Good to see Juno looking smart and tidy after all these years, as I spent my 21st birthday on her! I almost bought her after her retirement, but had nowhere to keep her. I was pleased to see her a couple of years ago at Shildon and was rather sad to see her looking looking somewhat tired and worn. Thanks for bringing back some very fond memories!
Sadly this is likely impossible due to poor record keeping along the way, or maybe more accurately poor record preservation, but it would be really interesting to go through the books and work out how much this type of locomotive has put into preservation vs what it has demanded in return. So many railways in early preservqtiom has these and still do as a rugged, easy to maintain and relatively inexpensive form of motive power and I genuinely believe we wouldn't have half the big locos operating or restored that we have seen without these and possibly a few other industrial types keeping the show going. We get all sentimental about big locos, these get much much less love and respect than they truly deserve.
Very useful loco, in The Netherlands 27 of them were bought by NS to operate at marshalling yards and depots. Their live was rather short because steam ceased to operate entirely at NS in 1957. 5 of them went to a colliery at the very south end of The Netherlands, the Laura & Vereeniging in Eygelshoven. One went to a sugar factory in Roosendaal. Of those used in industry in total 4 were preserved initially, but one was already scrapped in 1979 while in preservation due to the bad state it was in. Of the other 3, NS numbers 8811, 8812 and 8826, no. 8812 was sold to the Ribble steam railway in the UK. Of the other two only 8811 is in operational condition by now at SSN in Rotterdam. WD 75115, NS 8826 and finally LV14 at the ZLSM in Simpelveld is a long term restoration project which is currently on hold. As LV14 this locomotive was in use at the colliery L&V from 1953 until 1975, she was one of the two last steam locomotives in The Netherlands in industrial use. At the ZLSM she is pretty close to the site where she once operated, the end station of the preserved railway is only 2 kilometers away from where the colliery was.
@@pollyjackson-dzacchaeus1342 In the context of Dutch railways, NS stands for “Nederlandse Spoorwegen”, which translates to “Dutch Railways”. They’re owned by the Dutch federal government.
@@pollyjackson-dzacchaeus1342 It's Nederlandse Spoorwegen which translates as Dutch Railways, it was the former in 1924 found nationalised railway company which since 1995 operates as a private venture under the same name.
I would like to argue that the Hunslet Austerity was one of, if not the, BEST British locomotive designs of all time. Not the fastest or the best looking or the most innovative, but in terms of their fitness for the purpose they were designed for, I don't think any other loco can match them. A lot of people think they are rather dull because there are so many still around on heritage lines; but that illustrates the point, so many survived in use into the 1970 and 1980s because they were just so good at doing what was needed! They were built to fill a specific need and they did so extremely well. Efficient, cheap to build, easy to fire and drive and with masses of pulling power. When these were introduced, coal was handled in 20 tonne wagons - but by the time Austerities finished they were handling trains of 47 tonne (HAA) coal wagons with ease. They have as much adhesive weight, and as much pulling power, as a "black five" or a GW 4-6-0 - but of course, could only do so at low speed due to the much smaller boiler. Hunslet really knew what they were doing as a company - as evidenced by all the competitors they absorbed over the years - and this was arguably the pinnacle of their steam work. Here's a thing to consider; Hunslet had been building diesels for TEN YEARS before they finished building Austerities, but users still wanted to buy new Austerities throughout that time as they were cheaper to run! If you want to see and hear the spectacular sight of an Austerity working hard, go down to the Kent and East Sussex railway when they are running one of theirs. Stand at Tenterden station and listen and watch as one of these hauls six coaches up the two miles of 1-in-40 bank, making a great sound but clearly totally in charge of the job they were designed for - hauling heavy loads up steep gradients at low speed. I have not personally fired or driven one, but crews I know mostly say that they are dead easy to work, compared to many other engines of similar size (such as the USA tanks mentioned in the comments above). The only complaint is the poor access to the inside con-rod big ends for maintenance. The arguments for and against inside or outside cylinders are interesting but I suspect in practice Hunslet stuck to inside cylinders because that was their usual practice, and the arguments in favour were just trotted out to support their choice! I'm sure outside cylinders would have been possible (as on the USA tank that was widely used in the UK by the Southern) and would definitely make maintenance easier - but why change what you know how to do? The Austerity tank engine deserves much more recognition as a true British icon of steam, much under-appreciated.
