If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

LMS consituent engines set aside for preservation but later scrapped.

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by knotty, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Hello,

    I stumbled upon the following image of a North London Railway Adams 4-4-0t CALEDONIAN RAILWAY - 774 - McIntosh Class 2P 'Dunalastair II' 4-4-0 - built 03/1898 by St Rollox Works - 1923 to LMS No.14330 - withdrawn 01/40 - seen here at Carlisle Kingmoor. which had been set aside for preservation in Derby but subsequently and sadly scrapped in 1932. I recall reading somewhere once that a number of engines had been set aside including a Midland Railway Johnson 0-4-4t (a shame that we don't have a surviving member of a class which almost numbered 300) but were also scrapped; I presume to clear space in the works.

    Does have any information on what engines were put aside, what the LMS had planned to do with the preserved engines, who made the decision to ultimately and regrettably scrap these engines and why the decision was made?
     
  2. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
  3. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok for some reason it links to the correct engine yet lists it as a Caley Dunalastair II 4-4-0. The link is for a NLR 4-4-0t.
     
  4. garth manor

    garth manor New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    130
    2 Kirtley double frame locos, 2385 Kitson (1856) 0-6-0, 156 Derby (1866) 2-4-0, 2 Johnsons 673 (1897) 4-2-2 and 1226 a 0-4-4T, plus NLR 4-4-0, 6445 above, were scrapped except for the single wheeler on the orders of Stanier a month after his arrival when touring the works and learning that the paint shop was overcrowded - he is reported to have said that he had authorised no preservations, after much begging 118 as it became survived, fortunately he was unaware of 103 and 123 being put aside at St Rollox shortly after.
     
  5. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for your response Garth Manor.

    An absolute shame that we were so close to having further representatives of Victorian engineering still extant today. Clearly, even as early as the 1920's there was an emerging awareness of the importance of preserving railway heritage as evidenced by the decision to set aside these engines in the first place. The railway works in Derby had stood long enough for the men working there to be aware of and necessarily proud of their heritage. If the authorisation to rescind the initial decision to preserve these engines had came from Stanier himself in spite of the appeals, then he appears to have been a fairly unsentimental fellow. Surely the LMS could've found the space, build a temporary shed to house these or offered the engines to the LNER's initiative borne of the NER's plans to establish the National Railway Museum in York? It beggars belief why they chose not to contribute. Of course we do still have 158a, which was subsequently saved after the loss of 156.

    I also read somewhere that there had been an attempt to set aside one of Aspinall's stunning 'Highflyer' Atlantics of the L&Y when they were being withdrawn but again the decision was overruled. What a sight one of these would have been at NRM.
     
  6. 22A

    22A New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,044
    Likes Received:
    49
    Occupation:
    Administrator
    Location:
    Between 31F & 34E
    I once read that whilst he was on the GWR it was Stannier who ordered scrapping the original "North Star", again to make room for then current locos.
     
  7. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Says something about the man if true. The scrapping of the North Star was another travesty.
     
  8. RalphW

    RalphW Part of the furniture Staff Member Administrator Friend

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    30,279
    Likes Received:
    5,044
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired-ish, Part time rail tour steward.
    Location:
    Northwich
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Why, no use could be seen for the loco either long or short term, it was more use as scrap value. These people were in business to try and make money, saving one example of any loco just did not make financial sense.
     
  9. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet there were others who could at the time set aside locomotives from prosperity in spite of the financial considerations, as the NRM testifies. Being in business doesn't necessarily preclude valuing other things in addition to maximising profit.
     
    Bean-counter likes this.
  10. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Besides I strongly doubt that saving a handful of locomotives would've broken the bank. The LNER was hardly well-off and yet somehow managed for form the kernel of the national collection at York.

    I think it's fair to say that Stanier, if the reports and stories are true, was hardly a sentimental man.

    I would argue that preserving elements of a company's history given that sons would follow their father's into the company, would engender greater loyalty and company pride which makes good business sense. The fact that a replica of the North Star built from salvaged parts was subsequently contructed by the GWR is a testament to this, and to the fact that it is possible to run a successful business while preserving and celebrating elements of the business' past. That a replica was built or that other engines such as MR 158a were set aside after the loss of 156 on the LMS demonstrate that perhaps that the view that 'preserving' engines doesn't make financial sense was a minority view, held by the likes of Mr Stanier notably.
     
