42424 - New Build Fowler Tank

The drawins have been published as "LMS Locomotive Profiles Vol. 3" by David Hunt, Bob Essery and Fred James (Wild Swan).

http://www.lmssociety.org.uk/lmsJournal/profile.php?profileNumber=3

These are quite detailed and David in particular I'm sure would be willing to help.

http://www.lmssociety.org.uk/

 

They were entranced by the prospect of doing something with all that peat!

 

Presumably because they were unable to resist blarney.

PH

 

Here's 42394 in OO which I built earlier in June 2016. Took about 10 days. Source info as mentioned in book LMS Locomotive Profiles 3, page 59. I hadn't found the "colour photo" so had to use their b&w version, but did see a few slides on eBay showing her shedded at Leeds Holbeck.

(OO Perseverance brass side-tank kit & small detailing kit over a Hornby shell; and Markits M49 Fowler whistle. Painted in Halfords Plastic Primer Grey, Halfords Rover Brooklands Green, and Citadel Chaos Black).

 

Is that Barnoldswick?

 

Yes, it is Barnoldswick station, 1st August 1964, with the 08:19 service to Skipton. Photographer: Gerald T. Robinson.

Danger: Do not lean out of the window!

 

Definitely Barnoldswick the shape of the station building and level crossing confirm it

 

Thank you. The highlight of my boyhood holidays in the 1950s with Aunt and Uncle on Kelbrook Road was a trip to Skipton. I seem to recall that Class 2s were more normal though. The station layout was notorious for its being impossible to run round without closing the crossing. I think that it was a hangover from the original plan to extend to the L&Y at Gisburn which would have resulted in through running.

 

The concepts encompassed within the Leader, with the near-miss exception of the sleeve valves because of mechanical complexity, were fairly practical ideas ruined by rushed execution. That they got built at all probably rests with the temperament of the Southern's board at the time. They must have wanted to score a point against the BTC, otherwise why were about 47 ordered straight off the drawing board? However, when you look at the wider context; a balance of payments crisis reducing imports of oil, reduced manpower to dispose locomotives at the end of the day, and a view that steam would be in for the long haul because of the ready availability of coal (as mentioned by Steve above), then it probably felt the right time to take the traditional Stephenson locomotive and give it a bit of a shake.

As such, I feel accusing him of being 'selfish' is a little strong- a lot of snippets suggest he was quite the reverse, and was as good at organising works stores as he was at diplomacy. And how would you feel if you started your railway career four years later everyone else? He probably felt he had to prove something to fit in. He also suffered personal tragedy in 1938 when his youngest son was run over and killed in Dorking- this hook him quite a bit, and probably made him realise that he had only the one chance to make a difference. So selfishness is not exactly what I get from reading possibly the same sources as you have read, but then I've always been biased in his favour.

People seem to forget that even in wartime, the Southern was also a troop-carrying railway, and ironically carried more ordinary passenger traffic than in peacetime. This is probably a gross over-simplification, but it was possibly thus to a greater extent than the others, which generally served the regions producing the war materiel, and were therefore in greater need of heavy freight locomotives. As such, the Southern still had to have passenger-capable locomotives with enough power to shift lengthened trains- and why not occasionally use them on the odd freight? In the round, the MNs did pretty well- the design was also intended to reduce maintenance in respect of limited manpower in wartime, but successful execution was hindered by the shortcomings of contemporary technology.

Finally, I suspect Hawksworth was of the Bulleid mould and wanted to move the GWR forward from Churchward- he must have held some sort of regard for his Southern counterpart when he responded to a query about his 280psi boiler with the words 'if its good enough for Bulleid...'

Anyway, what was this thread about..?

 

Like you, I think "selfish" is a bit OTT. My view of him is that he was a "dabbler" who did not consider various innovations with the care they warranted. The sleeve valves were an example of this. In their motor application they required extreme precision in manufacture and care in design. He cannot have consulted anyone seriously about the problems which led to their being all but dropped by the motor industry by 1939.

PH

 

Bit of necromancing there fellas! Did you read the full thread after my quoted post...?

 

Fair point.

 

Don't get me wrong, you make fair points. It is interesting though the approach to Bulleid as opposed Thompson - Bulleid is given much more leeway. Perhaps both would fare better with a more balanced set of observations.

But I'll not run that horse again, or Paul Hitch will shoot me.

 

More importantly, what colour would it have been?

 

'improved engine' green of course ---- grabs hat & coat and runs

 

For the life of me, I can't understand Oliver Bulleid's involvement in a Fowler 2-6-4 tank to be built in the 2020s!

 

Could be the green livery or possibly the fact that 2-6-4 is 4-6-2 backwards.

Bob.

 

If you'd been on Taw Valley with me today, Jim, you wouldn't have any trouble understanding!

I have a deep, abiding and unshakeable love for all things L.M.S, from Jinties to Duchesses, (surely on a par with Concorde and Saturn V), however, I can become a complete slut where Bulleid Pacifics are concerned.

Lord knows when, or if, I'll get a chance to drive another Duchess, but, until then, a Bulleid Pacific does very nicely. I hope 42424 gets the support and comes together as fast as the Patriot is, and that it visits the Valley before I have to retire from the footplate.

It will look great alongside 42968 and 45110!