Locomotives that should have been preserved, but weren’t.

I suspect it was a dead end - electric and hydraulic transmissions have proved better able to cope with the forces at acceptable levels of weight and complexity.

 

This one is a project I would like to know more of. What I can't find in any source is any mention of how much driver input the loco's complex systems required. Even statements that the machine had mechanical drive, unless I'm being thick (..... a distinct possibility) there seems to be an hydraulic component, in the coupling between individual engines and final transmission.

Plus points seem a high degree of mechanical redundancy (which wasn't enough to save the Class 52 Westerns either!), the downside being the more moving parts in any machine, the greater the liklihood of component failure. Given a comparatively long working life (for an experimental loco), the Fell certainly couldn't be counted a failure.

From the not too much I can find in a fairly profunctory search, there's mention of a stillborn second, improved version. Does anyone please have information on that?

 

With or without an emoji, I wouldn't expect anything said on this thread to hold up in court!

I get where you're coming from and in an ideal world, with unliited resources ..... but hey, if you've got 'em (and a good divorce lawyer), who am I to stop you?

 

From what I can see of all the 'experimental' locomotives, only The Turbomotive was anything approaching a success, while almost all the other loco's didnt address the basic issues of steam locomotives which is the design & manufacturing issues.

 

Oh, I dunno. Some of Mr Churchward's experiments didn't turn out too badly!

 

I don't think the basic issue with a. steam loco was design and manufacturing - quite a number of the various experiments, back to the 19th century, were concerned with thermodynamic efficiency - not least the Turbomotive.

To whit, if we are having unsuccessful experimental locos, can I have "Edward Blount":



and the Holcroft- Anderson recompression loco:



Tom

 

What's that Edward Blount? Never seen it before, or heard of it.
Agree on the Turbomotive being the only attempt to do something different which was successful. The Fell diesel was an interesting design which I suppose was sort of semi successful, it ran in traffic for quite a few years and was a regular on Manchester Central to St Pancras

 

One for everyone who believed steam locos couldn't contract mumps!

 

A most interesting list. If this was extended to include the Northern lines, it might include not just some GNR(I) types but also one of Bowman Malcolm's BNCR/NCC 2-cylinder compounds with Walschaerts valve gear (perhaps one of the 3-ft gauge 2-4-2Ts?).

Not sure how you define "proper leading bogie", but Ahrons indicates that Adams bogies were fitted to the earliest Johnson 4-4-0s (for the GER in 1874 & MR in 1876), having previously been used by Adams himself on NLR 4-4-0Ts.

One of the MGWR small 0-6-0Ts should be very useful today on the Downpatrick Rly. I would personally liked to have seen one of the MGWR Celtic-class 4-4-0s preserved in its attractive original livery. Sadly, the blue did not long survive Irish wind and rain.

 

It's a Stroudley "Gladstone", fitted (in 1907 under Marsh) with the "Hammond pre-heater". The idea was to extract waste heat from the smokebox and transfer it to the air, which was then funnelled under the loco into the ashpan to form a pre-heated supply of air. The idea presumably being to avoid part of the loss inherent in heating air up from ambient to smokebox temperature, which is all wasted in a conventional loco. It wasn't a success. (But another to add to the "experiments in thermodynamics" class).

Tom

 

What was the problem with the Eastleigh design of crown stays? i thought this was the arrangement used on the 4-6-0's, which seems OK to me?



Which is surprisingly similar to that used by the NER on their 0-8-0's

 

As warm air contains less oxygen by volume than cold air surely the experiment was self defeating?
Ray.

 

Well, it wasn't successful, but I don't think for that reason. As you heat the air up, the density goes down, but provided you have sufficient draft to maintain the same mass-flow rate, you get the same amount of oxygen through the fire.

I think the problem was firstly that the heat transfer wasn't very efficient given the rapid flow of air through the pre-heater; and secondly that even had it worked, the potential gain was rather small relative to the big thermodynamic losses inherent in steam locos of starting with water and exhausting steam.

Tom

 

Many Scotch boilers are fitted with air preheaters but clearly the situation in a ship is very different to a locomotive

 

A head-on view would give something akin to a large-wheeled Victorian pannier tank in appearance. Interesting, I too have never heard of this one before.

Richard.

 

Gladstones were nice machines. WIBN alert, like to see the preserved one in steam, on the Bluebell, in Southern green!

 

The Class 2 bogie was of the American swing-link, rather than Adams pattern, so tbh, I think I may have got a little overenthusiastic there! Livery wise, I can't find the McDonnell era scheme. By 1900, it was noted as 'olive' (light? dark? black?), giving way to black lined in cream, then in 1914 plain black, before .... you've guessed it ..... grey. At least maroon GSR carriages looked quite smart.