It would have had covers originally, someome probably took them off in preservation and they've gone missing. They're not exactly the most securely attached parts as you need to get the cover off easily to replace a broken glass easily. Makes them prime bits to go missing into peoples collections at home.
Juno reminds me of a Tank Engine we have in the train world Railway Museum. the type 51 Belgium Tank Engine. It's an 0-6-0 Tank Engine like the austerity tank engines but instead of having a saddle tank it is a pannier with double frames since the wheels are all nice and hidden but the connecting rods are outside ( you'll understand if you find a photo of it). They were quite impressive tank engines similar to the austerities but unlike them they didn't just go through one War they went through two Wars! They were built from 1866 to 1905 To the design of Alfred Belpaire (The same man who developed the Belpaire firebox) And a grand total of 307 of them were built. They were so good that there were even examples sent over to China. but unlike the austerities they were very much modified over time. When the first batch of these engines were brought out they did not have cabs attached to them but they were later added. their funnels also change from square ones to round fin ones as well. many are designed changes for also implemented but I don't really know what once specifically. but what is most impressive about these engines and which is something not even the austerities can claim is that they worked for the Belgium state railways for 95 years! and that was only for the Belgium state railways they also served in industrial service so some of them could have a service life of at least a hundred years or more! but out of all of these amazing engines that were built only one survives. NMBS number 1152 which is currently being displayed in the museum train world and it's probably in the most original condition it can be since I do believe some modifications were done over time. but it does still have the original chimney attached to it. But despite me hyping up this engine I want to clarify that I do think that the austerities were much better than the 51s. simply because steam engines have been developed a little bit more over time and they were able to implement those changes into the austerities and thus they became a much more efficient design of Tank Engine than the 51s. but if you're interested in seeing the 51 just calm down to Belgium and go to train World Museum! you can literally take the train there from the airport! but before you do that please check out the National Railway Museum and its associated museums! I guarantee you will not regret it!
There is a video series on TH-cam called Astley Green and Walkden Railway and the locomotives used at that colliery were these, you can tell they were using them up to their limits and I has quite few steep gradients so it's fascinating watching the locomotives wheel slip and chug hard to get up the gradients.
The Mighty Army Austerity - although Juno doesn't qualify for a Veteran's badge! The Isle of Wight Steam Railway also own WD192 Waggoner and WD198 Royal Engineer, both are ideal and hard working mainstays of the fleet.
Actually, something I find pretty funny is that some steam engines in Belgium have both a lever and a screw reverser that seem to work together. I've absolutely no idea how that works but it is interesting.
The SSN in Rotterdam has an Austerity tank engine in their fleet since 2010. This one came to the Netherlands in 1945 and was in ownership of the Dutch State Railway (NS) until 1953 (numbered in the class 8800). After 1953, she was brought to the coal mines in the south of the Netherlands and worked their until the closure of the coal mines in 1974. In 1981, when the engine shed of the coal mine would be demolished, they discovered their was an engine still in the shed. And after a lightning fast action of the SSN, the engine was saved from the cutter torch and brought to Rotterdam by rail. She received a new boiler in 1991 and was fired up for the first time in 2010
Well for someone who works on a heritage railway that has an austerity, I can see how good these tank engines were, one my reasoning is when in cab that got great visibility when looking at front (great for shunting) and the cab has plenty of room to operate the loco with a 4 man crew.
Brilliant video, where would heritage railways be without the Hunslet austerity? A classic British stop-gap that proved way better than it's designers ever intended..
Could you do a comparison between the Jinty and these locos, it would be good to know what was not liked on the LMS design and how these locos where better.
The Austerity locos were evolved from two small batches of other 18" tank locos (48150 and 50550) which were rugged machines that some have survived and still work today.
This takes me back. I learnt to fire on Strathspey Railway's Austerity, no. 60. If I remember, you could stand on the handbrake to get through the cab roof.
