Further to the letters on page 332 of RECORD 21, I enclose a photocopy of an engraving which appeared in Engineering, issue dated 12th March 1875. To my mind this ties up quite well with the Seaham loco, the wheel diameter, wheelbase, connecting rod length and cylinder size being identical; the position of the valve gear is the same. The points of difference are the rear frames, the brake gear (which acts on the rear of the trailing wheels) and the cylinder position. I think that, allowing for the fact that the Seaham loco has been rebuilt from 0‑4‑0 well tank to 0‑4‑0 saddle tank, the engraving at least illustrates a very similar locomotive and the difference can be accounted for by the rebuilding. All this leads me to suggest that the Seaham loco was built in 1875 or later.

    The paragraph in Engineering which accompanied this engraving said that it illustrated "a type of contractor's locomotive constructed by Mr Stephen Lewin, of Poole. The particular engine illustrated is for the 4ft 8½in gauge, but similar engines are made for gauges down to 3ft. The cylinders are 9in in diameter, with 18in stroke, while the wheels are 2ft 6in in diameter, and are arranged with a wheelbase of 5ft. The water is carried in two tanks, which are connected and bolted up between the frame plates, so as to act as stays to the latter, and keep the centre of gravity low. The total weight of the engine empty is 8½ tons, and loaded 10 tons, while, when required for long runs or heavy gradients, a tank can be placed at the top of the boiler, thus adding about 1½ tons to the weight in working order.

    "The cylinders are, as will be seen, steeply inclined, so that the motion bars may clear the leading crank pin, while the eccentrics are arranged between the boss of the driving wheel and the axle bearing, the valve gear being outside the frames.

    "The boiler shell is made of best Staffordshire plates, with Lowmoor firebox, and lap‑welded iron tubes, but of course copper fireboxes and brass tubes are provided when desired. The boiler is fed by one injector and one pump. The wheels are of cast iron, and are fitted with steel tyres."

    Further to the letters in RECORD 21, I have often wondered whether the Seaham Harbour Lewin was built in 1863. However, it seems reasonably certain that TINY (the Lewin formerly at the Norden Clay Mines in Dorset of B. Fayle & Co Ltd) was built at the date attributed to it, viz 1868. The English Mechanics magazine, issue dated 5th August 1938, mentioned that TINY had been recylindered, but that the old cylinders were at the back of the shed, the steam chest covers being inscribed "S. Lewin, Engineer, Poole, 1868". Again Bennett refers in The Chronicles of Boulton's Siding to a Lewin 0‑4‑2 well tank which came into the possession of I.W. Boulton early in 1870. (This date may be wrong as the book was not entirely accurate.) From the evidence I would therefore submit that Lewin was building the odd locomotive, at least, during the 1860's. Finally, over the years I have seen a photograph of the Lewin 0‑4‑2 well tank taken in a yard, but whether at Poole or Ashton I'm not certain. Has anyone else seen this photograph? I'm anxious to trace it.

    A paper read by Samuel Geoghegan, Guinness's Engineer, to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 31st July 1888 gives details of the railways supplementing those in the article in RECORD 22. Geoghegan implies that the 5ft 3in and 1ft 10in gauge rails were laid at the same time. New land was acquired in 1873 and a second brewery built in 1877-1878; further extensions in 1886 nearly doubled the size of the complex. The original 1ft 10in rails, used in the tunnel excavations, were flat bars of iron 2¼in deep by ⅝in thick; at the time the first locomotive arrived the rails weighed 18lbs per yard. The 6‑ton Sharp Stewart locomotives delivered in 1878 cost £597 each. On the 5ft 3in gauge Geoghegan said that the converter bogies (haulage wagons) had been in use for three months, that is from about May 1888. The spiral tunnel was designed by Geoghegan in 1876 and constructed at a cost of £3,000 in 1877-1878. Regarding the degree of originality in Geoghegan's design, Daniel Adamson commented in the subsequent discussion that the arrangement was good although it had similarities with the KING WILLIAM and old No.1 locomotives on the Stockton & Darlington Railway.

    With reference to this article in RECORD 22 (page 337) I'm enclosing a cutting from the issue of "The Engineer" of 31st August 1877 which may be of interest.

