Dean Goods Boiler

Even if Didcot is on a 99 year lease or whatever it is, I highly doubt Network Rail will be requiring of a Armstrong/Dean boiler far into the 21st century, Surely some sensible negotation would be enough to secure it for another purpose.

 

Is it an Armstrong boiler? Unlikely that an Armstrong boiler would be fitted to a Dean Goods.

 

I'm not an expert looks like a Dean. Guess its a wonderful piece of didcot history as is, but it needs a paint. Didcot pm me if you want someone to brush up!

 

Is it lagged with heritage material, though? I can well imagine that it might be, and whilst it's left in place and unused there's probably no need to spend mony unnecessarily removing it. The moment someone starts to work on it that might change!

 

The original Dean boilers were round top, not Belpaire. I'm not an expert either, but I'd guess that the Belpaire boiler would be a Churchward improvement.

 

Hang on I thought that the guys who are restoring the Pannier at P&B were going to build a dean goods once that's done?

 

There were any number of variations on the P class boiler used on the Dean Goods, domed, domeless, dome on front ring as above or on centre ring, different feed positions, almost you name it, as well as bepaire or round top firebox. I'm without references where I am at the moment, so not sure if there were any raised firebox versions of the P class boiler, but such things certainly existed on other boiler types. Here http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrt2988.htm is a raised belpaire firebox domeless boiler on a pannier tank - one of the more unusual variations, but I don't know offhand if any such reached a Dean Goods. That one is a smaller boiler than a Dean Goods has. Belpaire fireboxes started to be used in the Dean era, but only after Churchward had been appointed to be Dean's chief assistant. However boiler variations were common right through Dean's time in charge: it strikes me as a bit speculative to definitively give credit for the early belpaire firebxes to GJC.

 

You don't seriously think the WIBBLErs (Wouldn't It Be Bloomin' Lovely Eh?) Give a flying fish for the comfort of the crews do you?

 

Maybe they could put a cab on the replica Rocket. And Planet. And the Steam Elephant.

 

Maybe not, but if you're a serious new build project team, considering what specification to build your locomotive to (and I bet the permutations for Armstrong Standard Goods are nearer three figures than one), then unless your plan is to run it solely on Didcot's demonstration line the likely willingness of volunteers to crew it on the longer lines might enter your thoughts.

There isn't any kind of standard specification for them - they were built over a period of ten years and the last ones were rather different to the first. And then after that the appearance when they left the works after a major repair depended on amongst other factors whether the repair was at Swindon or Wolverhampton. The two factories had their own drawing offices and own design styles - even their own liveries. For those that don't know, when Dean was promoted to GWR Locomotive Superintendant (=CME) it was over the head of George Armstrong at Wolverhampton, and Dean does't seem to have attempted to give orders to the man he had once been assistant to.

I suppose if they picked the variations carefully it might be possible to set things up so that alternate cab arrangements could be swapped out without outrageous amounts of work. All depends on how and where pipework etc is routed and attached I suppose. Maybe the GWRs lead could be followed and such a locomotive turned out in Wolverhampton or Swindon spec at alternate overhauls. Cue endless arguments about exactly what colour Wolverhampton green was I suppose.

Going back a bit, only a tiny handful of Standard Goods were ever fitted with a P Class (Dean Goods) boiler but the major difference was that the Std Good boiler had a 9inch longer barrel.

 

With out checking wasn't George Armstrong the son of the Armstrong who was dean's boss?

 

There was a Joseph Armstrong who was at Wolverhampton from 1854 to 1864 when he moved to Swindon and was there until 1877 when he died. William Dean took over his job and Joseph Armstrong place was taken over at Wolverhampton by his younger brother George who had the post until 1897.

 

George was Josephs younger brother who continued to run Wolverhampton almost independently after Dean had been moved down to Swindon as Armstrong's assistant and ultimately successor.

However, Joseph had a son also Joseph (Young Joe) who was a contemporary of Churchward and generally thought to have been the more talented, who designed what became the ATC with Churchward and at Churchward's omission would have followed Dean due to his greater talent, unfortunately he committed suicide in 1888 aged 32. See https://web.archive.org/web/2005051...wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/Trains/Inquest.htm

Whilst I am unashamedly a disciple of Churchward and have always wanted if I had the time to do more research on his life and achievements, I suspect a biography of the Armstrong's of the GWR would prove to be altogether more interesting piece.

 

Steamindex is your friend for those types of queries...

http://www.steamindex.com/people/armstron.htm

Tom

 

The Armstrongs of the Great Western: Their Times, Surroundings & Contemporaries
Author Harold Holcroft
Publisher Railway World Limited, 1953

 

I must confess seeing the Railway World bit I have always interpreted that as a magazine piece, but apparently not. I imagine getting a copy will be like ricking horse muck but we shall see.

 

I've got a copy. I wouldn't regard it as being a 'cannot do without' volume but its certainly interesting and provides some background on those earlier days. Its at least as much a book about the human beings than about the railway technology.

 

Not sure I buy that line of reasoning. Regardless of the line, any loco built for purely heritage line use will spend half its time going backwards, so whatever the protections of the cab when running forwards, on a tender engine you will be subject to the weather half the time anyway. You only really avoid that fully on locos like Bulleids or BR standards with full-height tenders, but then you get into issues about heat - my personal experience is that the times I've wished a loco to be warmer / drier are far outnumbered by the times I've wished one to be cooler / airier.

For locomotives crewed by paid staff "back in the day" and mostly running forwards, better cab protection was clearly looked on favourably. But for heritage line volunteers, the motivations are subtly different: personally I'd prioritise "interesting" over "comfortable" any day. Which is not a reason to make a loco with poor protection just for the sake of it, but I suspect you can over-egg the issue of the desirability of full weather protection - when set against other factors relevant to funding - for crews who are spending half their time going backwards anyway and who are doing the job for love, not money.

Disclaimer: This is a personal view based on footplate experience on a line in the balmy south that wanders through bucolic vineyard territory. The experience of our brethren in the bleak northern moorlands may vary ...

Tom

 

To be honest I tend to prefer the books about the human beings rather than long lists of technical information, but thats just me.

Getting back on topic I wish someone credible would put together a plan for a new Dean Goods, with a boiler available I would imagine it would be, comparatively speaking, cheaper and easier than many new build projects and be an eminently useful for many railways with a GWR theme, perhaps churn out a whole batch!

 

The first part of the credibility is probably relatively easily and cheaply acquired, which is the hunt through the various archives for drawings, and the exercise of finding out which parts are already available. Also the task of considering how much to compromise and use 2251/5700 components which are different in detail and one assumes superior.