Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:13:44 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 18/12/2012 14:42, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,
77002 wrote:
On 18 Dec, 08:50, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,

--
Which section was tube track? AFIK Earls Court to Moorgate is all sub-
surface. Moreover, one cannot bring back something which never
existed. The tube lines were electric from their beginning.

It's a colloquialism.

Indeed so. It dates back to the opening of London’s deep level lines
bored thru London Clay. In 1900 the Central London Railway was opened
and became known as the 'Tuppenny Tube'. This of course was because
of its price and the shape of the bored tunnels. At 2d (a little
under 0.5p) the price was actually a little on the high side.

The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

I must say it's quite entertaining to see the number of irrelevant
things you try to blame on politics, such as use of colloquial language.

Few ordinary newspaper-reading people on the Clapham omnibus today,
whether they read some hard-line authoritarian right-wing Murdoch rag or a
slightly liberal middle-of-the-road paper like the Graun, are concerned
about the hundred-year-old history of how each individual line was
built in order to inform them of what they should be calling it. It's a
unified system these days. Unfortunately, when the Underground Group
were publicising the Tube back in the first quarter of the last century,
they seem to have omitted to tell people that this word wasn't to be used
for the sub-surface lines, so now you're stuck with it like it or not.

Next think we know people will be claiming there is a difference between
locomotive and train, commuter and passenger (or customer), locomotive
4772 and the Scotch express.

Popular use is simple - in London you have the Tube and the Overground.

Is that the Overground or the overground ?

Maybe a few adventurous types might know that somewhere in the deep
south are strange green things running down the roads.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0800 (PST), e27002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 07:42, allantracy wrote:
The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. *Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

Well seeing as how TfL routinely use the term Tube to describe the
London Underground, all over their website (as in Tube map or Tube
engineering works),

That's what happens (not just with railways) when the publicity people
know SFA about what they're promoting.

I think we can excuse all the bourgeois communists
this time.

Well Allan, I guess I will have to concede. Although I dislike it
when official bodies give in to inaccurate popular culture.
Celebrating the new Millenium in 2000 was the biggest example of this
in our lifetime.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:29:52 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:51:55 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 13:40, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:47:20 -0800 (PST), e27002

Which section was tube track? AFIK Earls Court to Moorgate is all sub-
surface. Moreover, one cannot bring back something which never
existed. The tube lines were electric from their beginning.

Existing ones might have been, The Tower subway was cable operated.

Accepted. And, the cable may have been run thru a stationary steam
engine. The power for the electric lines may have been steam
generated. But, NO tube lines ever had a steam motive power unit
within its consist whilst running in the deep level tunnels.

Not for passenger operation,the Central London Railway had two
Hunslets built to tube gauge for maintenance trains.
Unfortunately no photo seems to be around on the WWW to link to,
In a book I have they look quite smart. Dual fired ,on coal or oil.

I wonder if they ever rescued a passenger train?

According to Wonkypaedia, once the railway opened for passenger
service they seldom entered the tunnels and were used mainly for
shunting coal wagons at Wood Lane.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Jeremy Double wrote:

IIRC, the GNR had to make a big effort to have enough condensing locos
available to take over the running when the GWR pulled out at short notice.
--


IIRC = If I recall correctly.

You must be a very old man to recall any of this! :-)

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0800 (PST), e27002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 07:42, allantracy wrote:
The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

Well seeing as how TfL routinely use the term Tube to describe the
London Underground, all over their website (as in Tube map or Tube
engineering works),

That's what happens (not just with railways) when the publicity people
know SFA about what they're promoting.

It's also worth remembering that "The Tube" is now a London icon, but
"Underground" is not. "Subway" or "Metro" may be generic names for such
systems around the world, but "Tube" always means the London Tube. That's
far more important than worrying about tunnel profiles (in any case, by the
pedantic definition, wouldn't Crossrail also be regarded as a "Tube"?).

