No. 52 - p184-190





    With reference to pages 166-168 of RECORD 28, it seems to me that the 0‑4‑0 saddle tank by Dick Kerr (built 1901) which was at the Queenborough Wharf of Settle, Speakman & Co Ltd, Kent, was formerly No.3 of Cadbury Brothers Ltd. When I saw the engine at Queenborough on 4th July 1947 it bore a plate 'No.3' and had the name MAYBURY attributed to it, though this was not carried. MAYBURY and CADBURY differ in two letters only and the photograph I took in 1947 almost exactly corresponds with the one in RECORD 28, apart from items like the chimney.



    (Eric Tonks, during a visit to Queenborough in 1946, noted the Dick Kerr locomotive actually carrying the name MAYBURY. He feels it would not have been too difficult to alter the nameplate, and the style of lettering on the MAYBURY plate was the same as that on the photograph of CADBURY reproduced in RECORD 18.  TJL)


    I believe it was recorded at Ransomes that the Woosung Railway equipment mentioned on page 129 of RECORD 39, on being paid for by the local Mandarins, was torn up and taken out to sea and sunk in deep water. Only by scrapping the line did the Mandarins feel they could 'save face' and maintain their traditional authority, since the original construction of the line was not to their liking.




    It is possible that both versions of the loss of the Woosung Railway equipment are true. If the locomotives and rolling stock were being carried as deck cargo and the shipwreck was the result of a typhoon it is not inconceivable that they were deliberately pushed overboard in an attempt to regain stability of the vessel. When one considers the sort of vessel that would have been used this is not an impossible explanation.



    (As these two letters were being prepared for publication, further research brought to light the following in the issue dated 18th May 1878 of that remarkable journal, "Iron" : 'The Woosung Railway was condemned and banished to Formosa, where it was to be given a new lease of life. The way, however, in which its deportation has been conducted indicates that there is small desire to preserve the innovation, even in Formosa, where a more enlightened Government is supposed to hold sway. The landing of the portion which has already arrived was, says a letter from Taiwan-foo, effected 'anyhow': Anything that would float was thrown overboard from the Chinese steamer that brought it over, and towed ashore over the bar by catamarans. The writer continues:- "l myself have seen the tops of carriages and the frameworks - whether of carriages or engines I could not tell - deposited in the mud near the Custom-house jetty, and there left to be covered with a foot or two of water at every flood tide. Is it likely that carriages or engines could be put together again after that? I have seen iron plates and rails and other parts of the plant being carried up the main street of the city in a condition of rust that fits them simply for the old-iron shop."' The accompanying illustration, from the collection of R.N. Redman, shows CELESTIAL EMPIRE (built by Ransomes & Rapier in 1874 see RECORD 45, page 311) on the day the Woosung Railway was opened to traffic in 1876.  KPP)


I was interested in the reference to Bolling & Lowe on page 200 of RECORD 41. In my younger days they were active in the light railway equipment field and numbered many estates and plantations amongst their customers. Their offices in the 1920's (and possibly up to the early 1960's) were in Laurence Pountney Hill, off Cannon Street, London EC4, and I think that their letter-heading stated "Incorporating Wm.Bird & Co" or something to that effect. They still operate - as iron & steel merchants - at 53 Wall End Road in the east end of London.




    On page 42 of RECORD 36 and page 329 of RECORD 45 there is a mention of former Mersey Railway locomotives in Australia on the J. & A. Brown railway at Hexham. Although there has been a little confusion about the numbers of these locomotives I think that the following are correct.

J & A Brown



Mersey Railway
number and name

year into service
with J & A Brown

5 15-5-1905 2601 1  THE MAJOR 1907
6 15-5-1905 2607 7  LIVERPOOL 1907
7 8-10-1905 2782 9  CONNAUGHT 1907
8 10-1-1908 2604 4  GLADSTONE 1908-09

Number 5 has been requested for preservation in the New South Wales Transport Museum, but the other three have all been scrapped.




