Surviving nineteenth century standard gauge locomotives

Yes, but JC, not JB ...

Tom

 

An Armstrong Queen could have similar power to such a 2-4-0.

Though personally I think an earlier design such as a Jenny Lind (or, say, an England design with delightfully classical fluted dome etc) together with coaches of a contemporary outline would be a great attraction, probably with many compromises in the engineering rather than accurately constructed replicas.

 

Something like this, perhaps?

I know that availability of information on the internet is by no means indicative of how much is in the archives somewhere, but I suspect the research might be just as difficult and time consuming as the build for one of these.

 

I'm afraid you've lost me. I know of Joseph Hamilton Beattie on the LSWR, and his son William George. Were there more?

 

OK, I think I'm catching up. John Craven, not Joseph Beattie. Sorry for being slow...

 

JC (John Craven) not JB (Joseph Beattie) - see the link in @8126's post above...

(Though - flight of whimsy alert - if JC were instead James Cudworth, you could go the whole hog with his patent firebox, which would be exceptionally interesting and educational from a fireman's point of view, but I suspect not looked on with pleasure by the boilersmiths...)

Tom

 

A large scale general arrangement drawing exists, but I believe not much else: the detailed drawings would have to be done from scratch. On the other hand, a large number of drawings had to be done from scratch for Beachy Head...

Tom

 

Indeed, which leads to the question of how much you worry about exact authenticity in the internal detail. For Beachy Head there are some (one?) vaguely contemporary Brighton locos and 251 to give guidance as to how things were likely to have been done.

A Craven, on the other hand, is very definitely of a different era. Do you say: "As long as it looks right we won't worry too much about authenticity of the mechanical bits and instead focus on making it work," or do you put a lot of effort into finding out exactly how things would have been done and resurrect all the foibles of a mid nineteenth century 2-4-0? I suspect that depends on whether you want a reliable, if occasional, member of the service fleet (plus film star?) or a piece of engineering historical research.

 

I think to a degree you would have to compromise.

The main issue, not faced by Craven, is the provision of a vacuum brake. The originals had boilers pressed to 120psi, so you would probably be running at 100 - 120psi most of the time. You couldn't get a vacuum ejector to maintain a vacuum reliably at that. So I think you would probably need to raise boiler pressure to, say, 160psi. Leaving all the other dimensions unchanged, that gives about 9,600lbf TE. That would be just sufficient to restart a 100 ton tare train (i.e. eight four wheelers) on a 1 in 55 gradient, which would in effect be the operational limit.

The higher pressure would also make running an injector more reliable - again, a non-prototypical feature, but probably an operational requirement. The original would I think have had two crosshead-driven feed pumps; one option might be to use one pump and one injector; and then use the other crosshead to drive a vacuum pump to maintain vacuum on the run, with just a small ejector to create vacuum in the first place.

Tom

 

well that was news round here too

 

Personally I'd like to see a Jenny Lind, as arguably the first standard type, sold to and built my numerous companies she'd be a good representative.

 

I'm not convinced an increase in boiler pressure is required to make more modern ancillaries work. I've followed Andy Chapman's blog regarding the resurrection of Sentinel 7109 with some interest and in one series of posts he discusses design of the vacuum brake system, which of course the loco never originally had.

The relevant bit is that he uses an ejector fed by a reducing valve giving a 60 psi supply from the 275 psi Sentinel boiler. This is with an original design vacuum load of four Mk1s, so near equivalent to your eight four wheelers (there's reference in one of the posts to a certain 'Steve' from the Middleton Railway who I suspect may be familiar to NatPres). Miniature injectors will work happily down below 40 psi, it's just a question of what they're designed for; I'm sure a satisfactory injector could be produced for a 120 psi boiler of the size we're talking about.

Of course, if your primary concern is more power, it would be rather hypocritical of me to object. It just may need slightly more extensive re-design to avoid it falling apart.

 

The idea of constructing more nineteenth-century new-builds is an interesting dilemma.

If we want railway preservation to be historically representative then yes, it's a fantastic idea. With no disrespect to the project teams concerned, there are plenty of nineteenth century designs that constitute far bigger "historical gaps" than, say, an A1 or a Patriot.

