Tyseley Single Wheeler.

To put it in another context: by "the great dark ages of preservation," what I means is that what has ended up surviving is rather like an aeroplane museum in which World War 1 is missing. So you enter the museum and see the Lilienthal glider and the Wright Flyer, and the Avro triplane and Bristol Box Kite and Bleriot XI. Then, through a door into the next hanger and you see the the Supermarine S6 and the Lockheed Vega and the Hawker Hart, and go on through Spitfires and Lancasters and Dakotas to the Meteor and Lockheed Constellation, Harrier and eventually Eurofighter.

At the end of your visit, having spent an enjoyable day or so taking in the delights of this virtual museum, it suddenly strikes you - how did we get from flimsy canvas and string creations in which the engine had barely enough power to lift the plane, and flying could only take place on the calmest of days, and suddenly arrive at sleek 300mph monoplanes that could carry huge payloads great distances in relative safety and comfort? From thereon, the progression is clear, but a crucial formative stage is missing.

Then you look at books, and realise there is a whole tranche missing from the museum: the BE2c, the Sopwith Camel, the Fokker Triplane, SE5a and Bristol Fighter, that took those primitive string and canvas contraptions and, in an amazingly short time, produced the forerunners of the sleek modern aeroplanes of the 1920s.

In a virtual railway museum, there is the same story. So we can see - often for real, but if not in replica, the equivalents of the Wright Flier, Avro Triplane and Bleriot XI: the Puffing Billy, Sans Pareil and Rocket. We can see the equivalents of the Supermarine S6, Hawker Hart and Lockheed Vega and the like: Gladstone, Hardwicke, the Stirling Single, the NER Long Boiler 0-6-0 and so on. And from there you can trace the story through SECR C class, LSWR T9, Q, Q1, Schools and Merchant Navy (to take just the Southern examples) right up through the class 33, 47 and HST to the locomotives of today.

But how did we get from Rocket to Hardwicke in the North West, or from Invicta to the SECR D class in the South East? Almost nothing is preserved, and there is precious little in replica form beyond two broad gauge replicas. Where is the Jenny Lind, or a Martley Europa, or anything from James Cudworth - a loco designer for 30 years, through the whole of my dark ages period - or McConnell or Joseph Beattie? Those designers took the primitive millwright engines of the Trevethick / Hackworth / Stephenson era, and turned them into precision engineered, standardised items, with efficiency gains of coal burning fireboxes, variable valve gear, better crew protection, better brakes, better everything. Yet that crucial phase of design is simply unrepresented in preservation. That period is truly a dark age in preservation
.
Tom

 

The 1845-1870 period includes Coppernob (1846), Fire Queen (1848), Lion (1851), Furness Railway 20 (1863), Midland Railway 158A & Metropolitan 23 (1866), GNR 1 (1870). Plus lots of 0-4-0 tank engines, many of the narrow gauge and Welsh variety. (I've ignored Aerolite as there isn't much of the 1869 original left.)

It's not a long list, admittedly, and the 1850s is pretty barren, but I think the progression through the ones we do have is easy enough to see. Plus there are some British locomotives abroad, such as NSW No.1 (Sydney, Australia, 1854), Fairy Queen (Delhi, India, 1855), Blackie (1859, Cape Town, S. Africa), 111 (Madrid Railway Museum, 1864), SS13 (Utrecht Railway Museum, 1865) which add to the story. (And probably more besides.)

 

Add the delightful operational A 10 no 6 built by Neilsen in 1865 still performing on QR metal and Norway no 16, Stephenson, 1861.

 

Back to the Large Bloomer, I would say it needs more than money to finish it. Mr. Meanley has pointed out the position and that it doesn’t make commercial sense at the moment. So I would think it needs a proposal put together of a professional, experienced team, backed by volunteers, with Competence in Engineering, Project Management, and Funding. If someone out there can put all this together, then you can go talk business. Only then, if Tyseley refuse, would I suggest Mencken’s statements that Tyseley do not want to see the Bloomer finished are anywhere near the truth but I would also add, in a reasonable timescale. However I can understand the frustration, perhaps someone entering the twilight of their years, seeing a project that they helped with many years ago sitting, almost forgotten and hoping that they get to see it completed before they leave us. The thing is, in a few years, with Clun finished, there maybe a window of opportunity. If the money for the locos completion was there, and in the intervening period, some of the smaller items had been made and were ready to be fitted, then the time required for the workshop team to finish it would be much shorter.
On the subject of veteran locos, I would say that locos from the 1840’s to 70’s are indeed thin on the ground in the UK, even more so, operational locos, but how many would be suitable for regular operation on a Heritage Railway? Key wheel arrangements that need better representation are the 2-2-2, 2-4-0 and maybe 0-4-2 types, which made up much of the periods passenger locos. An outside frame 0-6-0 goods loco wouldn’t go amiss either. The Singles are the biggest gap, which of course the Bloomer will fill but my other favourites would have to be a Jenny Lind, Problem (perhaps in its Webb rebuilt state) and something a bit different, a Crampton. Something I have thought of, which might tickle a fancy, is a Stroudley G Class. From a later time of course, but more practical.. and if it’s a new build, well how about updating it to say late Marsh style. Paint it early Southern green with a W number, wouldn’t it look great at the head of the Wights 4 wheelers? And on a fairly flat railway, adhesion shouldn’t be a problem. Talking of 4 wheelers, that’s going to be another problem that will need fixing, some 1850’s-60’s style coaches to go behind the Bloomer. If some of these other Dreams ever made reality, what about some generic styled coaches that could be painted to represent a matching railway company? Say if the Crampton appeared, you could have one side painted in LNWR colours to match the Bloomer and the other in SER colours to match the Crampton.
Back to reality, I will look forward to one day seeing the Bloomer completed.

