Ex-Barry locos which were highly regarded in BR days

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Most interesting. I had no idea that 5051, 61264 and 35010 were highly regarded machines, and was interested by the debunking of the "35027 = Bournemouth's best engine" rumour - still, it will be a welcome addition to the main line fleet and hopefully not too long to wait. We've obviously a long wait ahead for 35010. I just hope that Jeremy Hosking opts for full restoration of 35022 as it was such a good engine, rather then using it as a source of spares for 35027. Incidentally, wasn't 35022 the original choice of loco for the MNLPS?

Another engine which I thought performed well (highest speed recorded by the class perhaps??) was 7903 Foremarke Hall - OK it's not going to grace our main lines again, but does anyone know about this? Small Prarie 4588 was aslo popular, I believe, down in Devon, but whether this was mere sentimentality or whether it was a good engine I would be interested to know.,

 

7819 was regarded as the best of the manors 7802 wasd a good un too.
5051 I have heard a different tale from an old Swindon works man who said it was always carboning up its ports, they reckoned due to coasting down the bank into Swansea High Street.
I personally have had several runs behind it in the past and have never been impressed, wouldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding a case of all bark and no bite.
5051 seems to me to have steaming problems she rarely shows the white feather unlike 5043 and 5029.
75069 ia a good un as were all the double chimney 4's I think they were treated like 5's on the Southern perhaps Kent Yeti can confirm this.

Cheers Dave

 

The original choice was 35017. But that got withdrawn and attention then switched to 35022 because it was one of the better ones and had one of the last pair of MN boilers made. Then that got withdrawn, so they went for the one that had the last general repair. Probably it was the right choice in the end. 35028 was quite a fast engine in it's latter days and reliable.

For those that are interested in such things, 35002 was due a general at the same time, but 35028 got there first even though it had already had one since rebuilding, as well as having been the last rebuild. So Clan Line is quite lucky to still be with us.

The inspiration for the preservation of 35028 originally was the destruction of 35004 at Eastleigh Loco. It was a great engine, probably the best at the time, but it's rods got bent when it slipped on the high speed stretch near Fleet in the autumn of 1965. They towed it to Eastleigh and cut it up in the yard there. That started some people thinking - we'd better try and preserve one.

And yes, 35022 would be a better prospect in all sorts of ways if they were to restore the frames and transfer all the bits from 35027. But I guess that's not our business.

 

An interesting point. Is the 'stigma' attached to a particular engine in BR ownership still relevant once it has been restored from ex-Barry condition? Or put another way, is it possible to see how the character of a locomotive has changed in preservation? I doubt it, as you'd need to hand a particular locomotive back to its original crews, but just thinking out loud.

 

It shouldn't make any difference. Except that with certain engines there are sometimes recurring problems which persist over a long period of time. On the other hand there are others which are relatively trouble free. 35022 was one of those, and probably the answer lies in the frameset being a particularly good one. I'm not saying that 35027 was bad, but it was no better than average at best. I should probably add that before they were re-built, 35027 along with 35015 were 'choice' engines on the Eastern section.

A good example of what I'm trying to explain lies in the history of the Britannias when they first went to work on the GE. Partly because they had roller bearings and consequently very tight axleboxes (and no "crown roll" which you have with plain bearings as they develop play) certain engines gave a lot of trouble because they were not machined quite as accurately as others. I've heard stories of half the fleet out of action every weekend for months whilst they re-metalled all the coupling rod bushes. Same engines every week. Because of this some engines even developed driving wheels that shifted on the axles. This is quite widely documented, but attention was devoted to changing the way the wheels were fitted rather than getting to the root of the problem, which was frame alignment. The classic example of the engines that had serious problems was 70007. It was so bad that it developed serious frame fractures, and I've heard that it was in and out of works all it's life for frame repairs, and it was no surprise that it was the first to be scrapped.

 

Apparently No.5000 (LMS Black 5) and No.7812 Erlestoke Manor were both 'rough riders' in service days and are/were the same in heritage operation.

 

I have added a new thread on good un's from bad un's as it seems to be worthy of its own discussion..

http://railways.national-preservation.com/steam-traction/35601-good-un-bad-un.html#post472591

 

Jamie
Ask some of the older SVR drivers she was always known to be rough riding but as strong as hell.
Was run up to the 80's in the 1980's on the N& W.

