Baldwin "Lyn" new build.

I also don't think it is possible to conclude anything from the fact that when another loco was required for the L & B another copy of Lyn was not built. It may have been that there was a desire to keep the job in house, rather than order from America, in which case a design that was more traditionally British may have been preferred. Also, Lyn was originally bought because it was available in a tight timescale, not because it was ideal for the L & B. That may have meant it was not as good as the MW tanks, but doesn't mean it was no good!

 

the building of LEW by the SR is indeed very interesting.

there is a lot of evidence that the original Manning Wardle locos plus LEW did not have free steaming boilers plus the boiler steaming rate was lower than the demands of the cylinders. there is also a discrepancy in the Joy valve gear.

new drawings were prepared for the building of LEW. these survive.

the GWR build new locos for the Vale of Rheidol including a new Prince of Wales.

cheers,
julian

 

The only certainty is that the loads and timings do not suggest any great mastery of the job in hand. Lyn was a bit smaller than the others and unless it was actually a better performer it was unlikely to be replicated. Cynical me thinks a combination of xenophobia and a wish to standardise would have made another "Lyn" type unlikely anyway. If the stories of performances on the Maine 2ft. gauge lines are only half true, an American narrow gauge locomotive could both haul and run.

On the general question of standardisation, the Southern decided (sensibly to me) to spend its money on electrification. Other calls on resources had to take their turn.

PH

 

In Humphrey Households, England and the Fifteen Inch he states that Lyn was more powerful than the Manning Wardles and could take one more coach. He also gives the reason for going to Baldwin was delivery time as all the UK builders were busy. Baldwin put it together from standard parts as much as possible but it was a one off.

As for the new build it is going to be more powerful still. I am looking forward to seeing it although I have heard some negative comments about it. No I won't say what or by whom as everyone is entitled to there own opinion (and yes they were in a position to comment)
MrC

 

I'm sure I have read somewhere (sadly I cannot now think where!) that Lyn was indeed the more powerful engine on paper. The fact that she never performed quite as well as the Manning Wardles in practice may be partly because British crews were unfamiliar with her American design features. Perhaps if Baldwin had been able to supply some US crews to come to Britain with the locomotive, history would have been different!

Drifting slightly off-topic, several SG railway companies in Britain (e.g. the GNR and Midland) ordered batches of American moguls at the same time that Lyn was built, again because British manufacturers were trying to clear a backlog of orders caused by strike action. Again, their designs were basically sound but they had very short working lives - only about ten years or so - probably because they were non-standard and British crews couldn't get used to them.

A real pity, as had they survived just a few more years they might have come in very handy during WWI, when the Allies needed all the engines they could get!

 

The person I assume you're referring to has posted on this thread earlier, so it's no secret! There are always pessimists and optimists, and the proof of the pudding will be in the steaming I guess if you're a nay-sayer, then if there are problems you can be a 'told you so', and if there are not you can be 'pleasantly surprised'.... Personally I prefer to look on the positive side and give praise to those undertaking this challenge.

As for a completion date, I suggest looking at the 762 club website and reading the L&B members' newsletter - if you're not an L&B member and want to know about completion dates, the answer is easy! Join!!

 

Here is one i built earlier but only 7 1/4 gauge.

 

Mr C said

In Humphrey Households, England and the Fifteen Inch he states that Lyn was more powerful than the Manning Wardle's and could take one more coach. He also gives the reason for going to Baldwin was delivery time as all the UK builders were busy. Baldwin put it together from standard parts as much as possible but it was a one off.

Not quiet true Lyn was one of 14 in her class, but the only one to reach the UK, one of Baldwin's strengths was that they had already worked out what was needed for a certain type of job and they used standard parts where possible, simply to say that at the time the UK was rationalizing the locomotive building industry and LEW was one of the final locos built by Manning Wardle.

I also think that as has been said that SR had it head into electrification and to be honest did not want to spent to much on the L&B, the cheapest option was to buy in a new steam loco of the same design.

Unlike today, when we have the luxury of looking back over these designs form a heritage point of view, we forget that the L&BR was supposed to be a commercial project, there is now a theory that this was not the case but it was built as a blocking exercise to stop the GWR getting to Lynton and Lynmouth and it is suspected that it was also used as a tax loss for the owners who built it.