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 18 Dec, 13:15, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Well Allan, I guess I will have to concede. *Although I dislike it
when official bodies give in to inaccurate popular culture.

I hope you don't have too much trouble if you ever have to ask directions

Point well taken sir.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 18 Dec, 13:29, Anthony Polson wrote:
Jeremy Double wrote:
IIRC, the GNR had to make a big effort to have enough condensing locos
available to take over the running when the GWR pulled out at short notice.
--

IIRC = If I recall correctly.

You must be a very old man to recall any of this! *:-)

He is probably recalling what he read.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Peter Masson:
Yes. The Met was built as mixed gauge from Paddington (Bishop's Road) at
least to Farringdon and AFAIK to Moorgate, and was initially (Jan - Aug
1863) worked between Bishop's Road and Farringdon by the GWR using broad
gauge stock. The Met fell out with the GWR, who gave 9 days notice that they
would cease to work the line after 10 August 1863, but by then the
connection with the GNR at Kings Cross had been completed, so the Met began
operating the service themselves, using standard gauge stock obtained from
the GNR. It's not clear how much the broad gauge was used after this (GWR
meat trains to Smithfield, perhaps)...

After the Met outfoxed the GWR as Peter describes, the two companies
came to terms. Broad-gauge suburban passenger trains began running
through from the GWR onto the Met to Farringdon and then Moorgate.
They last operated in 1869. Here's a famous painting of one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_Junction.jpg

This is Praed St. Junction, between Edgware Road and Paddington,
where today's District and Circle Lines tracks (foreground) diverge
from today's Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines tracks. The former
tracks were the Met's original route, so this train cannot be a Met
train from before the Met/GWR dispute unless it's going out of service,
and then there wouldn't be passengers on board. Unless the artist
goofed, it must be a GWR train.

The through services continued with standard-gauge trains until 1939.
--
Mark Brader | Switzerland is also called water tower...
Toronto | And people are like here weather environment.
| --seen in spam

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

allantracy wrote:

On 18 Dec, 16:13, Anthony Polson wrote:
77002 wrote:
At 2d (a little
under 0.5p) the price was actually a little on the high side.

2d is 0.83p.

Yes, the good old days.


It was good for learning arithmetic.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 18/12/2012 21:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:13:44 +0000, Arthur Figgis


Popular use is simple - in London you have the Tube and the Overground.

Is that the Overground or the overground ?

Yes. I've also heard Overland a few times, and The Thames Link seems to
have a bit of an identity of its own amongst some people.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:

Not surprising - liberal left politics as a whole is a very female take on
the world. Everyone is nice really given a chance, encouragement not punishment,
everyone is equal even when clearly they're not, turn the other cheek, we
must atone for the sins of our fathers (note - not mothers), etc etc. All
very laudable but all very naive.

But I wouldn't worry , Guardian readership is in freefall so it won't be
around much longer and one can only hope liberal left politics gets buried
with it in the dustbin of history where it belongs.


If the Guardian folds, the Independent is ready to take over. The
Indy used to be literally that; an independent, impartial newspaper,
or at least the nearest one could ever get to that ideal.

Now, the Indy has taken a sharp left turn and would likely inherit the
Guardian's mantle if that paper were to close. The orange headlines
remind me of the Socialist Worker.

I suspect that neither of their print editions will remain for very much
longer, as they are perennially loss-making. The Guardian relies on the
backing of the Scott Trust (and thus on Auto Trader), and the Indie on the
Lebedevs, who won't keep it going indefinitely as a loss maker. The Times
is also a hefty loss-maker and probably can't survive in its current form,
which is probably why Rupe wants to merge it with the ST to create a
cheaper 7-day operation. All three are trying to develop a purely digital
business model, but are nowhere near doing so (and Rupe has just abandoned
his iPad New York paper, The Daily).