Cheers Dave

 

Indeed Dave! My comment was specifically about their rough riding, I was not sure as to their reputation for strong/fast running.

 

When Tyseley had 3 Halls based their a few years ago they all had different characteristics, from what i've read (mostly from Mike Notley and quotes elsewhere) 4965 boils water like it's going out of fashion, 4953 was a 'strong' one and 4936 could sometimes be a little tempremental.

 

It doesn't always follow a pattern. Up until the last couple of years, engines were withdrawn either when cost of scheduled repairs were estimated to exceed the limit specified, or they were surplus to requirements. There was also a target set for withdrawals by the accountants - who else. On the LMR it was done by tonnage i.e. nothing at all to do with how useful they were to the traffic department. As new diesels were introduced into traffic a certain tonnage was automatically culled from the steam fleet. Thus the last Duchesses were all withdrawn in one go to meet these targets, which they did by withdrawing fewer engines of heavier weight. The demand to achieve stupid targets are not just a recent phenomenon. Anyway, some of the poorer engines survived longer because they did less mileage than the others. From about 1966 onwards, engines were withdrawn for really trivial reasons. For example 34044 was taken out of service because the windshield on the back of the cab had got damaged.

I imagine that the engines at Barry represented a reasonable cross section of good and bad. One or two of them even steamed into the yard. 45163 was an accident victim, and there were quite a few that had only been withdrawn because the boiler was due for repair.

 

There was no set pattern as to what arrived at Barry or any other scrapyard. It was just a case of whose tender was sucsessful. Some of the locos were very run down while others were just withdrawn as 'surplus to requirements'. The same applied to rolling stock, with Buffet and Dining Cars, containing all equipment and crockery etc., going to the breakers because they were surplus. One ex works LMS tender reached Barry but I don't know what became of it. There were also quite a few BR Standard horseboxes, in excellent condition, that met their end there. Ivatt 2 46521 was an excellent loco. I know, I fired it over the Seven Mile Bank.

It was really a case of 'you pays your money and see what you get'.

 

There was a policy, right up to 1968, of moving good engines on when a shed closed. For example, both 45110 and 48773 were Bolton engines until the shed closed, and were then moved on to Lostock Hall and Rose Grove respectively. One or two other Lostock Hall "Fives" that are still with us came from Speke when that shed closed. However, sometimes the scale and speed of withdrawal offered nowhere for good engines to go. Woodhams picked up quite a few engines which worked right through to the end of WR steam in December 1965, and presumably could have carried on for longer - along with 41312 which saw out Southern steam in July 1967. Significantly, none of the Bulleid locos which lasted until July '67 found their way there.

On the other hand, 5552 was withdrawn as far back as 1960. Branch line engines like the Small Prairies suffered from both the arrival of DMUs and widespread branch line closures - good engines, perhaps, but no work for them to do.

Bearing these faftors in mind, the engines which ended up at Woodhams were a mixture of good, bad and in between. Fortunately, life in preservation means that even the "bad" and "indifferent" locos can still earn their keep. Q Class 541 is a good example: possibly Maunsell's least successful class, but the weaknesses of the design aren't too apparent when working five coach trains on the Bluebell Line at 25mph maximum. (In fact, although not ex-Barry engines, the same can be said of the P class, which was never a great success in SECR/SR days, and never as highly regarded as the "Terriers", but 27, 178, 323 and 753/1556 seem to handle what has been asked of them in preservation without undue difficulty.)

 

Slightly off topic but it is interesting to note what locos were scrapped at Barry. Woodhams purchased 19(I think) of the 94xx panniers and all but one (9466) were cut up. Being the last built batch of panniers they would presumably have had much life left in them- would have made good aqusitions for several preserved lines today. 10 45/55xx locos were also cut up before 1965(as mentionend above they were displaced in the early 60's by closures and the advent of DMU's).

 

Yes indeed - 19 94xxs bought and only 9466 survived while 10 small prairies were cut up (See The Story of Barry scrapyard) Indeed, quite a few engines which would have been very useful on heritage lines went to scrap, but all things considered, much to be thankful for in terms of what survived.

 

Look at 9499, only worked for 4 years! Hardly run in.