Prototype Tim Mills' Photos

[oldravendale]

Larry - that's so kind and helpful. I've had a play but can't replicate all the controls - I suspect because I'm using Photoshop 2.0. I'm close to being convinced that I should move on to a later version, but I'm so familiar with the version I'm using I don't really want to over complicate things. However, I always use the unsharp mask, sharpen and grain controls - but very gently.....

It was all so much easier using a bit of black photographic paper on a wire armature.

As you say, 1957 was a good year - so were 58 and 59 which I remember rather more clearly. I don't know whether you've noticed how relatively clean and tidy those shed yards were. By the time you get to the mid 60s they are filthy, as are the locos, with piles of ash everywhere, and on the whole shed bunking was much easier, I suspect because the staff had all their enthusiasm and loyalty knocked out of them. There were exceptions, of course.

David - thanks for your earlier message to which I meant to say that I remember 40672 as a regular performer ambling through Harrow and Kenton recreation ground on the slow up line. Memory suggests it was a regular parcels turn.

On to today's photo. It's a lovely "Lord Nelson". Steph - you were correct in surmising what that tender is in front of the H16 as here is the loco in all its glory. 30852, Sir Walter Raleigh no less at "Eastleigh. 30th November 1957." It's clean enough to be fresh from works in which case I wonder why it has the original BR totem on the tender - the H16 behind has the new version. Perhaps it was not repainted. It was a long time Eastleigh resident since January 1949. Withdrawn in February 1962. (SLS). I had this down as being scrapped at Eastleigh but the Railway Observer has it at Ashford Works and it was observed there by the SLS at the end of February 1962 where it was cut up week ending 10th March 1962. (RO).



Brian

 

[Eastsidepilot]

It's clean enough to be fresh from works in which case I wonder why it has the original BR totem on the tender -

Brian

The loco does not appear to have been re-painted so perhaps just in for repair/service, thus the totem. So does the loco in front of it.

Col.

 

[oldravendale]

You are probably correct, Col, in which case Mrs Mop has done a wonderful job!

B

 

[oldravendale]

Hm. The Lord Nelson is clearly not a "preferred" loco - but only judging by the number of Likes. I'm quite surprised - many people talk of them warmly and they are a powerful and neat looking 4-6-0. However, everyone to their own!

It'll not stop me pushing ahead with these, though. There are many gems yet to come.

We're still at "Eastleigh MPD. 30th November 1957." In this case a pair of M7s behind a "Standard" tender and another in the background. 30125 had been an Eastleigh engine since at least 1948 and moved to Exmouth Junction in October 1960 where t was withdrawn in December 1962. (BR Database and SLS). It was noted in store at Exeter St Davids on 15th December 1963 and at Eastleigh Works in January 1964 where it was cut up week ending 8th February 1964. 30480 had been at Eastleigh since March 1951 and moved to Bournemouth in January 1963 before withdrawal in May 1964. (SLS). It was in store at Eastleigh by the end of May 1964 (SLS) and left for Ward's, Briton Ferry, on 3rd September 1964. (RO). BR Database proposes a scrapping date of October.

I must build one some day.......



Brian

 

[oldravendale]

That's better! The "Likes" for the Lord Nelson are increasing, including one from Mr Scanlon - I must admit that I wondered why you were missing there, Roger! The M7s have proved popular too.

Still at "Eastleigh Works. 30th November 1957" is Urie King Arthur 30456 Sir Galahad, a Basingstoke engine by April 1957 from where it was withdrawn in May 1960. (SLS). It was cut up at Eastleigh week ending 21st May 1960. (RO). It's fronted by a Brighton Billinton E4X, 32510 (referred to in BR Database" as a Radial). This loco spent some time on the Isle of Wight around 1947 and had returned by 30th April 1949 (SLS) but was almost certainly on the mainland before that date so was probably less than successful. (SLS). It was a long time resident at Eastleigh since 1948 despite it's antecedents and was withdrawn at the end of September 1962. It was noted in the works at that time by the RO where it was scrapped in October 1962. (BR Database).



Brian

 

[Steph Dale]

Not a Urie Arthur, Dad, but one of the first ten Maunsell locos (note the outside steam pipes just poking through the bottom of the smoke deflector). They were nominally rebuilds from Drummond 4-6-0s (probably only using some bogie components and a few consumables), hence the modified Drummond tender. All the Urie locos had Urie tenders with deep-framed bogies.

Steph

 

[oldravendale]

Reviewing the data on BRDatabase it advises "R Urie/R Maunsell" - the first page only refers to Urie. My review of the cab suggested to me it was a Urie loco too - what do I know? Just goes to prove, as I already know, one should double check the references.

Thanks for correcting the info and apologies to anyone who thought it was a Maunsell - you are correct!

