JIC Boyd? Famous in Talyllyn circles for lovely photos and ‘unreliable’ words! Had a tendency to, er, make stuff up… ‘Boydisms’ are a known thing where he’d just invent facts.
[citation needed]
I was always given to understand that, if it was in Boyd, it was correct. What 'facts' is he supposed to have invented?
JIC Boyd? Famous in Talyllyn circles for lovely photos and ‘unreliable’ words! Had a tendency to, er, make stuff up… ‘Boydisms’ are a known thing where he’d just invent facts.
[citation needed]
I was always given to understand that, if it was in Boyd, it was correct. What 'facts' is he supposed to have invented?
Which of his books would you like filleted? Seriously, I’ll send you via PM, because it’s lengthy, a post from a recent author who has revisited the subject of just one of them.
A recent historian of the Talyllyn has said (from memory) something like ‘the problem with Boyd is not that he’s always wrong, it’s knowing when he’s right’
JIC Boyd? Famous in Talyllyn circles for lovely photos and ‘unreliable’ words! Had a tendency to, er, make stuff up… ‘Boydisms’ are a known thing where he’d just invent facts.
[citation needed]
I was always given to understand that, if it was in Boyd, it was correct. What 'facts' is he supposed to have invented?
Which of his books would you like filleted? Seriously, I’ll send you via PM, because it’s lengthy, a post from a recent author who has revisited the subject of just one of them.
A recent historian of the Talyllyn has said (from memory) something like ‘the problem with Boyd is not that he’s always wrong, it’s knowing when he’s right’
I have replied to your PM, and will not pursue this matter further on this or any other board.
Ok. You did ask for evidence and have been given it, privately.
I am frankly astonished at the tone, both here and in your PM to me, with which you are closing down a response you actually asked for. Which was given respectfully and conversationally to you.
You may now again seek the last word, but I must be allowed the right to respond where I feel that I have been treated shabbily in public.
Well, that's up to you. I will say, however, that I replied courteously (if briefly) to your PM, as I felt that the discussion might well end up becoming inappropriately Hellish.
Oh... Hang on there! There aren't enough of us here to lose any of our brethren and not have them be badly missed. We (speaking for myself) all get grumpy over some issues, and the usual cure is to leave them alone for a while and let other things arise and take over. I do hope a peace treaty - spoken or unspoken - can be floated among us.
Ok. You did ask for evidence and have been given it, privately.
I am frankly astonished at the tone, both here and in your PM to me, with which you are closing down a response you actually asked for. Which was given respectfully and conversationally to you.
You may now again seek the last word, but I must be allowed the right to respond where I feel that I have been treated shabbily in public.
And with that, goodbye Ship of Fools.
Hey! I'm really sorry (genuine, now) that I brought the guy up. I'd be interested in errata (by PM) too, as I am interested in the N.Wales stuff. But OK - I went off in a bit of a huff a while back when someone had something of a go at me; I do hope you'll come back. all the best, Mark, Manchester
I too have Boyd's Talyllyn Railway on the shelf here, and would be interested in learning what's wrong with it, but at this distance it's not something worth getting heated about.
I too have Boyd's Talyllyn Railway on the shelf here, and would be interested in learning what's wrong with it, but at this distance it's not something worth getting heated about.
Indeed it isn't. I've sent you a PM, for clarification from my POV.
Boyd did not have all the information that is now at our disposal. I am tempted to say that this is a common issue for all historians. New stuff is found all the time - despite some people thinking history is a thing that is fixed and immutable.
As an aside, the J.M. Lloyd who produced many of the drawings in Boyd's works, was my woodwork teacher at school. I knew him, Horatio. Though he was not a fellow of infinite jest, he was a fine draughtsman. He knew his local history, too.
On the other hand, the age of really great railway historians seems to have passed. Most railway books now are just albums of pictures.
The exceptions are those published by Black Dwarf/Lightmoor. And formerly, those by RCL. The latter now command astonishing prices on the second-hand market, especially the book on the Leek and Manifold, which I recently saw offered at north of £500! (It's a lovely book,mind, but...)
Those Lightmoor books should have a government health warning on the cover. Lead us not into (more) temptation.
