L&YR Class 26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The L&YR Class 26 was a class of 20 2-6-2T passenger steam locomotives of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway designed by Henry Hoy and introduced in 1903. Most passed to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) at the grouping in 1923 though they were withdrawn soon afterwards with none remaining in service after 1926.[1]
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:134 0944 515 174607 609
-
Year 1 phonics screening check training video
-
Jolly Phonics Songs in correct order! (Letters and Sounds) BEYC International School in Bangkok.mov
-
How to teach a child to read: Letter Sounds
Transcription
Y, e, d, yed. The child sounds out the letters and then correctly blends them to the non-word yed. Y, a, d, yade. She uses the wrong sound value for the vowel letter. Yed. Children do not have to sound out the letters before saying the word or non-word. Emp. E-m-p. There is a pause between each letter being sounded out and therefore the non-word has not been blended sufficiently. Empt. The child has added an extra sound to the non-word. Emp. Sheb. Sh, e, p, ship. The child has confused the letter B with P and then incorrectly pronounced a real word, ship. Sh-eb. The child has elongated the initial phoneme but given an acceptable blend. Sh-e... Sh, e, p. Sh, e, b. Sheb. The child make several attempts to sound out the letters but eventually blends correctly. M, u, z, z, muzz. M, o, z, z, mozz. The child has pronounced the U with her accent. R, oo, p, t, roo-p-t. Though the child has sounded out the phonemes, he has not fully blended the non-word and has left a gap between the final two phonemes. Roo-pt, roopt. The child has self-corrected. You should always score the final attempt made by the child even where they end with an incorrect response and a previous attempt has been correct. R, oo, p, t, roops. The child sounds out correctly but then blends to the incorrect non-word, roops. Path. The child uses the long vowel sound 'ar' which is within her accent. P, a, th, path. This child uses the short vowel sound 'a' which is within her accent. P, a, th, pash. This child sounds out correctly but then confuses the digraph and pronounces pash instead of path. B, a, th, bath. This child uses the long 'ar' vowel in bath. Children can use any acceptable regional pronunciation even if it's not within their usual accent. Bath. B, atch, bath, bath. This child initially reads the wrong word and then self-corrects and repeats herself. B, a, th, bath. The child sounds out b, a, th, and then blends to bath which often occurs in six-year-old speech and is a feature of a number of accents. S, t, art, star. The child sounds out s, t, art, then reads star with no plural. Stars. The child's articulation of the S phoneme does not detract from her correct response. Starts. The child has substituted the visually similar real word start for the printed word stars. Shelf. Sheef. In blending the child has omitted the sound for the letter L and produced the name of the vowel letter E rather than its sound. Sh, e, l, f, shelf. Doy. D, o, y, doy. Although she gives a sound value to the letter Y when initially sounding out, she correctly pronounces doy with the oy sound for the OY digraph. D, o, y, dog. The child sounds out each individual letter and then reads a visually similar real word, dog. Vead. The child reads a regular pronunciation of the EA digraph as ee. Yed, ved, ved. He initially pronounces the V as yh but immediately self-corrects using the acceptable alternative eh sound for the EA digraph. Vead. Veyed. Although alternative pronunciations of digraphs are allowed in non-words, this child uses the ay sound which is not a plausible regular pronunciation for the EA digraph. V, e, a, d, vad. The child sounds out each letter and then selects just one vowel sound 'a' which is incorrect. Jound. The child correctly uses ow for the OU digraph. J, o, u, n, d, jond. The child gives the wrong sound value 'o' for the OU digraph. Splook. The child gives the wrong sound value 'oo' for the vowel letter O. Sp, l, oo... spoke. After sounding out, he reduces the cluster to 'sp' and uses the letter name O instead of the sound 'oh' to give the real word, spoke. Splog. S, p, l, ok, splok. Scrop. The child uses the short 'o' sound and therefore doesn't recognise and pronounce the split digraph O consonant E. Scrope. Sc, r, o, p, e, scropee. The child sounds out every letter and then gives the final E a phoneme value rather than recognising the split digraph O consonant E. Blow. Bl-ow, blow. The child initially pronounces the word to rhyme with cow but recognises that this is not a real word and self-corrects to blow. B, l, ow, bl-ow. The child sounds out b, l, ow, then blends to bl-ow, thus producing a non-word. Ow is an alternative pronunciation for the OW digraph but not in this word. P, i, n, e, pine. Pin. The child uses the short 'ih' sound instead of recognising the split digraph I consonant E. Thrill. The vowel sound is within the child's accent. Th, r, ill, frill. The child correctly sounds out the digraph but then blends using fr instead of thr. This is a common feature of six-year-old speech which also features in a number of accents. Baker. Bak, bak-er. Although plausible, the child has not pronounced the real word correctly. P, l, a, s, t, i, c, sploik. The child sounds out each letter but is unable to blend successfully across the two syllables. P, l, a, s, t, i c, plastic. Plastic. Though she sub-vocalises for a long time, she does get there and blends all the sounds to the correct word.