    We illustrate above a pair of small geared locomotives, designed and built at the works of Mr. Stephen Lewin, Poole, Dorset, for Messrs. Guinness and Co., Dublin. The engines are in every respect similar except in name; the pair being shown in order to give both elevations. Each engine has but one cylinder, 6¼in. in diameter, and with a stroke of 8in. The motion of the engine is conveyed by steel gearing to the travelling wheels, which are also of cast steel. When running at 280 revolutions per minute the speed of the travelling wheels is six miles per hour. A wrought iron clutch gear is arranged on each engine, so that they can be used for driving other machinery on the premises. The piston, valve rods, and all pins are of steel. The engine is carried on a strong bed‑plate, fixed to wrought iron brackets rivetted to the boiler, and suitable provision is made to allow of the expansion of the boiler.

The regulator and other gear are all on the outside, and very easy of access. The boiler is made of Lowmoor and B.B. Staffordshire plate and with double rivetted longitudinal seams. The ordinary working pressure of steam is 140lb. per square inch. At the front end of the engine two buffers are fixed in the ordinary way, but the back or footplate end is made semicircular, and is provided with a radial drawbar, to enable the engine to pass with the wagons round the very sharp curves which are frequently met with on the brewery premises; the sharpest of these is 12ft. radius; the gauge is 22in. There are also several inclines on the line, the steepest being 1 in 30, and up this a load of 16 tons is frequently taken, the engines being capable of pulling a load of about 40 tons on the level.

    To suit Messrs. Guinness and Co.'s requirements the foot-plate has been arranged to be easily taken down, so that the engine could be placed in their hoist and lifted to another level. The total width of the engine does not exceed 4ft. over all, and the height, from top of rail to top of chimney, 6ft. and the length with foot-plate removed 8ft. The water is carried in tanks fixed between the frame plates, and the coals in a bunker bolted to the side, as shown in the illustrations.

    Regarding your appeal in RECORD 22 I enclose a photograph of the Lewin locomotives HOPS and MALT which was taken in Lewin's yard.

    I have a few comments on the list of Guinness locomotives which appeared on page 347 of Volume 2 (RECORD 22) as a result of a visit I made to the brewery in July 1966. 15 and 22 are said to have exchanged frames some years ago; thus 15 should be listed as built in 1912 and 22 in 1895. 24 has not been preserved as it was scrapped in 1965/1966. Also I am inclined to doubt whether 30 was withdrawn in 1961; it was under cover in July 1966 and it certainly didn't strike me as being disused whereas 28 and 33 (also listed as "Withdrawn 1961") were derelict in the open. 15, listed as "Presented to the Irish Steam Preservation Society", was with Colonel Chas. S. Kidd, a farmer at Maidenhead, Ballickmoyler, near Ballylinan, Co. Laoise.

    The picture supplied by Bruce Palmer and depicted on page 63 of RECORD 24 was built by Davenport in 1921, works number 1860, and supplied new to the New Zealand Public Works Department as PWD 526. The gauge was 3ft 6in, cylinders 6in by 10in, wheels 1ft 8in diameter, and in accordance with standard American practice this little engine was provided with a wooden cab. The boiler was pressed to 160 lbs to the square inch, and the weight in working order was 6.7 tons. As it was required to shunt New Zealand Government Railways wagons I suspect it had the higher drawgear all the time. No.526 was first used on the construction of the main railway line to Gisborne, and continued to work in the surrounding area until 1937. Finally, in 1962, it was sent to the War Memorial Park in Wairoa. This information has been extracted from Steam Locomotives of the New Zealand Public Works Department, published by the New Zealand Railway and Locomotive Society, and this fact I wish to acknowledge.

    I was interested to see the illustration of Robert Stephenson 1959 of 1870 on page 19 of RECORD 23 as it seems possible that this was the unidentified large locomotive advertised for sale at the Cogenhoe Iron Ore Works in 1888, and which is mentioned on page 45 of The Ironstone Railways and Tramways of the Midlands. An advertisement records that Thomas Merry, auctioneer, of 12 Guildhall-road, Northampton, offered for sale on the instructions of Mrs F. Cohen, on 16th July 1888, at the COGENHOE IRON ORE WORKS, (Five miles from Northampton), A LARGE LOCOMOTIVE, Built by Stephenson and Co., Newcastle‑on-Tyne, and A smaller Ditto, By Manning Wardle & Co., Leeds; Both in good condition.

    There are grounds for thinking that neither engine was sold, as shortly afterwards, in December 1888, a further advertisement appeared (in the Colliery Guardian): '2 Locomotives for sale cheap, 9in and 13in cylinders. - F. COHEN, New Basford, Nottingham: In October 1886, C.D. Phillips, of Newport, Mon., at that time one of the most active dealers in second-hand and new machinery, first offered for sale an engine on four wheels with bogie etc., built by Stevenson [sic] & Co., Newcastle‑on-Tyne. The advertisement continued until the end of 1888 (Register No.13458), and it is almost certain that Phillips was acting as an agent.

