Loco at Marshalls Works 1906

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

Here is a still from an old film about Marshalls works in Gainsborough. This engine is the works shunter and may have been made by Marshalls using traction engine parts.

Can anyone confirm this and are there any existing drawings for it?

Brian

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

Identity?

[Brian GParticipant @briang]

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

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Extraordinary!

I managed to see enough of teh link to fiond it on google. It's a free to view film at the BFI:

watch-employees-of-marshalls-engineering-works-gainsborough-1908-1908-online

Fascinating to see all  the employees and their reactions to the camera.

Shame the aspect ratio is wrong, it's all squashed vertically a bit.

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 07/09/2019 21:31:24

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Brian G on 07/09/2019 21:03:28:

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…

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

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 07/09/2019 21:25:43:

 

[ … ]

 

Shame the aspect ratio is wrong, it's all squashed vertically a bit.

.

It looks fine on the iPad, Neil … 4×3 frame with black side-borders

MichaelG.

.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 08/09/2019 00:42:27

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 07/09/2019 22:02:40:

 

I think the wheelbase is too short.

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

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by JasonB on 08/09/2019 07:07:28:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 07/09/2019 22:02:40:

I think the wheelbase is too short.

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

Yes of course, but not if the whole locomotive rocks like a see-saw as a result.

Putting it another way, I think the engine's centre of gravity is too high for the distance between axles. They've addressed that by dropping the boiler, cab, gearing etc deep inside the frame, but maybe that means it's running on less stiff stub axles. (Do the axles run through the boiler's innards?)

Traction engine on rails sounds like a good idea but it never caught on. My guess is a traction engine design that works well on a road is unsatisfactory on rails because the balance and suspension are wrong for that application.

As the machine is long gone and there are no plans we shall never know. Unless someone builds a model. I reckon if Jason starts now, it will be running by Wednesday…

Dave

[Brian GParticipant @briang]

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

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember19781]

[This posting has been removed]

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

Many thanks for the interesting replies, is it possible to identify the Marshall parts used in its construction?

I'm assuming that Marshalls would have used designs that they already had for the bulk of the parts and just made 'specials' for non-standard parts such as wheels.

Brian

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

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. Could the rails not be 'Standard Gauge'?

Brian

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Brian H on 08/09/2019 08:31:25:

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. …

.

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

MichaelG.

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 08/09/2019 08:49:51:

Posted by Brian H on 08/09/2019 08:31:25:

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. …

.

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

MichaelG.

But being side -on they should look eliptical in a vertical direction, not squashed.

Brian

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

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

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Brian,

I think Neil's use of "it's all squashed vertically a bit" might be causing some confusion:

The image on your screen is actually streched in width, to fit a 'widescreen' format.

MichaelG.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

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

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

The boiler is the best ref as we know that should be round, look at my image where it is round and all Dave's ones it's an oval, last one shows the oval best.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by JasonB on 08/09/2019 10:34:16:

The boiler is the best ref as we know that should be round, look at my image where it is round and all Dave's ones it's an oval, last one shows the oval best.

.

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

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by 34046 on 08/09/2019 08:08:34:

The cap seems to have gone out of fashion ?

Bill

Until Peaky Blinders…

[Brian GParticipant @briang]

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

[john fletcher 1Participant @johnfletcher1]

At a recent club meeting at PEEMS we had a very interesting talk by Bridget Laycock who is extremely knowledgeable on Marshal tractors in particular and the works in Gainsborough, in general. Bridget had lots of photos also, there is often references and pictures of Marshall traction engines in Old Glory magazine.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 08/09/2019 10:15:18:

Brian,

I think Neil's use of "it's all squashed vertically a bit" might be causing some confusion:

The image on your screen is actually streched in width, to fit a 'widescreen' format.

MichaelG.

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

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

…

Putting it another way, I think the engine's centre of gravity is too high for the distance between axles. They've addressed that by dropping the boiler, cab, gearing etc deep inside the frame, but maybe that means it's running on less stiff stub axles. (Do the axles run through the boiler's innards?)

….

Dave

Coupling rods only work if both wheels are on one axle. I'd guess that the boiler only just clears the axles, but from the photo it looks very close

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 08/09/2019 11:11:20:

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

.

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

[Author]

Posts