2999: Lady of Legend

Cookham ran some mainline trips in 1970s afaik and could be seen in steam certainly in late 70s at GWS. I have been visiting Didcot since 76 and I believe that I've seen these three in steam although can't be sure of any haulage.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/taffy...uqx-eixgmr-e4PVSj-ELF5mo-FxV8oL-Fh1abs-nULWHY

 

Remind me - when was 4079 supposed to be steaming?

 

Photo on here (Not mine!) suggests she was still in steam as late as 1982 http://www.mdrs.org.uk/localpreservation.htm

 

For the record, last ran:

7808 - 1983.

5900 - 1979.

6697 - 1978.

 

Thanks for the info, all. I moved to Gloucestershire from Nottingham in late 1983, first went to Didcot in 1986 or 87 -ish. So I didn't miss 7808 by much.

 

Has it been that long with Hinderton, I remember seeing her in steam at Paddington on the day of the 6000 run to Didcot for the anniversary of Paddington Station March 1979?, that must have been right at the end of her ticket!

 

That's absolutely correct...

if you ignore: 6023, 4079, 5051, 3822, 5322, 7202, 4144, 3650, 3738, 1466, 1340, 22, not to mention several outstanding carriage and wagon restorations, building a workshop, extending the museum, enlarging the site, maintaining the infrastructure etc., etc.

Take all these into account and it just sounds like a groundless, pointless attack on a preservation society. Why do it?

 

Patric Whitehouse wrote that Churchward goofed when selecting the four-cylinder monsters instead of saints for future express locomotive building.
Will it be possible to run of controlled /dynoed test to se if he was rigth?
And comparing to a Hall or black five?

 

This should be a moment of glory and celebration, but some seem determined to turn it into a disaster. I for one look forward to seeing her run!

 

A lot of that was done back in the day. But the trouble with these sorts of things is knowing what the priorities were. The 4 cylinder locos were reckoned to be at least a coache better, but were also smoother running, better balanced, and I think may have tended to run a bit longer between overhauls. I'm not sure at this distance we can truly know whether the decision was right or wrong, but of course that won't stop people loudly asserting their opinions...

 

If I had put money in LOL, it would have been because I know it was a better locomotive.

The fourcylinders had:
Steamways more crooked.
More cylinder and valve surface swept by steam .
Balancing relative to track as bad as two two cylindered singles with very short connecting rods, happening to be in antiphase.See bridge stress report.
Urie choosed differently at the same time .
A simple steam consumption test at 40,50 and 60 mph for two locomotives with more or less identical boilers can settle the matter for ever and give steam magazines something to write about.
Good sport.

 

If there is one thing you can guarantee in life it is that people who do nothing constructive are the loudest complainants in life.

People have had 30 years to convince Didcot not to create a Saint from a Hall.

Not one person ever put forward a decent alternative plan for Maindy Hall. Not one.

Didcot have two new builds on the go now with a Night Owl and a County. Firefly? Done, waiting for overhaul. Saint? Finished, ready to steam as a new exhibit.

Four new build engines total out of a huge collection.

The embittered, irrational attacks on the GWS from some members here must stop.

It doesn’t reflect well on you or on our industry.

For shame.

 

I think 2999 is a fantastic job and I look forward to seeing it in steam, never having seen a Saint. Well done to all concerned in this superb piece of work

 

As mention has been made of 4709, what is the latest news of progress? The GWS news page for the engine looks to be almost a year out of date.

 

Exactly as the man said.

I'd ask that anyone who feels the urge to respond negatively to any project such as 2999, to step back to the mid seventies to what we had and then recognise the huge steps that have been taken since then to preserve our railway heritage. We may not individually agree with every choice made and decision taken but overall, why not celebrate the amount of locomotives and heritage railways that we now have? Locomotives on the mainline, 150 restored engines from Woodhams, new builds of types never otherwise to be experienced by future generations and a great deal of highly valued effort from those that have been involved in any way possible.
I'm a relatively newbie to this forum although not to preserved railways and have to say that some of the threads turn me cold when the inevitable negativity creeps in. My contribution over the years has been financial only and now I am faced with the opportunity to retire, relocate and give some of my time back. Without calling out any railways individually, I would say that my choices may be affected by the amount of unhelpful & negative speculation and bickering that those such as myself, read online. Social Media is a powerful tool but used in the wrong way will become counter-productive to our collective passions for steam railways.

 

Some good comments here with which I agree (and also with Simon's post). To start with, May I reiterate a point I made earlier - the Saint has received far more flak on this forum than the Grange (indeed, I can't remember anyone being negative about 6880) yet both have taken a Hall/Modified Hall and turned them into an extinct class of Great Western 4-6-0. How can anyone be looking forward to seeing Betton Grange but not Lady of Legend?

Secondly, it is not being contradictory to feel sad that 4942 and 7927 are no more and yet at the same time to recognise the positive points about these projects. I don't like the thought of these engines (or 2861, 4115, 5227 and 48518 for that matter) essentially no longer existing, but people could have bought them for restoration yet no one did. Better bits of them are used to make new engines than the whole lot ending up as washing machines or razor blades.

Furthermore, let's think back to the late 1960s. At that time, you could well have expected that only two 2-cylindered Great Western-designed 4-6-0s were going to survive - 6998 and 7808. Now, even with the loss of 4942 and 7927, we still have 10 Halls and 6 Modified Halls (plus 9 Manors). This is quite incredible when you look back 50 years and consider the picture back then. One's feelings about turning 4942 and 7927 into a Saint and Grange respectively need to be tempered by reflecting on just how many more Halls and Modified Halls are still with us than anyone could ever have imagined. We have so much for which to be thankful.

 

Yes, it got knocked on the head in December that year, its last railtour was in October. A bit of a Cinderella engine really.

 

Saints and Stars were very similar apart from the cylinders and motion. On 2-cylinder locos it is necessary to compromise between out-of-balance reciprocating masses and hammer blow. The Stars (and their Castle, King and LMS Pacific descendants) have inherent fairly good balancing of the reciprocating masses. I would be interested to see the bridge stress report if, as claimed, it contradicts this simple argument. For locos specifically intended to work express passenger trains, the inherent balancing (if valid) is a major advantage.

 

The oft quoted bridge stress report regarding the 4 cylinder locos does seem to contradict the Chief (Civil) Engineers opinion when the County 4-6-0s were introduced which were subject to restrictions not applied to the Castles with the same maximum axle loading because of concerns about heavy hammer blow.

 

Waiting for axle boxes to be fitted & for wheelsets to arrive.
There is a large collection of parts awaiting restoration at Llangollen.

Bob.