Prototype Tim Mills' Photos

[oldravendale]

It will just be the cladding plates which are bashed! If the cylinder was dented it just wouldn't work.

There's no doubt you are correct. However, the cylinder simply needed a short sharp shock to get the piston moving again and there is not the slightest chance (as I'm a primary source) that the hammer or a large spanner was not used.

There's always the distinct possibility that, if the hammer treatment resulted in the cylinder itself being damaged and the Westinghouse not working it was a problem for the fitters and not for the driver........

Brian

 

[Crimson Rambler]

The Weir vertical direct-acting feed pump would sometimes stall at the bottom of its stroke when the main valve had not moved across. The official cure was to use a special spanner and 'jag' it back into life. The easy way, and needless to say the most common cure was to hit the steam chest with a 7lb lump hammer. Very much frowned on by chief engineers but from personal experience most effective1
I suspect, this was a reason why the Weir feed water heating system was tried but abandoned from locomotives - its one thing to hit a pump steam chest in a ship's engine room but I suggest something else when standing on the platform of an engine running out on the line!

Crimson Rambler

 

[Martin Shaw]

I can vouch from personal experience here, when a pump sticks it is invariably the shuttle valve rather than the piston either in the steam or air cylinder. The shuttle valve sits crossways in the body above the cylinder and consists of two pistons of unequal diameter on a common piston rod. This shuttles back and forth according to a valve at the top of the main piston rod and distributes steam accordingly. Lubrication or the lack of it being the usual problem, the lubricator I have found needs drained and refilled halfway through the shift. I suppose a sharp shock anywhere usually would have the desired effect, but a tap on the side of the valve housing would be most effective, beware getting caught by the CME doing so, sharp words follow.

Col has the pertinent details but 67212 had just over 10 months at Parkeston in 1946/7, apparently the LNER had a few there and at Colchester from time to time.

Crimson Rambler has an interesting point, my house is not too far from the Weir factory and when I pass it the thought of all the pumps that left there in over a century for ships all over the world never fails to stagger me. I suspect, with great regard to loco fitters, that engine room maintenance on ships was a rather more rigorous exercise and not susceptible to the vagaries of locomotive fireman and coal hammers on a daily basis.
Kind regards
Martin

 

[oldravendale]

This one is a bit of an outlier. I suspect it was "shutter button pressed in error" but Tim has given it the description "Braintree 1956 J17 0-6-0." It might be of interest or assistance from the detail perspective, not that there's much detail to be seen!



Brian

 

[Eastsidepilot]

J17's are noted as working goods at Braintree, the van is possibly a ex. LNER ply bodied van and is it destined for Paddington ?

Col.

 

[oldravendale]

Here's one for today. Tim's title is "Braintree Station 1956". The front numberplate is difficult to read, but I believe it's 67223. This makes it an F6 - I don't think it's the same loco as the previous photo of a 2-4-2 tank as, apart from anything else, the bash to the Westinghouse cylinder can't be seen. However, 67223 was withdrawn in 1955 and was also a Norfolk/Suffolk based loco for most of its later life which makes my interpretation of the number quite unlikely! I know insufficient about the differences between the F5 and F6 classes to make a proper identification.



Brian

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Brian,
The visual difference between the F5 & 6 is the cab, F6 had the high GER built cab with rectangular windows plus side windows, F5's had the traditional circular type.
But, in '48 7218 & 19 were rebuilt to F5 but I believe retained the F6 cabs.

The loco in your photo could be a Colchester loco 7225 or 27 which were withdrawn '56-'58 respectively or Stratford's 7228 which went in '58.
The other surviving F6's didn't have 22 in the middle of their number.

Nice station detail, covered GER footbridge, 'Virol' ad. on the left above the seats and the luggage trolley's stood up on end.

Col.

 

[oldravendale]

Thanks for so much background, Col. I reckon the best bet is 67228 - an "8" is easily confused with a "3" in this sort of situation but I appreciate it's all assumption from the evidence. Additionally it's a Stratford/Colchester loco which would seem to fit. One question, though. BR Database says that this loco was fitted with a vacuum ejector in 1927. Would it have retained the Westinghouse equipment in that case?

Much appreciated.

Brian

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

It is likely the Westinghouse brake would have been retained for the loco braking only.

This would similar to the ex-LBSC locos which retained their air brakes and were retro-fitted with vacuum ejectors for the train brakes.