    Further to Mr Benson's letter on page 329 of RECORD 45, Beyer Peacock records showed that they certainly repaired and modified (prior to shipment) the following ex‑Mersey Railway locomotives: Beyer Peacock 2601 of 1885, and 2607 and 2782, both of 1886. It has been said that one or two of the nameplates of these engines were changed over, and this may account for conflicting makers numbers being quoted. In August 1969 a friend of mine visited Coal & Allied Industries (formerly J & A Brown, Abermain Seaham Collieries). The locomotives he saw included Beyer Peacock 2603 and 2604, both built in 1885. The former was stored in a useable condition at Pelaw Main; the latter was intended to go for preservation but was said to be in a deplorable condition.




I can add another instance of a "Terrier" working in industrial service to those noted on pp265-70 of RECORD 44 and page 93 of RECORD 49. In 1945, wartime traffic in the siding of Westland Aircraft Ltd in Yeovil, Somerset, proved too much for the company's Howard locomotive, which apparently broke down. From the 14th to the 19th of July the GWR provided a replacement in the form of their No.5, the old No.2 of the Weston, Clevedon & Portishead Railway. This was built at Brighton Works in June 1877 as LB&SCR No.43 GIPSYHILL, and sold (as LB&SCR No.643) to the WC&P in December 1925.




    I was very interested to see this article on page 293 of RECORD 44. Portland, where shaft sinking began in February 1820, was the first of the Butterley Company's pits opened outside its home estates of Butterley and Codnor Park. It was on the line of the Mansfield & Pinxton Railway, opened the previous year, and was a short distance south-east of Langton Hall in the parish of Kirkby-in-Ashfield. Coal from the pit went either to Mansfield on the M&P or on the company's own railway across country through Selston to Codnor Park Ironworks. It soon became a very large colliery, with about a dozen pits in all, and was the Company's largest for most of the 19th century. I have yet to determine the exact date of closure, but it would appear to be about 1920. The colliery took its name from the owner of the land beneath which the coal was situated.



    Portland was the name attached to a group of collieries very close to Kirkby-in-Ashfield which lay between Langton and Bentinck collieries. The principal collieries in the group, I believe, were Portland No.1 and No.2. Portland No.1, disused for a very long time, was situated alongside the Mansfield & Pinxton Railway at grid reference SK 479548. Portland No.2 lasted until much later and was altogether larger, having its own sidings off the M&P (to a length of about one mile) commencing at grid reference SK 483545. The Butterley Company engineered its own connection to this area of the coalfield by building the Portland tramway in the early 19th century thus linking the area to Portland Wharf on the Cromford Canal at Codnor Park.




    The locomotive illustrated on page 305 of RECORD 45 also appeared on page 77 of the North British Locomotive Co's 1912 catalogue of locomotives for narrow gauge railways. Leading dimensions quoted included: cylinders, 6in by 9in; wheels, 1ft 8in diameter; wheelbase, 2ft 7in; working pressure, 140 lb per sq in; total heating surface, 83 sq ft; grate area, 1.87 sq ft. The tractive effort (at 75 per cent of the boiler pressure) was 1,701 lbs and the weight of the loco was 3.02 tons. At only 22 gallons, the water tank capacity must have been an all-time low for an industrial locomotive.



    (Frank Jux has written in to point out that the narrow gauge locos at Provan Gasworks were actually built by Andrew Barclay, and though similar in basic principles, were a different design to those at Dawsholm. The former had no splashers for example. Barclay narrow gauge locos of this general type were supplied to Granton (Edinburgh) and Provan Gasworks, while the Sharp Stewart 'version' went to many other gasworks, and also to overseas mines. TJL)

    The 2ft gauge locos at Dawsholm Gasworks (see RECORD 45, page 305) were fully described in the Journal of the Industrial Locomotive Society (Vol 5, numbers 2 and 3) in an article by the late George Alliez describing the locos of the Glasgow Corporation Gas Department. It appears that their designer was, in fact, Dugald Drummond, the famous (one might say legendary) locomotive engineer. In between his periods of office with the Caledonian Railway and the London & South Western Railway he set up first as a consulting engineer and later opened his own works at Govan, initially under the style of D. Drummond & Son, and later as the Glasgow Railway Engineering Co Ltd.

