Waddon arrived in Canada 50 years ago today

Not an internet link Dan but there is a photo of Waddon in SE&CR lined green as 751, on page 90 of "Stroudley and his Terriers" by Tom Middlemass, Pendragon books. She still has her original Brighton boiler with Salter safety valves.
Cheers,
Owd Sweedy.

 

Hi Miff,
Thanks for the link to that correspondence on the Terrier Trust site, interesting reading.
I wonder if the trust ever sold all those Art Prints of my painting that we donated for Bodiam's restoration?
Cheers,
Owd Sweedy.

 

hi Owd Sweedy,

i am a bit puzzled by the alleged wheel swap in 1949 quoted by Fred Rich. Brighton practice was to have right leading wheelsets (i am not saying that BOXHILL has left leading wheelsets - i dont know). it is the date that bemuses me. BOXHILL was withdrawn as Brighton Works shunter in august 1946, and restored over the next 12 months (which included a further repaint as Brighton initially got the Stroudley livery incorrect! BOXHILL was exhibited with the 1,000th loco to be built at Brighton in june 1947, when the painting errors were pointed out!). anyway to mark the 75th anniversary of the first terrier BOXHILL left Brighton on 2nd september 1947 for an exhibition at Dorking on the 4th, of which i have a pic.

BOXHILL has had a very good set of wheels fitted with what looks to me to be a new set of tyres since 1946/7. i cannot understand why BOXHILL would have had to have a wheel change in 1949. perhaps like the story of WADDON's chimney being ex-MORDEN this story of the wheelset swap is also untrue?

because of Stroudley's standardisation, most of the preserved terriers have bits off others. at least with her Brighton boiler WADDON is more 'Brighton' than she was when fitted with a Wainwright boiler 1910-1937!

cheers,
julian

 

here's a pic of MORDEN (originally 35) 32635/DS377 on the way to eastleigh without the chimney! the wrong loco number is quoted by the poster

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/5502404380/in/set-72157624322947536

also a rather nice pic of WADDON as originally restored with new chimney!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/7273285300/in/set-72157624322947536/


there is a pic of WADDON in steam world magazine november 1995, showing the loco at Lancing a few months before withdrawal in 1960, with a large patch on the smokebox door and snaphead rivets on the smokebox wrapper. incidentally, i am quite sure eastleigh replaced the wrapper and also fitted a replacement smokebox door - which is too big for the A1 smokebox!

cheers,
julian

 

Hi, speaking as an IOW engineman, what do you mean we notch ours up a bit too far? I presume we use the same second notch off mid-gear that the Bluebell do? I have seen W8 one notch off mid gear once and she was absolutely flying. Terriers are one engine which steams better the harder you work it, presuming the valves are set correctly.

Firing, they steam best with a light, bright, hot fire and when you get it right they produce steam out of all proportion to the tiny boiler, or so it feels. A quirk that applies to our terriers (but perhaps not the Bluebell's) is that we run with the front damper only, the reverse of normal practice. The reason is that inside the damper is a flap that diverts the air towards the back of the box.

It is worth pointing out that Terriers have two different cylinder sizes, Fenchurch and Newport have the larger size whilst Stepney and Freshwater have the smaller - perhaps this explains why one sounds 'too notched up'?

 

Not online, but there is a photo in "Wainwright and his locomotives" by Klaus Marx. Livery looks to be the fully lined out SECR green, with SECR-style oval number plates on the bunker. At the time of the photo, the loco still had its original boiler.

Marx suggests that the locomotive was known as "Little Titch" [sic?] while on the SECR. Little Tich (note the spelling) was a Music Hall artist of the era who was born and grew up in SE London, firmly in SECR territory.



Tom

 

"Light and bright" worked best in my (admittedly limited) experience. Like all very small locos, there's a fine line between overfiring and having nothing. In my experience, such as it is, the trickiest bit on the Bluebell was actually the return journey downhill, and making sure you didn't let the fire go out! Ours at least didn't seem to like big lumps of coal - "nothing over a fist size" was sound advice, but sometimes means you spend a lot of time breaking coal if all you have is Bulleid-sized lumps.

There are a couple of other oddities. Firstly, when prepping them, you couldn't really inspect the firebox without taking the whole firehole door assembly and shelf off, which involved undoing three bolts and lots of swearing. That adds a bit of time to preparation relative to, say, a P class.

Secondly, the injectors seem to require three hands to operate. The water valve is a lever, weighted to fall naturally to the closed position and held open with a wing nut. So you have to open the water valve and hold it in place with one hand, then open the steam with the other, and then tighten the wing nut to hold the water valve open in the right place. With practice it is fine (trying not to waste water from the small tank capacity by getting the water and steam on as near simultaneously as possible) but it is certainly fiddly.