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:30:18 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0800 (PST), e27002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 07:42, allantracy wrote:
The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

Well seeing as how TfL routinely use the term Tube to describe the
London Underground, all over their website (as in Tube map or Tube
engineering works),

That's what happens (not just with railways) when the publicity people
know SFA about what they're promoting.

It's also worth remembering that "The Tube" is now a London icon, but
"Underground" is not. "Subway" or "Metro" may be generic names for such
systems around the world, but "Tube" always means the London Tube. That's
far more important than worrying about tunnel profiles (in any case, by the
pedantic definition, wouldn't Crossrail also be regarded as a "Tube"?).

Tubes 'n Boxes ?

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:42:50 -0600, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Peter Masson:
Yes. The Met was built as mixed gauge from Paddington (Bishop's Road) at
least to Farringdon and AFAIK to Moorgate, and was initially (Jan - Aug
1863) worked between Bishop's Road and Farringdon by the GWR using broad
gauge stock. The Met fell out with the GWR, who gave 9 days notice that they
would cease to work the line after 10 August 1863, but by then the
connection with the GNR at Kings Cross had been completed, so the Met began
operating the service themselves, using standard gauge stock obtained from
the GNR. It's not clear how much the broad gauge was used after this (GWR
meat trains to Smithfield, perhaps)...

After the Met outfoxed the GWR as Peter describes, the two companies
came to terms. Broad-gauge suburban passenger trains began running
through from the GWR onto the Met to Farringdon and then Moorgate.
They last operated in 1869. Here's a famous painting of one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_Junction.jpg

This is Praed St. Junction, between Edgware Road and Paddington,
where today's District and Circle Lines tracks (foreground) diverge
from today's Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines tracks. The former
tracks were the Met's original route, so this train cannot be a Met
train from before the Met/GWR dispute unless it's going out of service,
and then there wouldn't be passengers on board. Unless the artist
goofed, it must be a GWR train.

Bearing in mind that it is almost certainly a product of a few quick
sketches (possibly when no trains were actually running when he was in
the tunnel ?) and a fair bit of memory, total accuracy might be a bit
optimistic.

The through services continued with standard-gauge trains until 1939.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Mark Brader:
Unless the artist goofed, it must be a GWR train.

Charles Ellson:
Bearing in mind that it is almost certainly a product of a few quick
sketches... total accuracy might be a bit optimistic.

Well, maybe he took a snapshot with his cellphone camera -- I don't
imagine they had regulations against using those in the tunnels back
then -- and did the painting based on that, *hmmmm*???

:-)
--
Mark Brader | "Red lights are not my concern.
Toronto | I am a driver, not a policeman."
| --statement made after collision, 1853

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Anthony Polson wrote:
Jeremy Double wrote:

IIRC, the GNR had to make a big effort to have enough condensing locos
available to take over the running when the GWR pulled out at short notice.
--


IIRC = If I recall correctly.

You must be a very old man to recall any of this! :-)

I seem to remember reading about it, possibly in a book about Sturrock's
period as locomotive engineer of the GNR, but I can't remember the
reference or details, hence the "IIRC". "Recall" can refer to something
you read about...

--
Jeremy Double

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:59:51 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 18/12/2012 21:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:13:44 +0000, Arthur Figgis


Popular use is simple - in London you have the Tube and the Overground.

Is that the Overground or the overground ?

Yes. I've also heard Overland a few times, and The Thames Link seems to
have a bit of an identity of its own amongst some people.

Also not forgetting the (other) Overground :-
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2780/mapover.gif
as found in
http://www.busandcoachforum.net/view...=5409&start=20

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

In uk.railway e27002 wrote:
There's another great photo in the Standard's report athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

Anyone know if the condensing apparatus has survived and is operational?
This pictu
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/g...em=&mtv=&pnum=
suggests wide condensing pipes, while this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-diesels/5663523369/
has narrow pipes like number 1. Do those still function?

