LMS Hughes Crab 42859

What is it they say about putting a million monkeys in front of a million typewriters? Swindon drawing office was a bit like that: if you churn out enough “shake the box” 4-6-0s, eventually one of them is bound to be OK …

Tom

 

When there was all the problems with this Engine and the parts being seized, there was an article in Steam railway magazine about it. The boiler was scrapped but they had kept parts of it, the photo of what was left showed I think the front firebox flange plates and it claimed that the owner had kept the good bits whilst scrapping parts of the boiler he deemed would need to be replaced anyway, so presumably there are some parts of it at least that still exist and could be used as part of a restored boiler. Quite why it was done, no idea, perhaps just to raise money from the scrap.

 

Am i right in thinking that the NRM has a Crab , so the dismantled one would be no 3 ? preserved.

The other thing i have always wondered was what should the intended tender have looked like as they were all given midland standard/ handmedowns.

 

del

 

While 13000/2700 exists as part of the National Collection, the possibility of its ever being steamed again is remote, given its general condition.

As to tenders, those proposed would bear a resemblance to those fitted to the later Dreadnought 4-6-0s and not dissimilar to GCR tenders bought with RoD-surplus 2-8-0s. In practice, only the first five Crabs were given ex-Midland tenders rebuilt and with new tanks (13000 still has hers), but the others were fitted with new tenders when built. These were 'Standard 3500 gallon' type, usually credited to Henry Fowler, and were based on Midland practice but incorporating developments over time, e.g. the provision of doors into the coal space and fitting coal rails. Over time, the engines were coupled to earlier tenders, but these would not be ex-Midland as there were significant differences, mainly as the Midland used right-hand drive and all Crabs were left-hand drive, so the handbrake and scoop handles, identical to look at, would be on the wrong sides. This might seem trivial but practice when running loose couple goods downhill was to screw down the handbrake. If these were the wrong way around and it was the dip which was screwed down then (i) you had no brake force and (ii) the scoop was likely to disappear if a set of points was encountered.

 

So not that dissimilar (flat sided) but flat topped and the correct width...

 

A Hughes tender can be seen behind the Dreadnought in the image I posted in the photo puzzle thread yesterday. It's a pity that Fowler insisted on matching the Crabs with the standard 3,500 gal. tender rather than the L&Y type which better matched the width of the loco cab.
Ray.

 

WIBN if the missing Crab gets one of those - if ever its put back together. and it should be named 'Humpty'

 

Somewhat off topic, but those Dreadnoughts were very handsome looking engines!

 

Absolutely! A damned shame 50455 didn't survive...

Richard.

 

Another new build project. The biggest challenge would be regarding the livery!

Knut

 

A 1996 photo has turned up on F***book. Taken on 22/7/96. (c) John Laming

 

Can't like this, but thanks.
Pat

 

Another loco that suffered more at the hands of it's "rescuer" than it did at Barry....

 

Just imagine if Gordon Walker from Steamport had succeeded in his project.

 

The Patriot or the Claughton?

Gordon died a few years ago

 

sadly looking emmenently restorable back in 96.....

 

is there enough left of the loco to suggest a viable project in the post covid world?

 

Yes, especially given who the new owner is.