LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust and proposed new build

No problem! I take you as a supporter of new-builds. As to the risks of spreading oneself too thin, I believe that this is the ex-Bretton Grange director, not the current one. Therefore if the rumour is true and he's looking to pursue a Fowler Tank then it wouldn't be at the expense of his dedication to the Bretton Grange. Of course all this is speculation at this stage and perhaps will amount to nothing. If it's true, then of course we wish him well.

 

A Fowler suburban tank would make a good new build project, especially since its possible there could be a commonality of parts with already existing engines.

On a side note, while a very different design, does the Patriot share any common parts with the tank? Afterall, it is said that the 3 cylindered Stanier 2-6-4T is very similar mechanically to the Jubilees. Are Fowler's Patriot and Tank similar too?

 

Fowler Tanks are closer to 2500 and the Irish WT no4 than anything.

 

Probably all the backhead fittings.

 

With respect I don't think the Fowler 2-6-4's had much in common with 2500 - 2 cylinders v 3, taper boiler v parallel etc. WT,s were as you say very similar - now, doesn't the RPSI have a spare set of cylinders for No4? Just a thought. Ray.

 

Interesting topic " Ex Betton Grange directors " ......there are quite a few of them....a bit like ex Betton Grange payinging in members there are a quite a lot of them as well....
Dont know much about them but from what i have read thye were probaly the best loco to come out of Derby
Terry Essery spaeaks highly of them steam well ride well etc
Who ever it is I wish them well as i've done my bit and got shafted

 

Bottom end they've got similarities.

 

I understand that it was reasonably common practice for tank engines to be mechanically similar and essentially derived from their tendered counterparts. I can think of quite a few - steering the thread back on topic ever so slightly, ;-) the Precursors for example, which were essentially the non-superheated and slide-valve predecessors of the George the Fifths, had an Atlantic tank engine variant, predictably called Precursor Tanks.

 

I would love to see a fowler 2-6-4T, ok i know i can go to Ireland to see something similar, but it has a lot going for it. As 6880rules says they were a well liked loco and lasted untill 65 i believe. With a Parallel boiler that would be cheaper than a tapered one, and one of them, 42424 i believe had Fabricated Cylinders so that would save on patterns etc there, the Irish Guys were rumored to be thinking of building one of these themselves so they may want to hold onto those cylinders but i suppose 2 boilers ordered at the same time could cut down on costs? 1 for Ireland and 1 for England.



Very handsome if you ask me as well.

But back to the LNWR guys, glad you have got the ball rolling so quick and will hope to have a chat to you at Tyseley. Just waiting to hear where youll be based? has this been decided yet? Come to Llan, the LMS is outnumbered there!

Gavin

 

Very handsome indeed Gav. Seriously purposeful and well-proportioned engines and I've personally always been more partial to parallel boilers over tapered myself - the front-end of a Patriot, a Royal Scot with its parallel original boiler and massive smokebox or even a large-boilered Claughton or Dreadnought would have made for an imposing sight. Good thing we'll see a Patriot before the decade is out. I can't wait.

The Fowler tank is a worthy new-build candidate and I hope you get your wish to see it built, one way or another. I myself hold out someday for a MR Johnson 0-4-4t someday in its original splendour.

As to us, thanks for the kind words. We're admittedly a little excited to have things rolling although there's still a long, long journey ahead. Support and interest has been steadily growing for the project, which is gratifying. Perhaps the main difficulty we face in promoting the project is that admittedly, the entire class was extinct before the living memory of most people alive today. People will naturally gravitate to supporting something that they recall from their childhood or youth. However we personally feel that given how few LNWR engines are still extant (especially given how formative the LNWR was in British Railway history), how there are no surviving LNWR 20th century express types and how good these engines were, that a new build LNWR George the Fifth will present something quite unique and special. I think our support comes from those interested in pregrouping (i myself have no recollection of steam in service and so that heyday of steam, the pregrouping period fascinates me the most) and those interested in seeing such a rare and special beast come to life. Coupled with this, we have to fabricate almost the entire engine from scratch given so few parts remain but to our advantage, a George is smaller than many of the current new-builds and in many respects a simpler machine.

