I am trying to trace the history of the larger Stirling 4-2-2 tender that was restored at Shildon. In 1907, upon withdrawal for preservation, the loco was coupled to a smaller tender but I am interested in the larger tender it ran with prior to withdrawal.
The restoration of the larger tender is documented here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... ype=3&_rdr
In its review of the model produced by Locomotion Models, Railway Modeller (August 2018) stated that this larger tender was rescued after serving as a sludge carrier in the Peterborough area.
Can anyone confirm that this tender was, in fact, a sludge carrier? I could not see any information about this on the Facebook page or by searching the posts on this Forum.
I am interested in sludge carriers for a little research project I am doing.
Any information would be much appreciated – about the history of the Stirling tender. and also sludge carriers in general.
Ian
Stirling 4-2-2 Replacement Tender – Was it a Sludge Carrier?
Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard
Re: Stirling 4-2-2 Replacement Tender – Was it a Sludge Carrier?
The tender was identified at Connington tip (between Huntingdon & P'boro) by Kenneth Leech and had been used as a sludge carrier.
-
65447
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 1776
- Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:44 pm
- Location: Overlooking the GEML
Re: Stirling 4-2-2 Replacement Tender – Was it a Sludge Carrier?
The Late Malcolm Crawley was much involved with activities to progress the preservation and restoration of this to its rightful locomotive. He researched its background history and movements, but referred to it as being used as a water carrier in his notes, and the following extract from which, published in LNER Society Journal No 50 (the Malcolm Crawley commemorative issue), may prove informative.
'Stirling Tender No. 1002 was built in 1893 and attached to the Stirling ‘Single’ of that number, GNR practice at the time being to allocate the same number to both engine and tender. Last recorded as coupled to Ivatt Class Q2 No. 3452 between 1929 and 1934, on withdrawal of that engine this tender was assigned to departmental use as water carrier, No. TWC 2, and renumbered 942080 in 1941. It had been in use during World War 2 as a water carrier for contractors at Connington, to avoid them using the nearby supply laid to the signalbox, and had subsequently been stored in the Engineer’s yard.
'It was believed that the last Stirling tender had been scrapped in 1952, so its chance discovery by a leading railway photographer, Maurice Boddy, subsequently confirmed by expert Kenneth Leech, led to it being saved for the National Collection in 1967. One further Stirling tender was found lurking in the Engineer’s wood yard at Doncaster in the latter 1970s. In 1967 the tender was sent to Brighton and a restoration appeal launched. Lacking interest, the tender languished, rotting, in the open air for a further 40 years. About 2005 it was transferred to Leeman Road yard in York, near the NRM.'
'Stirling Tender No. 1002 was built in 1893 and attached to the Stirling ‘Single’ of that number, GNR practice at the time being to allocate the same number to both engine and tender. Last recorded as coupled to Ivatt Class Q2 No. 3452 between 1929 and 1934, on withdrawal of that engine this tender was assigned to departmental use as water carrier, No. TWC 2, and renumbered 942080 in 1941. It had been in use during World War 2 as a water carrier for contractors at Connington, to avoid them using the nearby supply laid to the signalbox, and had subsequently been stored in the Engineer’s yard.
'It was believed that the last Stirling tender had been scrapped in 1952, so its chance discovery by a leading railway photographer, Maurice Boddy, subsequently confirmed by expert Kenneth Leech, led to it being saved for the National Collection in 1967. One further Stirling tender was found lurking in the Engineer’s wood yard at Doncaster in the latter 1970s. In 1967 the tender was sent to Brighton and a restoration appeal launched. Lacking interest, the tender languished, rotting, in the open air for a further 40 years. About 2005 it was transferred to Leeman Road yard in York, near the NRM.'
-
john coffin
- LNER V2 2-6-2 'Green Arrow'
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:24 am
Re: Stirling 4-2-2 Replacement Tender – Was it a Sludge Carrier?
Having been involved in the GNR tender book production, not least ALL but 2 of the drawings, I also know more about this, not least due to my friendship over many years with Maurice Boddy.
I question the use of the phrase tender and rightful locomotive. Since No 1 was built in 1870 and then subsequently rebuilt to kind of match No 8 in the late 1880's the idea that a tender produced in 1893 is suitable for the 1870 loco is somewhat naïve to say the least. I have reminded people enough of the long piece in Groves about the 1867 tender, and yet still they promote the idea that a tender that was not built concurrently with any of the original style Stirling 8 foot singles is the correct tender.
When introduced in 1870, No 1 had an inside spring tender of the type that Stirling had been using on the GSWR before he moved to the GNR. At the time of the decision to retro modify No1 for the 1909 White City Exhibition, there were no spare inside spring tenders available, only the one which had somehow survived the scrapping of 112A, a Benjamin Cubitt ordered 0-4-2 which Stirling had later updated, and which had subsequently been used at Doncaster Carriage works for moving and testing ECJS Stock.
The artifice that an early Stirling 8ft single should have a 20 odd year later tender is modern flim flam, even thought Kenneth Leech was involved.
I accept that the 1867 tender underframe is off a goods design of Stirling, but the superstructure was of a later passenger engine. Considering the lack of proper back fitting of No 1's rebuild in 1907/8 I wonder at the continued warble.
As for the later use of 1002 Maurice always told me that it had been used for some years as a sludge carrier, which was a common usage of older tenders which still had some life. The term sludge seems to refer to the ash mixed with water that was disposed of from each shed, after boiler cleaning, it was sent to a central reception, generally Connington where it was dried and used for a number of purposes.
Paul
I question the use of the phrase tender and rightful locomotive. Since No 1 was built in 1870 and then subsequently rebuilt to kind of match No 8 in the late 1880's the idea that a tender produced in 1893 is suitable for the 1870 loco is somewhat naïve to say the least. I have reminded people enough of the long piece in Groves about the 1867 tender, and yet still they promote the idea that a tender that was not built concurrently with any of the original style Stirling 8 foot singles is the correct tender.
When introduced in 1870, No 1 had an inside spring tender of the type that Stirling had been using on the GSWR before he moved to the GNR. At the time of the decision to retro modify No1 for the 1909 White City Exhibition, there were no spare inside spring tenders available, only the one which had somehow survived the scrapping of 112A, a Benjamin Cubitt ordered 0-4-2 which Stirling had later updated, and which had subsequently been used at Doncaster Carriage works for moving and testing ECJS Stock.
The artifice that an early Stirling 8ft single should have a 20 odd year later tender is modern flim flam, even thought Kenneth Leech was involved.
I accept that the 1867 tender underframe is off a goods design of Stirling, but the superstructure was of a later passenger engine. Considering the lack of proper back fitting of No 1's rebuild in 1907/8 I wonder at the continued warble.
As for the later use of 1002 Maurice always told me that it had been used for some years as a sludge carrier, which was a common usage of older tenders which still had some life. The term sludge seems to refer to the ash mixed with water that was disposed of from each shed, after boiler cleaning, it was sent to a central reception, generally Connington where it was dried and used for a number of purposes.
Paul