  11. RalphW

    RalphW Part of the furniture Staff Member Administrator Friend

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    30,279
    Likes Received:
    5,044
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired-ish, Part time rail tour steward.
    Location:
    Northwich
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Yes but where do you draw the line, there was no way a representative of every class was going to be saved. So it comes back to the thinking at the time, do we need to preserve this nondescript loco, no....
     
  12. garth manor

    garth manor New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    130
    North Star and Lord of the Isles were scrapped in 1906 on the order of the Swindon works manager as they were taking up "valuable space", supposition is that Churchward who was at that time designing his new Star class was behind the move, Stanier was the Inspector of Materials at the time on an upward trajectory and could have been influenced or even influential.

    The York museum was NE in origin, partly in response to a desire to preserve some of the 1925 heritage items and partly taking in heritage garnered by the NER since 1888, although some locos from that centenary parade having been tidied up for it were scrapped soon after, the Aspinall was not unique in that respect, room was secured in York old station for some pre LNER group locos and stock, mainly NER and GNR, with a single representative loco from each of the other 3, thats how Columbine and Truro survived, Gladstone was not preserved by the unsentimental SR but by the SLS. Wholesale preservation outside the LNER group was not envisaged nor possible given the space constraints.
     
  13. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course but obviously many felt that some 'nondescript' engines were worth preserving. The actions of the men at St Rollox are testament to such thinking and their pride (such a shame that a Caley Cardean wasn't also set aside in my opinion). Arguments could be had about what to preserve and what not to preserve but what we're discussing is what appears to be a unilateral decision to preserve nothing: that preservation per se isn't worthwhile which evidently was Stanier's position. However, the LNER demonstrated that decisions could be made about what to preserve even if in retrospect we can ponder some omissions: the sentiment was still there at the time Stanier decided that to cut up a handful of engines set aside rather than accede to the LNER's overtures for donations to their new museum.

    As a consequence, I would posit that today there are perhaps more than enough Austerities in preservation and perhaps too few North London Railway Adams 4-4-0t's due to a quirk of history. I would posit that it's a shame that we don't have more representatives from the pre-grouping period and it's only one man's decision which led us to having a few less than we'd otherwise have had.

    There are plenty of nondescript engines in relative abundance and plenty of what many would consider glaring omissions around which a fairly broad consensus could be drawn due broadly due to the fact that the preservation movement didn't get off the ground until much had already disappeared, that industrial engines lasted longer so and that Dai Woodham at Barry proved to be a far-sighted man (hence the preponderance of later GW and BR standards relative to LNER, Southern and even LMS types). That many hope that the Claud Hamilton project isn't stillborn is an example of broad consensus of what should've by rights escaped the cutter's torch.
     
  14. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for the account garth manor. It does seem absurd to our eyes and hard to fathom looking back that anyone would set aside any engine for preservation, only to scrap it afterwards as was the case of engines and stock from the centenary parade. I suppose that the motivation to preserve was subtly different to our own and constituted a different kind of sentimentality. As to preservation not being possible outside the LNER I would contend that it would've been possible to set aside a few representatives by the other members of the 'Big Four' if the LNER, financially constrained as it was, could find some space and money to undertake some semblance of preservation.

    In short my contention is that the finances of the companies wasn't the overriding factor but a matter of interest (or lack of). Clearly there were many passionate in preserving something and obviously there were influential individuals like Stanier who didn't want these old engines cluttering up their works but equally had no interest in seeing to the creation of dedicated space for them (the LNER excepted).
     
  15. ADB968008

    ADB968008 Member Account Suspended

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,265
    Likes Received:
    765
    Occupation:
    Project Management, Software consulting
    Location:
    London
    Just to put a modern context around this...

    How many "modern" locomotives which took part in Rainhill, Stockton parades survived into preservation ?

