GWR 'Dean Goods' no. 2516 - suggested restoration in Steam Railway issue no. 401

i agree i don't think there would be much left by now! i will have to delve into the books and my papers to retrieve further details of the lost Armstrong Standard Goods locos but off the top of my head it was about 9 locos on one ship torpedoed in WW1. definitely havent any details of the ship or location other than the english channel im afraid. as a bit of an aside, after saving GLADSTONE J.N.Maskelyne tried to save one of the last Armstrong Standard Goods in the 1930's.... because he was unsuccessful he then ensured the preservation of 2516 in the late 1950's (none of the DEAN GOODS would have been preserved otherwise).
cheers,
julian

 

Can I just ask Julian, when you say full restoration at Swindon, do you mean exactly that and not just cosmetic restoration ?, at the time 2516, 3440 and 4003 were put away, it was probably on the belief they would never run again (certainly true in Lode Stars case and 2516 to the present day) so while it may look pretty good externally, are we sure there are no nasties lurking within ?.

One thing I've never really known is why out of all the Dean Good's that existed was it 2516 that was chosen to be saved ?, I thought it was national collection policy at that team to save the first class member or one with some significant event to it's name, as far as I'm aware, 2516 meets neither of these criteria, was it the last left by that time possibly ?.

 

hi david1984,

there are lots of pics of 2516 being 'restored' in Swindon Works. it was quite a thorough job if the pics are anything to go by. 2516 wasnt the last DEAN GOODS in service, but was (off the top of my head) one of the last 3 in service. there was never any suggestion that a DEAN GOODS be part of the national collection, and it wasnt on BTC's list. the survival of 2516 was mainly due to J.N.Maskelyne.

the 57XX pannier tanks have the same boiler dimensions as the DEAN GOODS, although the pannier tanks were never fitted with superheaters and the boiler was pressed to a higher pressure. as a consequence the non superheated DEAN GOODS boilers were pooled with the 57XX boilers. also the motion work and valvegear and cylinders are the same, but not the wheel diameter. the 57XX class is basically a tank version of the DEAN GOODS with smaller wheels. the Collett Goods is basically a DEAN GOODS but with a tapered barrel boiler and belpaire firebox and drumhead smokebox with saddle. Swindon standardization at its best!

cheers,
julian

 

Thanks for that Julian, sounds like the main problem with 2516 then is getting at the blasted thing.

 

Just like to say what a great post this is, informative and flags up possible pitfalls but encouraging and positive, this is what this forum should be about.

 

Firstly is it possible to open a new thread for the Star/Castle debate - it's very interesting but getting confused with the 2516 thread?

So back to the Dean Goods. Julian, I think you are assuming a lot more commonality between the Dean and 57xx than there really is. Yes the 57xx and 2251 had a lot in common motion wise including the 3 bar crosshead ( introduced with the 56xx) but the 2301's were totally different. The cylinder castings were also different as were the strokes 17"(2301) 17 1/2" (57xx). You say the boilers were pooled, yes one website says they were the same (type P) but AFAIK the remaining 2301's were superheated from the 30's but still with 180 psi ( 57xx were 200) so I don't think they were so easily interchanged. IIRC both the KWVR and 9629 lads said that the 'Dean' boiler would need modifying for a 57xx which was why it wasn't used. Ray.

 

Some of the above is incorrect in particular:
1.57xx,2251 & 2301 classes all have two bar crossheads though 2516 as I recall it has a split small end unlike the others but it might be that some 2301's had more modern con rods of 57xx type fitted
2. 57xx,2251 & 2301 all have 17 1/2"x24" cylinders - the 17 1/2" dimension is the diameter not the stroke! That said the castings may or may not be similar between a 57xx & a 2301

 

1472, apologies for the oversight in writing stroke rather than diameter. According to Russell the 17''dia for the 2301 and 17 1/2" dia for the 57xx IS correct - which reference did you use? I'm sorry but I think you are wrong about the 2251 and 57xx only having 2-bar crossheads - again which references did you use?
Regards Ray.