Allow a complete day, it is so full of facinating objects (not just engines), information, sights and sounds that your feet will need a rest before your head! Oh, and there is a good cafe there too. Disclaimer: I am not connected to the museum, I go there every time I am in York.
Fun fact, cant remember where i saw it (besides "on youtube") But there is a tiny yard in africa that still uses a few of these. They run them on compressed air provided by the factory the yard serves. They have enough air to move for about 10-20 minutes but the yard is tiny and they only move a couple cars at a time.
I think you could have talked about the short wheelbase, which was useful for tighter radius curves. It has a round top firebox, which can use the saddletank, which is cheaper to build than a more expensive Belpaire design, which although is less efficient is cheaper. The GW used Belpaire fireboxes on their 0-6-0 tanks but used pannier tanks to give access to the valve gear. The Jinty had side tanks, because it is more difficult to fit a saddle tank on a Belpaire shape.
There was a tank engine that looked very similar that worked the British Celanese sidings in Derby several decades ago. You could occasionally see it from the mainline as you passed. Lasted well into the diesel era. Unfortunately even the works has now gone. The silver lining is that the Spondon pong has gone with it😊
Is there any chance of bringing an a3 back from the dead has a replica it would be awesome to see? And is there any chance that Juno will operate again?
Beautiful to see, they was once one of those it quite a state in a park in Leamington spa during the 80s as a kid I loved climbing in & out & hiding in the firebox 😁
I dunno about it being the ultimate tank engine full stop… but I reckon it certainly would fit that title when talking about British standard gauge, I do like the look of Juno, truly a versatile design made to “Work and work only” one might say… (And, the reason why I say it’s only the ultimate British standard gauge tank engine is because I’m partial to a certain 3ft 6in 4-6-4 DD from the WAGR…)
I'll have to look it out, there are a couple of publications on Austerities that I read years ago, plus Don Townsley's history of Hunslet. Might be in any of those.
Funny that these things the torment to be built on wartime economies end up being the best engines imaginable. Just look at the German Kriegslok as well for example!
The 1980's places like Bold, Bickershaw & Cadley Hill Collieries. They were reckoned to last only 2 years as all the facilities in Europe for maintenance and repair were trashed after the war. They were thrashed unmercifully at the mines. One is alleged to have gone ice skating at Mountain Ash at the insistence of the Surface Superintendant. It did not end well. Their long-life at the mines is because the fuel was free. back the loco under the screening plant. Someone pulls a lever and another 2 tons fills the bunker before you can stop coughing.... The post-war under-feed stoker and the mods in the firebox & smokebox... I don't think there is one example with the full system in working order. There is 'WHELDALE', but that was a test-bed for another stoker system. One wonders what was Hunslet's motive there. BTW 'JUNO' is stock. I saw one of it's predecessors a 50550 class Hunslet 2412 of 1942 in the dead-line at Embsay. As that was a colliery engine it had acquired the inverted flower-pot chimney associated with the Kylepor exhaust.
Interesting. Although Stewarts and Lloyds was not East Midlands based. It was a national company. Stewarts was Scottish, Lloyds was Birmingham. They meerged in 1903, and gradually took over many other interestd, one of which was the Corby operation. So if anything, West Midlands based, but definitely not East Midlands.
It seems to me that outside cylinders and valve gear would be much easier to maintain, especially in wartime conditions. As was chosen by the USA tanks for the same applications. Even the GWR went to this arrangement for its last shunting engines.
Safety might have been a factor, but inside cylinders were such an ingrained part of loco design in Britain that it might just have been tradition. Plus tight loading gauges in yards.
@@cncshrops It's the loading gauge that dictates the tradition. You can't strap big cylinders on the side of a locomotive in the UK, because there isn't space. American locomotives are much bigger overall, so there's no need to put the cylinders on the inside, even on a shunter.