    Apparently only three other locomotives are known to have been built at Govan - a 2ft gauge 0‑4‑0 saddle tank built in 1897 for the Premier Cement Co Ltd (later BPCM) at Irthlingborough, Northants, and named LITTLE TICH; and two 0‑4‑0 railmotors for the Alexandra (Newport & South Wales) Docks & Railway Co in 1904 and 1905. It seems strange that so few locomotives were built in the ten years between 1895 and 1905 or, if any others were built, that nothing seems to be known of them.



    D. Drummond & Son was presumably the original title of the Glasgow Railway Engineering Company. It was set up by Dugald Drummond and his son George after the former had returned from an unsuccessful venture in Australia (with the predecessor of the Clyde Engineering Company) and carried on by the latter after his father became Chief Mechanical Engineer of the L&SWR in 1895. George Drummond's comments on learning that L&SWR locomotives were being built by Dubs must have been interesting!




    Since the publication of my article on this subject (RECORD 45, pp308-311) several points of interest have been brought to my notice. The conversion of Greyhound Bridge, which used to carry trains from Lancaster (Green Ayre) to Morecambe and Heysham across the river Lune, has been completed. The bridge entrance on the south end is provided with lifting barriers at a level crossing where coal trains to the power station now pass. It seems likely that the BR connection to the station will remain for some years yet. Rail traffic was disrupted due to the miners' strike, and also the work on the bridge conversion, and consequently no coal was delivered by rail from 18th December 1971 to 29th October 1972. This break enabled the original ash ballast of the track to be replaced with limestone. All sleepers have been exposed (and renewed where necessary), and it is hoped that better drainage will prolong the life of the sleepers. Track realignment was also carried out at the same time. As shunting continues through the loco shed the pit has been provided with mesh covers, and sections have been cut out of the shed doorways so that footplate crews can lean out of the cab in safety while passing through it. By now it is possible that a short bolster wagon (for maintenance) and a BR brake van (for mobile storage of materials) have been obtained. There have been discussions with the adjacent Lansil factory regarding the possibility of charging the fireless locos from Lansil's process steam main. Finally, part of the system map was incorrect and should have been shown as that below, the original omitting a diamond crossing.



    (Despite the "modernisation" carried out at the power station the Society's duplicated bulletin for December 1973 recorded that rail traffic ceased about October 1973, with the closure of the BR Green Ayre branch. TJL)


    I am not certain of the exact relationship between the above firm, mentioned on page 327 of RECORD 45, and Andrew Barclay Sons & Co Ltd. There is a gap in the Andrew Barclay makers list after works number 311 of 1888, the next loco being 638 of 1889, though this was originally intended to be 312, and I have always assumed that this gap allowed for the 326 (presumably) locomotives built by Barclays & Co up to 1888 when the two firms were (?) amalgamated. The highest numbered Barclays I have been able to trace is 319 of 1885, this being an outside cylinder 0‑4‑0 saddle tank mentioned in Society records as being first (?) owned by Joseph Haigh Ltd of Victoria Colliery, Bruntcliffe, Morley, Yorks, carrying the name BRUNTCLIFFE. Andrew Barclay works numbers above 311 have gradually been allocated since 1916 to internal combustion locomotives. Is anyone able to comment further?