 

Unfortunately Russell is not a reliable source - even for oo gauge modelling purposes!

My dimemsions are coming from official GWR publications & all mentioned are shown as 17 1/2 x 24 (in practice though the dia would start at 17 1/2" & through successive rebores probably go to 18 1/2" max before scrap/sleeving).

The crosshead info comes from personal observation (in the last 3 years) having oiled at least 3 different 57xx locos & 3205 and looked over 2516. 9466 also has 2 bar crossheads.

 

hi all,
K.J. Cook, Harold Holcroft, and the RCTS books on GWR locos are all in accord with the 57XX and DEAN GOODS having the same valve gear motion and cylinders.
the 57XX boilers were identical to the DEAN GOODS saturated boilers... but as mentioned previously pressed to a higher boiler pressure. no increase in plate thickness or stays etc. the DEAN GOODS boilers had different fittings on the backhead, but were nevertheless interchangeable with the 57XX class. there is quite a wide difference in top feed and fittings on some of the preserved 57xx class locos.. some have backhead feed with no top feed for example. the main outward difference between the 2 boilers is the regulator handle and position of the blower valve and whistle valves.
cheers,
julian

 

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, because I've never managed to get that clear in my own head, but I've not found that info in Holcroft's "Outline", Cook's "Swindon Steam" or in RCTS pt4 or pt5. Perhaps you could point me at page numbers?

On cylinder bores, my understanding is that both Dean Goods and the Swindon pre grouping inside frame 0-6-0T like 1813s started off with 17" cylinders and got 17.5" later. Of course these classes way precede Churchward so standardisation may have been limited. When I read RCTS the only particular note of serious cross class standardisation in cylinders/motion I see is the Stella/Stella tank/1661/2361 group.

Agreed that all P class boilers are theoretically interchangeable, certainly in the context of a new build/Barry restoration, but I'm not quite convinced that in practice there would have been an interchange between 57s and the various pre group classes which had 180psi boilers. Cook does say (p84 in my edition of Swindon steam) that there was an increase in firebox plate thickness on the 57 boilers. And of course there were so many P class boilers that perhaps there would never have been a need to do so.

 

Sorry but I think you are being a bit harsh on Russell. He is/was a well respected author who obtained the great majority of his material from GWR sources.
I have since found another (GWR) source which gives 2301 class cyl dia's as both 17 & 17 1/2" with respective T.E.'s of 17120 & 18140 lbs. So presumably different lots but as you say only nominal anyway.
I respect your experience so will accept your assurance that the 57xx have the older 2 bar arrangement. I do however think you could be mistaken re 3205 as all the sources I can find agree that the 2251's had the 3 bar arrangement so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I take it you're at the SDR. Next time I'm over I'll have to take photos. Regards Ray.

 

Strange: Cook definitely says that 57s and 2251 had two bar motion (p85 my edition). It was the 48/54/64/74 that had a new 3 bar arrangement, similar to but smaller than the 56s (p86).

 

Looks like I'm outvoted then! One reference stated "a smaller version of the three bar arrangement.....on 48xx and modern panniers" so I assume that would also include 16xx. Maybe someone in the KESR loco dept can confirm? Ray.

 

Yep, I'm pretty confident the 16s also have the 3 bar motion and many components in common. Basically there was the large 0-6-0ST/PT line of 1813/1854/2721/5700/8750/9400, and the small line of 850/2021/54/64/74/16, and AFAIK they didn't have much in common beyond the components that were standard across all GWR classes. Cook seems clear to me that the motion changed between the pre group 850/2021s which IIRC had 4 bar motion and a new design for the Collett locos. In that context the 5400 prototype was a 2021 conversion, presumably still with the 4 bar motion, and Cook had it scrapped when it came in for its first overhaul and replaced with an all new loco.

I'm still unsure about commonality between Dean Goods and the large 0-6-0 tanks. Weights diagrams as in Russell aren't much of a guide because they do contain inaccuracies, but looking at them there don't appear to be any gross dimensional reasons why they couldn't share at least some significant components, but I have yet to find a reference to their doing so in any of my books.