Design and construction
Hoy intended the class to work Manchester, Rochdale, Oldham and Bury services where heavier trains and on lines gradients were giving difficulties to the Aspinall 2-4-2T radial tank locomotives. To a degree they were an evolutionary design based on the enlarged version of the 2-4-2T radial tanks with six-coupled wheels and the belpaire firebox used on the Aspinall Atlantic High Flyers and Coal engine 0-8-0 types.[2]
Service
On their introduction in 1903 they were allocated to Liverpool to Southport workings covering a temporary shortage of electric stock; they were subsequently placed on their intended routes where they had an initially successful introduction.[2] Problems with the class shortly emerged. Their heavy weight was not good for the track and the long rigid wheelbase put pressure on rails with severe curves in sidings. The flanges were removed from the centre driving wheels which eased some issues but increased the risk of derailment on track which was slightly out of alignment and particularly notably at junctions, flangeless driving wheels working better on smaller wheels placed closer together. The side tanks had a propensity to severely leak and they gained a reputation for poor stopping ability.[3]
Where George Hughes produced a superheated upgrade to the 2-4-2T radial tank they were able to perform the services allocated to the 2-6-2Ts and the latter were removed from passenger services in 1913 and placed on banking and shunting duties with water pickup equipment and coal rail removed for increased visibility for these duties. They were not best suited to these duties due to large 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) driving wheels and having the flanges on the centre wheels removed.[3]
Numbering
L&YR no. | Built | LMS no. | Withdrawn | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
202 | Oct 1903 | — | Dec 1920 | |
387 | Nov 1903 | 11700 | May 1925 | |
404 | Nov 1903 | — | Dec 1920 | |
454 | Nov 1903 | 11701 | Jan 1926 | |
467 | Dec 1903 | 11702 | May 1925 | |
527 | Jan 1904 | 11703 | Mar 1926 | |
712 | Feb 1904 | 11704 | Aug 1926 | |
744 | Feb 1904 | 11705 | Aug 1926 | |
837 | Mar 1904 | 11706 | Jun 1925 | |
125 | Mar 1904 | — | May 1923 | |
1441 | Apr 1904 | 11707 | Aug 1926 | |
1442 | Apr 1904 | 11708 | Jul 1925 | |
1443 | May 1904 | 11709 | Jun 1925 | |
1444 | May 1904 | 11710 | Jan 1925 | |
1445 | Jun 1904 | 11711 | Sep 1924 | |
1446 | Jun 1904 | 11712 | Aug 1926 | |
1447 | Jul 1904 | 11713 | Feb 1926 | |
1448 | Jul 1904 | 11714 | Feb 1925 | |
1449 | Jul 1904 | 11715 | 1924 | |
1450 | Aug 1904 | 11716 | Aug 1926 |
Withdrawal
One was withdrawn with unrepairable cracked frames in 1920. A total of thee, Nos 202, 404 and 125 were withdrawn before being allocated a LMS number in 1923. In the event only two (11704 and 11711) actually carried their allocated LMS number and all members of the class were withdrawn by 1926.[5] All had been scrapped by 1928 and none have been preserved.
References
Sources
- Baxter, Bertram (1982). Baxter, David (ed.). British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923, Volume 3B: Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and its constituent companies. Ashbourne, Derbyshire: Moorland Publishing Company. ISBN 0-903485-85-0.
- Casserley, H. C. & Johnston, Stuart W. (1966). Locomotives at the Grouping 3: London, Midland and Scottish Railway. Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-0554-0.
- Lane, Barry C. (2010). Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Locomotives. Pendragon. ISBN 9781899816170.