    When the steam locomotives on Christmas Island (see RECORD 45, page 331) were cut up in 1957 they had been sold to a Japanese firm for scrap. Amongst the locos scrapped was a Hawthorn Leslie from Singapore Dockyard. Several Shays suffered the same fate, along with Bagnall 1965 of 1913 Which had gone to the island about July 1944 from Powelltown, Australia. The other well-known Powelltown engine, LITTLE YARRA (Baldwin 37718 of 1912) disappeared at this time, and as it has never been recorded anywhere else in Australia it may well have gone to Christmas Island with Bagnall 1965, being subsequently cut up and sent to Japan in 1957.




    With regard to the correspondence on page 334 of RECORD 45, I understand that Motor Rail's engineer, Dixon Abbot, apart from designing the Motor Rail gearbox, was also responsible for the 'JO' engine, at least in its broad features, and that Dorman built the engine to his general specification. Of course, it is possible that Dixon Abbot may have only specified certain alterations to an existing engine design.




    The Highsted Chalk Pit of APCM in Kent had a third rail electric locomotive, actually Hawthorn Leslie 3881 of 1963, though APCM's records quote it as being built by GEC. A specification was submitted by GEC on 3rd December 1935 for a 31hp loco (1 hour rating), the price being 1278, inclusive of delivery and putting to work. The implication in GEC's letter is that they built the locomotive, but obviously Hawthorn Leslie built it and GEC only supplied the electrical equipment. I wonder if the same applies to the GEC loco at Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd, mentioned on page 336 of RECORD 45?




    I was interested to note the reference in RECORD 46 (pages 338-40) to the former SNCV tramway between Warsage and Argentau Colliery, and hope that the following notes may be of some interest. Whilst based in Belgium during 1965, I took the opportunity to visit the system, then still operated by steam locomotives. At this time three former SNCV Tram locomotives remained on the line. In the yard at Argentau Colliery, together with two Tram-type passenger coaches, were ex‑SNCV 303 and 634. Neither carried a worksplate, although 634 was actually built by Franco Belge (1971 of 1912). Still in use at the colliery was ex‑SNCV 1075 (Grand Hornu 44 of 1920), which worked three journeys per day each way over the line. All three locomotives were painted in dark green, of a shade roughly similar to the livery used by the SNCB on their passenger stock. The two passenger vehicles, painted yellow, were stated to be retained for an annual run over the line by local enthusiasts. A second metre gauge track ran parallel to the one depicted in the photograph on page 341, and after shunting the transporter wagons into position at the point of break of gauge, the locomotive moved onto this parallel track. A wire rope was then attached to the standard gauge wagon and the locomotive, thereby enabling the wagons to be hauled on to the trans-porter. As this process had to be repeated for each standard gauge wagon loading was apt to be time consuming. However, by 1965 each train over the line only conveyed one or two wagons. Off loading of wagons returning to the standard gauge track was primarily performed by human power. Diesel power had arrived on the line by October 1965 in the shape of a four wheel tramcar numbered ART 86. At that time it was in very poor external condition with faded yellow livery. Seating for passengers remained inside the saloon of the vehicle, and the surviving destination blind showed "Special". A few notes on this subject, together with two photographs taken during my visit, appeared in the "Railway Observer" for October 1965. Some notes on the Schepdaal Museum (by W.J.K. Davies) can be found in the July 1965 issue of "Railway World".




    In this feature on page 354 of RECORD 46 Frank Jones was presumably restricting his remarks to standard gauge, as Hudswell, Hunslet, and Barclay could be added to the list if narrow gauge is included. This makes 0‑6‑0 well tanks less rare! The most likely reason for British and American preference for saddle tanks rather than well tanks was that the former countries used inside valve gear and, in the case of American builders, bar frames, which do not mix well with well tanks. In Europe, however, outside valve gear was more common and there was a marked preference for external boiler pipework, even the regulator and main steam pipe being frequently mounted externally. This design philosophy obviously favours tanks between the frames and probably explains the preference for well tanks on the Continent. I think, too, that British builders were wary of corrosion problems with well tanks and tended to use separate tanks, which obviously increased the cost and complexity by comparison with the continental variety. The Fox Walker example on page 355 appears to have separate tanks.




