I own a very old train book made in around 1960, and No.23 was the only NSR loco featured. It’s a quite interesting little experiment, but probably went over people’s head as it wasn’t as huge as the Decapod and came from a rather obscure line.
Arnold Bennet wrote, sometimes teasingly, but always fondly of the old Knotty. As he said, somewhere, 'we are proud of a railway'. I grew up beside it, and it left a great legacy.
Hi Anthony. I'm currently reading your North Staffordshire Railway book. You say the M&B was planned to go from London Road to Macclesfield, Sandbach, and Crewe. My understanding is it was planned to go from Store St (later London Road) to Stockport, Nether Alderley, from where a branch would run to Crewe, then on to Congleton, Stoke, to join the GJR near Stafford. In the event the branch to Crewe was built as the main line and the line via Congleton was never built, even though a viaduct over the Dane at Congleton was started, and later halted. Vince Chadwick
the crank position feels something like the Southern Railway Lord Nelsons because they are the only other 4 cylinder locomotive to my knowledge that have the unique 8 beats per wheel revolution
@@vsvnrg3263 Most likely its a fairly complex piece that requires much mor complicated forge tooling than a simple 90 degree offset for all 4 crank throws. Plus with the 90 degree offset, you don't need 4 sets of valve gear, simplifying the design (google the King or Princess Royal valve gear to see what I mean) Downside is that it doesn't have as powerful a draw on the fire as the 135 degree offset.
@@KPen3750 , good answer. but the victorian railways in australia found that sharing the outside cylinder valve gear with the third inner cylinder on the s class was problematic. they did not repeat that with the 3 cylinder h class. they installed a type by henschel and son.
And his chief draughtsman was Tommy Coleman, who went on to be Chief Draughtsman of the LMS, and would later design the Stanier Pacifics. Very very able design team on the NSR.
The faith of this engine and it’s overall appearance of looking identical to the early LB&SCR E2 Class Tanks on steroids are miraculous and unfortunate for no. 23; for it’s appearance design and boiler type. Glad that someone did a video documenting this engine that I’ve been researching on years back.
Another curious kettle appears! It almost looks like a Super Jinty of sorts. A headsup: at 2:06 you said 4-4-0 as opposed to the 0-4-4 shown, or did you mean a different engine entirely?
I can't help wondering why an 0-6-2T design wasn't used, allowing for additional water under the bunker and a longer boiler, after all the NSR was no stranger to that wheel arrangement. Was there some specific constraint on the route it was intended for?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory i am guessing she was the only 0-6-0 tender engine fitted with outside cylinders on the newly formed LMS at the time? was that the real reason way they thought of her as being non standard. by the time she was cut up for scrap would this engine have been in a bad state of repair?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory There was also a constraint on platform lengths on the Loop Line which may have led to a short, 0-6-0T design rather than an 0-6-2T, a type the NSR had perfected already in the New L class (so good that the LMS almost adopted it as one of its new standards).
@@eliotreader8220 Not mechanically worn out I'm sure, but No23 had been through a fire at Stoke shed and received some superficial damage, being fully repaired as far as is known. The tender it received was a second hand example from a scrapped NSR 2-4-0 so that possibly did become life expired; drawings exist showing No23 was modified at the rear to couple to that tender but whether it would have coupled to anything else is an open question. So that might have been a factor in early withdrawal. Generally though, in the early days of the LMS, being non-standard was a death sentence, especially a "class" of just one loco. And once Stoke Works closed in 1926-7 the writing was on the wall for all NSR classes - the Knotty fleet of team locos became the first of the pre-group companies to be eliminated by the LMS, by 1939.
@@eliotreader8220 'Non standard' would have referred to her being a 'one of', surely? The LMS rooted out as many minority locos as they could to facilitate spare parts keeping. (The spares shop foreman on Sodor faces a situation of increasingly nightmarish complexity.) The GWR, for similar reasons, rebuilt as many imbibed Welsh engines as they could with standard GWR boilers etc.