Theo

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

In article
,
(77002) wrote:

On 18 Dec, 13:40, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:47:20 -0800 (PST), e27002

wrote:
On 17 Dec, 13:46, "Richard J." wrote:
Recliner wrote on 17 December 2012
11:08:58 ...

Steam train back on tube track for 150-year anniversary
celebrations

Test run for London Underground's anniversary sees restored
locomotive pull Victorian carriage from Earl's Court to Moorgate

Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent
The Guardian, Sunday 16 December 2012 19.00 GMT
[snip]
From:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/de...ndon-undergrou
...

There's another great photo in the Standard's report at

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...0yearold-steam...

Which section was tube track? *AFIK Earls Court to Moorgate is all sub-
surface. *Moreover, one cannot bring back something which never
existed. *The tube lines were electric from their beginning.

Existing ones might have been, The Tower subway was cable operated.

Accepted. And, the cable may have been run thru a stationary steam
engine. The power for the electric lines may have been steam
generated. But, NO tube lines ever had a steam motive power unit
within its consist whilst running in the deep level tunnels.

Not quite true. The LER had a tube-gauge steam service locomotive.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 19 Dec 2012 00:21:00 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

In uk.railway e27002 wrote:
There's another great photo in the Standard's report athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

Anyone know if the condensing apparatus has survived and is operational?
This pictu
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/g...em=&mtv=&pnum=
suggests wide condensing pipes, while this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-diesels/5663523369/
has narrow pipes like number 1. Do those still function?

L44 has never had any condensing apparatus fitted while the LRPS/QRS
has owned it and AFAIAA not for many years with Met/LT (if at all?).

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 18/12/2012 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:59:51 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 18/12/2012 21:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:13:44 +0000, Arthur Figgis


Popular use is simple - in London you have the Tube and the Overground.

Is that the Overground or the overground ?

Yes. I've also heard Overland a few times, and The Thames Link seems to
have a bit of an identity of its own amongst some people.

Also not forgetting the (other) Overground :-
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2780/mapover.gif

And the late Overground Network:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...hmond_sign.jpg


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 18 Dec, 21:42, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Peter Masson:

Yes. The Met was built as mixed gauge from Paddington (Bishop's Road) at
least to Farringdon and AFAIK to Moorgate, and was initially (Jan - Aug
1863) worked between Bishop's Road and Farringdon by the GWR using broad
gauge stock. The Met fell out with the GWR, who gave 9 days notice that they
would cease to work the line after 10 August 1863, but by then the
connection with the GNR at Kings Cross had been completed, so the Met began
operating the service themselves, using standard gauge stock obtained from
the GNR. It's not clear how much the broad gauge was used after this (GWR
meat trains to Smithfield, perhaps)...

After the Met outfoxed the GWR as Peter describes, the two companies
came to terms. *Broad-gauge suburban passenger trains began running
through from the GWR onto the Met to Farringdon and then Moorgate.
They last operated in 1869. *Here's a famous painting of one:

* *http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...opolitan_Railw...

This is Praed St. Junction, between Edgware Road and Paddington,
where today's District and Circle Lines tracks (foreground) diverge
from today's Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines tracks. *The former
tracks were the Met's original route, so this train cannot be a Met
train from before the Met/GWR dispute unless it's going out of service,
and then there wouldn't be passengers on board. *Unless the artist
goofed, it must be a GWR train.

The through services continued with standard-gauge trains until 1939.

Was not the Hammersmith Branch a joint operations from the start?

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:18:26 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
Indeed, I will look at a copy left on a train, or read it online. I
would never buy the rag. It is truly appalling to read how much these
people want to control other's lives. Even worse they think it is OK.

Not only control their lives - control how they think since they're only
"liberal" and believe in free speech as long as they agree with what you're
saying. Anyone who goes against their ideals is shouted down with cliched
rants containing lots of "ism" or "ist" words (see Plowman as a good example
of a practitioner of this) as they're generally unable to argue a point and
so resort to childish strops.