    With reference to Jim Peden's letter on page 364 of RECORD 46, I find that another American builder supplied locomotives to Orenstein & Koppel. Lima 1138 of November 1910, an 0‑4‑2 (tank) with 6in x 10in cylinders and 2ft 0in wheels, was ordered by O&K for Central Constancia, Tea Boja, Puerto Rico, their number 4. Lima 1159 of May 1911, an 0‑4‑0 (tank) with 8in x 14in cylinders and 2ft 2in wheels, was ordered by O&K for Central Cambalache, Arecibo, their number 1.



    (Frank Jones has written to say that Dickson 1174 and 1175 would be those supplied to the Tersana Baru sugar factory in Java, but were not noted by him on a visit there in 1972. Despite what the Dickson list (as quoted by Jim Peden) says for 1123 and 1124, he considers that as they were 700mm gauge locomotives they most likely went to Java. - KPP)

I was extremely interested by the photograph on page 366 of RECORD 46 of the Orenstein & Koppel locomotive owned by Orson Wright & Co. For some time I have been trying to trace the locomotives (alleged to be two) which worked at the Wigston Junction Brickworks also owned by Orson Wright, but as yet with no success. However, I am informed that Orson Wright employed three locomotives on the Ambergate Reservoir contract - AMBERGATE, an 0‑6‑0 saddle tank, Manning Wardle 1069 of 1888; CRICH, an 0‑4‑0 saddle tank, Hudswell Clarke 309 of 1889 (both standard gauge); and 2ft 0in gauge SIDNEY, Koppel, 147. If 147 is correct it would certainly be a very early Koppel and perhaps some erudite reader may be able to comment on this. Regarding the name, I feel that SIDNEY is the correct spelling, rather than SYDNEY, as the son of Orson Wright was named Sidney and was also a contractor, involved at one stage in the Dove Water Scheme.

    Does anyone know of any other locomotives owned by Orson Wright which may be candidates for the elusive motive power at the Wigston brickworks? AMBERGATE, I am told, was sold to Chas. Wall Ltd, contractors, in 1908 so this maybe discounted; CRICH, however, was not sold until 1913 (to H. Arnold & Sons Ltd), the year in which the brickworks ceased production, and could possibly have been at Wigston after the Ambergate contract was completed in 1911. On the assumption that CRICH was one of the locomotives at the brickworks, what then was the other which my "gaffers" avow was there? I shall be extremely grateful' to anyone who can offer information in connection with the above.



    (I have looked at my own print of the Orenstein & Koppel locomotive (Ray Fox's print used for the illustration on page 366 is from the same copy negative of Frank Smith) and, whilst the first two digits of the works number are almost certainly 1 and 4, the last two are debatable. In "Contractors' Locomotives, Part Ill" by Frank Smith & David Cole (Union Publications, 1967), SIDNEY (not SYDNEY) is listed as A. Koppel 1478 (not 147 as per Horace Gamble's information). The Orenstein & Koppel list, kindly provided by Mr G.S. Moore, shows 147 to be a metre gauge 0‑4‑0 tank named MARTA, built in 1895 for an unspecified customer, while 1478 and 1480 are in a batch (1476-1492) for which official information has not yet filtered through. The information in the O&K official list is often very sketchy, and in many cases the customer's name is not given if the locomotive concerned was supplied to a contractor. Further information would be welcome. KPP)


    Recently a friend gave me a photograph (reproduced herewith) of which the original was dated 16th October 1908. There is no real clue as to the location but the message on the back of the card reads:- "These are coke ovens, there are many hundreds of them here, the little engine and trucks bring the coal, in the foreground is the coke just taken out." Is anyone able to identify the locomotive or its location? The spring side buffers are rather unusual for narrow gauge locomotives.