Metropolitan OO gauge British Thomson Houston. (An electrified horse box)

[Jarmstro]

Next up. The Met British Thomson-Houston electric. This has to be a strong contender for the ugliest loco ever to run on UK rails! I believe it offered better visibility for the driver over the Metro-Cammell but at the cost of it being mistaken for a horse box. The lining cheers it up a bit. Not sure how long they lasted.



Same ingredients as my Metro-Cammell which is too quick but runs fine at 3v-4v when pulling a load.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Not sure how long they lasted.

They disappeared at the same time as the Westinghouse camelbacks. All tied up with the 1919 'reconstruction' as described in the Westinghouse Bo-Bo thread.

With the BTH locos you can start to see the early stages of the body design of the Metropolitan Vickers Bo-Bo.

 

[Jarmstro]

Ah! What did they do with them? Were parts used for the Metro-Vic's or were they scrapped?

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

The information about the fate of the Westinghouse and BTH locos is a bit vague. It is known their electrical gear and motor bogies were stripped and re-used in multiple electric units. Some of the chassis/solebars were lengthened by Metro-Vic with new bogies, electrical gear and bodywork. Otherwise the Metro-Vic locos were entirely new. It is possible to deduce from the rivet pattern on the solebars of the Metro-Vics which ones were rebuilt or new. This was something I tried to delve into when building my 7mm Metro-Vic Bo-Bo and the kit construction notes identifies six were partial rebuilds viz 3, 6, 7, 10, 15 and 17.

However, they couldn't have withdrawn all of the Westinghouse and BTH locos at the same time for reconstruction as it would have left them with no locos to run the services. Information regarding this is somewhat elusive.

 

[Jarmstro]

As I understand it the Met maintained a fleet of around 35 locos until 1933 of which about 24 were serviceable at any one time.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Are all these electric locos? or both steam and electric? Does the number also include the camelbacks operating on the GN & City which was owned by the Met.

 

[Jarmstro]

Are all these electric locos? or both steam and electric? Does the number also include the camelbacks operating on the GN & City which was owned by the Met.

I understand that throughout the history of the Met after around 1894 when Aylesbury was reached the board considered that a fleet of 35 locos, whether electric or steam, was sufficient. And that at any given time ten or so could be expected to be out of service requiring repair or overhaul. Whether this includes the Pecketts, other oddities or loans to other companies I don't know. Growth in passenger numbers and freight were accommodated with more powerful locomotives, electrification and emu's rather than more locos. I can't find evidence that the Mets loco fleet ever exceeded 35. The Met was very commercially savvy and solvent right up its end in 1933.

I dare say that the profitability of the Met was as much down to its land holdings and property developments than anything else. Huge areas of undeveloped land were handed to LT in 1933 for very little compensation to shareholders. I remember a large field behind our house in Chorleywood in the 1960's owned by LT just sat there doing nothing. We lived in a mock Tudor Met house.

 

[DavidB]

The Met British Thomson-Houston electric. This has to be a strong contender for the ugliest loco ever to run on UK rails!

Nah. The GWR had an uglier one - the 4-6-0 Kruger and its compatriot 2-6-0 Mrs Kruger.


Image borrowed from the Didcot Railway Centre website.

 

[Ian@StEnochs]

Nah. The GWR had an uglier one - the 4-6-0 Kruger and its compatriot 2-6-0 Mrs Kruger.

View attachment 267983
Image borrowed from the Didcot Railway Centre website.

Yes! That is an ugly looking loco.

 

[Oz7mm]

I dare say that the profitability of the Met was as much down to its land holdings and property developments than anything else. Huge areas of undeveloped land were handed to LT in 1933 for very little compensation to shareholders. I remember a large field behind our house in Chorleywood in the 1960's owned by LT just sat there doing nothing. We lived in a mock Tudor Met house.

When I started working in the City in the late 1960s there was still a quoted company called Metropolitan Railway Surplus Lands Committee (IIRC). A little research (i.e. Google & Wikipedia) says that the shareholders of the Metropolitan Railway were "fully compensated" for the railway assets and the land holdings were spun off into a separate company retained by the shareholders. That would suggest that the shareholders were compensated by continuing to own the property company.

More research needed.

John

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

The Met was very commercially savvy and solvent right up its end in 1933.

I dare say that the profitability of the Met was as much down to its land holdings and property developments than anything else. Huge areas of undeveloped land were handed to LT in 1933 for very little compensation to shareholders. I remember a large field behind our house in Chorleywood in the 1960's owned by LT just sat there doing nothing. We lived in a mock Tudor Met house.

Yes, the Met was a big land and property owner as witnessed by the Metroland developments and plans - very far sighted. It would have been interesting to see how far they would have reached if LPTB, WWII and the Green Belt Acts hadn't intervened.

It's well known the Met considered itself a 'big' railway and didn't to be absorbed into LPTB. With Lord Ashfield and Frank Pick of the UREL group (being the larger entity) taking charge the Met really had no choice. Although the Met at grass roots level remained (and still remains) very loyal. I've mentioned this before - I recall back in the 1980s the canteen at the north end of Wembley Park platform, on the wall by the door was chalked 'Met Men Only'. The Bakerloo folk must have had their own canteen as Wembley Park was one of the termini for Bakerloo trains.