The element necessarily missing from new histories is the "I was there" author, though perhaps a new generation of them is even now being generated - I don't know. I'll grab anything I can find that was written by anyone who was inhaling smoke and steam and hot oil a century ago. But if we are looking for detailed company histories, that takes meticulous researchers with time on their hands, access to records that may not always have been available, and that rarest of all beasts, a publisher who believes in editing, fact checking and proof reading.
For anyone interested in a worthy monument for their layout: Here's Isambard Kingdom Brunel in a variety of scales!
I love it!
Yes, it's a fine representation of The Great Man. IIRC, it's based on the photos taken of IKB during the long and difficult experience he went through when his third ship, the Great Eastern, was being built at Millwall. This was, in fact, during the last year or so of his life (1858-1859), and, despite his jaunty and confident appearance, he was already a very sick man.
L T C Rolt's biography goes into this period in some detail, and one can only marvel at the indomitable spirit of IKB, which saw him through to the launching of his 'Great Ship', and the completion of the Royal Albert Bridge at Saltash, but which finally left him before the ship made her triumphant maiden voyage to New York.
There will, of course, be those who belittle IKB and his achievements - and there were some spectacular mistakes*, too - but every giant of science, art, or whatever, suffers the same.
(*NOT the Atmospheric Railway system used on the South Devon for a time - IKB did not invent that system, but did, in fact, try to improve upon it. Time, the SDR Directors, and lack of £££ were all against him).
(It's better to hear straight from the enthusiast's mouth than from Wikipedia.)
Perhaps his most egregious mistake was his ridiculous specifications for the first Great Western locomotives - you'd do well to refer to MacDermot's history for full details, but they started off with an incredible collection of freaks...apart from a couple of competent engines (including North Star ) from Stephenson's, intended for a 5 foot 6 inch gauge line in South America, but available, and suitable for re-gauging.
IKB had the good sense to choose the very young Daniel Gooch as Locomotive Superintendent, with the happy result that when the line was open all the way to Exeter, the GWR was running the fastest trains in the world.
It might also be argued that his Broad Gauge was in itself a mistake, although at the time it seemed like a good idea. IKB appears to have overlooked the problems associated with break-of-gauge stations, or perhaps envisaged (hoped ?) that the broad gauge would become the norm. The GWR came along too late for that to happen, though other eminent engineers were recorded as saying that, if starting again, they'd go for 5-foot gauge or slightly wider. The Stephenson 'coal-cart' gauge became the norm almost by accident, but that, maybe, is subject for another rabbit-hole thread.
Using the Atmospheric System on the South Devon also seemed like a good idea at the time, given the success achieved on the lines at Dalkey, and on the London & Croydon, but the SDR was not perhaps a suitable route. Atmospheric trains worked well enough on short suburban lines, with frequent passenger trains, but the logistics of mixing commuter trains with freight trains, and longer-distance passenger trains, proved difficult to solve.
I refer you to Charles Hadfield's seminal work Atmospheric Railways for a full account of this fascinating 19thC railway rabbit-hole...
I can't offhand think of any civil engineering work of IKB that wasn't entirely successful.
If ever there was a vision of Heaven on Earth, this it. The Deltics were a big part of my early years, and just about everyone who didn't care about railways must have heard about them - they changed so much about rail travel. I was lucky a couple of times, seeing the prototype on a freight with a dynamometer car on an early ECML trial through Stevenage (60s?) and later seeing a production Deltic roaring past Cadwell on the first run of the Talisman with the XP64 train set - I caught them both with the old Brownie box camera. There is no sound outside a concert hall as glorious
I honked the horn on Tulyar at an open day at Chart Leacon depot around 1985, but she wasn't running at the time. At least, I think I'd have remembered if she was.
The think that struck me most about Brunel on reading Rolt's biography was just how well he got on with Stephenson. I'd been taught about the great gauge rivalry and assumed they'd been enemies but, judging by the letters Rolt quoted, they actually got on linke a house on fire.
Brunel and Stephenson had very different ideas about many things, but they recognised each other's greatness, and respected it.
Another major mistake by IKB - his original permanent-way for the Great Western, using timber baulks, piles, and longitudinal rails. It proved very hard and unyielding (to the discomfort of the Directors and the first passengers), and had to be speedily modified.
