Prototype Tim Mills' Photos

[LarryG]

Fowler or indeed Anderson and his MR cronies had nothing to do with the parallel boiler 2-6-4T even though Fowler signed it off. Had they been involved, it would not have had long lap long travel valve gear. A few years later, the MR gang showed what they were about when the smaller 2-6-2T was signed off with an old fashioned short travel vale chassis, strangled steam passages and a feeble Class 2 boiler. They didn't understand locomotives or fully appreciate what the 2-6-4T was about.

 

[hrmspaul]

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.

Until 1959 officially open wagons with wooden frames were to remain unpainted wood with all steelwork painted in BR grey. Its not clear why some of the planks have a dark colour repaint, but possibly replacement timber from something previously painted. With the steel work and number panel so well painted it appears to have had some maintenance recently although its days would have been numbered as steel minerals poured from Pressed Steel and others

Paul Bartlett

 

[Martin Shaw]

Fowler or indeed Anderson and his MR cronies had nothing to do with the parallel boiler 2-6-4T even though Fowler signed it off.

I think this the point I was trying to make. Your last four words are the critical ones. If Fowler was responsible for perpetuating or at least not changing outdated Derby practices for which as CME he must take the blame, then he is as much responsible for the successes even though he wasn't personally a contributor. I would wholly agree with you that the 2-6-4 ascribed to him has little to do with Derby, much of it was derived from Hughes successful 2-6-0, the eponymous Horwich Crab, although apparently the motion was derived from the Maunsell River tanks, the draughtsman using a copy of the diagram published in the Railway Gazette which presumably owed something to Clayton and breathed on by Holcroft.

They didn't understand locomotives or fully appreciate what the 2-6-4T was about.

I can understand why you make this statement however I don't believe it to be true. That the internal politics of the LMS hierarchy got in the way if enlightened engineering practice is not a slight on the engineers but a reflection of the division of operation from manufacture which meant the interchange of experience didn't happen as it should. Reading various published biographies of former LMS motive power superintendents at district level shows that the failings of design were actively discouraged from being reported and doing so would have an adverse impact on a career, although quite how the 2-6-2T got through is a mystery. I'll have to read up the the situation on that one.

Regards
Martin

 

[LarryG]

With reference to :- "Until 1959 officially open wagons with wooden frames were to remain unpainted wood with all steelwork painted in BR grey"; REMAIN is the key word here and only makes sense when applied to newly built wagons that have never received a lick of paint on the timbers.. All Big Four pre-war wagons were painted in company liveries, so they came into BR ownership carrying paint.

 

[Overseer]

I thought painting wooden wagons restarted in 1957, which fits with these November 1957 photographs. There is also plenty of photographic evidence that 'railway owned' wagons were looked after better than former private owner wagons. The photo in post 311 also shows the same wagon, useful for anyone modelling it. Crops of the wagon from both photos below. The pale colour is definitely wagon grey on the steelwork and newly replaced planks, see the overpainting onto the dark planks. The dark planks would be earlier replacement planks, either unpainted but blackened by coal dust, or painted with a thin coat of black or red lead, or possibly remnant LMS bauxite. These wagons can be modelled using the Slaters 1923 7 plank wagon kit with the fixed end replaced with an end from their LMS Loco Coal 7 plank wagon with the T verticals. I built one of these wagons in its earlier 1950s condition based on several photos of it on the Cheddleton Asylum line with unpainted new planks and earlier planks in more than one colour.

 

[oldravendale]

Well.... Almost handbags at dawn! These are wonderful comments and need preserving as representative of the interpretations of the individuals involved in loco design. These comments will be preserved against each of the photos. The responses are so interesting for Tim because so many are also not about the locos but about the incidental material. I'm delighted that they are providing further discussion material.

Thanks Paul for yours too. As Yorkshire Dave has commented previously it's the details which bring out the character of the photos and this one appears to be no exception.

And since you've all been such good boys and girls here's another.