I guess it's your schtick (no pun intended) but, please, get rid of the selfie stick. Imagine you're watching one of these for the first time, which is what I'm doing. For the whole of the "Wartime Origines" chapter, we're either watching historical footage, or we're watching professional-quality footage of a man talking and filming himself with a selfie stick. The selfie-stick footage isn't used, so it shouldn't have been shot: it was just a distraction to the presenter and the viewer. In the following section, at 2:43, we're looking through a professional-quality, stabilized camera, but then you cut to the same view shot through the phone on the selfie stick, at massively lower quality. It's distorted because it's a wide-angle lens pushed close to the subject. The contrast is poor. It's wobbling all over the place, because the presenter can't decide if the stick is a camera or a pointer. And all this time, you have a better camera pointing in the same direction, being operated by somebody who's doing a better job of filming because they're not also trying to do other things. I agree that the shot at 3:07 is a good use of the selfie stick, but that could easily have been done with the standard camera, too. And, by 3:39, that's absolutely necessary, because the phone camera is struggling badly: we can't see a thing in there, because that little camera can't cope with the low light. And the same continues through the video. The phone footage serves no purpose, except for being the series' gimmick: objectively, it's just a low-quality, wobblier version of the high-quality, stablized video you're getting from the dedicated camera.
To shunt a location means to perform the shunting duties there. Completely normal usage. Just like, for example, saying that a pop star "played Wembley Arena". Adding "at" would also be correct, but isn't needed. As you say, the locomotive lacks the power to move the actual depot, so there's no ambiguity in omitting "at".
o am@@beeble2003 By your logic, there's no need for prepositions at all. The afct that we're following the American abomination of neglecting both prepositions and adverbs does not make for a better, richer language but a poorer, coarser one.
"To build it cheaply, to build it simply..." yet shown immediately after is a clip of a guy taking a grinder or Dremel or whatever to a coupling rod to give it a fancy bevel. * Throws hands up in the air in frustration with notes and other papers getting thrown everywhere. * I will never understand the British.
Nice smooth curves like that are really important for stress relief. The forces on those coupling rods are very high and a rough forging would have imperfections that concentrate stress and can cause crack propagation.
Good to see Juno looking smart and tidy after all these years, as I spent my 21st birthday on her! I almost bought her after her retirement, but had nowhere to keep her. I was pleased to see her a couple of years ago at Shildon and was rather sad to see her looking looking somewhat tired and worn. Thanks for bringing back some very fond memories!
Sadly this is likely impossible due to poor record keeping along the way, or maybe more accurately poor record preservation, but it would be really interesting to go through the books and work out how much this type of locomotive has put into preservation vs what it has demanded in return.
So many railways in early preservqtiom has these and still do as a rugged, easy to maintain and relatively inexpensive form of motive power and I genuinely believe we wouldn't have half the big locos operating or restored that we have seen without these and possibly a few other industrial types keeping the show going. We get all sentimental about big locos, these get much much less love and respect than they truly deserve.
Very useful loco, in The Netherlands 27 of them were bought by NS to operate at marshalling yards and depots.
Their live was rather short because steam ceased to operate entirely at NS in 1957.
5 of them went to a colliery at the very south end of The Netherlands, the Laura & Vereeniging in Eygelshoven. One went to a sugar factory in Roosendaal.
Of those used in industry in total 4 were preserved initially, but one was already scrapped in 1979 while in preservation due to the bad state it was in.
Of the other 3, NS numbers 8811, 8812 and 8826, no. 8812 was sold to the Ribble steam railway in the UK.
Of the other two only 8811 is in operational condition by now at SSN in Rotterdam.
WD 75115, NS 8826 and finally LV14 at the ZLSM in Simpelveld is a long term restoration project which is currently on hold.
As LV14 this locomotive was in use at the colliery L&V from 1953 until 1975, she was one of the two last steam locomotives in The Netherlands in industrial use.
At the ZLSM she is pretty close to the site where she once operated, the end station of the preserved railway is only 2 kilometers away from where the colliery was.
What is ns because isn't it also Norfolk Southern in the USA
@@pollyjackson-dzacchaeus1342 In the context of Dutch railways, NS stands for “Nederlandse Spoorwegen”, which translates to “Dutch Railways”. They’re owned by the Dutch federal government.
@@stampycatfan01lol ty
@@pollyjackson-dzacchaeus1342 It's Nederlandse Spoorwegen which translates as Dutch Railways, it was the former in 1924 found nationalised railway company which since 1995 operates as a private venture under the same name.