There was inevitably a lot of trial and error in the early days! For instance the Dee bridge on Robert Stephenson's Chester and Holyhead railway collapsed in 1847 with fatal results. The weakness of cast iron under stress was relatively unknown, the effects of torsional stress completely unknown. Perhaps Stephenson was lulled by the stability of Telford's cast-iron Pontcysyllte aqueduct which stands to this day - but a canal bridge is subject to different stresses.
Thinking of more recent "learning issues": no-one realised how the cycles of aircraft cabin pressurisation cause metal fatigue, especially at sharp corners, hence the 1950s Comet disasters).
The Dee Bridge collapse is mentioned in some detail in Rolt's Red For Danger.
As you say, lots of trial and error in those early days - the mistakes of IKB I've already mentioned show how lessons were learned, often at some cost.
I think even the greatest railway engineers had their blind spots, and certainly in the field of traction, they almost all engaged in experimentation, some of which did not work out.
I'm not sure that Gresley's love of conjugated valve gear was his greatest moment. It was certainly an unnecessary complication in that big Garratt (which was only built to shove coal wagons up a hill), which contributed to its unpopularity among the maintenance staff at Mexborough shed.
Conversely, the Lickey Banker was a success when carrying out its allotted task (i.e, short distance big heave), but failed when tried out on Toton-London coal trains as it "ran out of breath". Apparently it had four cylinders but only two sets of valves which led to poor steam flow - not a problem in such a low-speed loco.
I always wonder why the Midland never tried out the S&D 2-8-0s on the main line coal trains, though - would have been better than two 0-6-0s, surely?
Conversely, the Lickey Banker was a success when carrying out its allotted task (i.e, short distance big heave), but failed when tried out on Toton-London coal trains as it "ran out of breath". Apparently it had four cylinders but only two sets of valves which led to poor steam flow - not a problem in such a low-speed loco.
I always wonder why the Midland never tried out the S&D 2-8-0s on the main line coal trains, though - would have been better than two 0-6-0s, surely?
Apparently they did - from the Wikipedia article on the class:
The success of the class on the Mendip hills prompted the Midland Railway to experiment with their use on the East Midlands coal trains, but they were less satisfactory in this role. The route did not utilise their design for climbing hills, and there were issues of fuel efficiency, with considerable amounts of high quality coal consumed.
Neither did I, but it would have been odd (I think) if they hadn't tried the 7Fs on the coal trains.
Presumably they used more coal than the usual two 0-6-0s together, but there would surely have been a saving in enginemen's wages - one crew per train, rather than two. Maybe the Midland was afraid of the possible consequences of laying-off footplate staff?
The difference in policy between the Midland and Great Central in dealing with similar traffic might be an interesting study. The Midland never got beyond the 4F on the goods side, and there weren't that many of them in MR days. The GC turned out its first 2-8-0 in 1911 and had an 0-8-0 from 1902.
On the passenger/mixed traffic side, the Midland never had a single 4-6-0. The GC had more than you could shake a stick at. Plus the Atlantics.
Whose 4-6-0s were wonderful in that era, bar those of the Great Western?
The GC engines were not up there with the 'Stars' and the 'Saints'. But nor were the neighbours' equivalent locos, and that was what really mattered. The GC was not in competition with the GWR - it was an 'allied' company.
The B7s are greatly undervalued, but GC footplatemen were extremely positive about them. As for the 'Sam Fays' and 'Valours' they are accused of heavy coal consumption. But they never had more than 6 tons in the tender and worked heavy trains between Manchester and London without any reports of their running out, especially (for the Fays) during WW1 when GC expresses were (for once) very heavy indeed.
Most GC passenger trains only really needed a 4-4-0 or Atlantic as they were quite light. But the 4-6-0s did a lot of quiet, unremarked work on fish and fast goods trains in the wee small hours, out of the sight of the amateur clockers of loco performance. (You really would not want to take a heavy fish train over Woodhead on a wet night with a 4-4-0.) They were also put out on excursion and relief trains, which the GC ran in profusion at holiday times and other special occasions. You will not find many photos of them being worked double-headed, whereas the Midland double-headed trains as a matter of course.
Other 4-6-0s followed, designed by Drummond, Smith, and Cumming, most of which lasted well into LMS days. They were, I guess, replaced by the highly successful and versatile 'Black Fives'.
