Pre-1916 locos in steam in 2016

Taff Vale Railway no.85, built 1899, at the KWVR.

 

Caley 419 is hoped to return at the tail end of 2016 on the Bo'ness & Kinneil Railway, in Caley Blue, which will look superb with the railway's two Caledonian Railway coaches.

 

Where?

 

Is 564 going to be in normal service loco roster?
I presume the vintage train is very occasional use only? I haven't ever seen it on my NNR trips, even at the galas I've attended.

 

Gloucestershire and Warwickshire rly and Bodmin & Wenford respectively.

 

LSWR T9 30120 at ... well, wherever she's going to be this year, since the B&W have indicated she's too small for their peak season services. At the Mid Hants for this weekend, anyway. Built 1899, rebuilt 1927 to her current superheated, long smokebox form. Although some of the class were rebuilt pre-grouping, I believe there's only one currently serviceable LSWR coach anywhere, which is on the Bluebell.

 

Yes, 564 is to become a normal service roster loco and is in fact scheduled for some days next week. The Vintage train will run at the forthcoming gala at the start of March and sees some additional use on selected days in August.

 

2807 is on the GWSR and 4247 is on the Bodmin & Wadebridge (probably already been beaten to it with this response by now!) I'm pleased to be able to say that I have shares in both locos. I took this photo of 1905 built 2807 at Toddington at the May 2015 Festival of Steam. It looks lovely, as ever, but of course it is actually in its ex-BR condition, as might be expected. 2807 never carried this "Great Western" livery on its tender in this guise as it was not fitted with outside steam pipes until the "GWR Shirtbutton" motif was introduced. Similarly, it should have the Dean tapered buffer shanks not the later BR straight ones (this could be fixed with a generous donation). However, it gets my vote as one of GWR's finest. Although there are some suitable wagons on the GWSR, we are not blessed with the pre-1917 rolling stock that some railways have and thank goodness they saved what they did.

 

Funny how those who knock the GWR seem to miss this period when modern 2-8-0's and the like blew out the water the ancient 0-6-0 types found elsewhere at the time

 

Good to know, as it is not advertised as appearing on the website.

 

Surely Robinson's 2-8-0s were just as successful and roughly the same vintage?

Plus of course the Midland built S&D locos and I believe the LNWR rebuilt a batch of their
0-8-0s as 2-8-0s. Not sure when the Gresley O2 was introduced.

 

That's what I was advised a few weeks ago. Check closer to the date to confirm.

 

1903 for the Churchward Locomotive and 1911 for the Robinson. Think you'd have to be pretty blinkered not to regard the 28 as being head and shoulders above the others.

 

In 1916 certainly, although flash forward to 1921 and we find an NER T3 knocking the spots off a 28XX at Glenfarg.

 

Well if we include 0-8-0s, I think both the LNWR & GCR 2-8-0s were developments of 0-8-0s which pre-dated the 28xx.

There's a lot more to being "successful" than having more tractive effort. Look at how many ROD 2-8-0s were built based on the Robinson design.
The original reason for raising the point was that the op mentioned other railways relying on 0-6-0s, whereas the LNWR, NER, GNR and GCR were using 0-8-0s. What did the GWR use for heavy/long haul work prior to the production version of the 28xx in 1905?

 

On the subject of Glenfarg, I recall NELPG's Maurice Burns challenging the owners of 2857 to a rematch with 901 on Goathland Bank in the late 80s. Shame it never happened, but then in those days before the track was slewed in certain places most GWR outside cylinder engines would have demolished the NYMR's platform edges.

 

Even taking that into account, I'm not sure I'd consider a S&D 7F, Robinson O4, Super D etc as being on a par with a 28XX, remember at the time of the first being outshopped, the LMS 8F would still be around 3 decades in the making.

 

That was really just a trial of adhesive power. The results would probably have been in proportion to their respective adhesive weights had not 2804s heaviest load been during a snow storm which prevented the sanding gear from working.

So were Q7s subsequently built in large numbers?

 

Don't mention the Kruger's!

 

Certainly not the Super D, which was more of a plodder. Whenever I hear the survivor in action it puts me in mind of an elderly St. Bernard. "chuff, Chuff, CHUFF, wheeze! chuff, Chuff, CHUFF, wheeze!" There's nothing quite like it.