Dean Goods Boiler

Another purely personal view, based on no experience whatsoever ....

The period of history when steam loco crews had minimal protection is seriously unrepresented in modern preservation. There are a handful of working examples, e.g. Sir Berkeley and Planet, and a few quarry Hunslets. Surprisingly, we are more likely to see narrow gauge diesels without cabs than steam locomotives.

Presumably early loco crews would don suitable working gear to protect themselves from bad weather.

From a historical interest perspective, I would be far more excited by an "original" Armstrong Goods without cab than a modernised version with cab and Belpaire boiler.

If I had the money (which I don't) I would love to rebuild a Beattie well tank back to its original form.

 

I think that one with a cab would look less out of place with the coaching stock available on preserved lines.

Although not historically accurate I would be delighted to see a Standard Goods with a cab, fully lined out with Indian Red frames pulling Collett coaches on, say, the SVR.

 

Possibly, though it is worth remembering that for many of those taken on by the railway companies in the mid nineteenth century, the alternative employment would have been in the fields. Taken in that light, the physical conditions were scarcely worse, and the pay and security probably rather better, so such jobs were no doubt prized. It's quite possible that the process of urbanisation that was to a large extent facilitated by the railways was also behind demands for better crew protection as the railways matured, and railway workers could begin to contemplate their alternative existence might be in an indoor factory rather than in a field.

By time you'd finished, there wouldn't be much of the current engine left!



DSC_0574 by Tom James, on Flickr

Tom

 

Indeed, just needs someone with the time to bite the bullet.

 

Perhaps it was more like being a deep sea fisherman ... you had to be prepared to carry on whatever the conditions.

True, but isn't she gorgeous?

 

cabs were seen by some as dangerous as they could trap noxious gases

 

... and cabs must have been dangerous when safety depended on a clear view of the line ahead (as opposed to just being able to see the signals).

 

I saw somewhere a suggestion that carbon monoxide poisoning was potentially more of an issue with coke fuel and before brick arches, but I have no idea of the truth of that.

 

From what I've seen of them they were designed and built long before the word 'ergonomics' was thought of.

 

Wasn't Dionysius Lardner was it

 

Again...build a new one, then we can enjoy the best of both worlds!

(Suggestion made with tongue firmly in cheek!)

 

Deleted. Wrong thread.

 

Looks like someone already did.

 

I must agree with earlier posts that the last half of the 19c is very unrepresented in loco terms .I'd love to see an Armstrong goods but it is only to be expected seeing that period is so very far away & indeed was very far away when the first preservationists got going . Even pre war when a few engines were preserved. But we must be thankful for what we've got! The GW had an unbelivably diverse collection of engines in the Armstrong & Dean era, with as said loads of different boiler configurations for the goods , & this was just one class!
Ive read that when cabs began to be put on , prob 1850s ,60s a lot of the drivers did'nt like them & even requested they be taken off! They just wer'nt used to them & prefered the locos as they were , cabless.

 

Interesting point, I remembering cabbing Blackmoor Vale when it visited railfest on a hot summers day, Just standing there in that heat was difficult enough, I think to fire on a day like that the firemans water consumption would be not far short of the loco's.