Yes, I have always puzzled over why the Midland never adopted the Somerset in Dorset 2-8-0s and what it was that when they tried them did not suit. I have never found an answer to this one. One possibility that I have heard is that Radstock to Templecombe or Bath is not all that far and that their bearings were found not to be up to a run from Toton to Cricklewood. Apparently, their bearings did not really like it when they were used on summer Saturday passenger services between Bath and Bournemouth in BR days.
Bearings seem to have been the weak spot on the larger Midland good engines. The ultimate disaster was when 4F bearings were used on Fowler's Austin Sevens. Their excellent modern valve gear and events meant that the engine part of them was too powerful for either their bearings or their frames.
Another rumour I have heard is that the large outside cylinders might have been out of gauge for general use on the Midland main line, or possibly after the grouping on some of the other companies' lines. That would have made them unsuitable as a prototype for a standard large goods engine.
The LMS did not inherit a worthwhile large goods engine from any of its predecessors. The LNWR Super Ds which were the ones that lasted longest, were unanimously detested, appalling to drive, fire or maintain.
A third possibility I have wondered about is that perhaps the S&D 2-8-0s did not have quite the power of two 0-6-0s, and could therefore only have consistently managed ¾ of the standard coal train loading on that route.
To start with an explanation, as I think this is a tangent and might well have me black listed from this thread (!), my interest in railways is really in the huge changes to the country that they wrought in the early days, rather than in the trains themselves.
I also like old flat back Staffordshire figures, which are deeply, deeply unfashionable these days. A couple of weeks ago, I found a spill vase, with the usual pair of country folk dressed in vaguely Scottish-y dress, with what I assume is a pet dog between them (though it could as easily be a lamb. Or a llama). But at their feet is a representation of a tunnel, with three carriages and underneath, the legend ‘The Rocket’. I should hasten to add, it is nothing like the Rocket.
I’ve since found a few more on line, one of which did look a little bit more like the Rocket.
I wondered if any of the good denizens of this thread would have any more information or thoughts? I speculate that it could be quite early after 1829/30, as I would assume that after a while, there would be lots of prints around, so people would come to know a bit more what the Rocket looked like.
Were there any tunnels on the Liverpool and Manchester line?
I know it was only ever meant as a cheap and cheerful fairing and I don’t expect accuracy but I love it and would be interested in people’s thoughts.
Not much of Rocket though, is there? Very symbolic.
Yes, though both examples look as though they might be based on an 0-4-0, akin to some of the contemporaries of Rocket (which, as enny fule kno, was an 0-2-2...).
Yes, I have always puzzled over why the Midland never adopted the Somerset in Dorset 2-8-0s and what it was that when they tried them did not suit. I have never found an answer to this one. One possibility that I have heard is that Radstock to Templecombe or Bath is not all that far and that their bearings were found not to be up to a run from Toton to Cricklewood. Apparently, their bearings did not really like it when they were used on summer Saturday passenger services between Bath and Bournemouth in BR days.
Bearings seem to have been the weak spot on the larger Midland good engines. The ultimate disaster was when 4F bearings were used on Fowler's Austin Sevens. Their excellent modern valve gear and events meant that the engine part of them was too powerful for either their bearings or their frames.
Another rumour I have heard is that the large outside cylinders might have been out of gauge for general use on the Midland main line, or possibly after the grouping on some of the other companies' lines. That would have made them unsuitable as a prototype for a standard large goods engine.
The LMS did not inherit a worthwhile large goods engine from any of its predecessors. The LNWR Super Ds which were the ones that lasted longest, were unanimously detested, appalling to drive, fire or maintain.
A third possibility I have wondered about is that perhaps the S&D 2-8-0s did not have quite the power of two 0-6-0s, and could therefore only have consistently managed ¾ of the standard coal train loading on that route.
Backing up the thread a little, an article in British Railways Illustrated for January 2014 notes that on quite short S&D trips the 2-8-0s were found to be poor steamers and would have to take breaks to get their breath back. The implication is that they would not be able to handle the longer hauls on the MR main line. Also, the notorious 4F axleboxes were likely much too small for the greater piston forces of a heavily loaded 7F. ES Cox in his Locomotive Panorama picks out the axlebox issue but also says that otherwise they were mechanically 'first class'. As a hands-on engineer who was there, we have to pay attention to him, though his opinions are often at odds with his contemporaries.
