Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Mike 84C

Tender behind.

Rate this question

Question

Does any one have a drawing or know of a photograph of how the front of the coal space was arranged on the type E tenders that ran behind the B2/ 400 class 4-6-0"s? There seems to be a bulkhead behind the tool boxes but did that have a tunnel to coal doors or just an open space like the GWR tenders? The coal slope in my photos suggests the latter but that seems an odd arrangement. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Doesn't one of the preserved

j15s have a 400 tender? I heard that somewhere but can't be sure if it's true

Edited by GSR 800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From the RPSI website

 

"Not too many years after arrival the RPSI obtained a bigger tender for No.186 which has given greater capacity and allowed the engine to travel all over Ireland. Unfortunately, the tender is not a J15 tender (not sure but we think its from a 400 class). It does look slightly out of proportion with the rest of the loco."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So what would be the British equivalent of a 400 class tender, something bigger than the Bachmann C class tender methinks?

 

Ste[hen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The bit on the RPSI website about 186s tender originates in a 1970s Whitehead (not Dublin!) rumour; one glance at 186's tender confirms that it would most certainly not be from a 400, or any other loco of that size!

 

Having said that, we don't know exactly what it DID come from!

Edited by jhb171achill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From Wikipedia

no.186, a sharp Stewart engine has a superheated larger boiler, belpaire firebox and tender no. 356. anyone know which loco was originally paired with?

Edited by GSR 800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ask Peter Scott or the Friels - I bet one of them knows!

 

If not, I bet the info is hidden deep in the IRRS Journals somewhere.

 

I'll ask around - bear in mind that tenders must have swapped around a fair bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Tenders were indeed swopped!

 

Messrs Friel wouldn't have been party to it and Peter told me 30 years ago he didn't know!!

 

Visual evidence says not 400; that's fair enough (and obvious); but visual evidence, and swopping, conceals whatever the real story is.

 

One thing is certain: that tender, like its compatriots, would have been a "loco-swopper"!

 

Gsr800; sneaking suspicion a Midland engine; hope so (as nothing else Midland exists - though GSR rather than MGWR tender....) but I could be totally wrong.

Edited by jhb171achill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A little off topic but why were the k3s paired with modern stander style tenders like the 800s while the 400 and 500s were left with their old ones? Honestly JH we will probably never know but it could have been a midland. Would be nice to know it was connected to it. I'm surprised a 2-4-0 wasn't sold to the RPSI or UTFM. Would be a wonderful sight to see.

Edited by GSR 800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

"Locomotive of the GSR has a whole section on GSWR tenders but unfortunately no photos showing the front end. 186s tender is most likely to be what described as a Type C Tender 67 of which were built between 1899-1922.

 

These tenders appear to have been the standard for the majority of 4-4-0, 0-6-0, 2-6-0 & 4-6-0 classes built between 1899 & 1914 and the three Inchacore built 400 Class 4-0s 400, 401, 402, 406. The remaining 400s were built by Armstrong Whitworth in Newcastle and fitted with the larger E Class tenders, the English built engines were not superheated and would have been expected to be a lot more heavier on coal and water than the superheated Inchacore built locos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Tenders were indeed swopped!

 

Messrs Friel wouldn't have been party to it and Peter told me 30 years ago he didn't know!!

 

Visual evidence says not 400; that's fair enough (and obvious); but visual evidence, and swopping, conceals whatever the real story is.

 

One thing is certain: that tender, like its compatriots, would have been a "loco-swopper"!

 

Gsr800; sneaking suspicion a Midland engine; hope so (as nothing else Midland exists - though GSR rather than MGWR tender....) but I could be totally wrong.

 

186 tender looks more like a GSWR Coey tender rather than MGWR. Visually the two companys tenders were quite different Midland platework very smooth countersunk rivets, GSWR covered in snaphead rivets, framing quite different between large Midland & GSWR tenders.

 

Class D 3 - 328 - GS&WR Class 321 4-4-0, built 1905 by Inchicore Works - 1922 rebuilt with new frames, 1925 to GSR, 1933 rebuilt with Belpaire boiler, 1945 to CIE - withdrawn 1959.