However, as has been pointed out, modern H&S requirements mean that there would have to be compromises in the design of any working replicas. This is particularly true of those very early locomotives of the 1840s and 1850s which, arguably, are the most under-represented in preservation at the moment. One could argue that the less authentic a replica is, the less value it has. Yes, it might allow us to recreate some nineteenth-century cameos for filming or photo-charters; but it can't truly demonstrate how a nineteenth century loco was constructed, or what it was like to drive. Yet equally, what is the point of building a totally-authentic replica which would never be allowed to run?

Another point to consider is that a replica locomotive on its own only tells part of the story. It would be an absolutely fascinating project to recreate a complete railway of, say, the 1840s, complete with authentic rolling stock and infrastructure. But, again, would it comply with modern H&S? And would it be commercially viable? Would anybody pay to travel any distance in an early third-class coach - i.e. completely open and with no seats? I think that if one wants to recreate a truly convincing "early railway" experience the best one can hope for is a short demonstration line, such as Didcot's broad-gauge line or the waggonway at Beamish.

Having said that, it would be lovely to see Tyseley's Bloomer finished. So here's a thought: what if Tyseley were to link up with, say, the Black Country Museum or Blists Hill? Build a short demonstration line, similar to that at Beamish, but with an 1850s theme, complete with some suitable coaches for the engine to pull? That could be a really educational experience for the many schoolchildren who visit those museums, and it would give the engine a chance to run regularly. Just a thought!

Now, leaving all those boring objections to one side. If we could build some lovely new nineteenth-century engines, my "top five" would be:

• A "Jenny Lind". As has been pointed out, arguably the first "standard design" on Britain's railways, and therefore hugely significant.
• A double-framed 0-6-0 tender engine. One of the archetypal Victorian types, yet no examples now remain in this country.
• An LNWR DX goods 0-6-0. The most numerous locomotive type ever to run in Britain (not the Black Five, as is so often claimed!), yet almost forgotten now.
  
• A 2-4-0. This was the vital "missing link" between the 2-2-2 and the 4-4-0, yet we have no working standard-gauge examples in Britain. So, the idea of a Craven 2-4-0 for the Bluebell could be really worthwhile.
  
• A late-Victorian single. Yes, we have preserved examples, but none are likely to steam again. Didcot were muttering about a Dean Single a while ago - that would be good!

Does anyone have any other suggestions?!

 

I think with any such replica giving the passengers the experience of travelling in a train of, say, the 1850s is more relevant than ensuring the drivers and maintenance crews learning what it was like to drive. Gooch's and Joy's diaries give enough clues that might be best avoided!

The open standee third class carriages belong to an even earlier era, passengers are quite happy travelling in the Talyllyn's 1860s coaches which would be comparable.

I wonder if it would be a worthwhile exercise for a group to have a design 'ready to go' at short notice, when you read how much many film sets cost there must be a slight chance that a film company might in the future be interested if told 'we can provide you with an authentic looking ******* Railway train of 18** for £750,000 in six months'. Here again a design such as a Jenny or Sharp single might be easily adapted to suit different roles.

 

It certainly is. In order to safely and repeatably operate a design from the 1850s/60s (which is surely the goal) you have to make so many revisions that authenticity is lost. I'm not sure how you square that circle.

Here's another idea. While there are many more representatives from the 1880s/90s extant, as Tom has demonstrated, how many of them operate? And moreover, how many of them operate in their original form? It seems to me that any that do operate (like the T9) represent those designs at the end of their working lives, so that at best they're hybrid 19th/20th century designs.

I would suggest that building a single or 2-4-0 from the 1880s/90s, in its original form, would fill just as significant a gap in regularly operating locomotives, but would require far fewer modifications compromising authenticity.

 

Several NER 2-4-0s survive. Doubt they will ever steam again

 

As does the GER T26/LNER E4 - 62785. A loco I'd love to see run again.

 

No-one seems to have mentioned - perhaps with good cause - a 'Crampton' yet. I gather the French have a working one at Mulhouse?

 

Looking at it logically, it should be from a company under represented in preservation, but which however has suitable coaching stock available.
Looking at it illogically I'd like to see a double framed GWR 2-2-2, also not 19th century but I'd love to see the Gnr C1 run again, lol

 

No coaching stock but here's my contender.Survived to 1936 and only scrapped then due to an accident.