The MGWR 4-4-0 you showed (GSR Class 545, six locos introduced in 1902) were designed by Cusack, If the 1948 report is to be believed, by then they seem to have been confined to cattle and special goods workings. Their comparatively low power and (by Irish standards) high 19t axle load probably led to their unfavourable review. Officially MGWR Class A and later As/A1, according to what happened when rebuilt, GSR No.549 bit the dust in 1931, the remainder being withdrawn between 1954-59. Doyen of the class, shown in your image was MGW No.129 Celtic, (later nameless GSR No.546).

From all accounts, the rather attractive blue livery was experimental and didn't wear too well, only lasting three years from 1903. It both replaced and was replaced by a bright emerald green which, in common with many other Irish lines, gave way to unlined black in 1914. Grouping of course meant names removed and every last loco painted in the GSR's psychedelic riot of unlined battleship grey, often just slapped on to hide anything daring the slightest hint of colour, except red bufferbeams and the usual black bits, which included buffer stocks. The only exceptions (other than a rather fetching 'burnt rust' sported by many goods loco smokeboxes) were the Class 800 4-6-0 of 1939, whose slightly blueish tinged green, lined in eau de nil looked even more stunning than preserved Maeve, which, in spite of what's on the tender, currently wears a later CIÉ green.

In the north, no arguments from me about the NG compound 2-4-2Ts. One really should have been preserved. Ditto one of the Swilly's gargantuan 4-8-4Ts. That'd certainly show Nunnery Bank who's boss .... pity it'd also take out half the IMR overbridges (but would make a splendid subject in 5in gauge). A while back, I put a shout out for the BP 2-6-0ST from the B&L (which would have fitted on the IMR), but apparently our fickle membership, preferring form over function, didn't share my fondness for it's relentlessly businesslike appearance.

Allow me just one missing GNRI class and it'd have to be one of 0-6-0s. Could be any of 'em, but the Glover SG2 (introduced 1913) looked just right, plus having a decent turn of speed for passenger work, so practical too. If something from a generation earlier .... and a name .... floats your boat, make it a Park AL (introduced 1893). Both these workhorses lasted to the end of the GNRI, the last SG2s (in UTA hands) into the late 1960s. Livery in Parks' time was described as 'similar to the (English) GCR', but in prints I've seen, the green looked closer to that used on the English GNR. From Glover's time, livery was akin to what you see on preserved No.131, but with less lining on goods locos. The blue of the 30s was strictly for top-link passenger locos, classes S/S2, V, VS and (oddly) the small Class U. On images I have of the ALs, no lining at all is apparent, but I've never seen a later photo of a clean example.

From the B&NCR (Later the NCC) we have a very fine 4-4-0, stuffed and mounted in Cultra, plus the superb WT, No.4 which still struts it's stuff very nicely. There's also the tender version, the Class W mogul under construction, so something different .... I know, howzabout an F Class 2-4-0? Too much like Hardwicke? I think not! Inside cylinders, two of 'em on the VonBorries compound system. BP built No.33 of 1890 was, apparently, the first in the British Isles to feature inside Walschaerts' valve gear. The subsequent history of the class was distinctly complex, but the last of them in any form went in 1942. B&NCR livery was 'invisible green', which gave way to Midland, later LMS Red and after 1941, black.

We've (miraculously) got one B&CDR 4-4-2T safe at Cultra. Given these were the archetypal County Down passenger locos, we probably shouldn't be greedy. One of the 'baltic' tanks would be nice, but looks aside, for reasons I've mentioned before, far from being impressive, they really were coal hungry dogs.

Come on now ..... with all that lot across two posts, I'd have saved any one of 'em before a square boilered one-off. If it were still around, or course it should be preserved. So should lots of others.

Edit: S to S2 (tied myself in knots!)

 

The issue with the type of crown stays used on S15 and others is that they are very difficult to renew with the inner firebox in place. You'd have to assemble them in a different order.
I'm not familiar with the NER type, but the LSWR ones comprise a hanger pinned to the roof, with a forged stay hanging from it held by a nut. At the lower end it is swaged out and threaded internally. A screw goes though the crown sheet into the stay. Not on the drawing is a nib inside the hanger to stop the stay turning.
There is very little room to install that lot with the box in.
The NER type look much simpler at the bottom , being threaded for the plate.
I bet if you were renewing those, you would run the stay through the crown sheet, put the nut and cotter on top then finish the fire side off.
With the Eastleigh type you can't do it that way because of the fat end of the stay.
I dodged a bullet, not working on the crown stays on 847.
The patch screws were unpleasant enough.

Edit: Words and spelling.

 

May I ask of anyone with the relevant experience, which locos they consider have more optimal (or at least easier to work on) staying arrangements and why that is so?

 

Wasn't that some sort of steam laundry rather than a locomotive?