Tyseley Single Wheeler.

That explains a lot of things..... Always wondered how anyone could cobble together such an idea!

 

Seriously?????

All we need is a bit of money and some like-minded folks to get working on it again.

 

Didn't the Terriers, Adams Radials and the Beattie Well-tanks largely survive because the lines concerned were so lightly built they couldn't accept anything better, rather than the locos being "well designed, rugged and well-fitted to their niches."

 

Well, if the niche was "1:40 with 2 chain radius curves" (Lyme Regis) or "need the power to shift 100 ton trains while having an axle load well below 10 tons" (Hayling Island) then I'd say Adams tanks or Terriers were very well suited to their niches! And any locos still hard at work into their eighth decade must have been pretty rugged. Face it, the LSWR, SR and BR(S) tried many locos on the Lyme Regis branch (Terriers, Stroudley D tanks with half-filled tanks and cut-down bunkers; Ivatt tanks; Pannier tanks; diesel railcars) and never really found anything better than an 1880s suburban passenger tank engine!

Tom

 

I'll give you 'niches' but they only continued to fit because nothing else would! They didn't survive doing the jobs they were designed for. Can't comment about the Terriers and Beattie tanks, because I don't know, but the Adams tanks had new frames, boilers, cylinders, etc throughout their lives so rugged probably doesn't fit. Well designed? That is a matter of opinion and could start a whole series of posts!

 

Tom forgot to add the 1400 class to the list of machines tried unsuccessfully on the Lyme Regis branch. Ironically the surviving Adams radial is the one which did not have new frames.

P.H.

 

Yes, "a bit of money". But from Mr Meanley's estimate of £60,000 (2009) and your own "close to six figures" (2012) - well, that's quite a "bit" of money. And with people saying - on here - that their cheques weren't acknowledged, or even cashed, and with no properly organised fund, just who is likely to send any money?

As for "like-minded folk" - who knows? Beyond the strict confines of GWR fans, there are some, maybe many of us. Until you set up a fund, you'll never know.

 

What is this GWR obsession you seem to have ?, Tyseley is an ex GWR depot, on an ex GWR route, Barry was in GWR territory and the majority of one time residents were of GWR design, so it shoulden't come as a surprise that the majority of Loco's there (and therefore taking the majority of time and resources) are of GWR origin, not withstanding you seem to be overlooking a big red loco with "5593" on the side that will probably get it's turn once 7029 is done.

 

I don't have an obsession with the GWR. I'm fairly interested in it (among some other lines) but in no way am I a GWR obsessive.

And I know about Tyseley: where it is, what it was, and what it is.

That's my reason for wondering if the Bloomer, instead of having apparently been abandoned, wouldn't be better off elsewhere.

 

I suspect that if you could find someone to finish the project to a suitable standard with no additional cost to the owners, and then return it to them upon completion, they'd probably consider it. Anything else would be diverting resources from their core, paid work, or taking a project which no doubt has required substantial investment away from them.

Simon

 

Please dont associate my posts with yours, especially when it's only a partial quote..
unless of course Stanier has returned from the grave and is secretly living in the attic of the Tyseley workshop.

 

Well, I put forward what to me sounded like a workable solution to achieve these two requirements a few pages back. What do you think?

 

Well, get on with it and set up a fund! Instead of Boiler Aching on here!!

 

Nothing cobbled about it.
The Duke class came first. The Bulldogs started life as upboilered and heavier Dukes.
Partway through Bulldog production the frames were redesigned and improved.
In the thirties they'd run out of work for the Bulldogs and they were being withdrawn.
OTOH there was still work for the Dukes, but they were getting very tired and needing a lot of maintenance, especially on the frames.
So the process that produced the Bulldogs was reversed and the improved design frames were put under Dukes, or if you take another point of view Bulldogs were downboilered and lightened.
End result was that they got a good extra ten years life for the Dukes pretty much for free, and got a heavy general paid for out of the new locomotives budget, which was much healthier than the maintenance budget at the time.
And finally, if rumour can be believed, Collett got to enjoy a private joke at the expense of the Earls who had "made it known" they'd like locomotives named after themselves...

 

I have donated twice to Tyseley for both Castle's- on both occassions Bob Meanley wrote back to me personally. I'm therefore very surprised at what your saying.

 

See the LNWR Bloomer thread - on Steam Traction page 3, about the 16th entry down the page: messages dated 23.08.2009, 30.01.2010 and 15.11.2012.

Yes, fentmar, I was a bit surprised when I read about this.

But not now.

 

So, to recapitulate:

1. I'd think everyone interested in railways would agree that the building of a working express locomotive of the 1850s/1860s would be a worthwhile project. This one - one of Britain's best, an LNWR 'Bloomer' - was started in 1986 and was constructed as closely to the original as possible.

2. A lot of hard work went into it, until c1990 when it was 90% completed. Since when, twenty-odd years ago - nothing at all.

3. Tyseley is no longer a museum, so this big lump is simply taking up useful space: it's surplus to requirements. They have other work to do - a long column of Castles & Halls & Granges & Manors & pannier tanks, and quite obviously some LNWR antique will be a very long way behind in that particular queue.

4. But they won't let it go for possible completion elsewhere, because they claim "it's our property!" Dogs in mangers spring unbidden to my mind.

5. They've been asked many times, but - they simply will NOT set up a fund to pay for its completion at Tyseley - or anywhere else.

All very strange.

 

Sorry but this is all getting a little tedious and repetitive now....

You very obviously have an axe to grind towards Tyseley based upon what may have happened previously, but repeating the same points over and over again whilst hiding behind a internet moniker is hardly going to make progress is it.

You have made various veiled hints that in your opinion they are not delivering their charitable objectives (I have no idea what substance there is - if any to support this) but if you are so concerned do something about it then rather that keep raising it on here.

Equally with regard to the project if you are so desperate to see it finished do something about it, you obviously have links to Tyseley so speak to them directly offering your time and expertise - you suggest they won't engage on here but if you had someone hiding their identity on the internet making veiled threats about your operation, would you be inclined to engage with them.

In terms of it going elsewhere do you blame them for wanting to keep hold of something they have put so much into, whatever your thoughts they have provided workshop space and overseen the project. But again have you investigated alternative homes and proposed a formal process possibly they would be prepared to consider? To suggest they should just offer to a free home is absurd.

Apologies but you have been making the same point time and time again - if it means so much then do something about it!

 

Mencken,

This is certainly starting to get a bit repetitive now........
You should find something more constructive to do with your time if your not going to organise the fund yourself!!
Peraphs with all your knowledge of bloomers you should write a book.... or maybe you already have..............???

 

Mod hat on..
Let's not make it personal.
:mod: