Can anyone identify the steam loco in this historic picture, taken near Shap summit?

[Harvester]

Incidentally how would you tell a Scot from a Patriot at that angle?

The chimneys of the Patriots were a bit taller. In fact when the photo is enlarged the chimney of the 4-6-0 does look like a Patriot type!

 

[D6130]

Incidentally how would you tell a Scot from a Patriot at that angle?

The un-rebuilt Scots had a much larger boiler - clearly visible in the photo - and AFAIK, none of the un-rebuilt Patriots were ever paired with Stanier tenders....although one or two had enlarged Fowler tenders with high flat sides.

 

[Bevan Price]

Incidentally how would you tell a Scot from a Patriot at that angle?

Unrebuilt Patriots never had Stanier tenders. Also, I think the Scot had a slightly larger boiler.

 

[etr221]

The Scots were changed to have Stanier 4000 gal tanders from November 1935 - most in 1936, with the last few in June 1937.

Someone with more knowledge than I may be able to deduce something from the carriage design.

The Scot in the image has a badge above the name plate - these were fitted to a number of those with regimental names, at regimental expense! The RCTS lists them as 6103/7/9/12/3/24-6/8-41/4-9/66, and post nationalisation 46121 (as these were generally fitted with some ceremony, dates may be available somewhere). Whether that gives enough to make out the loco number in the photo I've no idea...

 

[Sun Chariot]

Incidentally how would you tell a Scot from a Patriot at that angle?

If you zoom into the Scot's cab, you can just discern it has one glazed side window, with the adjacent cutout in the cab sheet.
Patriots had two cabside windows and no adjacent cutout.

 

[Deepgreen]

The interesting thng about piloting here, rather than banking is that the train would have to stop again for the pilot to be detached whereas a banker can just drop back. It looks very like the Scout Green vicinity.

The Scots were changed to have Stanier 4000 gal tanders from November 1935 - most in 1936, with the last few in June 1937.

Someone with more knowledge than I may be able to deduce something from the carriage design.

The Scot in the image has a badge above the name plate - these were fitted to a number of those with regimental names, at regimental expense! The RCTS lists them as 6103/7/9/12/3/24-6/8-41/4-9/66, and post nationalisation 46121 (as these were generally fitted with some ceremony, dates may be available somewhere). Whether that gives enough to make out the loco number in the photo I've no idea...

All are Stanier coaches except the first and seventh.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The Scots were changed to have Stanier 4000 gal tanders from November 1935 - most in 1936, with the last few in June 1937.

All right, I'm convinced - 6803 it is.

Here she is in 1937, still with the number on the tankside rather than the bunker. Note how faded the "6" is

The Transport Library | LMS London Midland and Scottish Railway Steam Locomotive 6803 at Llandudno in 1937 - 02/10/1937 - Neville Stead Collection

The Transport Library

www.thetransportlibrary.co.uk

 

[Sun Chariot]

All are Stanier coaches except the first and seventh.

The leading coach is LMS Period 1 Third Corridor (dia 1695): it's of Midland design; corridor side visible.
The seventh coach I cannot discern if it is a Period 1 or early Period 2 Third.
The rest are "classic Stanier" Period 3 - and the TKs and CKs appear to be the earlier diagrams (TK dia 1899, CK dia 1925 and 1969). The later diagram thirds had 2 intermediate doors on the corridor side and the lavatory windows didn't open.
(13th June): Edit - kudos to @John Palmer for spotting the P3 Restaurant Third (dia 1901 / 1923)

So: typical early to mid-1930s stock, before the later TK + CK diagrams arrived on the scene. With post #34's insight on the Scot class's tender swaps, this dates the photo to 1936+.

 

[AndrewE]

The interesting thng about piloting here, rather than banking is that the train would have to stop again for the pilot to be detached whereas a banker can just drop back. It looks very like the Scout Green vicinity.

didn't somebody say upthread (post 10) that when Tebay locos were stopped for boiler washouts the pilots went through from Carnforth to Penrith or Carlisle?

 

[Taunton]

The random number generator that seems to have been used by the LNWR to identify its locomotive stock gave these fifty 4-4-2Ts numbers ranging from 44 to 2446, but one of them was 803 (which became 6796 when the LMS renumbered them in a consistent block).

