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

Your opening sentence basically hits the nail on the head regarding Dugald Drummond. He developed an excellent locomotive range on the NBR in the late 1870s, which evolved in small increments up until his L12 4-4-0s of 1904. He was then 64 years old, and his reputation would probably have been at its highest if he had retired at that time. Instead, his late years were plagued by trying to design a satisfactory 4-6-0.

I am not sure whether the 6-ft wheeled F13 of 1905 was intended to be an express passenger or a mixed traffic design. For express passenger, Drummond might have been more successful if he had built a 4-4-2, given that a satisfactory firebox/ ashpan is easier to design for an Atlantic. If he wanted a mixed-traffic 4-6-0, then an excellent model was provided by the Highland Rly Castle Class, nominally the work of his younger brother Peter (although it is thought most of the design was by his predecessor David Jones).

It was of course not only DD who was turning out sub-optimal designs at that period. Many of the early British 4-6-0 types were disappointing. An expensive mistake was the Dean/ Churchward "Kruger" class of 10 engines, which were in service around 3 years before being "renewed" as Aberdare class goods 2-6-0s. The Aberdares may have re-used Kruger wheels, but probably not much else.

Back to DD, he did have one final success in his D15 4-4-0 of 1912. This differed from his previous 4-4-0 designs in having Walschaerts gear driving large diameter piston valves, also in having a grate that sloped up above the rear axle. But it still took superheating by Urie to develop the full potential of the class.

 

What is it that makes designing a decent 4-6-0 such a problem & how was it solved?

 

D Drummond fulminated quite fiercely on the matter of Atlantics - suffice it to say that he wasn't a fan.
Pat

 

I think the Jones Highland Goods was based on, or at least inspired by, the L Class 4-6-0s for the North Western Railway of India.
But Jones had been building simple powerful outside cylinder cylinder locos for some time - admittedly prior to the Goods these had Crewe type front ends.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

It shouldn't be a problem with hindsight - But back in the early 1900s, the philosophy was to stick another pair of driving wheels on the back of an existing 4-4-0, and another ring on the boiler barrel. The area which suffered was firebox redesign. Or rather, lack of it.
Even J.F. McIntosh fell down here - Have a look at a Dunalastair IV - Superb 4-4-0s, which traced their ancestry back to Drummond's first Caley 4-4-0, which in turn was developed from the NBR 4-4-0s...
Then have a look at 49 / 50, and the Cardeans. The boiler on Cardean was inordinately long for the size of firebox expected to heat it, leading to poor circulation of hot water. Yes, Cardean was a good performer, but it could also have been a magnificent performer.

As has been said, if Drummond had retired after his last 4-4-0 design, he would probably be held in higher esteem - As it was, he fell into the trap of designing larger locos with inadequate fireboxes, poor draughting, and experimental cross-tubes which over-complicated the design even more...
Of course, Drummond's answer was not to fault his locomotives... It was to fault the "incompetent" enginemen who had to deal with his products... Not a trait of a designer who cared about how they performed in service, and why.

Richard.

 

Now you mention it, the "Big Goods" did indeed represent a significant departure in design as well as size for Jones. Given the markedly unsentimental track record of the LMS, when it came to preservation, count me amazed (but still very happy for all that!) that being the first 4-6-0 in the land was sufficient to ensure its survival ..... even if his earlier 4-4-0s were infinitely more to my taste!

Oh well, that's me done for the duration. Merry Crimbo folks, see y'all on the other side!

 

I'd like to see a selection of locomotives from what I think of as the Railway "Dark Ages". That's the period between about 1840 and 1870, after all there are several early machines survive [Puffing Billy+Wylam Dilly, Locomotion, Sans Pareil, Lion/Thunderbolt]. Then few if any until the 1870s starting with the Stirling Single No1 and the LB&SCR Terriers.

 

I can think of a few from the "Dark Ages" - Derwent, Cornwall, Columbine, Shannon, the FR & LNWR 0-4-0ST's and the FR & TR locos. Probably not v. representative of the era though.
Ray.

 

Good shout. Of the top of my head, Furness Railway no 20, Midland Kirtley 2-4-0 (like to see that run btw) and that's about it.

 

There is FR No. 20, which dates from 1863 (or at least some of it does), and represents a vital link between the Bury engines (Coppernob), and the start of larger loco development in the 1870s.

Richard.

 

Wantage Tramway Shannon. Again, scarcely representative.