"Eastleigh Works. 30th November 1957." This is Class 757 30757, Earl of Mount Edgcumbe. Why the Southern chose to retain such an idiosyncratic and non standard locomotive from a constituent, the Plymouth Devonport & South Western Junction Railway, is difficult to understand but there were two of them. We forget how short of money the whole country was immediately after the war and this may be, at least in part, why so many old designs remained - although Yorkshire Dave has also previously described why the Southern retained so many old locos for so long. By this time the sister locomotive, 30758, Lord St Leven, had already been withdrawn and scrapped almost year previously. 30757 lived at Plymouth Friary until June 1956 when it transferred to Eastleigh. At the time of this photo just over a year later the loco looks unlikely to operate again, although I'm not convinced despite the leaky tanks it's yet in the "scrap line". In fact the T9 30289 behind 30757 lasted until 1959. BRDatabase suggests that formal withdrawal took place in December 1957 and it looks as though it was physically scrapped immediately, although railUK.info suggests withdrawal took place in December 1956.

Personally I think BRDatabase is right as 30757 appears in the Locoshed Book for November/December 1957 as allocated to Eastleigh so was still in existence then. It's also in the April/May 1957 Locoshed book at Eastleigh.



Brian

 

[Ressaldar]

Hi Brian,

My Agenoria 'take' from June 2010





a very enjoyable build.

Keep the photos coming.

regards

Mike

 

[oldravendale]

Nice one, Mike!

Here's that loco again. 3440 at Eastleigh on 30th November 1957.

Everything to say about this has been said previously so I'll shut up.



Brian

 

[LarryG]

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

Jim.

My paternal gran was a Clayton, wealthy mill owners. She told me she married below her station. I saw the funny side!

(Clayton: I wonder if that's why I am interested in MR Carriages).

 

[oldravendale]

I'm really pushing on with these quite well as the most recent negs have been cleaner than those previously, and the exposure has been a good deal better too.

This time it's "Unknown Location and date. Query Feltham." Frankly it's difficult to put a location to this, but there's another coming up, of a Q1 in what I believe to be the same location so I think Feltham is a distinct possibility - or could it be Eastleigh? The upcoming Q1 was at Feltham between 1954 and 1962 which fits. I can't rule out the possibility that this is Cricklewood but I don't think it can be Willesden. I have insufficient knowledge of the other yards around London to comment any further and the topography doesn't help much. The newer BR totem on the tank side means this is post 1957. H16 30516 was a Feltham engine up to February 1960 and had been since at least 1948, then at Eastleigh in February 1960 but back to Feltham in May 1961 before withdrawal in November 1962 (BR Database and SLS) although physical scrapping took nearly a further year, being accomplished at Eastleigh Works week ending 2nd November 1963. There's the tiniest bit of camera shake on this image so the shed plate on the loco is not readable.

Personally I'm going for a date between 1957 and 1960 - this is a large format negative and I know Tim changed to 35mm later in his photography. As I work through the negs I'll potentially be able to define a dating bracket.



Brian

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

This time it's "Unknown Location and date. Query Feltham." Frankly it's difficult to put a location to this, but there's another coming up, of a Q1 in what I believe to be the same location so I think Feltham is a distinct possibility - or could it be Eastleigh? The upcoming Q1 was at Feltham between 1954 and 1962 which fits. I can't rule out the possibility that this is Cricklewood but I don't think it can be Willesden.

My money is on Willesdsen (could remotely be Feltham, definitely not Cricklewood). The headcode indicates Willesden and Feltham Yard.

After a bit of digging....... The chimney pots on the houses in the background on Tim's photo could be Milton Avenue, Harlesden and there is a small works with a chimney in the background above the wagon behind the loco. Harlesden Station starts to disappear into a shallow cutting and is also hidden by the wagons on the right.



Google. The area has obviously been developed and there are now flats on what were the areas shown as works on the map.


