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. 30854

    30854 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    3,468
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    No argument with your first two sentences .... no siree!.... and I do get what you're driving at, although projects involving pre-1948 designs abound. From the 'really mean business' list (and leaving NG designs out of the equation), there are:

    A1, 10XX, Unrebuilding 35011, V4, P2*, 'Patriot', B17*, (here be grouping), 47XX, H2, 29XX, 'George V', CGR 2 class, F5, G5, 'Bloomer' (have I missed any?)

    When it comes to C19th designs, things are indeed a wee bit thin on the ground, but note that every time such a design gets mentioned, up pop the arguments like 'It won't take 12 over Shap'. See comments by the bucket load to various suggestions in the 'Current and Proposed New Builds' thread to see what I mean.

    If a credible group formed and were able to drum up a sufficiently enticing case for [pick one from 'Current and Proposed New Builds' .... or come up with a suggestion or two], we've got the successfully completed projects to prove it can be done.

    So..... anyone for a 'Teutonic' to pilot 'Prince George' over Shap? :)

    *well, you can count one of each, at least!
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  2. LMS2968

    LMS2968 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    2,005
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Lecturer retired: Archivist of Stanier Mogul Fund
    Location:
    Wigan
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    There's a bit of a difference between preservation, especially prior to 1960, and new build. Prior to that date, locos would be saved for their historic value and, for the most part, it was never envisaged that they would ever be gainfully employed again. After this, with preserved lines appearing, but discounting the National Collection, usage became a bigger consideration, with small engines for the preserved lines (Terriers being one example) and big engines for the main line (4472 and 6201 spring to mind). The small engines were never expected to 'take 12 over Shap', or go on the main line at all. Barry provided all the post-1968 preservation attempts, but here the desiderata were hardly feasible: you had to take what was available. But by this time, the Victorian and earlier era engines had long gone.

    New builds are different in that they all - almost all - will be expected to work for their living and repay their building costs: appeals for a new build to sit in a museum for now and ever more are unlikely to attract much enthusiasm. But not everything needs to go main line, although it is expected that everything should be useable on preserved lines, at least occasionally.

    But do the new builds really fill one of the very many gaps? To take the A1 (and all good luck to the Trust and recognition of what they achieved) I don't see the gap. There is a shortage of preserved ex-LNER types, but not at that size. We have a V2, an A3, six A4s (admittedly two abroad) and an A2, all the UK based ones having had a main line career in preservation. These have been joined by an A1 and there's (possibly) two P2s on the way, and also a V4. Sorry, I don't see the gap at this end of the LNER scale, and similar can be said of some other projects.

    The reality is that new builds are based on the whims of those who will donate money to a particular engine type, and the enthusiast likes big, express passenger types with - and this important - nameplates. A 'historical gap' might be a convenient excuse for a new build, but it's rarely the reason.
     
  3. Cartman

    Cartman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2015
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    577
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Interesting and informative last two posts, thanks 30584 and 2968. I think the same has happened with the various GWR new builds/conversions in that they are all from the later Churcward/Collett era which is already well represented whereas there is hardly anything from the 19th century.
     
    jnc, johnofwessex and 30854 like this.
  4. MuzTrem

    MuzTrem Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    635
    But in fairness, that is largely because of the availability of suitable components from donor locomotives.

    I am not necessarily saying that we actually need lots of 19th century new-build projects. Again, I don't really buy the argument that we need new engines to keep our preserved railways running into the 21st century. We have more than enough engines already, and they can be kept running if you are willing to keep replacing components over time. Now there are a handful of really historic engines that I think should be conserved once their original fabric is no longer usable - fortunately most of them are already in the national collection - but when you are talking about the 18th surviving GWR Hall or whatever, I see no issue with continually replacing components to keep them running indefinitely.

    I suppose I am really just arguing for a more accurate historical perspective among enthusiasts. As LMS 2698 says, I think that talk of filling 'gaps' is too often used by new-build projects as an excuse, rather than a real motivation.

