Update: I should’ve mentioned this ages ago, but I was able to get the model for Christmas for under £200, and it’s just as beautiful and detailed as it’s real life counterpart.

My pleasure. Looking at her today she's so tiny but yet set that record. Amazing little machine.

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Definitely a very impressive machine to have handled such a fast run with only six wheels. Speed records get a lot of attention and back-and-forth debate, but it's the record timings that are really astonishing, because they're not just trying to dash over a short stretch of line, they're trying to keep up that kind of speed all the time, actively fighting the clock, exciting stuff! Something I also find particularly exhilarating about this style of locomotive at such incredible speeds is the mostly open cab. I'm sure weather would be problematic, but imagine the (terrifying) thrill of being on a mostly open footplate!

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory during the races how far would a load of coal take this engine? her speed of 67 MPH is very amazing but I guess her crew knew what she capable of?

@@eliotreader8220 Well over a hundred miles. Non stop from Crewe to Carlisle over a very steeply graded line indeed. How much coal was left in the tender is not clear, but very likely it was pretty empty. The big limiting factor was water, not coal, which the LNWR got over by using water troughs to pick up water en-route.

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory many years ago My mum asked a similar question to a traction engine driver at our local steam rally but she got a very rude reply to her simple question because the engine driver i understand then told her to simply "Clear off" She only wanted to know much much coal the Traction engine in question used while it was traveling along the Cornish roads. I guess the engine owner was having a bad day out at our Local steam show?

I concur with this, would be great to see a video about the early Caley railway or the evolution of the single wheedlers.

The whole Race to the North deserves a much, much longer video. I'd love to see a film of it. Who'd watch it I don't know but it would be amazing.

Basically going too fast for the track - crewe approaches.

My favourite writer, E.L.Ahrons wrote that on arrival at Aberdeen on one of the 'race' trains, he just managed to catch a southbound train (by running). A porter, he overheard, stated "Ye'll no be staying in Aberdeen the noo?". One of the 'race' trains left Euston in one of the most spectacular thunderstorms in living memory - What a picture! Those Jumbos could be thrashed like many Premier line locos. Which of the Precedents was a great survivor as 'Engineer Watford'?

Already on the sex-on-wheels which is the Stirling Single. It's sooo pretty. For me there's three absolutely iconic transport designs: Rocket, Stirling Single, Enterprise (no A B C D or E).

Very!

You're right he is underrrated as an engineer. As a manager and an organiser, however.... he wasn't great. His time in charge of Longsight for the Manchester & Birmingham and later L&NWR was marked by a strike and chaotic organisation: he didn't know how many men he actually had on the pay roll! I think his biggest achievement was his safety valve which improved railway safety no end.

Really? Because I've heard it said that the DX Goods were among the worst classes of British steam locos ever made; cheaply built to a bad design, an absolute nightmare for the crews, and the reason none lasted into preservation is because they basically all worked until they literally fell apart. I've heard them compared to the early designs of Liberty Ships; simple, cheap, built fast, not expected to last.

@@sirrliv Therein lies the LNWR locomotive policy: build them cheap, work them hard, then scrap them. Everything on the LNWR was about 'economy' about getting the maximum revenue and therefore profits for the shareholders. LNWR express trains jogged along at about 45 mph because that was the slowest speed they could be run at and maintain a reasonable public service/meet public expectation and was the speed at which the confluence of cost, time, etc all came together. It always paid a handsome dividend to its shareholders. LNWR engines, and running, was nothing very special, nothing amazing... it wa adequate. It did the job and made money. So in that respect many LNWR classes which were built cheap and flogged to death fulfilled their design criteria. They weren't building engines to last, and it was a policy inheritted from the London & Birmingham Railway and the Liverpool & Manchester.

@@sirrliv Indeed, what you say is not incorrect, but it can't change the fact that with their sister-classes (such as the LNWR Coal Engine), they were for half a century the backbone of Victorian Britain's energy supplies. And my comparison with the Transit van is not quite the highest of compliments which could be paid. Their "success" lay in the work they did.

They weren't that weird. They have an undeserved bad reputation based on impossible myths such as one set of wheels going round contrary to the other. Literally imposible for that to happen but the myth has stuck sadly :(

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Was there a technical reason the drivers were left uncoupled? That is pretty weird.

@@nostalgiccameralife Not weird at all. Based on sound engineering practice. Coupled wheels have more friction/resistance because of the coupling rods and, as Robert Stephenson noted way back in 1829, unless for example, all four wheels are of exactly the same diameter, and wear exactly evenly, there would be increased friction and resistance. Single-driver engines were/are much freer running than a coupled engine. Edward Woods, the Chief Engineer of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway and John Melling carried out tests in the 1830s and 1840s coupled vs uncoupled wheels and concluded in favour of uncoupled wheels in terms of rolling resistance, wear and tear to the track and also wear on wheels. Patrick Stirling eschewed coupled wheels describing a coupled engine running fast as 'a laddie runnin' wi' his breeks doon.' With the advent of steam sanding in the later C19th single wheelers, like the graceful Midland Singles by Johnson, made a big come back because they were freer running. The former Head of Engineering at the National Railway Musuem in York actually looked at this from an experimental point of view and did indeed conclude that Stephenson, Stirling, etc were correct in their conclusion that a coupled locomotive has a higher rolling resistance and unless all the coupled wheels are of exactly the same diameter there is a further increase in resistance. So for Webb with his compounds it was logical to have two sets of uncoupled driving wheels to make the freest running locomotive as possible. High pressure cylinders outside and a large low pressure between the frames. The problem was his high pressure cylinders were a bit too small with regards to making maximum effort for starting a heavy load. But as fast and free runners which lowered the coal consumption on the LNWR they worked extremely well. However, that cost saving was taken up in additional maintenance and they only worked properly if the crew knew what they were doing and had been properly trained.

