NRM Mystery Model ID?

I took this photo in the NRM this summer of a model in one of the display cabinets and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas what it is? I can't remember if it was a 4-4-0 or 4-4-2 and I regret not getting a wider shot.

Apologies for the quality, I only had my phone at the time.

 

Looks like one of these:

https://www.lner.info/locos/C/c10c11.php

Valve gear doesn't match mind - curious thing! Probably a 4-4-2.

 

The firebox is behind the rear drivers, so there must be at least one more axle, so probably an atlantic.

The valve gear looks a bit odd: could it be Baker? The reversing rod operates two cranks, the front one for the valve on this side and the other one presumably linking to the valve gear on the other side and/or inside.

Anyway surely not one of those NBR atlantics as it has a much higher running plate and correspondingly small splashers.

 

That is a good spot - it does look like Baker valve gear.

 

I did think perhaps Baker but I'm not remotely sure. I remember it had a bit of a Gresley feel to it. My thought was it might be a Gresley experimental rebuild of an older class along the lines of the C7/2. Maybe that would explain the higher running plate? The problem with that theory is surely Gresley would have got rid of the Belpaire firebox?

Since LBSC was mentioned in the Thompson thread, maybe he had a hand in it? He did like to mix and match a bit.

ETA: This is not the droid you're looking for:

https://collection.sciencemuseum.or...unidentified-4-4-2-prototype-model-locomotive

 

See Hollingsworth's book on LBSC page 58. If it is the same loco, the NRM don't know what they have got.

 

Well spotted, it definitely looks like "Darlington plus Altoona". Freelance altantic models were very popular at one time. They are reasonably simple and wide firboxes are much better than narrow ones for 2.5" gauge models. LBSC certainly described Baker valve gear for a number of models. He was ahead of the main line companies in this. In many ways it is easier to build than Walshaerts. This model dates from 1939.

 

That's it! Thanks. That book is full of fascinating variations. Bluebell in particular just looks so right.

 

Typically, I have just had a clear out, and I no longer have the Model Engineer which described it, but as far as I remember it was a rebuild by LBSC for a customer, of a Bond's/Greenly design, with new boiler and valve gear.

Would someone like to inform the NRM, so it can be suitably labelled?

 

The NRM link credits it to someone called Greenwood

 

Yes that was the closest catalogue entry to the mystery item I could find before it was pointed out as a LBSC design. You can disregard it now.

I was having a trawl through the book mentioned further up and there are some fascinating morsels of information in there. There is a Hall model with a higher-pitched boiler and in addition to Tugboat Annie with the Holcroft 4-2 valve gear, there is mention of a Lord Nelson model with it as well which would seem to be made for it. Can anybody point me in the direction of any information on the reasoning behind some of LBSC's design decisions? The Hollingsworth book is fantastic but almost a teaser.

 

I am not awate of any other books about LBSC. The best way to understand what he was thinking is to read his own writings. From what I have seen his articles in the Model Engineer reveal his thinking from time to time. In other magazines the articles were mostly about how to build various of his model designs. He wrote for the ME from 1924 to 1967 and for many of those years it was published weeky so there is plenty to read. You need to be able to read between the lines and take the occasional pinch of salt.

 

There's also this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LBSC-Footp...eminiscence/dp/0853614989/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 (other bookshops are available).

It's a cracking read, though I suspect there are a few bits in here you also probably need to treat with a pinch of salt...

Tom

 

Thank you both. Quite a few Model Engineer/Engineering with LBSC content found on a site or two.

 

I think LBSC's "dream job" would have been as a CME on the big railway, and some of his more individual designs were might-have-beens, or ideas that he thought should have been tried in full size. They were also, perhaps, an antidote to the daily grind of drawing and writing-up a series of usually fairly straightforward designs for publication.

Incidentally he seems to have had no antipathy to Edward Thompson and I believe that many of his readers were surprised when his LNER Pacific "Heilan Lassie" turned out to be in the style of Thompson rather than Gresley.

 

The one part of LBSC's writing I have found strange is their insistence (I think in the "Titch" book) that wheel coning was pointless and that some main line railways (I think it was the LMS that was mentioned) never actually did it. Does anyone know whether or not this is true?

 

Hielan Lassie makes a great model too in two or three cylinder versions with walschaerts or Baker valve gear. Loved mine, when I had it. Still sad that it’s gone.

 

I find LBSC Fascinating

His origin is rather shrouded in mist and despite working in miniature was elected to membership of the Institute of Locomotive Engineers.

In addition to this of course despite working in a very conventional, male dominated sphere his 'gender issues' didnt seem to cause any problems

 

Quoting from the Tich book:

"It will be noticed that I have said nothing about tapering or coning the treads; they are left parallel. I have long since found out that it enables the engine to run more freely on curves, if the treads are parallel, or cylindrical.......All the Stroudley engines of the L B S & C Ry . had cylindrical treads to the driving wheels, and Sir William Stanier........proved conclusively that the old idea of a 1 in 20 taper was a myth, after which the wheels were given just the weeniest bit of taper, merely sufficient to keep the flanges from rubbing on one side or the other, when the engine was in a straight line. On our little engine, the radius at the root of the flange serves the same purpose."

The interaction between the wheel and the rail is complex, and full-size and miniature requirements are not necessarily the same.

 

There may be some difference between full-size and miniature, and on standard gauge there are now agreed specifications for subtly different tyre profiles for different circumstances (for instance the special profiles required on those Sheffield trams intended to run on the conventional railway to Rotherham), but I can't for a moment believe that any main line locos or other rolling stock would ever have behaved themselves without some coning on the tyres (with the possible exception of some very early ones that never ran at much more than a walking pace).