    There are a handful of exceptions to that though. The GWS's Railmotor project filled a really significant gap: we have no other complete SG railmotor from any company. The Bluebell's Brighton Atlantic project also fills a gap, in a sense: yes, we have other Atlantics in preservation but none of them are likely to steam again, so it fills an important gap within the ranks of working locomotives. The "Saint" project is maybe less of a "gap", in that we have other GWR two-cylinder 4-6-0s preserved. Yet it is a landmark design, so recreating it was more worthwhile (IMHO) than just restoring another "Hall". Ditto 35011 - again, it is perhaps not the biggest gap in preservation, but more worthwhile than just restoring another rebuilt MN. So each case has to be judged on its own merits.
     
  5. 30854

    30854 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    3,468
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    A well considered post from @LMS2968 (#62). I always recall a small paperback from 1969/70 saying "preservation takes many forms and in a sense, The Isle of Man Railway is the only 'preserved' railway in Britain, although its' staff are paid ...." (this was after Lord Ailsa had thrown in the towel, during the last gasp of the old IMR, ahead of nationalisation). Then there was the "middle aged gentlemen playing trains" comment during the infamous FR vs CEGB court case.

    It's been commented on before, but if we're talking mainline operations, there's the question of (in)appropriate stock being all that's permissible. No 'Photoshop' expert me, but how would a rake of MKIIs look in (say) LNWR livery? I could well imagine the reaction of many to such a heresy.

    I suspect the last paragraph in post #62 is the real nub of the matter ..... them's as pays the piper ..... and all that, although the line between 'reason' and 'excuse' is somewhat open to interpretation!

    Nowt to argue with in @MuzTrem's post (#64) either, though good luck with 'arguing for a more accurate historical perspective among enthusiasts'. :)
     
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  6. Jimc

    Jimc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,822
    Likes Received:
    2,159
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    With the exception of 8 coupled locomotives, which seemed everlasting, I think you'll find pre grouping GWR is not especially well represented. There's the little saddle tank, 1363, the Saint and the mogul 5322 at Didcot, Dean Goods, City of Truro and Lode Star in the National collection, and I'm not sure much else that's not a 2-8-0. Even the nominally Churchward small prairies are in fact all post grouping.
     
    jnc likes this.
  7. LesterBrown

    LesterBrown Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    525
    Location:
    Devon
    So to keep everyone happy it seems that a new build GWR 282 class is needed, even if the last one went in 1886 so out of place with Mk1s.

    :)
     
    Jimc likes this.
  8. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    3,818
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Apprentice Railway Engineer, Children's Author
    Location:
    Sidcup, Kent
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I would actually argue there is a gap in the development if you take the A2 as the ultimate development on LNER Pacific matters (and discount Tornado). Class A2/3 or A2/2, take your pick.

    I would argue an L1 tank is a post war gap and a V3 comes closest to fulfilling that same role.

    Seems heinous to suggest Thompson for many and that ultimately is not going to result in a new build.

    The ultimate LNER gap though is the mogul which started the big engine policy - an example of class K3.

    V4 is lovely, and I’ll support it, but it doesn’t contribute much if anything to the history of the LNER bar being the last Gresley design and one of his first to be completely withdrawn.
     
  9. Jimc

    Jimc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,822
    Likes Received:
    2,159
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    280 class surely...

    For those not in on the joke the Old Worse and Worse (Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton), when in one of its frequent motive power crises, bought two Kirtley 0-6-0s from the Midland which ended up as GWR 280 and 281, and the West Midland (a merger of the OWW and others) had 12 more built to the same design by Fairbairn, which became GWR 282-293 when the West Midland was bought by the GWR..
     
  10. pmh_74

    pmh_74 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    578
    Splitting hairs - and not arguing at all with the general thrust of your post - but I think you mean *nearly* all. You are forgetting the ex-LT panniers (and some ex-NCB ones) and various industrial locos.
     
