400" in Goods Green, whereas the model shows 400 in IEG. It would seem logical to me that the repaint would take place at the same time as the overhaul in 1877, rather than overhaul and renumber, but then come back for a repaint very shortly afterwards.

There is a illustration in Bradley of the loco in its original saddle tank form as built.

Tom

 

The Stroudley passenger livery is quite contentious in any event. The colour worn by 'Stepney' was a fair bit yellowier - it's a perfectly cromulent word - than what I saw on 'Gladstone' during it's last visit to Brighton Station (more years ago then I care to remember!), though about the same hue as that worn by classmate 'Boxhill'.

Brighton Museum contains a superb near contemporary model (about 1:12 scale IIRC) of D2 class 0-4-2 No.308 'Como', which was allegedly finished in paint supplied to it's builder direct from Brighton Works. Although I've only ever seen it under the museum's quite subdued lighting, the colour appears to have a distinctly more 'ochre-ish' tinge than what I saw on 'Gladstone'. There's a comment on the website of the unconnected (but highly regarded) Brighton Toy Museum that this is down purely to the lighting. Perhaps so and maybe 'Como' demonstrates how the Stroudley livery ages over time, as it has kept it's fine paint job for far longer than any of it's full sized bretheren. If you're ever down this way, it's well worth a peek. It really is a fantastic model.

 

I have been led to believe that this model was built by the Stanley Steam car driving Dr. Bradbury Winter and understand that the tender is a slightly different shade of IEG than the locomotive, I would imagine that the paint was mixed in batches, possibly by several different people with differing eyesight and colour perception to a sort of generic formula, resulting in inconsistencies.

 

Dr J Bradbury Winter's 1" scale miniature locomotive 'Como' was painted by the foreman painter at Brighton Works when the Stroudley livery was still in use under Robert Billinton. It took the good Doctor another 10 years to complete the tender ready for painting by the same foreman painter.

The difference in shade of the 'golden yellow ochre' between the two I would say is very very small and may simply be due to the varnish. Brighton didnt mix the paint themselves - it was supplied by Robert Ingham Clark and Co.

Cheers,
Julian

 

I came across these drawings of the loco (101) as built as an 0-4-0ST; (102) as converted to an 0-4-2ST; (103) as converted to an 0-4-0WT. Apart from the obvious differences, there are some interesting detail changes between iterations, for example the chimney, the brakes, the location of the brake pedestal etc.

They are from a book published by the LPC in 1903, author anonymous, reprinted by Amberley Publishing - https://www.amberley-books.com/locomotives-of-the-london-brighton-south-coast-railway-18391903.html

The book does clarify the livery, stating (contrary to what I wrote) that Stroudley livery and numbered 400 is correct for a period; it isn't explicitly clear, but it seems that the painting into goods green happened some time after the numbering to 400 - no date given, just "latterly".

Another interesting detail, à propos another thread on the site - the book says "The boiler was always fed by one Giffard injector" - presumably meaning from first construction in 1868. I can understand the benefit of an injector (rather than a pump) for a locomotive engaged in considerable shunting, though it is an early date, only 9 years after the injector was introduced to this country, and it seems a very insignificant loco to attach one to given that presumably at the time there may well still have been a royalty to pay.



Tom

 

Hmm - and wasn't the LBSCR (well into the Billinton/Marsh era) very much attached to its Weir pumps?