B

 

[Martin Shaw]

Brian
Whilst technically Steph is correct, it is what I would call an Eastleigh Arthur, i.e a Urie engine built after his demise from office and prior to the Scotch Arthurs, what's in a name, it looks pretty much like a Urie engine. The E4 is interesting, it is as you say the one that was sent to the IoW where it was less than useful being barred from everywhere except Ryde to Ventnor, I suspect a Brighton interloper amongst the LSW incumbents won't have helped although they seemed to get on with the E1's ok. It was originally named "Twineham" a hamlet to this day of 300 souls just west of Burgess Hill in west Sussex. The LBSC naming policy was such that they ran out of places to name engines after and the most obscure locations were so honoured. The GWR ran into the same problem with the Hall class, latterly some being named after glorified cow sheds.

Re the Nelsons, I find them along with unrebuilt Royal Scots somewhat top heavy looking and whilst both classes performed well they aren't the most attractive.

I wonder if the appellation "motor tanks" was used for the P&P fitted M7s, purely as a distinction from the unfitted members of the class rather than a description of all the M7s en masse, just a guess. I rather prefer a SECR H class, the M7s, especially the long frame ones again look odd as though they have been stretched. All interesting pics, the look of an engine is inevitably going to be personal, I rather like the H16s even if the lum is way too small as Ian pointed out.
Best wishes
Martin

 

[Steph Dale]

Martin,

Yep, I'm content with it being described as an 'Eastleigh' Arthur, but it's the Holcroft and Clayton mods around the front end that make it so. The cab is deceptive - when the locos were built the requirement for 4-6-0s on the Eastern Section was not there, so they retained the Drummond style cab. The Eastern section cab on the King Arthurs made its debut with the North British built 'Scotch' Arthurs, when the opportunity to tweak the design to run more widely over the Southern was taken, including narrowing by the princely sum of 1"...

I've never heard M7s described as 'Motor Tanks' - the drawings call them either 'Drummond Passenger Tanks', 'New Bogie Tanks' or combinations thereof.

Steph

 

[oldravendale]

Today's offering is again "Eastleigh. 30th November 1957."34001, Exeter, looks just out of works and possibly not even coaled yet. This fits very nicely with the BRDatabase records which advise that 34001 was rebuilt in November 1957. It was a Bricklayers Arms engine, allocated there from October 1957 so probably a book transfer before the rebuild was complete. It then moved around a bit going to Stewarts Lane in February 1961, Nine Elms in May the same year, then Eastleigh in September 1964 and finally Nine Elms again in January 1965.. It was one of the last to be withdrawn, on 6th July 1967 (SLS) and then went to Cashmore's, Newport where it was scrapped in the October. (BR Database).



In fact, from my own photos, here it is at Nine Elms on that fateful 6th July, still working until the very end and, for the time, looking in very reasonable condition. It is quite likely that at the time of the photo it has turned a wheel for the last time in revenue earning service.



Brian

Edit. Just realised that I didn't respond to Martin's or Steph's later missives. Thanks to both for the corrective details. Doubtless Mr BRDatabase will be along in a minute to comment on the designation of the M7s, but I wonder if you are correct in your suggestion, Martin. I'll find an M7 without motor gear a bit later and see if that's given the same class description.

I'm also fond of the "H"s. They are daintier than the M7s. In fact the Metropolitan 0-4-4 tanks bear a strong resemblance and they are perhaps my favourite of the 4-4-0 tanks. At the end of the day, though, they all have their particular value and charm, don't they?

As for the Lord Nelsons and Scots before rebuilding, and possibly the original Patriots I'm rather fond of the no nonsense, brute force look of them.

It's all in the eye of the beholder and we'd be the poorer without them.

 

[Ressaldar]

Hi Brian,

two great pictures, looking forward to the next episode.

regards

Mike

 

[LarryG]

Fowler did CME impersonations while the North British Loco Company and Beames gave the LMS what it really needed, decent 4-6-0 Scots & Patriots. As enthusiasts, our world would be the poorer without past motive power variety. I grew up with Fowler's worst; namely his 7F 0-8-0's, but who's heart didn't beat faster at the sight of these mobile volcanos plodding over the Pennine hills with seemingly endless coal trains. I wonder if Tim Mills captured any on his camera?

 

[oldravendale]

That's a bit more history, Larry. Thank you. In fact is there not a relationship between the Lord Nelsons and Royal Scots? I believe I read somewhere that the LMS used the drawings for the Lord Nelson to help with the design of the Royal Scots. But I may have been dreaming..... As for a photo of a 7F (were they nicknamed Austin 7s?) I'm not sure yet. Tim was widely travelled in the UK and Ireland so it's quite possible there'll be one or more in the stash.

