User talk:Hyjack7

London and Birmingham Railway

Hi Hyjack7 - Thank-you for your contribution to the London and Birmingham Railway article. You added a reference to 'History of the Railway between London and Birmingham' (1839) by Peter Lecount. I can find no reference to this work in the British Library catalogue, but I can find the 'History of the Railway connecting London and Birmingham'. Is the title you have given correct? Also, do you have a page number for the quote given please? Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Crosbiesmith. I noticed I'd made a mistake in the title of Lecount's book and made the correction last night. The publisher was Simpkin, Marshall & Co, and Charles Tilt, 86 Fleet Street [London]. The bit I quoted is on p48. This restriction on locomotives working south of Camden was apparently added to the Act at the instance of Lord Southampton, who feared his land near Euston would decrease in value - but I didn't want to wander so far off the subject. The story that rope haulage was used because of inadequate locomotives appears in lots of old or lightly researched books (no doubt copied from each other) and I was sorry to see it reappear in Wikipedia. Hope this is OK. Hyjack7 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that. I copied the comment here because I had inadvertently put it on your user page. Thanks for the additional detail. It's always good to provide sufficient detail to allow a reference to be checked without any additional searching. Actually, I appreciate your supplying a verbatim quote from the book as that makes it easy to track down with Google books. Unfortunately, on this occasion it was unavailable, although his other books are. It's a pity as I would like to read that. The detail about Southampton is also intriguing. Maybe it could be worked into the Euston station article? Out of curiosity, where did you find the book - do you have access to a research library? Just ignore that question if you find it nosey. Thanks for you interesting contributions. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I have a copy of Lecount's book, bound in with Thomas Roscoe's 'The London and Birmingham Railway' which was published by Charles Tilt (not Lilt, as given in the refs at the foot of the Wiki page - I tried to correct these but can't see a way to do it). I'll have a look at 'Euston' as you suggest, and see what I can do, but meanwhile I want to try some additions to the 'London & North Western Railway' page. Some strange omissions and mistakes there! This could become addictive.Hyjack7 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Duke

What's your source for the 1817 date of the The Duke? Not just your own book, but presumably you've found something older in some dusty records office somewhere? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

On the same subject, what are your thoughts on Prof Paxton's opinion that increased rail breakages from 1816 indicate the loco arriving then? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks for clearing away The Red Pen of Doom's annoying efforts. I hope he doesn't reappear; trying to set out something (hopefully) useful and accurate is tricky enough without having a daily battle with this type of nonsense; life's too short and I've other things to do.

The date of The Duke is discussed in our book, and 1817 (or later?) seems more likely than 1816, which comes from a rather casual remark in the Statistical Account of Ayrshire written by three church ministers and published in 1845. Smiles says 1817; he was in contact with Robert Stephenson and would presumably have given an earlier date if he could. A French traveller Charles Dupin visited the K & T railway in mid-1817 and makes no mention of the locomotive in his published account. That the engine had been and gone before then seems unlikely; it was certainly in action in 1821 when it was complained about for setting fire to crops beside the line.

Paxton has made much of the K & T accounts which show a big spending on rails in 1816-7, but these accounts do not show an increase, because records of expenditure before July 1816 have not survived; rails for a branch opened in 1818 might be the reason for this outlay. In any case the spending on rails & castings increased significantly in 1823 to a peak in 1824-5. That an 1816 date for the arrival of the locomotive can be deduced from these accounts seems to me to be wishful thinking.Hyjack7 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

B. Hick & Sons

Hi, thanks for the last edit - please pass me the page ref(s) from Cooke as the passage was derived from the Crimean Railway page? Then I can add the missing citation. Many thanks.81.149.141.199 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem! The sale of the two engines (Nos 13 and 50, L&NWR Southern Division) was approved by the L&NWR Exec Committee on 14th Sept 1855, and they are included in Peto, Brassey & Betts' account dated November 1855. These are on pp114 & 115 in Brian Cooke's 'The Grand Crimean Central Railway' second edition, 1997.Hyjack7 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

All done, I am guessing 13 and 50 were former London & Birmingham Railway locos. Was McConnell on the LNWR Exec Committee?80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, No 13 was delivered in April 1838, No 50 in January 1840, both to the London & Birmingham Railway. They were 2-2-0 Bury-type passenger engines with 5ft 6ins dia. driving wheels, enlarged to 5ft 9ins by the time of their sale for the Crimean Railway. They probably worked there as stationary winding engines on an incline. The L&NWR Exec Committee was a group of directors, to which McConnell as Loco Supt had to report. In reply to an enquiry from the Secretary, on 4th Sept. 1855 he proposed selling Nos 13 and 50.Hyjack7 (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Any idea what happened to these locos ultimately - scrap yard, Russian museum or perhaps still there?!80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole Crimean railway (presumably including five locomotives) was sold to Turkey, everything had been shipped out of Balaklava by early July 1856 (Cooke, 1997, p142). Some of the rails have recently been identified as having gone to the Danube & Black Sea Railway in (present-day) Romania, and the boiler of one of the other locomotives was seen in Constantinople in 1869, but what happened to the two Hick engines is - so far - a mystery.Hyjack7 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hyjack7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hyjack7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)