The LMS must have been very pleased with the 8Fs and Black 5s, when they eventually came along in the mid-30s.
BTW, Hornby-Dublo made a nice model of the 8F back in three-rail days, but I always wondered why they didn't make a Black 5 instead. The latter were rather more versatile, being mixed-traffic engines, and became widespread over most of the former LMS system, as well as other parts of the network post-nationalisation.
Yes, very sketchy, but perhaps the painters had never seen a train.
Thanks for your kind comments.
MMM
They probably hadn't, or had maybe seen only prints/engravings (no photos in those days!).
The prints produced by Ackermann depicting the opening and subsequent operation of the Liverpool & Manchester, along with the paintings by Bourne, are not entirely accurate, but do give a vivid contemporary impression of the railway.
Comments
[citation needed]
I was always given to understand that, if it was in Boyd, it was correct. What 'facts' is he supposed to have invented?
Which of his books would you like filleted? Seriously, I’ll send you via PM, because it’s lengthy, a post from a recent author who has revisited the subject of just one of them.
A recent historian of the Talyllyn has said (from memory) something like ‘the problem with Boyd is not that he’s always wrong, it’s knowing when he’s right’
I have replied to your PM, and will not pursue this matter further on this or any other board.
I am frankly astonished at the tone, both here and in your PM to me, with which you are closing down a response you actually asked for. Which was given respectfully and conversationally to you.
You may now again seek the last word, but I must be allowed the right to respond where I feel that I have been treated shabbily in public.
And with that, goodbye Ship of Fools.
Hey! I'm really sorry (genuine, now) that I brought the guy up. I'd be interested in errata (by PM) too, as I am interested in the N.Wales stuff. But OK - I went off in a bit of a huff a while back when someone had something of a go at me; I do hope you'll come back. all the best, Mark, Manchester
Indeed it isn't. I've sent you a PM, for clarification from my POV.
As an aside, the J.M. Lloyd who produced many of the drawings in Boyd's works, was my woodwork teacher at school. I knew him, Horatio. Though he was not a fellow of infinite jest, he was a fine draughtsman. He knew his local history, too.
The exceptions are those published by Black Dwarf/Lightmoor. And formerly, those by RCL. The latter now command astonishing prices on the second-hand market, especially the book on the Leek and Manifold, which I recently saw offered at north of £500! (It's a lovely book,mind, but...)
The element necessarily missing from new histories is the "I was there" author, though perhaps a new generation of them is even now being generated - I don't know. I'll grab anything I can find that was written by anyone who was inhaling smoke and steam and hot oil a century ago. But if we are looking for detailed company histories, that takes meticulous researchers with time on their hands, access to records that may not always have been available, and that rarest of all beasts, a publisher who believes in editing, fact checking and proof reading.
I love it!
As do I! My choice of tour of Kensal Green Cemetery was strongly influenced by the opportunity to see this: https://flic.kr/p/82kujP
Yes, it's a fine representation of The Great Man. IIRC, it's based on the photos taken of IKB during the long and difficult experience he went through when his third ship, the Great Eastern, was being built at Millwall. This was, in fact, during the last year or so of his life (1858-1859), and, despite his jaunty and confident appearance, he was already a very sick man.
L T C Rolt's biography goes into this period in some detail, and one can only marvel at the indomitable spirit of IKB, which saw him through to the launching of his 'Great Ship', and the completion of the Royal Albert Bridge at Saltash, but which finally left him before the ship made her triumphant maiden voyage to New York.
There will, of course, be those who belittle IKB and his achievements - and there were some spectacular mistakes*, too - but every giant of science, art, or whatever, suffers the same.
(*NOT the Atmospheric Railway system used on the South Devon for a time - IKB did not invent that system, but did, in fact, try to improve upon it. Time, the SDR Directors, and lack of £££ were all against him).
(It's better to hear straight from the enthusiast's mouth than from Wikipedia.)
Perhaps his most egregious mistake was his ridiculous specifications for the first Great Western locomotives - you'd do well to refer to MacDermot's history for full details, but they started off with an incredible collection of freaks...apart from a couple of competent engines (including North Star ) from Stephenson's, intended for a 5 foot 6 inch gauge line in South America, but available, and suitable for re-gauging.