There is a photo of the cab of Fenchurch here which shows the fireman's side water valve against the cab front:
http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/~uhaa009/bb/pics/017/017fe013.jpg

And here is the driver's side, which has exactly the same issues, but the additional challenge of trying to turn on the water without burning your hand on the vacuum brake - not a problem on the originals, or the IoW Terriers!
http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/~uhaa009/bb/pics/017/017fe012.jpg

Owd Seedy - What water supply arrangements does Waddon have? Some Terriers didn't get injectors until well into the 1930s, but I'd guess all of them that made it through to the 1960s had injectors by the end. Is there any evidence of the water pumps?

Tom

 

The Ian Allen abc books and others suggest that three cylinder sizes were present in the preserved terriers - 12" as found in Stepney & others, 13" as found in Freshwater, and 14" as found in Newport, Fenchurch and others.

When we first restored Freshwater at Havenstreet in 1980/1981 we were very surprised to find that the cylinders were in fact the 14" type, so any sound differences relative to Fenchurch and Newport must be down to something else.

Incidentally, Newport was a Butlin's engine, when restoring iyt to working order we found that the water valve operating rods had been cut off just inside the tanks and we had to remake them. I'm guessing that this was possibly to stop small children getting stuck in the tanks as the operating rods reduce access through the tank lids.

 

With a small firebox and boiler the pressure\water situation can change rapidly when working hard. The injectors are quite big for the size of boiler and really poke the water in fast - with a consequent effect on boiler pressure. Little and often is the best way with the injector, leaving it on too long will lead to a rapid drop in pressure.

There is not much space between the brick arch and firebars, so firing onto the front can be a challenge if the fire is allowed to thicken up too much - and if the front isn't kept covered it won't steam well.

Getting the best out of a 'Terrier' is a 'knack', and it can take a while to get it!

 

thank you for the very interesting replies replies re driving and firing terriers.

my comment re the locos being notched up a bit too far for my liking is based on the uncomfortable 'kicking of the valve gear' ive experienced some times. i wont name one of the younger drivers who did this, suffice to say Len Pullinger and the late Ken West never caused the valve gear to 'kick' by notching up too far.

on the Isle of Wight in SR days the terriers were classified by their cylinder size and allocated work accordingly, the 14" dia locos being used for the medina wharf coal traffic till the wharf was strengthened and rebuilt (and passenger trains), and the 12" dia locos being used on the push and pull services.

the injector water valves referred to by tom are the original water supply valves for the feed pumps, and it is interesting that these were never changed for conventional injector water valves when injectors were fitted.

cheers,
julian

 

Hi Julian, Fred Rich reiterated his story in a letter to Steam World magazine Dec 2005, following up our press release about the Waddon repaint. I think the exchange was for 680s' benefit not the semi retired Boxhill's. In the letter he also says that their coupling rods and connecting rods were exchanged as well, referencing "Public Record Office file RAIL 649/18". There is also a photo, taken by him in March 1949, of 680s and Boxhill together, "on the eastern most pit in the Erecting Shop", both loco's minus coupling rods. It would add weight (but not conclusive proof), to the claim if someone could confirm that Boxhill is left leading.
Cheers
Owd Sweedy.

 

Owd Seedy - What water supply arrangements does Waddon have? Some Terriers didn't get injectors until well into the 1930s, but I'd guess all of them that made it through to the 1960s had injectors by the end. Is there any evidence of the water pumps?

Tom[/quote]

Hi Tom, she has been back dated to near "original condition" so the injectors she had as 680s have gone. There is what I assume to be the original water pump arrangement and I thought I had a photo of it but I can't find it.
Cheers,
Owd Sweedy.

 

hi Owd Sweedy,

in april 1949 there were 3 withdrawn terriers scrapped at eastleigh. EARLSWOOD (83) (ex SMR DAPHNE) which definitely had lost her driving wheelset by then, PECKHAM (69) ex COWES (W10) also lost its driving wheelset by 1948, and CROWBOROUGH (84) ex VENTNOR (W12) returned from the Isle of Wight to eastleigh in 1936 and cannibalised from 1940 onwards. so in 1949 there was quite a stock of spares available for the surviving terriers.

BOXHILL was preserved as a working loco initially by the SR, and it does seem very odd that non-Stroudley parts would be substituted in 1949, when the SR had gone to great pains to restore her to original condition 2/3 years beforehand, and there was such a strong LBSCR and Stroudley tradition at Brighton Works, plus the ever meticulous and well connected LBSCR enthusiast J.N. Maskelyne (who had arranged for GLADSTONE's preservation) was keeping a close watch on everything!

it is interesting to note that Stroudley would not countenance keys in axles, and driving wheels and all other wheels were a heavy press fit. i think Ashford practice was to use keys on axles and if so, there are no keys on the axles of the very detailed pics i have of BOXHILL taken at clapham museum. unfortunately the pics are only of one side of the loco so i cant say whether BOXHILL has left side leading wheelsets! i can however confirm that SECR Wainwright locos had left hand leading wheelsets which was also the LCDR practice.