    Even the EWS heritage fleet has been scrapped...., Virgin's 47/8 heritage fleet too.
    engines like 40122, 40106, 50033, D400, 50007, 25912, 26001 only survive due to private preservation.
    The celebrity status hoisted on locos by operators are for commercial reasons,exploiting nostalgia.. But when the time has passed, they but them in the bin like all others...
    examples like 45106 and soon 56006 show that modern preservation is quite practical in that despite celebrity, if it's knackered they still bin it and buy a better one.


    Interestingly is that from GW150 an number of the celeb repaints have made it...

    47484, 47500 (in service with WCRC), 50007
    47079 is today 57009.
    47628 didn't make it.

    The reason why the LMS didn't save stuff has not changed today...Its just now we have preservationists to save them.
    I'm sure in50 years we will be asked to justify why no overhead Wolverton EMUs were saved, or why 47901 was let go, or D5000, no Transpenines units.. Even now people ask why D8243, D7096 and D818 were let go.

    45015 is widely expected to be the next to slip the net.
     
  16. pete2hogs

    pete2hogs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    319
    Rather than blaming Stanier, (I think it was his father that was involved with scrapping the BG engines), how about praising the foresight of the LNER people who set up their own museum when no-one else thought anything newer than Lion was worth saving?
     
    Robkitchuk likes this.
  17. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    I think Stanier can be blamed insofar as he made the decision to overrule an earlier decision to preserve a small collection of engines, even after appeals were made to him. If he'd not ruled to scrap them, they would no doubt be with us today. Apparently all the accounts point to him making the decision.

    I think it's possible to praise the LNER for saving something, praise the men of the LMS who tried to save something (and those who succeeded with regards to the Caley engines, and MR 118 and 156a) and criticise Stanier for overturning a decision to save these engines.

    I don't understand why he's above reproach as a CME? Drummond on the LSWR was hardly a consistent and lucid operator (while I'm not placing Stanier's actions here in the same league as Drummond's antics on the LSWR) and someone like Whitelegg on the GSWR comes in for a fair amount of well-deserved criticism, not least for his useless Baltic tank. Stanier, Gresley, Collett and the like seem to be semi-deified. They were men and as men we can recognising the part hindsight plays, arguably level some criticism at them for some decisions, even if on balance their actions and decisions were more praise-worthy than not. The men who set out to preserve these engines proved to be ahead of their times.
     
  18. ghost

    ghost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,315
    Likes Received:
    1,452
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Ireland
    I have yet to see the above statement proved to be true - everything written so far has been rumour and conjecture. Before assigning blame, perhaps it would be best to review the evidence and make sure that the facts are there to support the rumours? If the facts aren't there, then Mr Stanier should not be accused.


    Keith
     
  19. guard_jamie

    guard_jamie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,503
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Signalman
    Location:
    Herefordshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Even if Stanier were the culprit, should he be criticised for it? Sent to the LMS to restore order in its works, the decision to scrap the majority of these locomotives would have been a real show of seriousness by him against those in the works trying to live in the past.

    He was clearly a level-headed manager - if there had been an LMS museum already established I don't think he would have closed it, but there wasn't and these locos were in the way in a place of work. If there were such a thing as preserved railways then perhaps they would have been gifted to such establishments - but there weren't. You can understand the LMS being cagey about gifting them to their arch rival the LNER and its York museum - even if it had had space for them - would it? Would it have even accepted them? His was not a job of preserving the past - but leading the LMS into the future.

    Yes, it is a shame that they are lost, but I do not think it right to criticise Stanier for a logical decision motivated by realism.
     
    DismalChips and Bluenosejohn like this.
  20. knotty

    knotty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do I feel as though I've kicked a sacred cow? How dare anyone have the temerity to criticise the likes of Stanier?

    While it can't be verified it's commonly held that Stanier made the decision. If it was his decision I think it's possible to look less favourably on it than other decisions he made.

    I'm of course bias. My interest lies primarily with pre-grouping and the Midland Railway specifically. I think it's a shame that we don't have more extant examples of Kirtley and Johnson's beautiful small-boilered engines, not least one of Johnson's 0-4-4t tanks which were the mainstay of the Midland.
     
    oddsocks likes this.

Share This Page