Not as random as it seems. There were specific accounting rules at the time for how many locomotives were new capital stock, and how many were renewals. It was therefore an accounting practice to use numbers again for those in the latter category, when the previously numbered loco was withdrawn. Run through this process multiple times since the railway started in 1840 and the numbers available were a complete mixture. A batch of say 20 new locos might have 15 with oddball numbers, not even in order, and 5 numbered right at the end which were regarded as additional. Sometimes locomotives were renumbered when their accounting status changed.

It was done purely to aid the accounting department keep records of which depreciation calculation to use, and ultimately how much profit the railway declared. Slowly and surely the logical mechanical department began to dominate over the accountants (a rare event even now), and numbering became much more ordered. It wasn't only the LNWR that did this, though it lasted there longer than most.

 

[Sun Chariot]

The Scots were changed to have Stanier 4000 gal tanders from November 1935 - most in 1936, with the last few in June 1937.

Someone with more knowledge than I may be able to deduce something from the carriage design.

Thanks for this. In my post #38 - info on the coaches - I have referenced your post #34 as it helped date the photo.

 

[John Palmer]

I'm sticking my neck out because accurate carriage identification is difficult with foreshortened views such as this, but I suggest that the fourth vehicle may be a 68' Stanier RT to Diagram 1901 or 1923 (a total of 34 such vehicles constructed between 1933 and 1937). I'm basing that on window layout, footboard positions and what appears to be a double door offset to the right of the vehicle's centre with ventilator bonnets above each door of the pair. I could well be wrong...

 

[Sun Chariot]

I'm sticking my neck out because accurate carriage identification is difficult with foreshortened views such as this, but I suggest that the fourth vehicle may be a 68' Stanier RT to Diagram 1901 or 1923 (a total of 34 such vehicles constructed between 1933 and 1937). I'm basing that on window layout, footboard positions and what appears to be a double door offset to the right of the vehicle's centre with ventilator bonnets above each door of the pair. I could well be wrong...

That's a really good spot. I'd thought it looked like a 62' BCK; but, yes, it matches dia 1901/1923, the kitchen-corridor side (example attached for those who aren't familiar).
The use of an RT, makes me wonder if the fifth coach is an Open First?

Thank goodness for Stanier's degree of standardisation in his carriage designs. Unlike the myriad of diagrams - and variations within them - farther east.

 

[John Palmer]

This is an even bigger reach than my RT identification, but my analysis of the fifth vehicle is along the following lines:

• High probability the train includes some First class accommodation, so the dining vehicle paired with the RT (if such it is) must either be a First or a Composite;
  
• It's likely that this limits to the choice to a RFO to Diagram 1902, or an FO to Diagram 1917, or a CO to Diagram 1903;
  
• Door ventilator bonnets appear to be spaced inboard from both ends of the vehicle, suggesting that the vehicle has lavatories and luggage racks at both ends. That would exclude the Diagram 1917 design, which had loo+racks at one end only;
  
• I may be imagining this, but I think that the nearer group of longlights on the vehicle are spaced further apart than those at the opposite end. If so, that would argue for a Composite rather than a First, on which the longlight spacing is constant over the whole length;
  
• That leaves the Diagram 1903 CO (or the dimensionally identical singleton to Diagram 1984) as the only remaining candidate. The LMS didn't build RCOs but were content to employ the Diagram 1903s as diners. Notwithstanding that the seating bays in the First class section were a commodious one foot longer than those in the Third, these carriages are said to have been fitted internally with detachable class boards, so making it feasible to operate them as full Thirds or full Firsts rather than mixed class vehicles if circumstances required.

Hope this isn't too liberal interpretation of the OP's question “what's going on here?” but these days I find the formation as interesting as the motive power. Feel free to shoot down my tendentious conclusions!

 

[Sun Chariot]

@John Palmer now that really is some first class detective work. Very impressive.

@carlwebus you're creating far too much fun for those of us with a little time on our hands Or, in my case, a little time and much less knowledge
You mention you have many photos in the collection you've acquired. Rather than separate threads, how about just one thread, e.g. "vintage railway photos, some details unknown", with each mystery photo added to it?
That'll provide us with much enjoyment!