IKB had the good sense to choose the very young Daniel Gooch as Locomotive Superintendent, with the happy result that when the line was open all the way to Exeter, the GWR was running the fastest trains in the world.
It might also be argued that his Broad Gauge was in itself a mistake, although at the time it seemed like a good idea. IKB appears to have overlooked the problems associated with break-of-gauge stations, or perhaps envisaged (hoped ?) that the broad gauge would become the norm. The GWR came along too late for that to happen, though other eminent engineers were recorded as saying that, if starting again, they'd go for 5-foot gauge or slightly wider. The Stephenson 'coal-cart' gauge became the norm almost by accident, but that, maybe, is subject for another rabbit-hole thread.
Using the Atmospheric System on the South Devon also seemed like a good idea at the time, given the success achieved on the lines at Dalkey, and on the London & Croydon, but the SDR was not perhaps a suitable route. Atmospheric trains worked well enough on short suburban lines, with frequent passenger trains, but the logistics of mixing commuter trains with freight trains, and longer-distance passenger trains, proved difficult to solve.
I refer you to Charles Hadfield's seminal work Atmospheric Railways for a full account of this fascinating 19thC railway rabbit-hole...
I can't offhand think of any civil engineering work of IKB that wasn't entirely successful.
If ever there was a vision of Heaven on Earth, this it. The Deltics were a big part of my early years, and just about everyone who didn't care about railways must have heard about them - they changed so much about rail travel. I was lucky a couple of times, seeing the prototype on a freight with a dynamometer car on an early ECML trial through Stevenage (60s?) and later seeing a production Deltic roaring past Cadwell on the first run of the Talisman with the XP64 train set - I caught them both with the old Brownie box camera. There is no sound outside a concert hall as glorious
The think that struck me most about Brunel on reading Rolt's biography was just how well he got on with Stephenson. I'd been taught about the great gauge rivalry and assumed they'd been enemies but, judging by the letters Rolt quoted, they actually got on linke a house on fire.
Another major mistake by IKB - his original permanent-way for the Great Western, using timber baulks, piles, and longitudinal rails. It proved very hard and unyielding (to the discomfort of the Directors and the first passengers), and had to be speedily modified.
Thinking of more recent "learning issues": no-one realised how the cycles of aircraft cabin pressurisation cause metal fatigue, especially at sharp corners, hence the 1950s Comet disasters).
As you say, lots of trial and error in those early days - the mistakes of IKB I've already mentioned show how lessons were learned, often at some cost.
I'm not sure that Gresley's love of conjugated valve gear was his greatest moment. It was certainly an unnecessary complication in that big Garratt (which was only built to shove coal wagons up a hill), which contributed to its unpopularity among the maintenance staff at Mexborough shed.
I always wonder why the Midland never tried out the S&D 2-8-0s on the main line coal trains, though - would have been better than two 0-6-0s, surely?
Apparently they did - from the Wikipedia article on the class:
The success of the class on the Mendip hills prompted the Midland Railway to experiment with their use on the East Midlands coal trains, but they were less satisfactory in this role. The route did not utilise their design for climbing hills, and there were issues of fuel efficiency, with considerable amounts of high quality coal consumed.
Presumably they used more coal than the usual two 0-6-0s together, but there would surely have been a saving in enginemen's wages - one crew per train, rather than two. Maybe the Midland was afraid of the possible consequences of laying-off footplate staff?
On the passenger/mixed traffic side, the Midland never had a single 4-6-0. The GC had more than you could shake a stick at. Plus the Atlantics.
The GC engines were not up there with the 'Stars' and the 'Saints'. But nor were the neighbours' equivalent locos, and that was what really mattered. The GC was not in competition with the GWR - it was an 'allied' company.
The B7s are greatly undervalued, but GC footplatemen were extremely positive about them. As for the 'Sam Fays' and 'Valours' they are accused of heavy coal consumption. But they never had more than 6 tons in the tender and worked heavy trains between Manchester and London without any reports of their running out, especially (for the Fays) during WW1 when GC expresses were (for once) very heavy indeed.
