J21 65033 gets its money!

I very much doubt that Darren and Tracey Average who have bought little Chelsea and Harry along 'to ride on a steam train' would agree with you. What you have just written there may as well be in fluent Serbo-Croat to them... That's the 95% of the 'wider public' that Arther1973 is alluding to.

Good to hear that not only this loco will return to steam, but that the KSE chaps and chapesses will be getting themselves a true 'flagship' loco.

 

Your joshing surely?

 

Yes, but get that 95% to draw the outline, or describe a steam locomotive that's 100 years old and you will end up with something closer to a J21 than all the others I mentioned.

 

Really? What feature do you think is unique and apparent and significant enough to the average visitor on the J21 that isn't shared by, say, the C class?

The humble goods 0-6-0 was a mainstay of our railways for the best part of 100 years from the mid nineteenth century onwards. I'm really glad that another one will be restored (and even more so that it will have a proper livery ) but the beauty of such locos is that they were prosaic, workaday things, rather than distinctive. While many enthusiasts could no doubt wax lyrical about the vagaries of Mr Crankpin's patent gizmo fitted to one, or Dr Crosshead's new improved whatsit fitted to another, the really significant point about the J21 seems to me that it is an absolutely workaday loco being restored for service in an area with which the type was long associated.

Tom

 

Totally agree with you, Tom, but as a fellow-southerner, I have always regarded the two principal pre-grouping English railways which never ran anywhere London (i.e. the NER and the L&YR) as rather exotic, so if 65033, once restored and bedded down, gets a chance to visit a line somewhat nearer my home, I for one would be delighted to see it.

 

Your probably right that the C-class would be the one that shares the similarities that I'm on about more than the others with the J21. I just think that the way the J21s built is much better. Its got the tall chimney, the quaint cab. The running plate has the splashes' fitted that give it a more distinctive look and even the way the front two are flat with the front of the smokebox looks better. I prefer the smokebox on the J21 being neater and less bulky than the C-class, while the smokebox door has its hinges set at a better ratio to the door and gives it a more uniform look compared with J25, G5, Q6, B16, B17, B1...

I know a lot of that is just sheer choice and beauty in the eye of the the beholder stuff. That's one reason why I'm so pleased J21 is making a comeback as the build quality I think was excellent and the role it played on one of the hardest routes for nigh on 50 years is a testament to an excellent design where other engines tried and failed.

Yes the C-class is a nice engine too. But like you, I'm pleased the J21, a north eastern workhorse is finally making a comeback.

 

Well, I'd be up for it were it to pay a visit to Sussex

Tom

 

I think you rather make my point - I can't imagine that those are features that would, as you put it, be immediately drawn by 95% of the population.

I actually think that, across the country and taking in all the various examples, we have a pretty good spread of 0-6-0s preserved, starting with a significantly early one (Bradyll / Nelson), right through to the very last (the Q1) and with mid-Victorian (NER long boiler 1275); late Victorian (J21, SE&CR O1, L&YR class 27, Dean Goods etc.), Edwardian (SE&CR C class, GER Y14) inter-war (4F, Q class) examples.

Probably the two significant "missing links" would be an example of a loco bridging the gap between Bradyll and the NER 1275 (I'd choose a SER Cudworth standard goods, of which over a hundred were built, though objectively, a LNWR DX goods in original form would probably be a sound choice); and an outside frame example (GWR or Midland to choice; I'd choose a Midland one). But all told, it's not a bad selection, and the J21 will add to those riches.

Tom

 

I think it would if you just got them to draw a side profile of an engine 100 years ago, but I'm not wanting to detract from the conversation relating to J21.

Love how the answer to the gap in the sequence is to immediately propose yet another Southern engine, when sadly one of the best reasons for J21 to return to steam is the way preservation worked out and the fact that there are few Eastern region engines left. Of course, that will be due to knowing your area and personal preference. In turn Id say that the NER 398 would work here too, ironically looking like your C-class but built about 30 years earlier...

So yes, I'm loving the J21s return being that its an excellent ambassador to showcase that North Eastern locomotive construction at the time was excellent and worked over routes far harder than many other peers would have to do. Its also nice for it to return and highlight this area that's often overlooked when there's so many other more southern engines that made it into preservation.

 

Personally I think an LNWR DX and a Midland Kirtley 0-6-0 would be marvellous newbuild subjects, much more important, historically significant, and useful than most of the projects out there. See previous posts out there ad nauseum by yours truly.
However - we do have a loco in the DX mould preserved: GS&WR 101 class No 186 is in original condition at Whitehead, although needs some work. It is especially interesting because No 184 of the same class, but in final condition with superheated Belpaire boiler etc., is also at Whitehead.

 

I think that it is 184 that is in original condition and 186 that has the superheated boiler. Many years ago I went on an RPSI weekend railtour around the backwaters of Ireland behind this pair. What a classic trip that was.

Peter James

 

That is correct.

186 needs a relatively small amount of work, however she is now seen as being on the small side to cope with current RPSI loadings. 184 requires a lot more work, including possible replacement cylinders and would be even less suited to RPSI loadings.

Unfortunately it may be many years before we see either of these fine locos out and about again.


Keith

 

Woops, yes indeed. Funny coincidence that out of over a hundred engines the two survivors are separated by just one number.

 

I don't know, I'd certainly say the North British Railway C Class ( reclassified as J36 under LNER ) had much nicer proportions for a tender engine. And as the class were the last working members of British Railways steam in Scotland, 50 years ago to the year, perhaps of greater importance alongside top link engines..... ;-)

All in all, it's great news to hear that the J21 has secured funding for an overhaul. I'll look forward to seeing her steaming at Kirkby Stephen in the coming years, and an 0-6-0 tender engine gala which would attempt to unite as many fitting members as possible would be superb somewhere! Celebrate the real workhorses for a change.

 

Personally I can't wait to get her down to Tanfield on a coal train (tongue out of cheek)

 

It might happen? FR20 is the only tender loco I can think of to have visited Tanfield up until now.

 

Personally I think she'd look marvellous there. Don't they have Beamishs NER bogie coach there?

 

I think that would be superb. They also have a wealth of NER rolling stock that would look great behind 'No.876'. Still too early yet to say if and when it would happen, and it's not something we've discussed with the Tanfield. At this stage the 2 definite destinations for an in-steam J21 / C-class to visit are Beamish and Shildon but it will go to other places too.

 

Well, our bit of the ISO container at the back of the shed then, arf arf!

 

Wensleydale and Weardale would also be great to see 876 stretching her legs a bit (hint hint ) (not to mention the NYMR)