 

A quick note from me:

I am still keeping a close eye on this thread. I'd like to thank everybody for the discussion here, whether about the DGP or not, because it is certainly very interesting stuff. I must say though that it really is surprising, encouraging and heartwarming that so many have leaped to the defence both of myself and of the project. I'd like to point out that many of the suggestions, questions etc - positive, negative, and indifferent - have already been answered in some way or another, either here or in the Facebook group; having read through most of the comments since my last post (again) I will make a general post addressing most of the things raised:
We plan to use the P&BR boiler if we can acquire it. We do know however that it was recently (within the last few years) in use; it has been used as a stationary boiler after it was replaced as boiler-to-be for 9629. We also know that it is owned by the loco group at the P&BR rather than the railway itself. Right now we don't feel we're in a suitable position to inquire about it so won't be just yet. The Didcot boiler, as has already been pointed out, is part of the lease the DRC/GWS has and therefore does not belong to them, so is unlikely to be something we will pursue.
I can't say I've noticed us asking for any money yet, nevermind holding our arms open and shouting "give us a million quid, will ya?" to the entire population of the UK. Somehow, I also doubt very much that the likes of the Patriot and County projects rope in their metalwork teachers - and not just because most of the latter may well have passed on. Just because many of us are legally still "children" does not guarantee in any sense that we are "childish" - or immature, or lack knowledge, or.....
A Dean Goods is what we want to build, and we will not waiver in our goal to see a member of the class in operation again.
RE 2516, she is not something we feel we should consider because, thinking about things from the NRM's point of view, we do not believe that the NRM would be willing - for many reasons, most of which will I'm sure be obvious to most - to release 2516 at this time, especially to us, a group that would be to them what it is to many of you: a "bunch of teenagers a la J39 et al". Of course, we disagree with that point of view entirely, but we don't see any way other than perseverance with a new build that we can convince any of you - or the NRM - that we mean business. I have heard, though, from reliable sources in the industry, that 2516 has had "recent" surveys done on her which indicate she is not only aesthetically but also mechanically sound, and wouldn't require too much time or work. After all, having been restored, she has been in the ideal sort of environment for her post-restoration life.
If you want more about our position on 2516 - and info on the project in general - feel free to purchase the next edition of Steam Railway, out this week...

 

i have copies of the Swindon GA's for the 57XX class and DEAN GOODS (in the case of the DEAN GOODS dated april 1940) and both show 17 1/2" bore cylinders. Cylinder details and all the valvegear is identical.

the Collett Goods definitely has the same simple 2 x slidebar and conn rod arrangement as the 57XX class. the DEAN GOODS had the same slidebar and conn rod design that CITY OF TRURO and EARL OF BERKELEY have which is rather complicated. it originated with Joseph Armstrong and his QUEEN loco No.55, the small end of the conn rod being forked (see Holcroft p.35). the crosshead would i think be a most awkward thing to reproduce on a new build and very expensive, even if someone could be found with the machines capable of machining in situ the pins to which the forked end attaches. my apologies in stating that the 57XX and DEAN GOODS have the same motion... i should have added except for the slidebar and conn rod arrangement.

i am not sure i follow James' logic in building a new DEAN GOODS when one already exits in very good order!

cheers,
julian

 

Feel free to address me directly, and to see my previous post which explains our reasons as to why we are not pursuing the avenue that is 2516.

 

hi james,

i would dearly love to see a DEAN GOODS whether new or 2516 in steam!

when 2516 was preserved there weren't any standard gauge preserved railways. it was trapped in the old Swindon museum for very many years. i believe the loco half has been repainted for the STEAM museum, so the 'conservationist's' argument that it is in BR Works condition no longer applies (this is i believe the argument used by the NRM is respect of quite a few of their locos, eg WINSTON CHURCHILL, against restoration to working order).

if say the SVR or Llangollen Railway offered to restore 2516 to working condition without expense to the NRM i would be disappointed if the NRM didnt give the project it's approval, especially now that CITY OF TRURO has been withdrawn from service. some of the preserved lines are quite short of motive power at the moment!

cheers,
julian