  11. LesterBrown

    LesterBrown Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    525
    Location:
    Devon
    And this was the same design as the one scrapped by Stanier at Derby.
     
  12. Cartman

    Cartman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2015
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    577
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Here's another oddity, the Stratford on Avon and midland junction railway bought a Stroudley 0-6-0 tender engine from the LBSCR and it was still running at the grouping so it ended up on the LMS, it was the last of the class as none were on the SR by then
     
  13. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,142
    Likes Received:
    23,215
    Location:
    21C102
    Just to add to that list - amongst ex-mainline locos preserved post 1968 you can add Wainwright P class 178 (preserved 1969); P class 753 (preserved 1970) and Adams B4 No. 96 (preserved 1972), all of which owe their latter-day survival to periods in industrial service after withdrawal by BR.

    Tom
     
    pmh_74 likes this.
  14. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,142
    Likes Received:
    23,215
    Location:
    21C102
    It's a gap, but only an important one in the grand sweep of locomotive history if you ignore some yawning chasms elsewhere ...

    Thinking of that broad sweep, I tend to the view that, amongst standard gauge locos, the Tyseley "Bloomer" is probably the most historically significant of current new build projects (in terms of illustrating a general type of loco that was once common but now unrepresented in this country - the inside cylinder 2-2-2 passenger engine); and - pace @MuzTrem - a double frame 0-6-0 goods engine is perhaps the most significant type that is neither represented in preservation nor for which there is a new build project on the horizon. My Euromillions project would build a Cudworth example ...

    Tom
     
  15. D6332found

    D6332found New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    81
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dinting
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Surely the Gresley Extremely large loco has been neglected. 2-8-8-2T & THE 4-6-4 REBUILT but I think his rebuild of the B16 is perhaps without irony the finest of his 4-6-0s. A J50,J39, K2, and K3, and of course a replica of 26000 TOMMY. DARLO BETTER GET BUILDING!
     
  16. bluetrain

    bluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    104
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think the slightly smaller K2 would be more suitable for most duties on present-day heritage railways.

    A wider issue is the lack in preservation of any GNR goods or mixed traffic engine, apart from the solitary Ivatt saddle-tank. Not one of the GNR 0-6-0, 0-8-0 or 2-8-0 tender engines has survived. The reason is largely of course that they were all withdrawn relatively early. GNR locomotives seem generally (Ivatt Atlantics excepted) to have had shorter lives than contemporary equivalents from other British companies - the opposite of the situation seen with those Kirtley Midland engines. Patrick Stirling's mixed traffic 0-4-2s were the most numerous of that type in Britain, but the last was scrapped in 1921. Yet a number of earlier (Patrick + James) Stirling 0-4-2s on the G&SWR survived to be taken over by the LMS.

    But the Bluebell Railway partly makes up for the lack of a GNR 0-6-0, in that its Class O1 genuinely is an example of "a Stirling 0-6-0 Goods rebuilt with a domed boiler" - and is very similar in most important respects to LNER Class J4.
     
    S.A.C. Martin and jnc like this.
  17. The Saggin' Dragon

    The Saggin' Dragon Part of the furniture Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    14,652
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Location:
    1012 / 60158
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Plus 80002.
     
  18. Steve

    Steve Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,140
    Likes Received:
    4,241
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    If we are drawing up a full list, there's 68077 & 68078 to add, plus 47445 & 47564 (if it is ever restored)
     
    The Saggin' Dragon likes this.
  19. Cartman

    Cartman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2015
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    577
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Is 47564 the one which was a stationary boiler at Red Bank, near Cheetham Hill in Manchester? I remember seeing that from the electric line into Victoria and it was still there quite a while after steam finished, not certain of the dates, but I would guess just into the 70s. The tanks had been taken off and I thought at first it was a 2F or 3F
     
  20. 5944

    5944 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,874
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Train Maintainer for GTR at Hornsey
    Location:
    Letchworth
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That's the one. Boiler, wheels and frames, nothing else.
     
    Cartman likes this.

Share This Page