 

The 1850s and 1860s are comparatively poorly represented, with just three surviving standard gauge locomotives from the 1850s and only eight from the 1860s.

Moreover, those locomotives that do survive from that period – in which mainline railways were developing very rapidly – are hardly typical of the common mainline locomotives of the period. Of the three locomotives surviving from the 1850s, none can really be described as providing a good representation of the era. The Hetton Colliery locomotive, built around 1851/2 and now preserved at Beamish, was built as a lookalike replica purporting to be of a design from thirty years earlier, i.e. from the early 1820s. Oxford, Wolverhampton and Worcester No. 252, built by E B Wilson in 1855, now consists only of frames, cylinders, motion and two of the three axles; its survival owing to its latterday use as an instructional model – interesting, but hardly giving the public an impression of mid-Victorian motive power. The third and final survivor from the 1850s, is the 0-4-0T Wantage Tramway No. 5 “Jane” (now at Didcot). It is small even by the standards of the time, and somewhat rebuilt from original appearance.

Coming to the 1860s, there are eight survivors, but again they are not especially representative of mainline motive power of their era. Two are small industrial shunting engines – a Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0WT and Coalbrookdale No. 5, an 0-4-0ST. Two are the Furness Railway 0-4-0s, Nos. 20 and 25, of which 25 exists as latterly rebuilt into a saddle tank, and No. 20 has been reverted to its original form as a tender engine. LNWR No. 1439, of 1865, is again a small 0-4-0ST shunting locomotive. Midland Railway 158A of 1866 is more typical of front-line motive power of the era, though as currently preserved, it has been rebuilt with a larger boiler, cab and modern tender and its appearance is thus more typical of a late nineteenth century locomotive. NER No. 66 “Aerolite” – nominally from 1869 – bears almost no resemblance to its original form, having been rebuilt in 1886, 1892 and 1902 and, in the process, even changed wheel arrangement twice and from simple to compound form of propulsion. As currently preserved, essentially the locomotive dates from 1902, with possibly nothing beyond its identity from its 1869 origins still remaining.

This leaves only Metropolitan A class No. 23, of 1866 as still representative of a mainline passenger locomotive from the 1850s and 1860s in broadly original form.

Tom

 

There's an NER long boiler 0-6-0 no 1275, which I think was built in the early 1870s, but looks to be an older design, from the 1860s period.

PS any chance of this steaming again!?

 

If I could just pick any loco to steam again, no questions asked, that (and the NER 2-4-0 of similar vintage) would be my first choices of “things I’d dearly love to go on”. That particiular loco made it into LNER service; I find it fascinating that a loco that was only really a generation beyond S&D dual tender relics designed by Hackworth was still running in revenue service alongside Gresley Pacifics.

Tom

 

That interests me too, relics from the mid Victorian era surviving to much later periods. Like the Midland Johnson 0-6-0s, which ran until 1964, and none, sadly, were preserved. They would have been new, built in the 1870s, when a few locos from the 1840s would still be running, when they were withdrawn, they would be working alongside class 37s and 47s.

 

What about 41708?

 

And the Beattie well tanks

 

Even at the time of the 1923 Grouping, only the Midland Rly still had large numbers of pre-1870 locomotives in service, notably several hundred Kirtley double-framed 0-6-0s, much rebuilt with new boilers, cylinders, cabs & brakes. Elsewhere, there remained 88 of the LNWR DX-class 0-6-0s and smaller numbers of ancient survivors on some of the Scottish and Irish lines.

Mr Bradley recounts that when the last of the Cudworth 118-class 2-4-0s was withdrawn in 1905, the SECR looked around to find a site for its preservation, but it was eventually scrapped. If it had been preserved, it would have been with its replacement Stirling domeless boiler and with an orthodox firebox in place of the original Cudworth coal-burning firebox. The Cudworth, Beattie and other early coal-burning fireboxes were significant historical episodes, although ultimately discarded. If any loco had survived with such a feature, would engineers be prepared to sign-off a restoration to operational use? Would any heritage railway accept the use of a machine with a two-chamber firebox requiring a mix of coke and coal?

 

As far as I know the oldest engine still running at the grouping was a Midland 0-6-0 tank dating back to 1848. The oldest one at nationalisation was an ex North London 0-4-2 crane tank built in 1858, which actually got renumbered to 58865.

The LMS, who had been keen on standardisation, still managed to have some really old stuff kicking around

 

Ahem - Sandy and Potton Railway Shannon