 

[Martin Shaw]

Another very interesting pic Brian. I have this volume with it's reproduction of an attractive painting on the cover,


As well as Maldon it also covers some of the workings on the Braintree branch, originally the same railway. There is not one picture of an F6 on a train, they were barred from the Witham to Maldon direct route but were permitted via Woodham Ferrers and also to Braintree. The locomotive notes in the book suggest that in late LNER and early BR days the F6s were used when a shortage of F5s occurred, the Colchester shed foreman turning a Nelsonian eye to the route restrictions. This suggests two things , Tim's picture is of a relatively rare occasion and that it is a Colchester engine. In 1956 there were only three F6 engines allocated to Colchester, 67225, 67227 until 3/6/56, and 67228 from 4/3/56, therefore I would concur that it is most likely 67227, 67223 was a Lowestoft engine so could as an outsider be considered.

Re fitting of vacuum equipment to air braked engines, it seems the LNER policy was that vacuum equipment for locos in air braked areas, principally the GE , NE, and NB, was superimposed on top of whatever other equipment was fitted with minimum alteration to existing bits, presumably on a cost consideration, although for example the early Shires allocated to Scotland when vacuum fitted had the air pumps removed and the air assisted reversers converted (poorly I may say) to screw operation and the loco braking changed to steam operation, so it's not a hard and fast rule. Neither they nor BR managed to rid the GE section of the air brake, advanced Stratford thinking.

As far as I am aware, purely from anecdotal evidence, the Southern whilst retaining air braking tended to make this straight air rather than Westinghouse and removed train braking capability altogether, I might be on dodgy ground here so don't quote me.

Best wishes
Martin

 

[Eastsidepilot]

TWould it have retained the Westinghouse equipment in that case?

Much appreciated.

Brian

I believe that a lot of Stratford loco's retained their Westinghouse gear till the end of steam on the E.R. Certainly up until 1960 when the Quin-art stock were still in use and they remained air braked all be it hauled by N7's mainly. Also the coaching stock was used on week-end excursions to places such as 'Sarfend' on Sea so 'Westo' loco's would have still been useful.

Col.

 

[oldravendale]

Loads more info so thank you Martin and Col, again.

I remember the N7s at Liverpool Street and they retained their Westinghouse equipment. I suppose they had vacuum gear as well, otherwise they'd have been pretty useless as a station pilot.

I'm clinging to 67228 - I reckon that a "7" as the final digit is unlikely from the perspective of the smokebox number plate we can see. The info you've provided has expanded my knowledge considerably, though.

Thank you both for building up a background.

Brian

 

[oldravendale]

Unusually a second shot finished by me on a single day. Tim entitled this one "Braintree Jan 56". I think our chances of getting a loco number out of this one are somewhat limited, but a lovely photo all the same. Of note to my unpracticed eye is the difference in levels of the buffers between loco and coach. Is this an effect of the loco's tyres worn to scrapping level? It looks a bit more than that.

Edit. Probably 67212. See post #55 or a previous entry. It had been a Stratford engine since new in 1906 and was withdrawn in May 1958. (BR Database and SLS). It was scrapped in July 1958 (BR Database) and SLS tells us that was at Stratford.



Brian

 

[DougT]

Brian, Maybe the chap stood between loco and coach is (was) the worlds strongest man...

 

[Martin Shaw]

Brian
The loco tyres aren't new but they're not particularly worn, I would expect the coach is empty, where as the loco may have just taken water, seems the most logical explanantion.

In 1956 there were only three engines with the condensing gear still fitted, 67208,67209,67212, all Stratford engines and notice just in front of the tank inside the frames is an upstand which should have a lubricator box. There is a photo in Yeadon of 67208 with the said box also missing so I reckon it's one of these three with 208 the most likely.
Regards
Martin

 

[oldravendale]

Thank you Martin. That's a great bit of research and I'll add it to the info Tim has provided.

Brian

 

[Osgood]

I cannot contribute anything to help but am finding this thread fascinating - keep at it!

 

[Eastsidepilot]

I wouldn't mind betting it's the same F5 as in post #55, same month and year at either end of the branch.
Nice timber posted signal.

Col.

 

[LarryG]

The bunker is full of coal and maybe the tanks are full, hence the loco sitting down on its springs.

 

[oldravendale]

I wouldn't mind betting it's the same F5 as in post #55, same month and year at either end of the branch.
Nice timber posted signal.

Col.

Martin's post #75 suggests 7208 in view of the missing lubricator box. Assuming that 7212 has this box it has to be a different loco - although condition of both is pretty dismal!

Brian