    In January 1889 Phillips' advertisement became more specific and included, amongst various dimensional details: By Stephenson & Co., Newcastle‑on-Tyne. No.1959 - 4 wheel coupled with bogie, inside frame, cylinders 13in by 18in, wheels 3ft 6in, wheel-base 4ft 1in, and bogie for quick curves. New steel tyres &c 1884. £350.

    In 1890 the engine seems to have become the property of C.D. Phillips, and in July 1890 he advertised the engine under his register No.559g: the "g" indicated that the engine was standing at Gloucester where Phillips had recently opened an additional works. In 1891 the EMLYN series of locomotives first appeared, and the Stephenson 4‑4‑0 tank became EMLYN No.56. From 1890 until 1898 the engine was advertised almost continuously by Phillips.

    The Cogenhoe 'large locomotive' may well have been Robert Stephenson 1959, for this was on offer second-hand in the late 1880's at the same time that the Cogenhoe Works were offered for sale.

    I was most interested in Mr Weaver's letter on page 57 of RECORD 24. I should like to point out that the ultimate development of the Heisler was the Avonside version as described in A Hunslet Hundred, pages 114-115. The author, L.T.C. Rolt, expressed the opinion that they were very successful locomotives, but that their development had come too late with the move towards diesels already under way.

    With regard to the Shay being "the most successful articulated locomotive type in the world", I feel that Mr Weaver should have qualified this statement with the word "industrial" since it is obvious that the Beyer Garratt was the most widely successful articulated type, being used on every continent.

    This was not the smallest standard gauge steam locomotive. If one is pedantic and includes the very early days, Ericsson's NOVELTY and Burstall's PERSEVERANCE were two and three tons lighter than GAZELLE respectively. All the original locomotives of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway were lighter, moreover. Dodman's were suppliers of fairground equipment, and GAZELLE is just what one would expect if they received an order for a standard gauge engine and had in stock parts for a circular railway locomotive on 2ft 0in or 2ft 6in gauge. Dodman's are not known to have supplied any of the genuine fairground asymmetrical locomotives, but their neighbours at King's Lynn - Savage - were well-known in this field. Is it possible that Dodman's built one but could not sell it, and finally converted it to standard gauge as GAZELLE?

    I was very interested to read this article in RECORD 24. My interest in this undertaking was aroused by reading a letter from Mr Heath (who was then the Works Manager) which appeared in the April 1925 issue of The Locomotive Magazine. This letter confirms the information on the two Chaplin locomotives and also mentions that in May 1874 the Star Works purchased from the Great Western Railway their old broad (7ft 0¼in) gauge goods engine NELSON, built at Swindon in 1853. Star used the frames, cylinders and motion as a stationary engine until August 1921

    I remember the old NELSON well and, although I don't know exactly when my grandfather bought it, I imagine it would be shortly before the Works started up in 1874. My father told me that it arrived one Sunday afternoon on a "crocodile" wagon via the Taff Vale Railway, and had to be manhandled into the Works as the siding had not then been constructed. In addition to the frames, cylinders and motion, the original boiler was also used and at first the engine was driven from the footplate. After a year or so the original boiler was replaced by a set of four boilers working at a pressure of 60lb per square inch. The old boiler barrel was then upended and used as a water tank, being fixed on a tower above the factory roof.

    As I remember the NELSON, it rested on a cast-iron bed which must have been designed to convert the loco into a fixed engine. The link motion had been removed, but the two eccentrics in use were the originals with the forged iron rods extended to couple direct to the valve spindles. These rods and the connecting rods were beautiful forgings with the name NELSON marked on them with punch marks. The eccentric straps were lined with white metal and I remember them being remetalled. At some date new cylinders had been fitted, and about 1918 these were rebored in situ by a "drydock" firm, using a little horizontal engine which was coupled up to the main steam pipe to drive the boring bar; I think the job took about a week.

    The whole of the Old Factory was driven by the NELSON, except for the coal-tip winch, coal screen and belt conveyor which were installed when the works siding was put in to handle coal coming in by rail instead of canal. The Factory was driven by a short shaft fastened on to the driving wheel hub by a forged coupling and studs; on the other side a slightly shorter shaft was added to carry the governor pulley and a crank which I believe before my time drove a feed pump. On the driving shaft there was a cast steel pinion about 2ft in diameter driving the Factory through a cast-iron spur wheel 8ft 2in in diameter against a wall. There was an outside bearing in the wall and a similar outside bearing on the governor drive side mounted on a timber beam.

