This is the second (and last) traction engine locomotive built by Marshall's, 36741 was an 8hp built in 1899 and supplied to Hall & Co. in Croydon in 1902. It was rejected by the customer, and remained unsold at Gainsborough, becoming the works shunter. Like their first locomotive, the Pepper & Sons' undertype, it had gear drive to the rear axle and connecting rods. "Traction Engine Locomotives" by Ian K Hutchinson has the dimensions, but no drawing I'm afraid.

Brian

Watching the film via Neil's link, the engine has a distinct fore and aft rocking motion. I think the wheelbase is too short. That would make for an uncomfortable ride, less pulling power per HP, and damaged track. The light track used in a works might not last long with an unbalanced heavy engine pounding on it.

Presumably the idea was to capitalise on a successful traction engine design by re-wheeling it as a locomotive and unfortunately the experiment didn't go well. It happens. We all know what a superb engine the Rolls Royce Merlin was. Few remember the RR Vulture, worth trying but too many flaws.

Dave

Ideal for use in a restricted yard, you can have a much tighter track radius if wheels closer together.

I doubt the wheel base is any less than many shunters, it is just that they often have small diameter wheels which make the axles look further apart, Big wheels would even out any bumps in a bumpy track just like any other larger wheel does on rough or uneven ground.

Edited By JasonB on 08/09/2019 07:23:48

According to the book, the locomotive was "prone to leaving the rails at the first opportunity". This seems to have been in marked contrast to Aveling and Porter's locomotives of which 130, plus a number of convertible "Steam Sappers", were produced between 1862 and 1926.

Brian

Edit (Is there any way the code for "smileys" could be amended to only recognise three-character (with nose) emoticons?)

Edited By Brian G on 08/09/2019 07:52:51

.

… but the camera is not square to the wall; so they shouldn't look circular

MichaelG.

Brain says it is 8hp so I would be looking at their 8nhp traction engines to see if they share things like cylinder and if so then boiler diameter is likely to be the same so smokebox and therefore chimney saddle same as an 8nhp traction engine

As for the aspect ratio that is an issue with how you are viewing the film/still. this snip is from my screen where the windows are definately not round but things like the buffers on the engine are round unlike your image that has them very oval. Smokebox is rounder and the men look lean not like midgets.

Edited By JasonB on 08/09/2019 10:15:22

Some slightly better frames from the video:

I reckon the aspect ratio is a bit squashed on my screen but is better when posted on the forum.  Mysteries galore. And I wonder who broke the window and cracked the wall in frame 1?

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 08/09/2019 10:21:49

.

Your image [like mine] is in 4×3 format … which is essentially what the original film format would have been.

Q.E.D.

MichaelG.

.

Edit: Dave's images [of which, incidentally, the third probably looks best] are 952×536

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 08/09/2019 10:58:08

I would guess that as the Pepper's loco was built with components from a standard undertype engine of the period, this one would also use standard parts. If it helps to determine the component's used, the Hall's locomotive was standard gauge, with a single 9" x 12" cylinder, 5' 6" driving wheels, an overall length of 21' 6" and a wheelbase of 6'6".

Incidentally, Hall & Co. already had an 1867 Clayton & Shuttleworth traction engine locomotive, and in 1915 bought the second and final McLaren locomotive shown in this photo, an almost exact replica of the 1867 locomotive and the last non-Aveling & Porter loco.

**LINK**

As a model I suspect the performance of any traction engine loco would be a little underwhelming, as even a 7 1/4" gauge loco would only have the boiler of a 1 1/2" traction engine. One of the narrow-gauge Aveling geared 0-4-0 compounds might be a better bet, especially as there are several standard gauge locos in existence, as well as the remains of a narrow-gauge loco at Hollycombe.

Brian

What's the difference between 'squashed vertically and 'stretched in width'? It depends on which dimension you, arbitrarily, consider to be 'correcty'…

Here the 'film area' doesn't fill the entire browser window by a long chalk, but the black bars are not added, but the distortion is obvious and extreme (a bit of playing suggests it's distorted by about 30%):

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 08/09/2019 11:13:14

.

Geometrically, of course, there is no difference … 'though I thought [when he wrote: I'm not convinced that the aspect ratio is incorrect; the circular windows in the building behind the engine appear to be round and not squashed.] that 'squashed' might be causing Brian some confusion.

MichaelG.

.

Edit: I'm sure that you and I both understand what we both mean … but this might be useful for others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/21:9_aspect_ratio

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 08/09/2019 11:43:33