 

Interesting, do any of those 14 still exist and if so has anyone thought about brining one to the UK

 

well, the Bachmann 'Lyn' is also available in 'US' liveries so that suggests that there were others of at least similar design at work in the US

 

Yes the L&BR Association at the time did look for one but like Lyn they had all gone to scrap yard in the sky, It may also be of interest that the Baldwins classification system was not just limited to the final gauge of a loco LYN classification was 8-14 1/4 C.

So the Baldwin Class Numbers goes something like this:

The Baldwin Class number was a rather complicated classification system initiated in 1842 and used until some time around 1940. For example, The class number for the Nevada-California-Oregon Railway can be described in the following manner.

• 10-24 D 35
• 35 = Indicates the 35th locomotive in the class.
• D = 3 pairs of driving wheels
• 24 = Number representing size of cylinder
• 10 = Indicates a total of 10 wheels

a. The initial number is the total number of wheels of all kinds under the locomotive

b. The second number indicates the cylinder diameter in inches, this quantity being obtained by dividing the cylinder diameter by 2 and adding 3 to the quotient. The above classification number of 24 indicates a cylinder diameter of (24 ÷ 2) + 3 = 15".

• A fraction, 42/68 indicates a compound locomotive having two cylinders.
• A second fraction of 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 gives the arrangement of the truck wheels.
• 1/3 designates a trailing truck only, 1/4 designates a leading and trailing truck.
• 1/2 denoted a locomotive with some special feature such as condensing equipment.
• Units with no fraction had only leading trucks.

c. The letter designation indicates the number of pairs of coupled driving wheels.

• "A" = special class of high speed geared locomotive with one pair of driving wheels. Also rack railroad locomotives.
• "B" = one pair of driving wheels.
• "C" = two pairs of coupled driving wheels.
• "D" = three pairs of coupled driving wheels.
• "E" = f our pairs of coupled driving wheels.
• "F" = five pairs of coupled driving wheels.
• Double letters = articulated locomotives having more than one set of coupled driving wheels.

So in LYN case it is

8 wheels (not axles)

14 the size of the cylinder

1/4 indicates it had both front and rear pony trucks

C She had two driving axles

Unlike American lines she did not display a class number, but the other thing to remember is that each class could and no doubt was built to different gauges, we know that in Lyn case she did have a meter gauge sister but was built to the same class details as Lyn, If I can find my list I will put it up here for you to look at.

 

if you are interested in such stuff you may want to take a look at this

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/brazil54.htm

Oh and yest they cannot be purchased as they are listed as state monuments (I know as I did try)

 

hi Lynbarn,

i am afraid i did not understand your earlier post. the SR did not order LYN. LYN was ordered much earlier pre 1900.

the SR decided to build a new Manning Wardle type for the L&B but with a few differences for LEW. Maunsell was very much a steam guy. he has an exemplary record of design of steam for the SECR and SR covering the King Arthurs, Lord Nelsons, the Schools, Holcroft's 3 cylinder tank locos with conjugated gear, the N class etc and some very clever designs such as the L1s and the Z class using standard LBSCR boiler and a very clever inside walschaerts valve gear. i do not understand the reference to the SR having it's head in electrification. the SR spent a fortune on the L&B as it did on the IOW railways, relaying all the track etc.

i do not know who in the SR drawing office was given the job of designing LEW. Holcroft was on outside work at the time so his memoirs dont refer to LEW. there is no signature on the original SR drawings. later A B Macloed was in charge of the L&B under the SR, and he did his very best to try and ensure it survived but alas the motor bus had come into its own and the L&B was doomed. my grandmother travelled regularly on the L&B in the summer from 1934 until closure.

it is very interesting that LYN required a new boiler within it's first 10 years.

cheers,
julian

 

Hi Julian

Let me start with the reason LYN requires a new boiler, this is how Baldwin’s worked, they expected you to come back for a new loco after ten year as most American steam locos had such a short working life and very few American railroad had workshops that could or would want to undertake a full rebuild.

My understanding is that once it was broken, you got a new one, this is very understandable from American Grade one railroads point of view, but when you look down to the lower end of the smaller logging railroad and industrial railways around the world, this was not so and many had to make and mend where possible.