I live near a building in the potteries that is marked 'North Staffordshire Railway' and another (which is now a house) that was a shop for the sentinel. I think the first building mentioned was part of stoke works, there is an old run-down factory across the road from there.
Good video, always wondered about this little loco that everyone knows from cigarette cards! There are parallels to be drawn with the GER’s decapod are there not? Surprising that Hookham didn’t aim toward an 0-6-2T, 0-6-4T or even 2-6-2T or 2-6-4T design that could have mounted a larger boiler and greater water and fuel capacity without pushing the axle loading up to intolerable levels? Had he done so, especially with the latter arrangements, he might have been on to a winner…?
Coincidentally I have an engine currently on my kitchen wall calender built by Krauß in 1909 for identical duties on the Bavarian State Railway: the Pt 2/3 1B h2. It makes for an interesting exercise in compare and contrast.
Looks like a prototype for the little "simplex" live steam locomotives - What a fascinatingly powerful 0-6-0. I've noticed 0-4-4 tanks sometimes described as 4-4-0 tanks, is there any particular reason behind this?
I am also confuced at this, technically calling them 4-4-0s is incorrect, because that's the backwards wheel configuration of the tank engine (4 driving wheels on the back instead of 4 in the front)
My understanding is that it is because the central number is usually the driven wheels, so it (usually but not always) goes carrying-driven-carrying. If there are no carrying wheels in front of the drivers it is thus an 0-4-4, but if there is a front bogie but no rear carrying wheels it is a 4-4-0.
I first thought it was a tad strange in appearance but it grows on one...there is something handsome about all those North Stafford locos...just a shame this one should prove such a flop...
Such a shame that only two NSR locomotives were preserved and that they are both in cosmetic condition.. Just a quick question: would you think is would be cheaper to overhaul/rebuild N° 2 or build a operational replica of N° 2
No. 2 is pretty much worn out so any "restoration" would in effect be a new loco: new wheels, cylinders; boiler; cab, tanks and bunker. There's also a possibility the frames are cracked... so by that point you've built a new loco and not preserved anything. So I'd rather see a new one built and keep the original.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I agree, and the preserved loco is an amalgamation of two anyway, nos 2 and 72, so any replica could assume the identity of the other one! A vast amount of money and effort needed to achieve either a restoration or replica though...
I dont understand what you mean about the valve gear? It was built with Walscheart's valve gear from new, and remained exactly the same when rebuilt as a tender engine.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory In the image of the engine after rebuild it shows this large rod above the running board that sames to link the valve gear with somewhere in the cab. would that have taken space for the water tanks pre rebuild?
The reversing rod is also shown in the same position in the drawing of it as a tank engine. It was quite common for the inner side of tanks to have recesses for the reversing gear,.
I own a very old train book made in around 1960, and No.23 was the only NSR loco featured. It’s a quite interesting little experiment, but probably went over people’s head as it wasn’t as huge as the Decapod and came from a rather obscure line.
Ohh, we're getting into familiar territories, with some of these route locations here.
Arnold Bennet wrote, sometimes teasingly, but always fondly of the old Knotty. As he said, somewhere, 'we are proud of a railway'. I grew up beside it, and it left a great legacy.
Hi Anthony. I'm currently reading your North Staffordshire Railway book. You say the M&B was planned to go from London Road to Macclesfield, Sandbach, and Crewe.
My understanding is it was planned to go from Store St (later London Road) to Stockport, Nether Alderley, from where a branch would run to Crewe, then on to Congleton, Stoke, to join the GJR near Stafford.
In the event the branch to Crewe was built as the main line and the line via Congleton was never built, even though a viaduct over the Dane at Congleton was started, and later halted.
Vince Chadwick
I live just south of Stafford - so I'm going to feign competition with the north to amuse myself (shakes fist angrily)
the crank position feels something like the Southern Railway Lord Nelsons because they are the only other 4 cylinder locomotive to my knowledge that have the unique 8 beats per wheel revolution
that offset pricked my ears up. i'm wondering why it wasnt done on those engineering masterpieces also known as the gwr castle class.