The liberal left truly are Orwells Thought Police though most of them are
either too brainwashed or just too plain stupid to realise it. "Useful idiots"
as Stalin put it.

Though I will say that the Guardian does have a good science section. Its
just a pity it has to be joined to the tripe that is the rest of the paper.

B2003

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

"77002" wrote

Was not the Hammersmith Branch a joint operations from the start?

The Hammersmith branch was built by the GWR and initially provided with
mixed gauge. It was opened on 13 June 1864 (i.e the year after the Met had
taken over operation of its own line). The GWR ran through, initially broad
gauge) trains to the City. Improved relations with the Met led to the
Hammersmith branch being vested jointly in the Met and GWR from 15 July
1867, after which the Met provided the basic service. When the line was
electrified in 1906 the stock was jointly owned.

Peter

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 19/12/2012 08:28, Recliner wrote:

Going
free seems to have worked for the Evening Standard and the Metro, but they
have low cost journalism,

I don't think I've seen any in the copies of Metro I've picked up
lately... ;-)



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:42:11 -0800 (PST), allantracy
wrote:


The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. *Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.


Well seeing as how TfL routinely use the term Tube to describe the
London Underground, all over their website (as in Tube map or Tube
engineering works), I think we can excuse all the bourgeois communists
this time.

I happened to be standing opposite one of those engineering works
posters yesterday and took this pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...ream/lightbox/

I must admit that, even though I don't want to be pedantic on this,
the first, bald sentence does seem to go out of its way to rewrite
history:
"Built in 1863, the Tube was the first underground railway in the
world."
After all:
- Only a very tiny part of the current network was built by 1863.
Most of the system dates from much later than that.
- It may be normal to call the whole system "the Tube" today, but that
name wasn't coined until decades after the Met first opened, and the
name wasn't applied to the whole system, including the 1863 line,
until relatively recently.

But it's clear that TfL and the Mayor do definitively call the whole
system the Tube now, so let's not have any more pedantic debates about
which bits should be called what.

For example, on the journey where I took this pic, I started out from
an open air station but happened to be boarding what we here know to
be a true "tube" train. Most of the ride on that journey was in the
open, much of it on viaduct. After changing to a subsurface train, I
exited from a cut-and-cover station. Which of those would seem more
like a "tube train" to a normal?

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Perhaps it is time to change the Guardian's name back to "The Manchester
Guardian".

Does the Guardian know where Manchester is? Though to be fair to them,
it isn't on the Underground map.


Aren't they based in a tax haven nowadays?

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Indeed, I will look at a copy left on a train, or read it online. *I
would never buy the rag. It is truly appalling to read how much these
people want to control other's lives. *Even worse they think it is OK


I might not read it but I end up bloody well paying for it, at least
two or three times a week.

I can't tell you how much helping to keep Polly Toynbee in gainful
employment goes against the grain.

Still, it helps to hide the railway mags and save any embarrassment.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

allantracy wrote:

Perhaps it is time to change the Guardian's name back to "The Manchester
Guardian".

Does the Guardian know where Manchester is? Though to be fair to them,
it isn't on the Underground map.


Aren't they based in a tax haven nowadays?

Not the Guardian, which being heavily loss-making (for real), has no
corporation tax to avoid. But its parent company and Apax have created
quite a complex structure that appears to be constructed to avoid tax on
the Auto Trader deal:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...save-millions/

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 19/12/2012 07:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
On 19 Dec 2012 00:21:00 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

In uk.railway e27002 wrote:
There's another great photo in the Standard's report athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

Anyone know if the condensing apparatus has survived and is operational?
This pictu
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/g...em=&mtv=&pnum=
suggests wide condensing pipes, while this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-diesels/5663523369/
has narrow pipes like number 1. Do those still function?