 

If someone were to set up a credible "Friends of The Bloomer" group (ie one that has the support of Bob Meanley), with a credible plan for completion in a reasonable timescale, I would certainly join and contribute.

 

So would I.

 

Planet replica was built in part to understand this and how design went from a competition winner Rocket to the basic template that locomotives would follow.

Other early engines are Der Adler of 1835 and Lion of 1838.

As to the Bloomer I'd love to have it at Manchester (a LNWR locomotive at a LNWR goods station)

Duncan

 

Me too, and despite the protests about whose "property" the Bloomer is, Manchester would be a very suitable home - whether temporary or permanent.

Somehow I keep thinking of another very interesting old engine: the Sharp Bros single built in 1847 which was withdrawn in 1885 and preserved at Wolverhampton. It was still in virtually original condition when it was scrapped, by the GWR, in 1920.

 

The GWR had a dreadful record for preservation of historical Locos. We should all be grateful to the LNER for preserving Truro, for she certainly wouldn't have survived at Swindon.

 

As did the LMS.

The Southern and LNER just cheated by keeping their antediluvian locos in service

 

Was it the LMS, GWR... Or was it just Stanier who just didn't like history ?

 

Now you've done it, they'll climbing in the Terrier cab now to come and hunt you down, should be here in time for new years eve

 

Oooh! Below the belt!

Another way to look at it would be to say "The Southern carefully used its available capital resources to bring in a thorough modernisation of its suburban and mainline services with efficient, clean electric stock and colour light signalling, which inevitably meant less money for branch line services, but with engines as well designed, rugged and well-fitted to their niches as Terriers, Adams Radial Tanks, Beattie Well Tanks, O2s and others, there was little need to design replacements. As a result of such skilful management, and unlike the others in the "big 4", the Southern regularly made a profit for its owners".

God only knows what the LNER was doing!

:smile:

Tom

 

Wasn't it Churchward who had Lord of the Isles scrapped ?.

 

Churchward era. Whether that means Churchward the man, or just some shop foreman somewhere trying to save space at Swindon works I don't know. North Star also went in that period - 1906 I believe.

Tom

 

Just checked - Stanier was in London at the time of the 1906 scrappings at Swindon, so he's not the great wrecker

Below the belt indeed Tom - you'll be glad to know however that I have a great affinity with the SR, it coming a close second after the GW in terms of personal preferences, as I grew up in Whitchurch (Hants), probably one of the most easterly towns in the country to have two separate GW and SR stations!

As an aside, I do a talk on Britain's Railways in WW1, and am very complimentary of Sir Herbert Walker who chaired the REC during that war, usually throwing in a comment about him leading the SR into the vanguard of railway operations and development in the interwar period. This is very close to the start of a 90 minute talk. At the end of one such talk during questions, that comment being but a distant and not very relevant memory, one gentlemen, moustache a-quiver, demanded me to explain this suggestion, citing Stanier's locomotives as evidence of the LMS's pre-eminence, in his opinion. So I did another talk, about 15 minutes this time, going through the SR, citing your examples amongst others as my evidence that the SR was the most forward thinking of the lot. He walked out, and I was bought a pint for my trouble by another member of the society who referred to him as a 'mental old fart'!

 

Didn't he also order the scrapping of some "set aside" midland railway locomotives upon appointment to the LMS.

To be fair, His job was to make progress on new designs, and focus peoples mindsets, not maintain a heritage museum, "clearing out the junk" is one way to do it.

 

Wrong. The GWR kept on building antediluvian locos. In 1935 Doncaster was turning out A4s while Swindon was building Dukedogs.

 

[sigh]The Dukedogs were of course only "new" for the benefit of the accountants: it enabled some handy shuffling of money between budgets. Putting decent frames from redundant Bulldogs under Dukes in place of the rather inferior older design the Dukes had was simple common sense and very economical. As Cook tells the story the idea originated in the works, it didn't even come from the drawing office.

-----------------------

It doesn't seem likely it was Stanier who gave the order to scrap the museum pieces. I just can't imagine a junior executive as he was at the time making a decision like that. If it wasn't Churchward most likely it was the Works manager at the time, who I suppose, might have done it whilst Churchward was away. Oddly I can't readily find a reference to who that was.

 

And as Tyseley is no longer a museum, maybe they'll get around to "clearing out the junk".