@@vsvnrg3263 Most likely its a fairly complex piece that requires much mor complicated forge tooling than a simple 90 degree offset for all 4 crank throws. Plus with the 90 degree offset, you don't need 4 sets of valve gear, simplifying the design (google the King or Princess Royal valve gear to see what I mean) Downside is that it doesn't have as powerful a draw on the fire as the 135 degree offset.
@@KPen3750 , good answer. but the victorian railways in australia found that sharing the outside cylinder valve gear with the third inner cylinder on the s class was problematic. they did not repeat that with the 3 cylinder h class. they installed a type by henschel and son.
Very interesting little loco
i love your work! your channel is a goldmine
Glad you enjoy it!
This is great to see!
I grew up in stoke & have long wondered about the pictures I had seen of this loco!
Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
What's weird is that these engines look like LB&SCR E2 tank engines but with outside cylinders
Yet another amazing video, well worth the wait
Okay, but like, why do I love him?
It is interesting that Hookham's assistant was H. G. Ivatt, later CME of the whole LMS.
And his chief draughtsman was Tommy Coleman, who went on to be Chief Draughtsman of the LMS, and would later design the Stanier Pacifics. Very very able design team on the NSR.
Such a shame that it wasn't rebuilt with a better boiler after receiving its tender in sure it would have survived longer
Great video, thank you
The faith of this engine and it’s overall appearance of looking identical to the early LB&SCR E2 Class Tanks on steroids are miraculous and unfortunate for no. 23; for it’s appearance design and boiler type.
Glad that someone did a video documenting this engine that I’ve been researching on years back.
Good informative video
Another curious kettle appears! It almost looks like a Super Jinty of sorts.
A headsup: at 2:06 you said 4-4-0 as opposed to the 0-4-4 shown, or did you mean a different engine entirely?
I can't help wondering why an 0-6-2T design wasn't used, allowing for additional water under the bunker and a longer boiler, after all the NSR was no stranger to that wheel arrangement. Was there some specific constraint on the route it was intended for?
There were some very sharp curves on the Loop Line.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory i am guessing she was the only 0-6-0 tender engine fitted with outside cylinders on the newly formed LMS at the time?
was that the real reason way they thought of her as being non standard.
by the time she was cut up for scrap would this engine have been in a bad state of repair?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory There was also a constraint on platform lengths on the Loop Line which may have led to a short, 0-6-0T design rather than an 0-6-2T, a type the NSR had perfected already in the New L class (so good that the LMS almost adopted it as one of its new standards).
@@eliotreader8220 Not mechanically worn out I'm sure, but No23 had been through a fire at Stoke shed and received some superficial damage, being fully repaired as far as is known. The tender it received was a second hand example from a scrapped NSR 2-4-0 so that possibly did become life expired; drawings exist showing No23 was modified at the rear to couple to that tender but whether it would have coupled to anything else is an open question. So that might have been a factor in early withdrawal. Generally though, in the early days of the LMS, being non-standard was a death sentence, especially a "class" of just one loco. And once Stoke Works closed in 1926-7 the writing was on the wall for all NSR classes - the Knotty fleet of team locos became the first of the pre-group companies to be eliminated by the LMS, by 1939.
@@eliotreader8220 'Non standard' would have referred to her being a 'one of', surely? The LMS rooted out as many minority locos as they could to facilitate spare parts keeping. (The spares shop foreman on Sodor faces a situation of increasingly nightmarish complexity.) The GWR, for similar reasons, rebuilt as many imbibed Welsh engines as they could with standard GWR boilers etc.
I live near a building in the potteries that is marked 'North Staffordshire Railway' and another (which is now a house) that was a shop for the sentinel.
I think the first building mentioned was part of stoke works, there is an old run-down factory across the road from there.
Excellent and intriguing as always. I twirls me moustaches and rolls me Rs at you. Thanks for posting.
What a quaint locomotive nice video 👍
Interesting, sounds like a similar objective / aims and fate as the GER Decapod.
