LNER Decapod

Kyle1987 · Post by **Kyle1987** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:16 pm

Again, i pose a question about a little known locomotive. I have read references to an 0-10-0T locomotive that came into LNER ownership in the 1923 grouping (possibly from the GCR?) I was wondering if anyone knew anytihng about this locomotive, if it even existed

Jammie667 · Post by **Jammie667** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:19 pm

there was an article about someone building one from scratch in this months railway modellor. it was a prototype design which never made it into production if my memory serves me correctly. it was probably designed before the grouping and i think the LNER considered building it by decided against it, as they wasn't really much need for a ten wheel drive tank engine.

I'll dig out my copy fo the magazine this evening and i'll post a further reply then

Kyle1987 · Post by **Kyle1987** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:49 pm

thanx james.

if anyone knows of any other types of one-of/prototype locomotives and wishes to share info, feel free. I have no objection of modelling "might-have-been" scenarios

cheers, kyle

Jammie667 · Post by **Jammie667** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:52 pm

i've just found some information on the decapod. It was originally built by the GER, pre-grouping to prove that steam traction could match the acceleration of electric traction and was a one-off build. It was know as the 'Decapod' and was GER No. 20.

As an extra note, it was eventually rebuilt to 0-8-0 spec, because it was too heavy for some bridges on the railway system. It weighed an impressive 70 tons, but could accelerate a train of the same weight to 30 mph in 30 seconds.

Post by **richard** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:46 pm

It might be an interesting engine to write a page about, but the rebuilt version was withdrawn before Grouping (1923). Perhaps it could be the subject of a page for the 'Articles' section at a future date.

Richard

Jammie667 · Post by **Jammie667** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:29 pm

Ok, i've found the article, here is what it says about the locomotive's background:

The 0-10-0T 'Decapod' was built in 1902 as a response to new electric tramways and proposed underground lines. One of the benefits of the trams was swift acceleration which existing steam locos could not match; so the experimental 'Decapod' was built. With its large 200lb/sqin boiler and ten coupled 4'6" wheels it was designed to out-accelerate any steam loco of the day and in trials near Chadwell Heath it reached the stated goal of accelerating a 300 ton train to 30mph in 30 seconds; however it was far too heavy, its coal bunker far too small and the cost of strengthening bridges and lines would have been far too high.
After the trials it was put in storage and finally cut up in 1906 when some of its parts were used to build a particularly ugly (authors views, not mine!) 0-8-0 tender engine used to haul coal trains.

Below is a picture of the model, sorry about the poor quality, it was taken with my mobile phone.

Post by **richard** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:43 pm

I'd seen pictures of it before, but wide boiler and shape of the firebox are very striking aren't they?

The wide firegrate makes sense of course, but combined with the curved firebox, it has the look of an Ivatt C1 or something US.

The C1s were more sprightly look of course, but the curved sides to the firebox do look similar.

Richard

daveinstoke · Post by **daveinstoke** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:23 pm

Are we refering to the experimental Paget Locomotive here.
Dave.

daveinstoke · Post by **daveinstoke** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:25 pm

Disregard my last post the Paget I think was built by the M.R. sorry about the confusion guys.
Dave.

daveinstoke · Post by **daveinstoke** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:29 pm

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/L ... /paget.htm
This is the Paget, one for Kyle asking about prototypes.
Dave.

Post by **richard** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:02 pm

Another one for Kyle is the Kitson-Still engine:

http://www.lner.info/locos/IC/kitson.shtml

Steam-diesel hybrid.

This did haul some freight traffic for the LNER. Generally successful but development virtually bankrupted Kitson who could not afford the next stage of development (a commercial locomotive).

Richard

Kyle1987 · Post by **Kyle1987** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:59 am

Thank you everyone. This will provide me with some things to think about for my new railway. Lets just hope we start seeing some more unique locomotives appearing ready-to-run

Bullhead · Post by **Bullhead** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:56 am

Kyle1987 wrote:Lets just hope we start seeing some more unique locomotives appearing ready-to-run

With the possible exception of machines like 71000 "Duke of Gloucester" and the prototype Deltic where manufacturers have a certain amount of pre-existing tooling which could be adapted at relatively low cost, and the locomotive itself has a sufficiently high level of public awareness to generate sales, I think it's likely to be a long wait.

Andrew Craig-Bennett · Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:40 pm

A bit of "Decapod" trivia; I recall from Cecil Allen's book that James Holden was so concerned about the high boiler pressure (200psi) that he fitted no less than four Ramsbottom safety valves! (He liked the Ramsbottom valve because it could be cleared from the cab- he was very safety conscious).

It is interesting that the GER did not try to sell it as a "banker" to another railway, once it had pulled off its "stunt" by accelerating 300 tons to 30mph in 30 seconds. It may have had quite severe mechanical problems, which may have prevented its being put into any sort of regular service, beside the miniscule bunker and tiny well tank (there could not have been room for much in the way of a well tank!)

Post by **richard** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:15 pm

(admin edit: I've just fixed the spelling of this thread's title)

Ramsbottom valves seem to have been standard with most of the constituent companies at about this period. Many had started to switch to Ross pop valves by Grouping, and these were the LNER standard fitting. Most classes were converted although it was a haphazard affair according to boiler swaps.

I'm not sure what the advantage of the Ross pop over the Ramsbottom was, but this would suggest that there was a definite advantage.

I don't think the Decapod would have made a very good banker. As you say, it had a tiny bunker and tank. Also it was designed for acceleration, whilst a banker should be designed for tractive effort. "Grunt" rather than "speed".

Most of the LNER's inherited v.large tank engines were used as hump shunters. Some were designed for heavy suburban work, but things like wheelbase and bunker size were limitations on this kind of work. As hump shunters, they could use their "grunt" and they were never far from coal and water.

Richard