I would like to argue that the Hunslet Austerity was one of, if not the, BEST British locomotive designs of all time. Not the fastest or the best looking or the most innovative, but in terms of their fitness for the purpose they were designed for, I don't think any other loco can match them. A lot of people think they are rather dull because there are so many still around on heritage lines; but that illustrates the point, so many survived in use into the 1970 and 1980s because they were just so good at doing what was needed! They were built to fill a specific need and they did so extremely well. Efficient, cheap to build, easy to fire and drive and with masses of pulling power. When these were introduced, coal was handled in 20 tonne wagons - but by the time Austerities finished they were handling trains of 47 tonne (HAA) coal wagons with ease. They have as much adhesive weight, and as much pulling power, as a "black five" or a GW 4-6-0 - but of course, could only do so at low speed due to the much smaller boiler.
Hunslet really knew what they were doing as a company - as evidenced by all the competitors they absorbed over the years - and this was arguably the pinnacle of their steam work. Here's a thing to consider; Hunslet had been building diesels for TEN YEARS before they finished building Austerities, but users still wanted to buy new Austerities throughout that time as they were cheaper to run!
If you want to see and hear the spectacular sight of an Austerity working hard, go down to the Kent and East Sussex railway when they are running one of theirs. Stand at Tenterden station and listen and watch as one of these hauls six coaches up the two miles of 1-in-40 bank, making a great sound but clearly totally in charge of the job they were designed for - hauling heavy loads up steep gradients at low speed.
I have not personally fired or driven one, but crews I know mostly say that they are dead easy to work, compared to many other engines of similar size (such as the USA tanks mentioned in the comments above). The only complaint is the poor access to the inside con-rod big ends for maintenance. The arguments for and against inside or outside cylinders are interesting but I suspect in practice Hunslet stuck to inside cylinders because that was their usual practice, and the arguments in favour were just trotted out to support their choice! I'm sure outside cylinders would have been possible (as on the USA tank that was widely used in the UK by the Southern) and would definitely make maintenance easier - but why change what you know how to do?
The Austerity tank engine deserves much more recognition as a true British icon of steam, much under-appreciated.
Interesting that the water glass is unguarded, indeed one is broken.
It looked a bit fragile.
It would have had covers originally, someome probably took them off in preservation and they've gone missing.
They're not exactly the most securely attached parts as you need to get the cover off easily to replace a broken glass easily. Makes them prime bits to go missing into peoples collections at home.
Juno reminds me of a Tank Engine we have in the train world Railway Museum. the type 51 Belgium Tank Engine. It's an 0-6-0 Tank Engine like the austerity tank engines but instead of having a saddle tank it is a pannier with double frames since the wheels are all nice and hidden but the connecting rods are outside ( you'll understand if you find a photo of it).
They were quite impressive tank engines similar to the austerities but unlike them they didn't just go through one War they went through two Wars!
They were built from 1866 to 1905 To the design of Alfred Belpaire (The same man who developed the Belpaire firebox) And a grand total of 307 of them were built.
They were so good that there were even examples sent over to China.
but unlike the austerities they were very much modified over time. When the first batch of these engines were brought out they did not have cabs attached to them but they were later added. their funnels also change from square ones to round fin ones as well. many are designed changes for also implemented but I don't really know what once specifically.
but what is most impressive about these engines and which is something not even the austerities can claim is that they worked for the Belgium state railways for 95 years! and that was only for the Belgium state railways they also served in industrial service so some of them could have a service life of at least a hundred years or more!
but out of all of these amazing engines that were built only one survives.
NMBS number 1152 which is currently being displayed in the museum train world and it's probably in the most original condition it can be since I do believe some modifications were done over time. but it does still have the original chimney attached to it.
But despite me hyping up this engine I want to clarify that I do think that the austerities were much better than the 51s. simply because steam engines have been developed a little bit more over time and they were able to implement those changes into the austerities and thus they became a much more efficient design of Tank Engine than the 51s.
but if you're interested in seeing the 51 just calm down to Belgium and go to train World Museum! you can literally take the train there from the airport! but before you do that please check out the National Railway Museum and its associated museums! I guarantee you will not regret it!