Good video, always wondered about this little loco that everyone knows from cigarette cards! There are parallels to be drawn with the GER’s decapod are there not? Surprising that Hookham didn’t aim toward an 0-6-2T, 0-6-4T or even 2-6-2T or 2-6-4T design that could have mounted a larger boiler and greater water and fuel capacity without pushing the axle loading up to intolerable levels? Had he done so, especially with the latter arrangements, he might have been on to a winner…?
Very interesting video there were some strange locos built in the day.
Coincidentally I have an engine currently on my kitchen wall calender built by Krauß in 1909 for identical duties on the Bavarian State Railway: the Pt 2/3 1B h2. It makes for an interesting exercise in compare and contrast.
Very cool!
Looks like a prototype for the little "simplex" live steam locomotives - What a fascinatingly powerful 0-6-0.
I've noticed 0-4-4 tanks sometimes described as 4-4-0 tanks, is there any particular reason behind this?
I am also confuced at this, technically calling them 4-4-0s is incorrect, because that's the backwards wheel configuration of the tank engine (4 driving wheels on the back instead of 4 in the front)
My understanding is that it is because the central number is usually the driven wheels, so it (usually but not always) goes carrying-driven-carrying. If there are no carrying wheels in front of the drivers it is thus an 0-4-4, but if there is a front bogie but no rear carrying wheels it is a 4-4-0.
I suppose it all comes down to which end is the "front" on an 0-4-4 tank, then, since they're designed to run in either direction on commuter services
I first thought it was a tad strange in appearance but it grows on one...there is something handsome about all those North Stafford locos...just a shame this one should prove such a flop...
looks quite like the NS 8500s of 1915-1920
I have that exact cigarette card on a plaque in my room with other classic locos
Very interesting! Can’t help but t say it looks like shortened tank LBSCR E2 0-6-0T but with additional outside cylinders
It's great to hear you back with a full recovery and do trams count as trains or not?
Maybe only 3 cylinders and a slightly bigger boiler would've worked wonders for the engine
Such a shame that only two NSR locomotives were preserved and that they are both in cosmetic condition.. Just a quick question: would you think is would be cheaper to overhaul/rebuild N° 2 or build a operational replica of N° 2
No. 2 is pretty much worn out so any "restoration" would in effect be a new loco: new wheels, cylinders; boiler; cab, tanks and bunker. There's also a possibility the frames are cracked... so by that point you've built a new loco and not preserved anything. So I'd rather see a new one built and keep the original.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I agree, and the preserved loco is an amalgamation of two anyway, nos 2 and 72, so any replica could assume the identity of the other one! A vast amount of money and effort needed to achieve either a restoration or replica though...
2:09 looks like a 0-4-4 and not a {more traditional indeed) 4-4-0! ;-)
You savages! You scrapped it!
what power class did the lms give this? and how did the rods conecting to the valve gear beside the boiler fit in tank engine form?
I dont understand what you mean about the valve gear? It was built with Walscheart's valve gear from new, and remained exactly the same when rebuilt as a tender engine.
The LMS only classified it 3F, which does seem a bit mean.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory In the image of the engine after rebuild it shows this large rod above the running board that sames to link the valve gear with somewhere in the cab. would that have taken space for the water tanks pre rebuild?
The reversing rod is also shown in the same position in the drawing of it as a tank engine. It was quite common for the inner side of tanks to have recesses for the reversing gear,.
This loco, as a tank and a tender engine was right hand drive. That big rod is the reversing link to the Walschaerts valve gear.
Turn it into a 0-2-0 then cut the cab roof then you’ll have the Hornby basic starter set trains
Life size toy train
No wonder I saw something vaguely American hiding in there. Must have been the Walshcert’s. Also, wouldn’t the N Class be an 0-4-4?
Yes an 0-4-4, I miss-spoke.
Anthony Dawson I was just making sure that the North Staffordshire Railway didn’t refrain from using the Whyte System as another show of independence.
@@pendremacherald6758 I wouldn't put it past them.... Tho' they did have some very elegant 4-4-0s for working trains to Llandudno.