A Baldwin Boiler was built with a much lighter and thinner plate than that of a British boiler which was made to last.

You could say that Baldwin’s where at the front of cutting edge technology when it came to building steam locos and it is a very powerful and persuasive thing for directors of railway companies not to want the most efficient and cost effective locomotive possible.

They obviously hadn't come across the likes of the L&BR before (the start of the throw away society).

I agree with what you say about Maunsell and Co, however one thing about all the L&BR Manning Wardle's was the lack of space for coal the Trust has a few photos of all of them with kick plates by the lower part of the door way to keep the coal in on the footplate, it was not unheard of for the crews to have to stand on the coal for half the journey.

It is interesting that you mention Holcroft and A B Macloed, one of these gents must have had something to do with LEW as the late Colin Pealling once told me, someone from the Brighton Works re-drew the L&BR Loco and in the mists of time there was a drawing of a Manning Wardle 2-6-2T produced by Brighton, which was very different to those used to build the original Manning Wardles.

How do we know this? Well James Even the guy who started LYD was told that such a drawing did exist, but so far no one has found a copy of it, the Trust though we where on to it a few years ago when some one wanted to sell there collection of ex Brighton steam locos drawing of LEW. Sadly we missed out on them and they ended up with a collector who has been hard to contact ever since.

It may one day turn up in York, but until it does, we shall never really know what the thinking was behind the changes to the Manning Wardle design.

It is also an interesting point you made about the L&BR survival, what chance does a railway have when the then town council goes to a protest meeting by Bus?

Would the line have survived purely as a tourist railway? Not sure that it would have done then.

What with WW2 around the corner, and the uncertainty of the country as a whole, and North Devon having a high percentage of people who wanted a quiet life and did not want tourists at the time, you don’t have much going for it.

I am glad to say this is changing as many now realise there is a living to be made from tourism.

The funny thing is that during WW2 the SR was asked for the L&BR to be made in-operable as it could form a useful transport link for invasion, obviously some one forgot to tell those who asked this that the line was shut in 1935.

regards

Colin

 

Hi Julian

You are correct Lyn was ordered by the old L&BR company and not by the SR sorry for that mistake.

 

Many years ago a complete set of drawings of Lew were owned by the late Barry Curl. I believe they had come via his father who had been in charge of clearing out Eastleigh drawing office. These were Manning Wardle drawings in a metal tube and were very likely supplied as part of the contact as was normal.

I think they ended up with James Evans.

PH

 

re the LEW SR drawings, copies were available from Eastleigh till the mid sixties. Brighton of course had closed by then.

at least one full set of drawings (copies) were in the possession of the late Les Warnett.

i havent seen the original drawings listed by the NRM. i have gone through the whole list of SR drawings (including the pre-grouping companies) at the NRM looking for something else and am sure if the LEW drawings were listed i would have noticed.

cheers,
julian

 

Hi Julian it was the Les Warnett drawings that we where after at the time as they where offered on eBay I put £40.00 on them for the Trust but we where beaten by a £5.00 as I recall. we did get some drawing from a second set but these did not have the Brighton details on them.

I think you are right Paul as these drawings have been offered back to the Trust should we every need them.

Thinking about it, I should have also said that I am sure that the guys who built 'LYD' have said they are willing to help the Trust when it comes to building more Manning Wardles.

The thinking when I was down in Devon last time was to batch build all the parts needed for four Manning Wardles at the same time as it's works out a lot cheaper per unit to get four done than it is just for a one off.

 

I think this "frailness" argument can be overdone. The sole survivor of the Sandy River fleet worked for over forty years, ceasing service when its then operator went out of business. It had survived overturnings, derailments and a collision with a standard gauge locomotive on the diamond crossing at Farmington which resulted in the death of a crew member. Also a roundhouse fire. Compared with this most narrow gauge locomotives in Great Britain led a life of slippered ease.

Paul H

 

I agree Paul you only have to look at some of the locos in Cuba or down in Brazil to see how long some of them survive in the local conditions. Baldwins would want to sell you a new loco rather than sell you the spare parts, but I am sure they did this anyway, I did read somewhere that a Baldwin loco could be repaired just by a Blacksmith if required.