Today's gem is again at "Eastleigh MPD 30th November 1957". This is a class I always wanted to see in service but never did. 0298 (classed by BRDatabase as Well Tank - a correct description but more commonly known by the number designation) No 30587 with paintwork that looks reasonably well worn except for the smokebox. I wonder whether it had been in to Eastleigh Works for a new one? At the time of the photo it was still well ensconced at Wadebridge and had been since at least 1948 and probably as early as 1895 but was withdrawn in December 1962. (BR Database). Fortunately it was kept for the National Collection and is normally located at the Bodmin and Wenford Railway. See 0298 2-4-0WT LSWR Beattie 30585 – 30587

Nice bit of wagonry to the right.



Brian

 

[LarryG]

The 2-4-0WT might have had a 'Newton Heath' job haha. That shed sent a man out into the yard with a large can and brush to paint smokeboxes that were showing rust. I saw him at work when while transferred there for a week during Manchester wakes. The patch-painted LMS wagon is interesting, as it looks to be mostly grey in livery while the black used for a number patch has also been used for touching up.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

That's a bit more history, Larry. Thank you. In fact is there not a relationship between the Lord Nelsons and Royal Scots? I believe I read somewhere that the LMS used the drawings for the Lord Nelson to help with the design of the Royal Scots. But I may have been dreaming.....

Yes, the SR Lord Nelson drawings were loaned to Derby for the design of the Royal Scot Class.

Pernonally I prefer the LN for it's brutish powerful look, further enhanced by the Lemaître chimney.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

The patch-painted LMS wagon is interesting, as it looks to be mostly grey in livery while the black used for a number patch has also been used for touching up.

The lighter planks could be unpainted wood. I have read somewhere, especially during wartime, new wagons were left unpainted with the reporting mark areas painted black as you have indicated.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

The M7s have proved popular too.

They would. People will mostly remember these being on local services from their West Dorset and East Devon coast holidays! Although some were used on ECS workings to and from Waterloo.

 

[Martin Shaw]

Larry, I think your being a tad dismissive of Fowler as an engineer and there is no doubt that the internal politics of the LMS motive power operations favoured Anderson who was as much responsible for the promulgation of the MR small engine policy as was Fowler in not doing something about it. I have read that he was disinclined to "rock the boat" so some things that should have been challenged weren't, but if we accept the basic premise that the 2-6-4 was his design and it lasted until the end of steam then there can't have been too much wrong with it. I would agree that Hughes and Beames at Horwich was probably a better locomotive engineers but CMEs had very little to do with the actual designing process but were of course ultimately responsible to the board of the company. Even Stanier who was probably one of the two or three most successful steam locomotive engineers the UK ever produced owed as much to Coleman from the North Staffs as to his own design ability.

There is something of a myth that has grown up around the Lord Nelson drawings and the production of Royal Scots by the NBL. Originally Derby wanted a sight of the GWR Castle drawings, at that time the best 4-6-0 around, notwithstanding Urie's efforts, but Swindon didn't want to play so Maunsell who was more receptive to cross company idea exchange loaned them a set of LN drawings. Now the LN was a 4 cylinder machine and a Royal Scot was built with 3 cylinders, pretty major difference I'd suggest, and there is very little else in common between the designs, so I think that whilst Eastleigh might have provided some ideas to investigate I think the Royal Scot design owes more to the NBL drawing office in Glasgow and Derby than it does to the Southern Railway. It has been suggested that the high degree of involvement of the NBL was as much due to a lack of skilled design staff available within the LMS organisation as a lack of capacaity within LMS workshops. Staniers great contribution to the LMS is perhaps his reorganisation of the major works, he had a special interest in machine tools, and by the time he resigned from the railway Crewe was as good a works as anywhere else. I can recommend the two volumes by E.A.Langridge "Under 10 CMEs" which gives I think a pretty fair and balanced view of LMS locomotive engineeering, although he seems to have had little time for Swindon.

The Southern no doubt governed by it's desire to electrify seems to have had a penchant for small classes of Victorian locos dedicated to singular operations and I feel the 0298s fit neatly into that sphere. Ther must have been some severely restrictive civil enginerring that made it worth keeeping the three of them going into the 60's, I suppose the Lyme Regis trio must be the same.

I can find nothing in Bradley to suggest that the M7s were known as Motor Tanks, it would seem that at any one time only a smallish proportion of the class were actually fitted for P&P operation, where it came from is a big question, somewhat like why we call common crossings, frogs.

A trivial fact to finish, John Hookham last CME of the North Staffs was Margot Fonteyn's uncle.
Best wishes
Martin

 

[JimG]

A trivial fact to finish, John Hookham last CME of the North Staffs was Margot Fonteyn's uncle.

Another trivial fact - my late mother-in-law - nee Fowler - was a relative of Henry Fowler.

Jim.

 

[LarryG]

The lighter planks could be unpainted wood. I have read somewhere, especially during wartime, new wagons were left unpainted with the reporting mark areas painted black as you have indicated.

I took this into consideration but dismissed it because of the wooden underframe. It is an early LMS build and so had been painted in LMS days. The state of the steel corner post and strapping indicated paintwork in pretty good condition and the shade matches that on the timber. I concluded it was BR grey.