0-6-0 Locos

[52D]

I have seen photographs of Alnmouth/Tweedmouth J39s on Alnwick - Alnmouth, Berwick - Eyemouth and Kelso line passenger duties i dont know if this was the norm or a substitution.

[60041]

The use of J39's on the Alnwick passenger turns seemed to be a fairly common if not regular duty through the late 1950's and only ended when the K1's took up residence at Alnmouth. They also appeared on the Alnwick - Ilderton goods until the 1952 closure, but I have not seen any photo's of them on the northern part of the line from Wooler to Coldstream

[52D]

No i havent seen J39s Cornhill - Wooler either i think in the late 50s early 60s Ivatt 2-6-0s were the favoured motive power for that section.

[Pyewipe Junction]

I must admit I find it intriguing how the LNER managed to make a mess of an otherwise simple design. After all, designing an 0-6-0 wasn't rocket science by the 1920s.

If they wanted a powerful 0-6-0 for general duties, perhaps they could have done worse than to have developed the ex-GC J11s (as indeed BR are reputed to have considered at one stage). This strategy was successfully adopted by the MR/LMS with its standard 0-6-0s.

I suppose the mass withdrawal of the J39s at the end of 1962 was logical considering that steam would be around for only a few more years. Most 0-6-0s still in service by then were on freight duties, so it didn't really matter if older, but more reliable, engines were kept on for three or four more years. Also, there was an increasing number of newer designs (B1s) and BR standards requiring work.

I must admit though that the J39s were handsome and impressive engines. Lincoln had quite few of them up to the early 60s.

But please don't get me started on the L1s! IMHO they were among the worst classes that the LNER had. Can anyone explain why the LNER needed a tank engine with over 32 000 lbs TE with 5' 2" wheels, when one with less TE (say 26 -27 000) and larger wheels would have been a lot better for fast outer suburban services, like those out of Marylebone and King's Cross. And what's so special about the 2-6-4 arrangement (except a slightly greater coal capacity)?

Surely a 4-6-2 would have been just as good and more stable too. Again, the LNER had a succesful example to work on in the A5s. I remember Lincoln had two or three of these dignified engines trundling around in fairly poor condition up to 1960. One even ended up replacing ex-MR 0-4-4T 58065 on the Southwell - Rolleston Junction one coach 'Paddy'!

As you can see I'm biased, but someone has to stick up for the GC!

[Tynedock]

Can anyone give a good reason why comparitively modern J39s were scrapped and the old guard in the shape of J27s in the North East and J36/37s in Scotland soldiered on till the end of steam.

Hello 52D,

I worked as a signal clerk at Alnmouth signal cabin when I left school in 1966 and then Shilbottle colliery. Therefore reasonably knowledgeable with the relevant mineral workings At work just now so I cannot get much info over. I will get info sorted at the weekend but one thing comes to mind when on evening shift when taking the mineral messages fron Newcastle control. They always started with the date of load then ''Blyth Engine''. Sometime in October 1966 they also included ''Gateshead Diesel''. It was the beginning of the end.

[wehf100]

The Robinson L1 was a silly invention because in its intended use (long coal trains to Immingham) they didn't have enough braking force to perform well. BUT, as a heavy (semi-long distance) shunting loco the L1 was actually quite good. Think of it as a baby 'Wath Daisy'

(which it was kind of used for in places like Immingham in the 20's, shunting long coal trains around the sidings and on and off the automatic hoists).

Thompson's later attempt was marred by the same problem i.e lack of braking force meaning the extra capacity for haulage the design had over a V3 was actually unuseable in practice. That said as a design progression from the last of the big pre-group pacific tanks (A5 etc) it seems quite logical to me!!

not a pretty wheel arrangement though!

Will

[Sir Nigel Gresley]

@Tynedock URGENT!!!!!!

Suggest you remove your eMail address ASAP, before some hacker/spammer/automated spam trawler gets hold of it. If you want to leave it on the forum replace the @ with <at> or similar to prevent the automated trawlers getting hold of it.

[Tynedock]

@Tynedock URGENT!!!!!!

Suggest you remove your eMail address ASAP, before some hacker/spammer/automated spam trawler gets hold of it. If you want to leave it on the forum replace the @ with <at> or similar to prevent the automated trawlers getting hold of it.

Sir Nigel,

Thanks. Usually I,m IT savvy. I have since amended it.

regards,

Tynedock

[richard]

(and to clarify, the "email" button only appears to people who are logged in - ie. robots can't see it)


Richard