there is reference to BOXHILL and LBSCR practice on the comprehensive following link - which further muddies the waters as it refers to a NEW crank axle being made for BOXHILL at Ashford, not Brighton, and no reference to a substitute from WADDON! i think the true story is somewhat more complex than Fred Rich understood at the time, or 'remembered' 35 years later!

http://modelengineeringwebsite.com/Wheel_quartering.html

cheers,
julian

 

Hi Julian,
talking of wheelsets I notice that Waddon has two axles whose ends are similar, i.e. both have large cone shaped indents in the axle center and the other set has a shallow indent. Didn't Boxhill loose a set of drivers when she ran as a 2-4-0 and presumable got a replacement set from somewhere else later?

Isn't it often the case that when searching for something far and wide the answer can sometimes be right under your nose:- I was looking in the CRHA magazine archive for 1963 and came across this in the May edition of Canadian Rail. It talks about the CRHA's Mr Donald Angus being in England for the official hand over in June 1962 and how he went to the Clapham museum afterwards and saw Boxhill. He was so taken with the restoration and Stroudley livery that he asked BR to quote a price to do the same for Waddon.
I quote from the article..."and in January (1963), the price of 500. pounds Sterling was quoted, this to include restortation of replicas of original number and builders plates, copper condensing pipes, and removal of vacuum automatic air brake system...." The article then goes on to talk about how the money was being raised etc and then, rather interestingly....."In anticipation of our acceptance, (of the 500 pound quote), early in January, British Railways replaced DS680's Drummond- type smokestack (sic) with a copper capped chimney from a similar engine, 32635, the new addition apparently being compatible with the soon to be restored yellow livery..." The Association were told three months to complete the work, with a July or August delivery date. Which begs the question, how did the Bluebell Railway get their hands on that chimney if BR had already attached it to Waddon in January 1963?
Cheers,
Owd Sweedy.

 

hi Owd Sweedy,

i dont know the answer to the above other than that the Bluebell definitely have 32635's chimney, and WADDON had a new chimney made at eastleigh! perhaps someone pointed out that 32635's chimney wasnt a Stroudley chimney - being a latter cast iron Marsh/Field chimney, and so wouldnt be correct for a terrier restored to original Stroudley condition. by the way 32635 wasnt withdrawn till march 1963.

cheers,
julian

 

I have to say a big thank you to all those who have contributed to this thread. I know that at times we have drifted away from Waddon a bit, but it sure has been fascinating, and I've learnt a lot. I'm really hoping that Owd Sweeny might be able to take somemore pictures of Waddon for us, especially of the bits we can't see on other terriers, like feed pumpsand what, if any, of the condensing gear might be hiding in the smokebox.
Daniel

 

a friend has today emailed me a pic he took of BOXHILL last year at NRM York showing it has left leading wheelsets. ive no idea how to post this pic on here (no idea what a URL is!) but anyway that is conclusive proof that BOXHILL has left leading wheelsets!

cheers,
julian

 

I'd have thought she would have got the original wheels back - the experiment as a 2-4-0T only lasted between 1905 and 1913, short enough I guess for the wheels just to be tucked away in a dark corner of Brighton works. Incidentally, the small front wheels on the two locos affected (82 "Boxhill" and 681) both came from a D3 tank No. 393 (one of the Billinton 0-4-4T engines). A photo in Bradley confirms that 82 didn't have the condensing gear re-fitted, at least not initially, while 682 did. Both locos - after initial experience with 82 - had a new sandbox positioned under the running plate between the leading and driving wheels, since the location of the original sandboxes just resulted in applying sand beneath the carrying wheels. Boxhill carried the Sroudley goods green livery but retained her name; 681 was nameless, in Marsh umber and lettered LB&SCR on the tank sides. The locos worked along with petrol railcars where they proved to be both more economical and more reliable; an attempt to allow single manning (which would have made them even more economical) was agreed by the staff, but scuppered by the Board of Trade, thus putting paid for good to a possible route to economise on lightly loaded trains. Incidentally, "Boxhill" also had her cylinders lined down to 9" and pressure reduced to 130lbs; 681 and all the later motor-fitted Terriers (which stayed as 0-6-0Ts) had cylinders reduced, but only to 12" and pressure retained at 150lbs, which figure "Boxhill" was later returned to.

Tom

 

I'm slightly intrigued by this discussion of left and right leading Terriers. I can't say I have ever looked that closely at the Bluebell pair, and can't find a reference to say that there were differences. But for an engineer (Stroudley) who's reputation is at least partly built on the standardisation he imposed on a railway with previously chaotic locomotive affairs, I'm curious as to why he would have made such a variation in a class, given that - as far as I can see - such a variation would have made little practical difference in running, but led to considerable operational issues of non-standardisation, as well as extra design work. Can anyone shed any further light?

Tom