L44 has never had any condensing apparatus fitted while the LRPS/QRS
has owned it and AFAIAA not for many years with Met/LT (if at all?).


#1 lost her condensing gear early (probably by the id 1920's) though the
blanking plates are still in place on the tanks.

G

Tube lines steam (was Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam)
 

In article ,
wrote:
On 18 Dec 2012 20:55:00 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

In uk.railway wrote:
Not for passenger operation,the Central London Railway had two
Hunslets built to tube gauge for maintenance trains.
Unfortunately no photo seems to be around on the WWW to link to,
In a book I have they look quite smart. Dual fired ,on coal or oil.

http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...=2471 &page=1

Theo
Thanks for that link, had never heard of the other Loco Brazil
mentioned on that thread first. looks quite basic compared to the CLR
one which has a certain finesse about it.

That photo (of Brazil, not the neat little CLR loco) raises a question
in my mind. Kerr, Stuart's "Brazil" class were narrow gauge locos
not standard, and that does look very like an NG "Brazil" to my eyes.
The cab is a bit of a ramshackle afterthought it seems but apart from
that it looks identical in size and shape to the Brazil classes on the
SKLR and at Whipsnade.

Also, the open wagons have an NG look. The enlargement of the photo makes
it hard to be sure but they don't seem to be standard gauge either. Is
this CSLR "Brazil" loco at Stockwell perhaps then a construction loco
rather than a service loco for after opening ? It would account for
why it was used at Morden and various other sites as per the thread.

Or did this one Brazil class get constructed as Standard gauge to fit
the CSLR tubes ? I'd not heard of it before anyway, thanks from me too.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Tube lines steam (was Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversaryMet steam)
 

On 23/12/2012 16:29, Nick Leverton wrote:
In ,
wrote:
On 18 Dec 2012 20:55:00 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

In uk.railway wrote:
Not for passenger operation,the Central London Railway had two
Hunslets built to tube gauge for maintenance trains.
Unfortunately no photo seems to be around on the WWW to link to,
In a book I have they look quite smart. Dual fired ,on coal or oil.

http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...=2471 &page=1

Theo
Thanks for that link, had never heard of the other Loco Brazil
mentioned on that thread first. looks quite basic compared to the CLR
one which has a certain finesse about it.

That photo (of Brazil, not the neat little CLR loco) raises a question
in my mind. Kerr, Stuart's "Brazil" class were narrow gauge locos
not standard, and that does look very like an NG "Brazil" to my eyes.
The cab is a bit of a ramshackle afterthought it seems but apart from
that it looks identical in size and shape to the Brazil classes on the
SKLR and at Whipsnade.

Also, the open wagons have an NG look. The enlargement of the photo makes
it hard to be sure but they don't seem to be standard gauge either. Is
this CSLR "Brazil" loco at Stockwell perhaps then a construction loco
rather than a service loco for after opening ? It would account for
why it was used at Morden and various other sites as per the thread.

Or did this one Brazil class get constructed as Standard gauge to fit
the CSLR tubes ? I'd not heard of it before anyway, thanks from me too.


Tube Trains under London has a sequence of photos of 1924 stock being
delivered by road to Morden depot. The last photo shows a car just
reunited with its bogies being pulled from under the gantries by an
0-4-2 saddle tank. This would appear to be the "Brazil" loco featured
above.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 20 Dec, 11:50, allantracy wrote:
Indeed, I will look at a copy left on a train, or read it online. *I
would never buy the rag. It is truly appalling to read how much these
people want to control other's lives. *Even worse they think it is OK

I might not read it but I end up bloody well paying for it, at least
two or three times a week.

A salutary thought for young conservatives with raging hormones. Just
as conservative parents should think twice before sending their
offspring to a liberal college.

I can't tell you how much helping to keep Polly Toynbee in gainful
employment goes against the grain.

Still, it helps to hide the railway mags and save any embarrassment.