 

Class D 5 - 548 - M&GWR Class A 4-4-0 - built 1904 by Broadstone Works as M&GWR No.126 ATLANTIC - 1925 to GSR as No.548, 1925 rebuilt with Belpaire boiler,1945 to CIE - withdrawn 1955 - seen here at Broadstone in 1955.

Edited by Mayner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I asked Peter Scott last night and he still doesn't know!

 

Going back to the original query, the answer MAY lie in the IRRS archives, where SOME drawings exist.

 

I'll ask my expert who has digitised the GN drawings - one set has gone to the RPSI to help build No.131's new tender!

 

More later.

 

Leslie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Wow! I seem to have asked one of" those" sort of questions! Thanks for all the thoughts and opinions; before I do surgurey I shall await Leslies expert!

It was the tender section of Locomotives of the GSR that prompted the question, there seem to be tantalizing glimpses of the front bulkhead area but no detail. And having read

how parsimonious The GSR was it made me wonder.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I've just heard from Peter Scott that 186 is paired with tender no 175 built in 1922. Attached to his email was a diagram of the arrangement. If I can work out to uphold the attachment, I will do so.

Hope this helps.

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I've just heard from Peter Scott that 186 is paired with tender no 175 built in 1922. Attached to his email was a diagram of the arrangement. If I can work out to uphold the attachment, I will do so.

Hope this helps.

 

Stephen

 

That's very odd, as he e-mailed me today saying that she was paired with No.375, built in 1922 - he looked today!

 

Leslie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
That's very odd, as he e-mailed me today saying that she was paired with No.375, built in 1922 - he looked today!

 

Leslie

 

Leslie

 

375 ties in with Locomotives of the GSR Type C tenders 374-77 built in 1922 most likely to run with 401,402 & 406 built 1921 & a spare.

 

JHB

 

The 400s & 500 seem to have been built with new tenders, but of 4 different types C,D,E & F ?

 

The 3 surviving Inchacore 400s 401, 402 & 406 probably ended up with larger D,E or F tenders with the poorer quality "coal" available during the Emergency and during CIE days.

 

Larger E Type tenders from the scrapped Armstrong Whitworth 408 & 409 and Type D & F tenders from the 500 class appear to have ended up behind the rebuilt 400 Class.

 

800

 

The K3 & K4 or 355 & 368 Classes had a reputation of being very useful heavy goods and mixed traffic locos .

 

Some were scrapped in the late 1920s as the GSR had a surplus of heavy freight locos with the Great Depression and the introduction of the 500s & Woolwich Moguls.

 

 

 

356 was used as a guinea pig for the turf burner conversion as she was considered to be the best of the type

Edited by Mayner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks John,my god they made a right mess of poor auld 356, and then left her at inchicore in a hidden siding to rot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Here's an official Inchicore photo of 404 - which, incidentally, I'm offering to a good home in items for sale.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19975[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19976[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19977[/ATTACH]

 

404 was one of the Armstrong Whitworth built locos. These were un-superheated and supplied new with the large E Class tenders which carried 7 tons of coal and 4500 gal of water, probably needed the full tender load to reach Cork.

 

There is a legend that orders to scrap 404 in 1930 were ignored, its number plates swapped with 409 which was scrapped instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I did hear that rumour, Mayner, indeed - but I don't know if there was any substance in it.

Tenders were certainly swopped between not only membersof the same class, but among classes, particularly when GSR standard designs were introduced.

 

In Indonesia in the early 1980s, I noticed members of loco classes surviving in traffic with FEW examples carrying their own tenders - it was easy to tell, as the livery details had the loco number on both engine and tender.

 

In steam days on all railways, tender swopping was the norm, as was the switching of parts. During restoration of 171, 85 184, 186 and NCC No. 4 at Whitehead over the years, things like connecting rods were often found with the number of another member of the class stamped on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Off topic, but I've found an old photo of DSER No. 20 as well. If anyone's interested in details, PM me. It shows DSER livery well.

 

Keep those posts for the 'for sale' section, JB!

 

:shooting:

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I wasn't selling it Garfield - don't want to - apologies if I misled anyone! My point with that one was if anyone was interested in seeing details on it..... (must look for it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I wasn't selling it Garfield - don't want to - apologies if I misled anyone! My point with that one was if anyone was interested in seeing details on it..... (must look for it!)

 

Ah, my mistake... apologies! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use