    Eventually one of the old boilers was condemned and as the directors thought it would be more economical to replace the NELSON with a more modern engine I bought for the firm a 150/180hp Robey superheated "overtype" engine. Actually I now think the old NELSON should have been kept, as it ran from 1874 until 1921, very frequently night and day with hardly any repairs, while the modern engine although burning less coal was often stopped for repairs. The NELSON ran very freely with hardly any sound, and gave far less trouble than the engine installed in 1901 to drive the New Factory. Although the NELSON was broken up in 1921, I would not sell the crank axle and wheels while I was Works Manager, but after the Works closed in December 1927 they were probably sold for scrap.

    I cannot let go unchallenged Rodney Weaver's statement that the Shay was "the most successful articulated locomotive type in the world". If we accept his premise that the Mallet is semi-rigid and does not count, then without doubt the Beyer Garratt was, and still is, the most successful. We need look no further than Rhodesia and South Africa to see Garratts that have rolled more ton‑miles than any Shay. What finer accolade does a steam locomotive type need when we find examples still being constructed in 1968? If the statement were amended to "the world's most successful articulated industrial locomotive", I would be in full agreement.

    The "Dunkirk" type was built at the Dunkirk Engineering Works (Dunkirk Iron Company until 1888) in New York of the Brooks Locomotive Company. An engineer from Climax, Georgie Gilbert, joined them in 1890, bringing with him the design for the "Gilbert Geared Locomotive". This type had some little success, fifty eventually being built, but the competition from Climax had killed it and the last was completed in 1894. The design had a horizontal boiler with two cylinders mounted beneath in a vee driving the line shaft.

    Heisler's first locomotive was built at Dunkirk in 1890 when he was employed by Brooks, and sold in 1891. Heisler subsequently left their employ and settled with the Stearns Manufacturing Company (see RECORD 20, page 288). A further geared locomotive builder appeared in 1922 in the shape of the Williamette Iron & Steel Company of Portland, Oregon, who had been making logging tools and equipment for years. Williamette had a great amount of goodwill amongst the logging concerns and took advantage of the expiry of some of Lima's patents to produce an improved Shay with superheater, piston valves, girder frame, cast-steel trucks and steel cabs. They were very good locomotives and inspired Lima to produce the "Pacific Coast" Shay in 1927. Williamette completed their last improved Shay in 1929, having constructed one two‑truck and 31 three-truck locomotives.

    As Rodney points out, Baldwin's efforts were a flop: between 1912 and 1915, when production ceased, they built only five geared locomotives. Design flaws and a slump in the logging industry aided their demise, and there can be little doubt that Baldwin's came to rue the day they turned young Charles Heisler away from their door when he came to them after leaving Brooks in 1891.

    I should like to correct a number of typographical errors which crept into my article on these locomotives in RECORD 23. On page 11, the total built by Bagnall in 1944‑45 was 49, not 50 as shown. On page 14 the Hunslet works numbers 3784‑88 should read 3784‑89, and the Hunslet 1962 total should be 1 (not 2). In Table 5 on page 16, VF 2572 should read VF 5272. On pages 8 (line 16) and 15 (Table 3). Staatsmijen should read Staatsmijnen.

    The grand total of 484 "Austerities" is correct as stated on page 14, but here again a typographical error has occurred. In my original manuscript there was a dividing line drawn between the "48150" (total 16) and "50550" classes which was omitted from page 10. Again, on page 11, there should have been a similar line between the "50550" (total 8) and "Austerity" (total 484) classes. My total of 484 referred to the "Austerity" class only and of course the grand total of 18in locomotives was 508.

    Regarding the excellent article on the 18in Hunslets I find that Bagnall are credited with one more locomotive than they actually built. The Bagnall locos went through the works in two batches - 2738 to 2767 (30) and 2773 to 2794 (22) - making a total of 52, not 53 as in the article. Two interesting points arise regarding these locos. One is that the Bagnall Order Book shows works numbers 2795-2803 as being locomotives of the same dimensions, but is overwritten with a note to the effect that the order was transferred to Andrew Barclay, Sons & Co Ltd. The other is that the Bagnall boiler plate affixed to the boiler backhead of at least two of their "Austerities" (2746 and 2766) reads "Built for L.M.S. Rly". Can any reader offer an explanation for this? I should also be interested to know the early whereabouts of these Bagnall "Austerities". Some went new to the Shropshire & Montgomeryshire Railway (operated by the WO), although I think the majority went either to Longmoor or direct to the LNER.

