This movie, which I believe was inspired in part by the early railroad preservation scene in Great Britain, is now available on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 97BEB32334

I first saw it in the mid-1950's.
I have a commercial VHS copy that I found on e-bay about 7-8 years ago.

Just as interesting is this "then and now" video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWlbZnBP ... re=related

I just ordered The Titfield Thunderbolt Now and Then book from Amazon UK where with shipping it's about half the price of the vendor selling through domestic Amazon. I suspect it will cover much of the same ground as the Youtube video.

Steve

Its a great movie but I had no idea that it had so much of a following as to warrant a book.

There's some very good info about the filming here:

http://www.semgonline.com/RlyMag/TTT.pdf

Steve

Here is another link on the filming locations:

http://www.ukonscreen.com/hefhfbb-Titfi ... bolt-(1953).html

I must thank Surving World Steam profusely for posting this original link. This is the first time I've ever seen this movie, and it is one of the most delightful films I've seen in years! As noted, there seems to have been an influence from the early railway preservation movement, and there is a surprising amount of authenticity in it (i.e., the need to pass safety inspection to obtain a light railway order). At the same time it is a comedy, and the sequence in which the two drunks steal a locomotive and run it down roads and through a park are at least the equal of what the Marx Brothers did in their classic, "Go West!" Oh my, oh my, what a hoot!

http://www.youtube.com/user/HARPOWORKS# ... 2vtjGvPXS4

Of course, if you want to go directly to the railroad action, go to part 8, at about 1:24, but there is enough other stuff I'd just watch the whole flick, including the station gag sequence at the beginning.

Location work is of course on the Sierra Railway, and the locomotive is No. 18.

I look at this, and wonder what a safety inspector would say about staging this today!

You are welcome; I have heard about this movie for years, and it was a delight indeed to see it at last. Thanks to you and others for the links.

I loved the sequence with the head butt match between the steam roller and the train, along with the scenes of the "Titfield Thunderbolt" (actually the Lion of 1839) running. The writeup on Wikipedia states that the Lion still has a bent buffer beam on the tender frame from the "hard coupling" event when the engine was reunited with the train. It also gives the numbers and fates of the two BR engines used in the film, along with the steam roller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Titfield_Thunderbolt

Does the studio's version of the boiler backhead seem a bit too busy? An interesting factoid about these 0-4-2T's is that a few of them were fitted with an arrangement so they could run push pull with the engineer at the opposite end of a coach working the throttle via a connecting shaft. The fireman operated the valve gear. This is the first I've heard of such an arrangement anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_Autocoach

Steve

This does look like some monstrosity created by a "Steampunk" cultist, but it appears that the particular GWR 0-4-2T is, indeed, a former "autocoach" veteran, with additional lines for remote operation of the vacuum brake and whatnot......

Any significant use of road engines sans guiding trucks in the US?

Steve

[quote="Alexander D. Mitchell IV"][quote="filmteknik"]Does the studio's version of the boiler backhead seem a bit too busy? An interesting factoid about these 0-4-2T's is that a few of them were fitted with an arrangement so they could run push pull with the engineer at the opposite end of a coach working the throttle via a connecting shaft. [/quote]

This does look like some monstrosity created by a "Steampunk" cultist ... [/quote]

I'm not sure what "too busy" is meant to suggest in technical terms, or what the commenter's basis for saying so is. This video clip depicts a children's "birthday party" for 1442, one of the four 14xx survivors that has been entombed within a local history museum since the 1960s, but if you jump ahead to the footplate view at about 0.55 you'll note that it's practically identical to the studio mockup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyiVSpzFrs8

The Great Western system of auto-working employs a rocking shaft running lengthwise under the coach, connected to the locomotive through a universal coupling. Moving the throttle lever in the driving end of the coach causes the linkage to move the throttle lever on the locomotive. No more than two auto-trailers are allowed on either side of the locomotive, as longer consists can cause odd throttle events to occur as curves are traversed, and lost motion through multiple coaches can also impair responsiveness. Several are preserved, and are frequently operated in the intended manner.

"Any significant use of road engines sans guiding trucks in the US?"--Steve

The biggest single example I'm familiar with would be the Baltimore & Ohio at various times in its long history. This started with various 0-8-0 configurations predating the Civil War, including Crabs, Jersey Greenbacks, and most numerously, Winans Camels. I think a lot of this was driven by B&O's early and heavy coal tonnage; one of the interesting things about a roster of the road's locomotives on the eve of that conflict is how closely it appears in proportion to what it would look like in the 20th century in that even at that early date, drag engines in the form of all these 0-8-0s dominate the roster, while 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s are very much in the minority. These engines would continue in service into the 1890s; as it was, the B&O didn't get its first 2-8-0s until the early 1880s.

I'll have to look up the roster information, but I seem to recall that one of the Jersey Greenback 0-8-0s was heavily rebuilt over the years, eventually becoming an 0-6-0T. In this form, it received an overall "dummy" cab (making it look something like a streetcar) for service on the famous Pratt Street line. When this engine and another old 0-4-0T were replaced by the four famous C-16 "Little Joe" 0-4-0Ts, this rebuilt Jersey Greenback, still retaining its slightly inclined slide-valve cylinders, was transfered to subsidiary Staten Island Rapid Transit, where it was not retired until something like 1947!

The B&O would have a couple of more forays into all-driver steam power in the 20th century. This was in the form of its first Mallets, which included Old Maude, the pioneering 0-6-6-0, and an order of 0-8-8-0 behemoths in class LL-1. A number of those engines would be rebuilt with leading trucks, but not all of them got this before the diesels came.

Still later, the B&O rebuilt a number of 2-8-0s in classes E-24 and E-27 into 0-8-0s for switching service, where they became classes L-1 and L-2. As it was though, these 0-8-0s, with relatively tall drivers (57" and 62" respectively), and the resulting long wheelbase, were steady enough for some to be used as local freight engines, which is to say the same sort of job they would have had as a 2-8-0 in their later years.

I know of only one other road that attempted a fairly large roster of heavy freight engines without leading trucks, and that was the Denver & Salt Lake, which had a series of 0-6-6-0s that were apparently inspired by B&O's Old Maude. These engines would later get leading trucks, making them 2-6-6-0s, and there would be duplicates built in that configurations.

This was a much more common practice in Great Britain because many locomotives there, most notably the thousands of 0-6-0s they used in tank and tender versions, were inside-connected (as are the GW 0-4-2Ts in the film), and it was not unusual for these engines to have the leading driving axle ahead of the inside cylinders. Those inside cylinders were also closer together and of necessity a good deal smaller than what would be used in America, and that also helped reduce nosing of the engine at road speed. In fact, there was a Southern Railway Bulleid 0-6-0 tender engine that was intended to run fast in both directions, and one was reportedly run at well over 60 mph tender-first with its designer riding the leading end of the tank!

All of this is from memory; I hope if there are any errors or omissions that someone else can help fill them in. . .

My basis for the "too busy" comment was whether or not the production designers got fanciful (if it was a set) but now it's been confirmed to be totally correct (whether faked or real).

Obviously the basis is not understanding what all that gear is! I'd expect a throttle (regulator), one or two water sight glasses, a pressure gauge, and a perhaps a set of "try" cocks (I don't know if that was UK practice). Are those injectors mounted in the middle?

Steve

Hey, it's British. I'm surprised there weren't a pair of SU "carburettors" sticking out there somewhere............:)