Most GC passenger trains only really needed a 4-4-0 or Atlantic as they were quite light. But the 4-6-0s did a lot of quiet, unremarked work on fish and fast goods trains in the wee small hours, out of the sight of the amateur clockers of loco performance. (You really would not want to take a heavy fish train over Woodhead on a wet night with a 4-4-0.) They were also put out on excursion and relief trains, which the GC ran in profusion at holiday times and other special occasions. You will not find many photos of them being worked double-headed, whereas the Midland double-headed trains as a matter of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Railway_Jones_Goods_Class
Other 4-6-0s followed, designed by Drummond, Smith, and Cumming, most of which lasted well into LMS days. They were, I guess, replaced by the highly successful and versatile 'Black Fives'.
Bearings seem to have been the weak spot on the larger Midland good engines. The ultimate disaster was when 4F bearings were used on Fowler's Austin Sevens. Their excellent modern valve gear and events meant that the engine part of them was too powerful for either their bearings or their frames.
Another rumour I have heard is that the large outside cylinders might have been out of gauge for general use on the Midland main line, or possibly after the grouping on some of the other companies' lines. That would have made them unsuitable as a prototype for a standard large goods engine.
The LMS did not inherit a worthwhile large goods engine from any of its predecessors. The LNWR Super Ds which were the ones that lasted longest, were unanimously detested, appalling to drive, fire or maintain.
A third possibility I have wondered about is that perhaps the S&D 2-8-0s did not have quite the power of two 0-6-0s, and could therefore only have consistently managed ¾ of the standard coal train loading on that route.
I also like old flat back Staffordshire figures, which are deeply, deeply unfashionable these days. A couple of weeks ago, I found a spill vase, with the usual pair of country folk dressed in vaguely Scottish-y dress, with what I assume is a pet dog between them (though it could as easily be a lamb. Or a llama). But at their feet is a representation of a tunnel, with three carriages and underneath, the legend ‘The Rocket’. I should hasten to add, it is nothing like the Rocket.
I’ve since found a few more on line, one of which did look a little bit more like the Rocket.
I wondered if any of the good denizens of this thread would have any more information or thoughts? I speculate that it could be quite early after 1829/30, as I would assume that after a while, there would be lots of prints around, so people would come to know a bit more what the Rocket looked like.
Were there any tunnels on the Liverpool and Manchester line?
I know it was only ever meant as a cheap and cheerful fairing and I don’t expect accuracy but I love it and would be interested in people’s thoughts.
MMM
Rocket was certainly well-known at the time of the L & M opening!
IIRC, the L & M main line did not have any tunnels, except for those at the Liverpool end, which (again IIRC) weren't used by locomotives.
https://www.sellingantiques.co.uk/1168972/antique-english-victorian-staffordshire-figure-the-rocket-i-of-ii/
Hope that works, it’s been a long time since I last tried!
MMM
Both much more money than I paid.
MMM
Yes, though both examples look as though they might be based on an 0-4-0, akin to some of the contemporaries of Rocket (which, as enny fule kno, was an 0-2-2...).
Lovely items, though.
Backing up the thread a little, an article in British Railways Illustrated for January 2014 notes that on quite short S&D trips the 2-8-0s were found to be poor steamers and would have to take breaks to get their breath back. The implication is that they would not be able to handle the longer hauls on the MR main line. Also, the notorious 4F axleboxes were likely much too small for the greater piston forces of a heavily loaded 7F. ES Cox in his Locomotive Panorama picks out the axlebox issue but also says that otherwise they were mechanically 'first class'. As a hands-on engineer who was there, we have to pay attention to him, though his opinions are often at odds with his contemporaries.
BTW, Hornby-Dublo made a nice model of the 8F back in three-rail days, but I always wondered why they didn't make a Black 5 instead. The latter were rather more versatile, being mixed-traffic engines, and became widespread over most of the former LMS system, as well as other parts of the network post-nationalisation.
Yes, very sketchy, but perhaps the painters had never seen a train.
Thanks for your kind comments.
MMM
They probably hadn't, or had maybe seen only prints/engravings (no photos in those days!).
The prints produced by Ackermann depicting the opening and subsequent operation of the Liverpool & Manchester, along with the paintings by Bourne, are not entirely accurate, but do give a vivid contemporary impression of the railway.