    (The table on page 11 shows nine Barclay "Austerities" built in 1945, nos. 2182-2189 and 2211. Did these constitute the order transferred from Bagnall? - Hon. Eds.)

    I should like to compliment you on the excellent article and drawings of the 18in "Austerities". I was beginning to fear that I was the solitary admirer of these fine locomotives. Quite what enthusiasts have against them I do not know; it cannot be that they are all alike as I have yet to find two identical examples. In addition to the two main types mentioned by Mr Gamble there is the "mechanical stoker removed on site" type (Hunslet 3888 at Smithywood Coking Plant); the type without a long handrail but with diagonal grabs below the chimney; some have one ladder to the tank filler, some have two, but others have only a half-ladder. There are "Austerities" with single or double buffer beam gussets; some also have flangeless centre drivers, and let us not forget Ashington Colliery No.26 which at one time concealed a diesel engine in its bunker to drive the mechanical stoker. Lastly, if anyone is in any doubt about an "Austerity's" bark, then I suggest he visits Smithywood Coking Plant and takes a look at the shed roof - or rather the lack of it! On one occasion Hunslet 3888 slipped when leaving the shed and blasted the roof far and wide, the tiles flying about like autumn leaves in the wind.

    I was very interested to read Mr Gamble's article, but was there not a third important development which was tried out on this type of locomotive? A number of National Coal Board "Austerities" received a diesel-driven mechanical stoker designed by Thos. Hill (Rotherham) Ltd. This was an attempt to give a controlled rate of firing, reduce smoke, and at the same time to make life easier on the footplate.

    Hunslet have a large model of one of the "50550" class which I first saw at a Leeds model railway exhibition about nine years ago. I thought then that it was an "Austerity" and that they had used the wrong drawings for the bunker!

    With regard to being at the time of their introduction in 1937 the largest locomotives in "private" use in Britain (excluding the Garratt type), I have always considered that Hudswell Clarke 1677, an 0‑6‑0 side tank built for John Lysaght Ltd at Scunthorpe in the same year, was as big, if not bigger than the "48150" class. The 19in 0‑6‑0 side tank CASTNER at the Kernet Works (Cheshire) of ICI (Barclay 2066), which followed in 1939, had a 30,000 lb tractive effort, and this I rate the biggest ever.

    (Geoffrey Horsman tells us that the model represents an "Austerity" locomotive fitted with the standard 18in (i.e. "50550" class) cab and sloping rear bunker. No full size prototype was built. - Hon. Eds.)

    With reference to Mr Gamble's excellent article on the Hunslet 18in locos, I might add that an article in The Locomotive Magazine for 14th October 1950 mentioned that the final "Austerity" locos were based on the earlier "48150" series and not on the "50550" class "in making the initial estimates for the needed modifications....". This may be a small point as both classes obviously shared many dimensions and characteristics.

    Moreover, a more detailed comparison reveals other similarities. For instance, the boiler of 1506 was 9ft 11in long by 4ft 1½in diameter; on the "Austerities" it was 9ft 11in by 4ft 1¼in. 1506's boiler had 185 1¾in tubes compared with 181 1¾in tubes on the "Austerities"

    Further to Mr Gamble's article, several additional locomotives were sold to industrial concerns in Holland. Hoogovens at Ijmuiden (the National steelworks) had 31‑33, formerly WO 71489, 71491 and 75197 (Hudswell Clarke 1765 and 1767. R. Stephenson & Hawthorn 7147), but I understand all have now been scrapped. Oranje-Nassau Mijnen at Heerlen also had 75198 (RSH 7148) in 1948 from the "Anna" brown coal mine at Haanrade, to whom it had been sold "after the war". This engine, 28 in ON stock, had a modified cab designed to give the crew greater comfort: it was withdrawn in 1966 and was awaiting scrap when noted in April 1968. My records of locomotives sold to the Staatsmijnen (page 15) give 67 as RSH 7093 and 68 as Hunslet 2858. Additionally, 74 (Hunslet 2851) was on loan only. (This means that on page 8, "two" (line 16) and "nine" (line 17) should read "three" and "eight" respectively.) At least three of the locomotives sold to the Chemins de Fer Tunisiens survived in September 1968. 3‑51 and 3‑52 were awaiting scrap at Sidi Fathallah works but 3‑56 was stored serviceable at Farhat Hached depot in Tunis (reputedly their last steam locomotive in capital stock). Apart from an additional water filler on each side of the saddle tank the three appeared to be unaltered. I am indebted to Roelof J. Brettschneider of Voorburg and Op de Rails for any of the above information not personally observed.