There is a video series on TH-cam called Astley Green and Walkden Railway and the locomotives used at that colliery were these, you can tell they were using them up to their limits and I has quite few steep gradients so it's fascinating watching the locomotives wheel slip and chug hard to get up the gradients.
The Mighty Army Austerity - although Juno doesn't qualify for a Veteran's badge! The Isle of Wight Steam Railway also own WD192 Waggoner and WD198 Royal Engineer, both are ideal and hard working mainstays of the fleet.
Was hauled by Waggoner today.
They are certainly mainstays of the fleet, lovely locos to see running and work on.
Actually, something I find pretty funny is that some steam engines in Belgium have both a lever and a screw reverser that seem to work together. I've absolutely no idea how that works but it is interesting.
Hmm, not heard of that. Maybe it was a setup that allowed the cut off to be set by screw while the lever could be used independently as a reverser.
@@cncshrops I could honestly not tell you. you're just going to have to come to the Railway Museum trainworld and find out for yourselves.
The SSN in Rotterdam has an Austerity tank engine in their fleet since 2010. This one came to the Netherlands in 1945 and was in ownership of the Dutch State Railway (NS) until 1953 (numbered in the class 8800).
After 1953, she was brought to the coal mines in the south of the Netherlands and worked their until the closure of the coal mines in 1974.
In 1981, when the engine shed of the coal mine would be demolished, they discovered their was an engine still in the shed. And after a lightning fast action of the SSN, the engine was saved from the cutter torch and brought to Rotterdam by rail. She received a new boiler in 1991 and was fired up for the first time in 2010
I’d be interested to see a curator with a camera on a Great Eastern Railway locomotive, maybe the Buckjumper or G58.
Well for someone who works on a heritage railway that has an austerity, I can see how good these tank engines were, one my reasoning is when in cab that got great visibility when looking at front (great for shunting) and the cab has plenty of room to operate the loco with a 4 man crew.
Brilliant video, where would heritage railways be without the Hunslet austerity? A classic British stop-gap that proved way better than it's designers ever intended..
Could you do a comparison between the Jinty and these locos, it would be good to know what was not liked on the LMS design and how these locos where better.
Could u do a curator with a camera of a class 52 western
Beautiful engine.
I had the joy of helping to restore No 7 & No. 19 at Bo'ness SRPS. Would love to be able to help out now.
Always love 😍 these Curator with a camera 📸 videos... 👍🏻
So entertaining, interesting and fascinating..
Very Educational... 👍🏻 👍🏻 😃 😁 😎
The Austerity locos were evolved from two small batches of other 18" tank locos (48150 and 50550) which were rugged machines that some have survived and still work today.
I love these locos, they are quite good and reliable being built in Leeds also
Very interesting, thankyou , Mr Curator!
Love those Austerity locos they look the business. Great video another place to visit.😂
Great job, another excellent video
This takes me back. I learnt to fire on Strathspey Railway's Austerity, no. 60. If I remember, you could stand on the handbrake to get through the cab roof.
I really want to visit the museum when I'm coming over to the UK next time. It's such an interesting place.
Allow a complete day, it is so full of facinating objects (not just engines), information, sights and sounds that your feet will need a rest before your head! Oh, and there is a good cafe there too. Disclaimer: I am not connected to the museum, I go there every time I am in York.
But this is at Shildon, not York!@@kenhelix4494
Juno, I learnt a few things in this video!
Can you do the class 20 next on curator with the camera
Nice video, Anthony.
Austarities are nice go anywhere, do anything locomotives.
But I still do prefer the S100.
Awesome video
Fun fact, cant remember where i saw it (besides "on youtube") But there is a tiny yard in africa that still uses a few of these. They run them on compressed air provided by the factory the yard serves. They have enough air to move for about 10-20 minutes but the yard is tiny and they only move a couple cars at a time.
I think you could have talked about the short wheelbase, which was useful for tighter radius curves. It has a round top firebox, which can use the saddletank, which is cheaper to build than a more expensive Belpaire design, which although is less efficient is cheaper. The GW used Belpaire fireboxes on their 0-6-0 tanks but used pannier tanks to give access to the valve gear. The Jinty had side tanks, because it is more difficult to fit a saddle tank on a Belpaire shape.
