The LNER Encyclopedia

Does anybody have any information on these loco's? thanks.

What kind of details are you looking for?

They were built at Baldwins of Schenectady USA to a stock design and batches purchased by both the GN and GC as a short term stop gap when the UK works were too busy to cope with expansion. They were not too successful and had a limited life. Drawings have appeared in the model press but much of the detail seem to have been conjecture unless, or course, the NRM has turned up anything new recently.

Clay and Cliffe's 'The LNER 2-6-0 Classes' gives some information about these 'Yankee' moguls, including decent 3/4 views of both the GNR and GCR types. Clay and Cliffe say that the GNR and GCR batches were built by Burnham and Williams at the Baldwin works at Philadelphia, Burnham and Williams being one of the names carried by the locomotive-building company founded by Matthias W. Baldwin. Am I not right in thinking that Shenectady was the 'home' of Baldwin's big rival ALCO?

These moguls represented aspects of American locomotive practice differing significantly from that prevailing in Britain at the time. They were built with bar frames rather than plate frames, and at least the intermediate and trailing driving wheelsets appear to have been mounted on equalising beams. Clay and Cliffe observe that complaints about their rough finish were perhaps unfair because they were supplied quickly and at competitive prices. They go on to point out that American railroad philosopy of the time was build a locomotive for a short life in the expectation that it would be quickly replaced by something more modern.

For drawings, reference to the University of Texas' web page at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/smu/00052/smu-00052.html may assist with details of the range of Baldwin drawings held by the DeGolyer Library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Drawings of the GCR engines appear to be few, but there are erecting drawings of the GNR moguls which are similar.

Memory (only) of what I've read suggests that only the Midland got some of its moguls from the Schenectady works. I believe all those for the GC and the GN, plus a number for the Midland, were from the Baldwin works in Philadelphia.
One of E. M Johnson's books on Locomotives of the Great Central Railway covers the moguls fairly well, although I question the suggestion in the text that the front doors on the cabs were sometimes removed. The only picture in the book supposedly showing a cab missing a front door appears to me to actually show the door opened inwards and well concealed.....

E.M.Johnson's Locos of the GCR P46-7 shows two pics. and explanatory captions. 20 supplied as class 15 in 1899. 2 cyls 18x24 in. 5' wheels, 160 psi giving a nominal t.e. of 17625 lbs.Pics in this book shows stovepipe chimney. In Dow's GC Album P 46 he shows No. 964B with a typical GCR chimney.Bird's illustration in the GNR book shows identical except for built up chimney on 20 delivered. Incidentally one of the latter was tried briefly on the London "Northern Heights" suburban line.Excellent line drawing in Midland Record No. 1 Supplement American Locos of the MR. Shows with additional dome containing sand forward of central dome over centre wheel and smaller dome in front of cab with safety V. and whistle.MR had 30. Bird's drawing of GNR version shows only one dome and boiler mounted safety V. GCR version in both Johnson and Dow shows dome position as GNR but small dome as MR version in front of cab.
Schenectady was an entirely separate company that merged with others to become ALCO in 1901 and also supplied ten different locos to the MR. They had a single domed taper boiler and a rigid framed MR style 6 wheel tender. All the Baldwins of all three companies had Baldwin's american pattern bogie tenders
All were gone in all companies by end of 1915.

2512silverfox wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2017 3:45 pm They were not too successful and had a limited life.

I'm not sure this is exactly true. I think the problem was that that because they had bar frames the companies had difficulties making the firebox end of replacement boilers without a substantial investment in new tooling. For classes with relatively few members this was not seen as viable use of resources.

In general, though, US built locos were not usually noted for their longevity.

The RCTS 'Great Northern Locomotive History vol 3a 1896 - 1911' has a good selection of photographs of their imported 2-6-0s, with the leading dimensions, which might help with detailing. One aspect which looks very interesting, on some engines in steam the front platform is seen covered in a neat little cloud of water vapour - presumably leaking from the steam chests - which might be nicely modelled by a layer of cotton wool of a depth just up to the bottom edge of the smokebox door...

There were differences between the 3 Railway different types.

Specifically, the GC and MR ones had a different wheelbase at the front.

The Scenactady ones were different, and only went on the Midland. A useful Book is from Wild Swan and covers the Midland locos if still available,
it certainly gives more details of the process and the times.

Paul

On checking sources, John Coffin is right about the wheel spacing, certainly between the GN and the MR version. Can't find any stuff on the GC one.
The "Midland Record' quotes the wheelbase (front) as 7ft 5in., Groves quotes the GN one as 7ft 11in. Like I say I cant find anything on the GC version.
I have based my nominal tractive effort figure of the GC version as 160psi, assuming that figure was the usual GC specification (Pollitt and then Robinson used this as standard around that time.) I also assumed that since both the cylinder dimensions given by Groves and 'Midland Record' of 18x24 for both, was also that of the GC version. Groves quotes 175psi for the GN version so that would be a nom. tractive effort of 19278 lbs. cf 17625 of the MR (and the GC version?) Weights given are also slightly different, the GN at 45tons 0cwt cf MR's 45tons 15cwt. The sand dome on the MR version feeds the front of the middle driving wheel and a running board mounted one the rear of the same wheel, whereas the GN version shows both mounted under the running board, and no difficult-to-service high dome (although feed seems to vary between the front and the middle driving wheel.)

Can anyone explain what a "bar frame" was?

Obviously something different from a typical British loco frame, with which I am sure we are all familiar, but how, exactly? I confess to being completely ignorant of US practice.

Bar frames actually originated in this country at the works of Edward Bury and Company. Several of their locomotives were exported to the USA and the frames were found to be ideal for use on the indifferent track leading to their adoption by the local locomotive builders.
See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bury_Bar_Frame_locomotive

Tom.

There's an image of it
https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com ... i-5GjJ6XT/