4253 Restoration

Something that occurred to me - too late for this round with 4253 though, is whether there would be operational advantages in juggling the relative sizes of the coal and water spaces in the big GW tank engine bunkers. More scope with the 72s I suppose, which did have variations in the rear tank size in GW/BR service anyway, but I wondered if more water or more coal might be useful in preserved line running conditions.

 

Going completely O/T but inspired by the reference to the 72XX, is there any other BR class that survives that has not had a representative steam in preservation? (NRM one-offs excepted.)

 

I really can't see any advantage in messing around with the bunker coal/water spaces. If you did there would also need to be some well considered design calcs to support a departure from the established design & resulting loss in "grandfather" rights. The plate between the water & the coal is very clearly structurally important.

 

Ahem, J94 springs to mind. Proper ones, I mean.

 

Did they? OK, I stand corrected if so; I thought that pair hadn't run for decades.

 

8077 was steamed a couple of times when it first arrived at the Worth Valley. Was 8078 ever steamed at Southall?

 

That surprises me as I thought it hadn't but I can't categorically refute it.

 

It was steamed on arrival, presumably for assessment. This was reported in the railway's journal, Push & Pull at the time.

David

 

I've been racking my brains on this one, and can't think of any other class in this category. It will be good to see a 72xx when one of the three survivors does finally steam. They do look pretty impressive machines, even though as far as I amaware they are really just a 42xx with a trailing axle and big bunker.

 

7202 doesn't look too far off being finished to me...always impressed by these locos and was delighted when 7202 was rescued. one of my favourites at Barry. How is 7200 coming along?

 

I don't know its very significant though. To be in that situation then probably:
1) More than one of the class must have survived.
2) All members of the class must have gone into preservation as Barry wrecks, not in running or near running order.
3) Other very similar locomotives must exist to preferentially attract volunteers to work on the type.

And yes, they are completely just a 4200 with an extension, to the extent that I believe when the original batch were converted they weren't even repainted.

Back to my original point. I can imagine that if a line were in the situation where a locomotive could carry well over a day's coal, but insufficient water for a return trip up and down the line then a little juggling of relative capacities might be operationally desirable. I'm afraid I don't see an argument about departure from the original design. This is something that was changed back in the day, indeed wasn't 4253 built 6 inches shorter? And it seems to me, looking at photos in Russell, that the position of the top of the water tank was different with the original short bunkers, and different again with 4201 as built with a very small bunker. While looking up the details I note, reading RCTS, that 4253 received her current front end and cylinders in January 1947, so presumably would have been turned out in GWR green in her current condition.

 

Highland railway loco in Glasgow transport museum, Cecil Rakes ?

 

ex-LNER Y9 0-4-0 saddle tank 68095. Currently on display in Bo'ness museum.
Thought of J21 0-6-0 65033, but that has steamed at Beamish.

 

Didn't 68095 steam at Lytham?

Cecil Raikes was not ex BR and originally in the National Collection, anyway. The GSWR tankie isn't ex BR, assuming that's what you meant, and not HR 103, which has steamed. If you widen the scope to include non-BR locos, there are plenty.

 

GER class 209 (LNER Y5)?

GER 229 survives and I don't think has steamed in preservation. That loco wasn't a BR loco (sold to industry before) but one of the class made it to BR days, according to lner.info. (LNER is not my specialist area!)

Tom

 

I'll give you that one, as I said BR class, even though it is a devious BR connection. It looked pretty derelict when I last saw it at Fairfield Mabey in 1969. How long did you spend dreaming that one up?

 

Just popped into my head, once I'd been through everything Southern I could think of! I remember seeing it at the North Woolwich Museum twenty-odd years ago, and wondered for a loco that had survived into the modern era, whether it had come via BR.

Tom

 

I thought the Fairfield-Mabey "coffee pot" had been steamed by the Flour Mill people - or has it just been cosmetically restored?

 

It's stablemate - the KS well tank - has but I think that 229 is still stored awaiting the great day.