The number and density of the chimney pots in Tim's photo seem to match those seen on street view.


I had a look at Cygnet Avenue, Feltham and the chimney shape and housing density appears wrong. Feltham Yard was in the green area at the bottom.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Here's that loco again

30543

 

[Martin Shaw]

Good bit of detective work there Dave.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

I would also suspect if the loco was on shunting duty it would carry a duty number (similar to those around Southampton Docks) so the marshalling yard staff know which specific shunting task the locomotive was on. Especially if there were several locomotives shunting in the yards at the same time.

 

[oldravendale]

Thanks Dave. Stunning bit of research. I remember Feltham as having housing in the background of the yard but the Willesden I remember did not feature housing! (Cricklewood was in the midst of housing too - there were trolleybuses from Colindale Depot behind as well). The Q1 I mentioned earlier has the same head code so my belief it's in the same place seems likely. That'll be on here tomorrow.

I don't remember duty numbers on the locos at Feltham but frankly that means bu$$er all. It was, after all, over fifty years ago and I now know so much that the earlier stuff has fallen out of the memory bank.

Brian

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Willesden was quite a large yard as shown on this OS extract. There is a mixture of land uses around here from industrial to housing to open spaces. The area of Tim's photo is in the area of the smaller elipse. All are extracts from the 1:1,250/1:2,500 1944-69 series.



Cricklewood


Feltham

 

[oldravendale]

Thanks again Dave. And in my last missive I referred to Colindale Trolleybus Depot. There's a clue to the actual Depot location in the name of the shed and goods yard - it was, in fact, Cricklewood. There was a depot at Colindale as well.

However, this may help cement the location. A nice portrait of Q1 33018. Again the shed plate is not readable but it was on Feltham's allocation between October 1954 and December 1962 when it moved to Three Bridges. It moved to Guildford in December 1963 and finally Nine Elms in June 1965 where it was withdrawn in July 1965 (SLS) and went to Cashmore's, Newport for breaking up which was done in December of the same year. (BR Database). To my eye the Q1s were so ugly that they could have become a design icon. There's no doubting they had character, though. They were also reliable and powerful 0-6-0s, quite often seen on empty stock trains at Waterloo possibly accounting for the final allocation of this loco being Nine Elms.



Brian

 

[oldravendale]

It's so gratifying to know that these photos are looked at and appreciated. It looks as though there are a few others beside me who have a, probably grudging, respect for the Q1s.

This one is a bit more traditional in terms of the view point, but it's a favourite class of mine so of course I'm going to include it. Clearances weren't great, were they? I love the enamel signs too. I don't remember them but they were clearly present on station platforms when I started to take an interest. Tim's comments are sketchy to say the least but he suggests "SE Section. Possibly Lewisham." But sorry - there's no date and as ever, no confirmation of loco number. Another bit of research there, Dave? It looks to me as though it might be 34071, 601 Squadron. That would fit as it wasn't rebuilt until 1960 and was at Dover Marine from June 1955 until it moved to Nine Elms in January 1961. It ended up at Eastleigh in September 1964 and was withdrawn at the end of April 1967, so very nearly made it to the end. (SLS). Sadly it was one of the many that went to Cashmore's at Newport so there was to be no reprieve as it was scrapped in the September, very soon after steam exited the Southern. (BR Database).



Brian

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

It's Brixton (looking north) and the headcode is Victoria or Holborn and Folkestone or Dover via the Orpington Loop, Tonbridge and Ashford. In this case the train originated at Victoria. With it's SPL 1 and additional D headcode it could well be a boat train.

The lattice bridge is the ex-LBSCR Victoria-London Bridge South London line.

 

[AJC]

Lovely picture Brian - but has Lewisham ever had an overbridge like that? The junction - and scene of the '57 accident - does but that's west of the station rather than over the top of it. I suggest Brixton instead: Brixton railway station - Wikipedia

Adam

EDIT - Dave beat me to it!