Locomotives that NEARLY made it

The B12 is a very attractive loco, especially since so few of those that worked in East Anglia have survived.

 

Which really helps to put the fate of the last Claud Hamilton into perspective.

 

Although the B12 is basically the Claude Hamilton stretch limo anyway (I say that as someone who would love a newbuild CH to actually happen more than any other loco)

 

It really does look like a classic British inside-cylinder 4-4-0 that has been stretched just barely enough to squeeze in an extra pair of driving wheels. I've only seen it during the 2000 Steam on the Met, when I was disappointed by its lethargic speed up the 1-in-106 approaching Chorleywood. I have just timed the exhaust beats in my video and calculated the speed as about 28 mph, barely more than allowed on preserved lines. (I can post the video if anyone would like to see it.)

However: this is supposed to be a thread about locos that nearly made it, so why are we discussing one that nearly didn't?

 

The common occurrence known as ‘Thread Drift’

 

To be fair, I've found the discussion quite interesting, and there is only so much you can say about what must be a strictly limited pool of "might have beens".

Maybe we need a thread on "Locos that didn't even qualify as a might have been but really deserved preservation..."

Tom

 

I maybe wrong but thought I read somewhere, think it might have been on another thread on NP, that 65476 was also initially retained for possible preservation...???

 

Although I strongly suspect Tom's last paragraph [post #366] actually translates as 'the entire Wainwright H class', that's a great subject to chew over.

 

Just imagine having all 66 of them to play with ...

Tom

 

Out of interest, who for?

 

Do you need a cold shower Tom?

 

It would be like some Middle Eastern potentate with a harem - but how could you love them all equally? Still, I’d be willing to try the experiment in the interests of science.

Tom

 

Don't think there was any mention of actual interest, just that it had been initially retained for possible preservation.

 

That is basically what evolution is about, but unlike Darwinism it had something to start with. Personally I find the Gresley/Thompson rebuilds of the B12 better proportioned that the Gresley/Thompson Clauds, but the opposite for the original Holden/Hill designs.

 

Aesthetically the Gresley/Thompson B12 is sublime.

 

Agreed

 

I'm not going to argue with that.

 

Tom -

Thank-you for your thoughtful and most interesting analysis. Your thesis seems to provide an outline framework for a book - or at least a Backtrack article. There have been numerous books on the locomotives of particular railways or particular engineers, but seemingly far fewer that try to bring together a wider view.

Some reflections from me, working in reverse through your "Generations":

Generation 6 would be cut short by dieselisation and electrification, but at different times in different countries and areas.

Generation 5 includes the Chapelon improvements around 1930, which might be regarded as Generation 5½.

Generation 4 saw saturated engines not only being "highly developed", but major increases in the size of locos. During the 19th century, most engines were of similar size, whether intended for passenger or goods, long-distance or local work. But from the mid-1890s, main-line engine size increased rapidly and substantially. Milestones in Britain in the 1890s were the Caledonian Dunalastairs, the first 4-4-2s and 4-6-0s and the LNWR large-scale building of 0-8-0 goods engines.
Henceforth, loco fleets diverge into various sizes - big engines for the main lines, medium-size engines for general purpose and heavy commuter services, small engines for local and branch trains. In Britain, but not generally in other countries, main-line goods engines start to fall behind main-line passenger engines in size.

Generation 3 had seen British loco design largely coalesce into engines of similar shape and appearance, mostly inside frame and inside cylinder 4-4-0s, 2-4-0s, 0-6-0s, and tank engine equivalents, to such a degree that you often need the company lettering to enable easy differentiation. James Stirling on the SER perhaps achieved the highest degree of standardization, with a common boiler barrel fitting most of his designs. But the picture was similar elsewhere. Most engines had boilers 10-11 feet long and around 4ft 3in diameter, with firebox around 6 feet long and grate area about 18 sq ft, cylinders 17-18in x 24-26in. Design variations were largely limited to such issues as valves above/below/between the cylinders, Stephenson versus Joy valve gear, flat versus sloping grate, and whereabouts on the boiler top do you put the dome (if there is one) and the safety valves.
Compounding evolves during Gen 3, but does not take root in Britain to the extent seen in other countries. The British preference at this period for inside cylinders is also a major point of divergence from most Continental European and American practice.

I agree with your characterisations of Generations 2 and 3, but the boundary between them seems difficult to pin down. It clearly varied between railways, but may on some have been an evolution rather than a single transition point. For example, Edward Fletcher was in charge of NER locos from 1854 to 1882 and seems to straddle the boundary. His later designs were technically up to date but lacked standardization of detail. Patrick Stirling, a loco superintendent for 42 years, is another boundary-crosser. Some of his early designs were very unlike his later standards, including a goods engine with domed boiler, outside cylinders and jack-shaft drive (see attachment).

Caledonian Railway locomotive history sharply divides into two epochs before and after a seismic event in 1882, namely the arrival of Dugald Drummond. Drummond not only improved St Rollox works but imported the standard inside cylinder 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 designs that he had developed on the North British. Drummond's "Jumbo" 0-6-0 would become (if you count follow-on orders placed by his successors) Scotland's most numerous loco type at a total of 244, with the last serving until 1962. It richly deserved a place
in the Glasgow Transport Museum. Perhaps it was excluded because the engines had changed appearance due to fitting of the later McIntosh boiler, with dome further forward and safety valves moved from dome to firebox. But anyway, two other similar Drummond-derived Scottish 0-6-0s have been preserved.

The pre-Drummond Caledonian loco fleet is long-extinct and long-forgotten but very distinctive, showing some affinity with the Beattie period on the LSWR. Nearly all the early Caledonian engines were outside cylinder. Passenger 2-2-2 and 2-4-0 tender engines followed the "Old Crewe Type" with outside cylinders driving between double frames. Goods engines included a class of long-boiler outside-cylinder 0-6-0s, similar to many in Continental Europe but unlike anything else in Britain. However, the majority of Caledonian mineral engines were outside cylinder 0-4-2s, of which Benjamin Connor and George Brittain built 165 from 1861 to 1882. I rather fancy that one of those 0-4-2s could do a good job with the lighter trains on today's heritage railways. But no point in adding to my fantasy new-build list - many enthusiasts would say "what on earth is that"! (See attachment).

 

My first thought was that Chapelon deserves more than a half generation; but then I reflected that Tom's original list was specific to the Southern companies and bluetrain's extends the discussion only to other British locos. Gresley and his successors incorporated some Chapelon features in their designs (and how much did any other British CMEs?) but no British railways ever had anything approaching the efficiency and power-to-weight ratios of Chapelon's designs.

Returning closer to the nominal subject of this thread, could we say that fully Chapelonised locos never made it even as far as the drawing board in Britain?