Simple cost effective and easy to maintain has well being able to do the job it was made for. Great machine.
A designed lifespan of 2 years vs how longer many were in service shows these were, indeed, bearing of the most absoluteness of all units
What an amazing age - they tried built something disposable and they couldn't
Really interesting history lesson
Remember these in corby steelworks last used in 1973
On the Kent and East Sussex railway they have an old British Rail coal tank engine that could pull a 1000 tons of coal.
There is one on display at the Ribble Steam Railway & Museum in Preston, and another in running condition (currently being restored?)
There are 70 of them in preservation -- almost everyone has one! 🙂
You talked about all of the controls except for the two main ones - the regulator and the engine brake!
That may have been edited out. I do know what I'm talking about most of the time!
There was a tank engine that looked very similar that worked the British Celanese sidings in Derby several decades ago. You could occasionally see it from the mainline as you passed. Lasted well into the diesel era. Unfortunately even the works has now gone. The silver lining is that the Spondon pong has gone with it😊
Is there any chance of bringing an a3 back from the dead has a replica it would be awesome to see? And is there any chance that Juno will operate again?
Did these have a high percentage of fabricated parts to replace machined castings as did the other austerity locomotives?
I wonder what the condition of the NRM own austerity is. King facial of Egypt is its name if recall
12:32 The urge to wipe my finger along that is very large. Why is it so dusty!
Beautiful to see, they was once one of those it quite a state in a park in Leamington spa during the 80s as a kid I loved climbing in & out & hiding in the firebox 😁
I'm from Leamington and remember it arriving. It was there until around 1996 and is now at Cefn Coed in South Wales
Hey, thanks I didn’t know that
I was just here a week ago 👍
The design wasn't new but a development of earlier Hunslet designs.
I dunno about it being the ultimate tank engine full stop… but I reckon it certainly would fit that title when talking about British standard gauge,
I do like the look of Juno, truly a versatile design made to “Work and work only” one might say…
(And, the reason why I say it’s only the ultimate British standard gauge tank engine is because I’m partial to a certain 3ft 6in 4-6-4 DD from the WAGR…)
There's also the Uintah 2-6-6-2T tank engines - very purpose built, very effective.
Interesting.
What's the reference for the 'Design life of two years ' statement?
I'll have to look it out, there are a couple of publications on Austerities that I read years ago, plus Don Townsley's history of Hunslet. Might be in any of those.
wait, how many of these austerities are in the ex british and british colonies?
I like the train
Funny that these things the torment to be built on wartime economies end up being the best engines imaginable. Just look at the German Kriegslok as well for example!
The 1980's places like Bold, Bickershaw & Cadley Hill Collieries. They were reckoned to last only 2 years as all the facilities in Europe for maintenance and repair were trashed after the war.
They were thrashed unmercifully at the mines. One is alleged to have gone ice skating at Mountain Ash at the insistence of the Surface Superintendant. It did not end well.
Their long-life at the mines is because the fuel was free. back the loco under the screening plant. Someone pulls a lever and another 2 tons fills the bunker before you can stop coughing....
The post-war under-feed stoker and the mods in the firebox & smokebox... I don't think there is one example with the full system in working order.
There is 'WHELDALE', but that was a test-bed for another stoker system. One wonders what was Hunslet's motive there.
BTW 'JUNO' is stock.
I saw one of it's predecessors a 50550 class Hunslet 2412 of 1942 in the dead-line at Embsay. As that was a colliery engine it had acquired the inverted flower-pot chimney associated with the Kylepor exhaust.
Juno was mad
He he knew he’d been had
So he shot in the sun with a gun
Shot at the sun with a gun
Shot at his Wiley one, his only friend.
Interesting. Although Stewarts and Lloyds was not East Midlands based. It was a national company. Stewarts was Scottish, Lloyds was Birmingham. They meerged in 1903, and gradually took over many other interestd, one of which was the Corby operation. So if anything, West Midlands based, but definitely not East Midlands.
Literally just cleaned a austerity earlier this day😂
The ultimate tank engine has to be the FCAB 2-8-0 + 0-8-2 Kitson Meyers🤔
Notorious for their poor coal and water consumption
Are you joking? I have it on good account that they'll steam with a candle in the firebox!