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Unusual is probably a better word than weird in that case. But what I always wondered was how the low and high pressure cylinders kept in proper sync if they were working on different cranks without any coupling.

@@nostalgiccameralife The three cylinders initially each had their own set of valve gear (Joy). There were twin reversing levers: one for the HP cylinders and one for the LP. The LP was normally worked in full gear, which meant the LP valve gear wore more than the HP. So they were rebuilt with slip-eccentric valve gear for the inside LP cylinder. What would have happened when running, as observable on a Garratt or Fairlie which have twin engine 'units' which separate valve gear, is that they would naturally find their rythm and naturally fall into sync. You can hear Fairlies do it on the Ffestioniog or the Garratts on the Welsh Highland. They just drift into sync. and out. So the Webb Compounds would have behaved similarly. C P Davis' book on the Webb 'Experiment' compounds is a useful introduction :-)

That's the same with a lot of veterans. Sadly. Either don't want to re-live it, or don't want to talk about, or think it was just ordinary.

City of Truro falls well outside the scope of this channel due to being built in 1903. She's too modern I'm afraid.

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory for whatever reason I believed she was an 1870's product! I let the 4-4-0 design fool me.

@@frankdestefano5697 Oh no. She's twentieth century. If she was 1870s Great Western would be Broad Gauge. Or at least a convertible.

Oh absolutely. Getting to Edinburgh from London *in less than a day* was miraculous. Today it's slow but then, world changing.

Working on it! Already covered one early compound - if not the first - La Jumelle kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rp10Y9OFu7DZhoU.html

Genuine LOL moment. Thanks :)

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory ,what was it? 14 handles and 17 heads? but its still the same broom!

They were. But I dont think many people would've been able to get much sleep rattling along at that speed.

Not yet, but we will be.

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory She was given a cobbled together small tender for the White City exhibition and then used it in the famous run to Stevenage with some GN coaches and then for nearly ninety years. A correct, larger tender had been discovered near Werrington in the 1960s and I wrote to the NRM about restoring it. I received a very haughty letter back saying that they had to accept a loco as they rec'd it. That did not stop Duchess of Hamilton being streamlined afterwards. I believe that now, she is carrying that correct, larger tender which, at some time, could well have been attached to her.

It has become the British standard since 1830 as it had been shown to work on Robert Stephenson's "Planet" and it helped improve thermal efficiency by keeping the cylinders warm to prevent any loss of heat from the steam and to prevent any condensation in the cylinders.

Other than a cap all year round and a greatcoat in winter, none. Footplatemen had to purchase their own footplate clothing and equipment out of their own pockets.

She was a member of the 'Greater Britain' class of Webb duplex compounds. She and a sister engine were specially done up for Victoria's Jubilee one in red and the other in white and blue. I'm going to go a video on the Webb compounds when I get the chance :)

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thanks - look forward to it. I always thought the Webb compounds were a bit of an evolutionary blind alley.

@@johnclayden1670 I'd argue the opposite: they were a quest for efficiency and economy. And as such were a step in the right direction compared to simple expansion locomotives. One only has to look at De Glehn or Du Bosquet in France; Von Borries in Germany etc or the work of Wilson Worsdell and his succesful compounds or even the Midland compounds to see a move in the right direction toward a more efficient and powerful locomotive.

@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thanks for the reply. To clarify, I have no issue with the principle of compounding, a very sensible development. I too admire the work of de Glehn (especially) and du Bosquet. (Of von Borries I confess ignorance). My reading of, inter alia, 'GWR Stars, Castles and Kings' by OS Nock led me to admire those French atlantics as GJC was developing his thoughts both on compounds and divided drive over 4 cylinders. Indeed, French railway engineering I have always held in the greatest regard culminating perhaps in that master of the art, Chapelon. In a small way, working for Alstom on railway projects around the world - TGV and metro - that regard has been in no way diminished. No, compounding is splendid. But I understand too the additional complications of construction, operation and maintenance mitigated against its large scale adoption on British railways. As you rightly say, Worsdell was more successful and the Deeley/Johnson compounds of the Midland/LMS in particular were fine locomotives, with efficiency above that of the comparable 4-4-0's of the time. Rather beautiful too they were. Seen as a step in a laudable move in search of power:efficiency, the Webb compounds can count as the bottom rung. Had he coupled a few more of the drivers, perhaps his engines might have been better received by his successor. BTW - Keep up the good work - I am much enjoying the series. I am seeing if I can get your books in Australia.

@@johnclayden1670 I think the problem with the adoption of compound locomotives in the UK was innate conservatism of Britishr aiway engineers, railway works and a lack of technical education for railway maintenance staff as well as a footplate crews. The big problem of the Webb compounds was, apparently, lack of starting tractive effort and that he, like Gresely after him, didn't properly understand how a compound worked. Having two sets of uncoupled driving wheels made sense from the rolling friction point of view, and indeed engineers from Robert Stephenson on had disliked coupled wheels; Patrick Stirling was not alone in his suggestion that coupled wheels were 'like a laddie runnin wit his breeches doon.' There's sound engineering sense there, but it also comes at a cost of tractive effort. I think the reason why most of Webbs compounds were rebuilt by Bowen-Cooke was due to him wanting to make his own mark; he didn't 'believe' in compounding and wanted to tread his own path.

I'd like to, and I am planning on some like on John Bull, but whilst I can pop to musuems in the UK to get images, video and research stories it's rather harder to hop accross the pond as it were. :(

Which Crewe smash? Don't you mean Preston in 1896?