Again I regrettably won't be present at Tyseley myself but Tom and co. are planning to be there. They'll be pleased to see you again.

No word on a home yet and nothing decided. To date, we've only made a cursory investigation of possible sites and partnerships however I personally expect that we'll begin to seriously tackle that issue later in the coming year given the timeframes we're considering. Though it's not my decision where we finally end up, Llangollen would be great of course, not least to join you and the Patriot team at the epicentre of the current phase of the new-build movement and of course, to add some more LMS (or at least, a constituent) flavour into the mix there (and we'll be sure to run her in LMS livery at some stage).

 

There's a saying " if a loco looks right it probably is right" and in my eyes the Fowler Tank looks right

Better not Hijack the LNWR thread anymore

 

I was tempted to say "words fail me" but they don't really! A Derby 2-6-4T is a sensible enough prototype, more so, dare it be said, than a certain Edwardian 4-4-0 but these projects are coming along like diarrhoea.

 

At the risk of rekindling an old debate where the conclusion was to 'agree to disagree' I'll say that 'sensible' is a fairly nebulous word particularly when framing a debate concerning aspects of the rail preservation movement. It could be reasonably argued that all the energy and money into the restoration and upkeep of old engines, rolling stock and permanent way isn't really 'sensible'. I mean really, you have to be struck with a certain madness to do this. The love of steam, of rail in its rich and fascinating history ultimately overrides the more mundane concerns, which would stop most people in their tracks (no pun intended). This isn't to say that there isn't a need to be mindful of practicalities.

Now as to whether a 'certain Edwardian 4-4-0' is a sound choice for a new-build I'll say that we've spent a great deal of time assessing its suitability and I can point you in the direction of an article written by two of our members directly (as far as possible) comparing the performance of this certain Edwardian 4-4-0 with a Coronation Class (no less) on the Crewe to Carlisle leg of the west coast mainline. Comparing performances gives us a measure of what these small but powerful engines could do:

46233 Duchess of Sutherland (2012) vs 1662 Deerhound (circa 1912) » News & Progress on the building of a new LNWR George the Fifth class locomotive

We strongly feel, and there's the historical record to prove it, that a 'certain Edwardian 4-4-0' will hold it's own on mainline excursions as well as provide useful service on many heritage lines across Britain.

 

Not wanting to hijack the thread further, but just to clarify: the RPSI have a spare set of driving wheels for no4 - there are no spare cylinders. There was some talk a while back about a new build 'Jeep' but nothing has been said recently.


Keith

 

With thanks to Warwickshirerailways.com and the LNWR Society for permission to use the images. Here are a few photos and a low-res copy of a sectional of what we're aiming to recreate:

 

I thought "Precursors" were generally held to be the stronger engines, or have I got that wrong?

 

Precursors were fine, well-regarded engines but the Georges were essentially 'advanced' Precursors. In addition to employing superheating (which many Precursors later received given its proven success on the Georges), they also had a number of front-end improvements over the Precursors, notably piston-valves instead of slide-valves.

The newly superheated Precursors were also upgraded with piston-valves. After these modifications the main difference betweens between the Georges and Precursors were essentially cosmetic (notably the splasher over the lead drivers).

Interestingly too, 10 of the 90 George the Fifths belonged to the Queen Mary class, which were non-superheated but had piston instead of slide-valves. The 10 that were built for comparative trials with their siblings but when the benefits of superheating, which was quite new to Britain at this time, were proven conclusive, the Queen Marys were quickly superheated and thus absorbed into the George the Fifth class. The Georges, Queen Marys and Precursors essentially belong to a family of some 220 engines but the Georges represent a marked improvement over the Precursors, and most of the Precursors were to be retrofitted with the improvements first implemented on the Georges.

 

The clean, handsome lines of a George the Fifth, in this case 'Grouse' at Euston in 1935 (the photo is subject to copyright so I won't reproduce it here but rather link to it):

Grouse at Euston - 1935.

 

Ah ok, it must have been the change in performance between superheated and non-superheated Precursors that I was thinking of, rather than Precursor vs. George V.

 

Not sure if this has already been posted but the 7 October 1910 Engineer article on the class is online at http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/c/c7/Er19101007.pdf