Current and Proposed New-Builds

If you want a good Garratt, just import one of the non-runner AD60s from NSW... unless you're mad enough to try the Gresley 3-cylinder type... the LMS ones were NBG!

 

The Australians forbid such exports...
Apparently the one at Summerlee was in full working order when it arrived......
Dual gauge Cauldon Lowe anyone?

 

You remember correctly. The Garratts presented other problems that were not issues with the Class 25 rebuild but the benefit of hindsight, or rather the experience of creating the Red Devil and the subsequent testing and running of this machine, did cause him to reconsider the design that he selected as a test bed, or guinea pig if you prefer. The GMAM proposal came too late in the great scheme of steam things which is regrettable, but we can always dream.

Not a good idea to mention Garratts here in the country of their creation, we only had a limited number of what were rather indifferent specimens at work here, out in the wilder world it was a very different matter. Today, true enough, we can experience some narrow gauge types, and we ought to be grateful for these, but by far the bulk of our native network is standard gauge for which we have one surviving industrial type which appears to be permanently plinthed.

 

Dual gauge to Cauldon Lowe has some historic resonance as the railway used to connect to the 2'6" Leek and Manifold Valley line.

 

3ft 6 in the Manifold Valley perhaps? Whole darn line was built to UK standard gauge after all...

 

I don't think that's correct. Leek to Waterhouses was standard gauge, and Waterhouses to Hulme End was 2'6". Cauldon Lowe quarry is very close to Waterhouses, so the transportation of stone was all on the SG line.

 

I think he's referring to loading gauge, which due to the L&M's transporter wagons had to be large enough to accommodate standard gauge wagons. Still doesn't mean you could relay the line in standard gauge though!

 

The L&M is now tarmaced only and is popular on summer Sundays with families using it for walks and bike rides. I'm not aware of much interest in re-opening it as a railway. There are some fairly tight curves on the route, so it might be difficult at 3'6", let alone SG. The Churnet Valley /Moorlands and City Railway seem to have some long term interest in re-opening the line to Waterhouses/Cauldon Lowe, but as mentioned elsewhere on this forum, there are some doubts whether it would be sustainable. It would make a difference if the quarry at Cauldon Lowe reopened.

 

Correct. Indeed one of the reasons speculated in one of the books on the L&M is that Calthrop rather shot himself in the foot as he sold 2ft 6' as the "ideal" and cheaper method of building... but then caused great expense in the construction of the railway to a loading gauge sufficient to transport standard gauge wagons!

 

True ..... however I feel many underplay the considerable savings from the 35lb/yd rail (compare with the 44lb/yd of the Talyllyn 40 years earlier), which does undeniably offset the civil engineering penalty and so far as freight handling is concerned, the modern version of Calthrop's idea is still very much in use, which has to say something.

Not too well known in the UK, his ideas transformed railway development in India. Let's not forget he co-designed jolly good NG couplers too! Not much of a 'pro' for the Calthrop System, but the current road built over the old L&M right of way south of Ecton (a decidedly single track stretch of asphalt) wouldn't have been possible, had Swainsley Tunnel been built to normal NG dimensions. Anyone who's familiar with the roads in the Manifold and Hamps Valleys will know exactly what I mean!

Failure of a line which never needed more than two locos, four carriages and a single digit number of freight vehicles was down to the dearth of traffic*, not the line's equipment ..... all of which served from the first day to the last, as did the astoundingly light rail. One look at the local area is enough to tell anyone it couldn't have supported a Decaulville (or worse, Lartigue) style line, never mind arguably the best engineered NG line in these islands.

Maybe, had it been built 15 years earlier, the area might've had time to develop sufficiently to warrant extending the line from a field outside Hulme End to Buxton and things could have been different. Mind you, 15 years later and it's vanishingly unlikely anyone would seriously have suggested building it at all.

*distances and differences in altitude from stations to the (small and nebulous) villages they purportedly served scarcely helped. Butterton's a fair way (some of it at 1:3) away and not even in the same valley!

 

Agreed, the route of the line can be traced on the attached map, from Hulme End down the Manifold Valley.

http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#409,357,1

The sparce population is evident. Following the twists and turns along the valley would be difficult with anything other than NG.

 

Surely, though, business failure requires looking at both the sunk cost of building the business, and then the direct operating costs. Even if the business makes a profit on direct operating costs (I have my doubts for the L&M), that cost of construction also needed recovering.

 

I'm having to think back nigh on 50 years, but seem to remember a scheme, possibly involving a school, to relay part of the Leek and Manifold in 10&1/4" gauge, I'm sure that I remember seeing a locomotive, probably at Seymour Hall, built by Severn Lamb? It's all a bit hazy, but can any-one either confirm, or otherwise please?

 

I also remember from decades ago that once a year someone laid a shortish length of temporary minimum gauge track along part of the route and ran a train along it, as part of some sort of gala. I've not heard of it recently.

 

That might well be what I was thinking of, it could well fit in with the 'school' element of my recollections, although the loco that I seem to remember would have been a pricey thing to have for such an occasion.

 

I suspect the locomotive and equipment was owned by a group of enthusiasts who might not have charged too much.

 

Again, true enough .... and you'll certainly get no arguments from me about the viability of the whole scheme, even before all that WD Surplus kit came onto the market after WWI.

There's little doubt the L&M could have been done cheaper, though how much remedial civil or mechanical engineering would have needed doing, either to satisty HM Inspector on day one or 20 years down the line, or how much more would need spending on an ongoing basis to keep cheaper stock rolling is obviously something of a moot point.

To my knowledge, ahead of closure each loco only visited Crewe once (though No.2 'J.B.Earle' was taken there and subsequently cut up there by Cohen's in 1936 or 37, whilst stablemate No.1 'E.R.Calthrop' was dismembered at Waterhouses after working lifting trains). Whether either received attention at Stoke under the NSR operating regime I don't know. The coaches at closure were described by H.C. Casserley as still riding "magnificently" and a well known shot of one at Hulme End some months after closure (possibly on the occasion they were taken to Waterhouses to be unceremoniously burned) confirms their condition still looked extremely good to the bitter end.

I can personally attest to the solid nature of the line's bridges and earthworks as they were nearly half a century after closure.

Looking at the other end of the scale, the commonly held view of (admittedly later) ex-WD Baldwin 4-6-0PT's scarcely argues a good case for skimping on motive power. "Reliable" is one word notable for it's absence in any account of these machines - and the one now at Leighton Buzzard has provided the only photos of 'em I've ever seen in service in other than a filthy state!

Could a halfway-house have been found? Short answer .... I haven't got a scwbi, though I note several locos from major UK builders around this time had design or manufacturing issues (in the case of Tralee & Dingle No.6 defective welding repairs during manufacture led to a very serious accident). Then again, many newly built locos seem to have needed boiler replacement after less than 20 years (Corris No.4's 1st boiler lasted just 8 years!) Not a cheap exercise even back then and it seems more a case of 'ya gets wot ya pays for', rather than anything attributable to poor workmanship.

 

Has there been a thought of converting a 3F Jinty into a 3F Tender loco? Surely, this would be perfect for the Midland Railway at Butterley.

 

Apparently, yes: it was a suggested option for 47564, of which the frames and wheels remain at Butterley.

(Source: Steam Railway's Britain's Preserved Locomotives)