Hi
Stewart
&
Llyods
Have you retired?
No, more on the way!
Stop it ,, we all know Thomas is the ultimate tank engine
LB&SCR E2 ?
I think not 😂
Shunting lever
Ground floor
Typical model of lever
The reason this engine exists proves that the only way to stop a steam engine is to literally drop a bomb on it
Wilbert & 16 were absolute units.
:0
G
It seems to me that outside cylinders and valve gear would be much easier to maintain, especially in wartime conditions.
As was chosen by the USA tanks for the same applications. Even the GWR went to this arrangement for its last shunting engines.
Wartime conditions!
During blackouts external motion constitutes a hazard.
Also, shunting/switching operations;therefore, less wear and tear.
Safety might have been a factor, but inside cylinders were such an ingrained part of loco design in Britain that it might just have been tradition. Plus tight loading gauges in yards.
@@cncshrops It's the loading gauge that dictates the tradition. You can't strap big cylinders on the side of a locomotive in the UK, because there isn't space. American locomotives are much bigger overall, so there's no need to put the cylinders on the inside, even on a shunter.
@@beeble2003 the USA tanks were built for tighter loading gauges and used successfully by the Southern Railway and the the southern region.
I guess it's your schtick (no pun intended) but, please, get rid of the selfie stick. Imagine you're watching one of these for the first time, which is what I'm doing.
For the whole of the "Wartime Origines" chapter, we're either watching historical footage, or we're watching professional-quality footage of a man talking and filming himself with a selfie stick. The selfie-stick footage isn't used, so it shouldn't have been shot: it was just a distraction to the presenter and the viewer.
In the following section, at 2:43, we're looking through a professional-quality, stabilized camera, but then you cut to the same view shot through the phone on the selfie stick, at massively lower quality. It's distorted because it's a wide-angle lens pushed close to the subject. The contrast is poor. It's wobbling all over the place, because the presenter can't decide if the stick is a camera or a pointer. And all this time, you have a better camera pointing in the same direction, being operated by somebody who's doing a better job of filming because they're not also trying to do other things. I agree that the shot at 3:07 is a good use of the selfie stick, but that could easily have been done with the standard camera, too. And, by 3:39, that's absolutely necessary, because the phone camera is struggling badly: we can't see a thing in there, because that little camera can't cope with the low light.
And the same continues through the video. The phone footage serves no purpose, except for being the series' gimmick: objectively, it's just a low-quality, wobblier version of the high-quality, stablized video you're getting from the dedicated camera.
Surely little engines shunt *at* depots; they lack the power to shunt entire depots around the place all by themselves.
That's what you think...
@@musclecat1005 Show me the video!
@@thomasm1964 it is a power class of 4f.
To shunt a location means to perform the shunting duties there. Completely normal usage. Just like, for example, saying that a pop star "played Wembley Arena". Adding "at" would also be correct, but isn't needed. As you say, the locomotive lacks the power to move the actual depot, so there's no ambiguity in omitting "at".
o am@@beeble2003 By your logic, there's no need for prepositions at all. The afct that we're following the American abomination of neglecting both prepositions and adverbs does not make for a better, richer language but a poorer, coarser one.
Those ceiling
These ceilings
They dont look similar
Oil
Tubes
Stone quarry
Quarrying
Wear and tear
Pipes
Lever
Wheels
Tyres
Tyne
Red horses
"To build it cheaply, to build it simply..." yet shown immediately after is a clip of a guy taking a grinder or Dremel or whatever to a coupling rod to give it a fancy bevel.
* Throws hands up in the air in frustration with notes and other papers getting thrown everywhere. * I will never understand the British.
Some of those clips including that one were definitely not of Austerity locos being built, a few looked like LMS publicity films
Nice smooth curves like that are really important for stress relief. The forces on those coupling rods are very high and a rough forging would have imperfections that concentrate stress and can cause crack propagation.
Small but mighty?
Yes!
Mighty indeed: British Railways graded them as 4Fs, theoretically making them as useful on freight as locomotives twice their size!
@@FlyingScott Funny enough i not long ago read up on that.