 

[etr221]

Not as random as it seems. There were specific accounting rules at the time for how many locomotives were new capital stock, and how many were renewals. It was therefore an accounting practice to use numbers again for those in the latter category, when the previously numbered loco was withdrawn. Run through this process multiple times since the railway started in 1840 and the numbers available were a complete mixture. A batch of say 20 new locos might have 15 with oddball numbers, not even in order, and 5 numbered right at the end which were regarded as additional. Sometimes locomotives were renumbered when their accounting status changed.

It was done purely to aid the accounting department keep records of which depreciation calculation to use, and ultimately how much profit the railway declared. Slowly and surely the logical mechanical department began to dominate over the accountants (a rare event even now), and numbering became much more ordered. It wasn't only the LNWR that did this, though it lasted there longer than most.

That was where 'duplicate' lists came in - locos which had been renewed (i.e. a replacement manufactured, and placed in service) were renumbered onto the duplicate list.

 

[SCH117X]

The Precursor tanks were:
Order E193 built May-June 1906; 528, 531, 784, 1295, 1305, 1981-1985 (LMS numbers 6780-6789)
Order E194 built Aug 1906; 97, 111, 181, 196, 562, 616, 803, 1356, 1508, 2210 (LMS numbers 6790-6799)
Order E195 built Sept 1906; 139, 653, 1589, 1714, 2165, 834, 874, 1506, 1572, 1671 (LMS numbers 6800/1/6/8/9, 6802-6805, 6807)
The non driving wheels were reduced in diameter for final twenty of the class to resolve derailing issues due to lack of adeaute clearance.
Order E196 built Mar 1907; 44, 527, 612, 762, 827, 875, 1427, 1764, 2196, 2446 (LMS numbers 6810-6819)
Order E219 built Mar 1909; 920, 935, 1164, 1219, 1523, 1536, 1551, 2077, 2223, 2228 (LMS numbers 6820-6824, 1536 was withdrawn in Oct 1927 before being renumbered 6825, 6826-6829. 6826 was renumbered 26826 in April 1934 only to quickly change back to 6826.
Withdrawals, 1536 aside, began in Dec 1931 with the last two going in Feb 1940 (6790 and 6824).
6803 photoed above was withdrawn Oct 1938 and was one of six known to have received LMS crimson lake livery - the others being 6800/9/19/27/29.

 

[Taunton]

It does look a poor choice, to have just a four-coupled loco with 6ft 3in wheels provided as pilot up the biggest main line gradient on the system, for a task where considerable extra tractive effort is needed. GWR standardised on the good old 51xx 2-6-2T and allies, 5ft 8in wheels. Bear in mind that much of the work would be banking goods trains.

 

[SCH117X]

The LMS was just coming out of the MR originated imposed small engine policy - the MR considered it fine to double head trains as a matter of course and that became LMS intial practice, so double heading with a large wheeled loco probably would not have been given much thought. On the other hand is it definitely a case that the Royal Scot needed assistance or was it simply a case of coupling the Precursor tank on front to save a light engine move.

 

[Rescars]

The LMS was just coming out of the MR originated imposed small engine policy - the MR considered it fine to double head trains as a matter of course and that became LMS intial practice, so double heading with a large wheeled loco probably would not have been given much thought. On the other hand is it definitely a case that the Royal Scot needed assistance or was it simply a case of coupling the Precursor tank on front to save a light engine move.

From the exhaust, it looks as though both locos are working hard.

 

[furnessvale]

didn't somebody say upthread (post 10) that when Tebay locos were stopped for boiler washouts the pilots went through from Carnforth to Penrith or Carlisle?

Certainly in the 1950s at least, some pilots were added or detached at Preston and Carlisle. In those days often a Preston based 4-4-0 2P.

 

[Taunton]

I don't think it would be a surrogate light engine move; the sheds on the WCML were at the bottom of the banks, so Oxenholme for Grayrigg and Tebay for Shap. This is apparently coming up Shap, not back down.

I've written before about how a strengthened and overloaded King-hauled Up Paddington express at Taunton was to be piloted over the Mendips onwards to Westbury, by a Hall running light behind it. Due to a misunderstanding about "light engine", and which one, the Bridgwater Docks 0-4-0T shunter 1338 was given priority ahead of it, all were awaiting the speedy arrival of the Hall, only to find 1338 rolling in to the station instead ...

 

[carlwebus]

SUn-Chariot: nice idea to give you all several pics to mull over. Problem is, as you say, 'time.'

Sorry but they'll have to come up piecemeal as I find time to look at them.....