Sir William A. Stanier, FRS

Mersey Railway loco Cecil Raikes was part of the National Collection until Liverpool Museums took responsibility for it.

 

Thanks to all of you - a very interesting cross-section of opinions here, and I look forward to reading more. My own feeling is that this is a pointless idea unless there is an assured future for steam on the main line, which of course is an unknown at the moment. In regard to the fact that three members of the class have survived, I think we are on fairly thin ice since there seems little likelihood that either 6229 or 6235 will steam again in the foreseeable future. I'm still on the fence as regards this one, but must admit to a fondness for the loco in question, which was a familiar sight on the WCML in my childhood. Not that that is any sort of justification for re-creating it, I should add, but it remains a crying shame that it slipped through the preservation net in late 1964.

I understand that this proposal is in its very early stages, but it will be interesting to see if any of the mags pick it up! As for Princess Anne....it perhaps needn't have been broken up in the first place, as I've been told that City of Glasgow was in a worse state after the Harrow crash, but was rebuilt in preference to 46202 as the latter was non-standard. I'm happy to be corrected on this.

 

6229 might steam again - would take a fair bit of money and some careful project management. The streamlined casing applied was carefully re-designed to allow her to go mainline in future so I wouldn't say "never" more a question of "when" given Scotsman's recent overhaul length and cost.

If a sufficiently good business and funding plan can be made by an outside source to the NRM, I don't see why they'd say no to 6229 steaming - it would be unique in preservation and would make one hell of a sight on the mainline with matching coaches...even as an LNER enthusiast I'd love to see it.

I agree in principle with your stance on building a new Sir William - pointless in respect of the surviving locos and mainline steam's future, but I do agree that it seems a shame it didn't survive. That said, railway preservation we mourn the loss of many steam locomotives and three of the same class survived.

It does make some sense to be honest - 46202 was unique at the front end but standard in terms of everything else including chassis and boiler and tender - these could all go into the LMR's spares pool for the Princesses whereas CoG could probably have been built as a virtually new engine again because there would be spares available for the larger class. Why rebuild the non-standard locomotive when you could replace it outright with something standard?

In the end 46202 was replaced as a non standard locomotive by a non standard locomotive (DoG) but I can see the logic behind the reasoning to not rebuild it. By the 50s the whole attitude towards smaller classes of steam locomotives was to remove the smallest classes and retain the largest ones - on the LNER the earliest casualties to this were the Thompson D Class in the early 50s and Gresley's V4s in the mid 50s. I'm sure there are other examples.

 

Much as my heart says 'go' my head says no. We have 5 of Mr Stanier's Pacifics 4 of which are steamable, far better in my opinion to do somthing with 6229 or the much missed 46203. As an aside to 46202 wasnt the tender reused behind an 8F?

 

Can't see this one progressing much unless there's a limited number of wealthy backers interested, even fans of the Duchesses can see no logic in a 4th example when 3 already exist.

I can see a logic in a new build of an existing type if the surviving example(s) are unlikely to ever steam again, (possible for some of the pre 1900 types in the NRM), but 46233 is very much active and I'd put money on 46229 being so again at some point.

 

Agreed, I can't see the point when we still have three examples of the class and a pool of 8P locos with a limited volume of work to go at (as well as several Merchant Navys in limbo). If I remember correctly, Peter Beet tried to secure a Princess Coronation, but wasn't taken seriously by BR. He had to make do with an Ivatt 2-6-0 instead, which is perhaps why he had it painted Crimson Lake (!)

My cynical side says that 6235 was hived off to Birmingham City Council in order to legitimately get rid of it. GW 2808 was similarly supposed to go to a museum which never materialised in Bristol, while MR 118A and 643 were supposed to go to Leicester. Before the NRM was set up, there wasn't anywhere for the BTC collection to go. Even when it was proposed in the late 1960s, scepticism abounded and some in the railway press protested against a better alternative to keeping some of it in a superannuated tram depot (aka Clapham museum).

If you want another 8P on the network, put your money into one which will get their more quickly if you do!

David

 

Yes it was. It was No. 9003, and unique in itself amongst Stanier tenders: for a pacific had only nine tons coa capacity. It also had roller bearings (unusual, but not unique) and the running steps were acompletely different shape to all others.

 

Might not recreating 6202s turbines be less problematic than redesigning the P2's valve gear?

 

I'm agreeing with you on that. There are plenty of stanier pacifics that are running and thus could be adapted to suit a similar goal if agreement was there. As for funds and engines, this project should surely come behind the return of the V2 Green Arrow in any priority simple due to numbers again. Only one V2, and it has been steamed before. At some point an engine in a multiple preserved class needs to be conserved and I would think the Duchess in the NRM should thus remain plinthed.

 

Sorry, don't see the logic in that sentence. If you are going to conserve one loco in as near withdrawn condition as possible, surely it makes more sense for that to be City Of Birmingham, which has never run in preservation, rather than 6229, which has?

As for the original suggestion about a new build Sir William Stanier - can't see it I'm afraid. New builds are hard enough anyway: I can't see that there will be a spare several million and sufficient skilled people floating about just to built the (N+1)th example of a class with N already preserved where N > 0. It's hard enough raising the money for genuinely unique locos.

Tom

 

It's a moot point re: Green Arrow as that won't steam again without some serious investment, regardless of what Hamilton is doing, Don't get me wrong, I'd hate to think the V2 has been silenced for good, but anyone got £2 million going spare for a loco that would still be publically owned ?, though a replica production V2 has more merit (though not much more) than a replica Ivatt Duchess

 

How much difference does that make do you think? As I'm not the type that will ever have a couple of million at all, let alone going spare, its difficult for me to imagine the thinking, but if you want to see a given locomotive in action and have the readies, how much difference does it make if you blow the two million on a loco you are current owner of, or one that you have some sort of agreement with the National collection for lease, use of, or however these things are done? Either way its two million that you aren't going to see any financial return on isn't it? Either way, as far as I can see, the running/overhaul costs are gone for ever, its just that there isn't a lump of capital tied up alongside, and you (or your heirs) don't have to sell the damn thing and worry about tax at the end of the game. Certainly my pitiful shareholding in a loco group is money I regard as spent and gone forever, nothing else.

 

Peter wanted 46243 City of Lancaster. I wasn't aware that BR didn't take him seriously, but know for sure he tried to buy it from the Central Wagon Co., Ince, Wigan before they scrapped it. A 'no re-sale' clause in the original disposal contract prevented this from occurring and sadly, she was lost forever.

 

This is not quite correct, BCC have owned 6235 since it was sold to them by BR.
Furthermore they had made initial enquiries about buying the loco for the city as early as the late 1930s and a figure was even given as to the loco's value to the LMS at that time, there are documents in the city archives that back this up... As a result of these enquiries the loco was reserved for purchase by the city upon withdrawal.

 

Verifiable proof in other words that a Stanier pacific was initially omitted from the national collection and made good by the Friends via Mr Butlin.
Outright travesty averted but I still believe 46256, and 46200 for that matter, merited formal preservation by BRB. Records of what consideration occurred would no doubt make for fascinating reading.

 

I would be all for a new turbomotive - the development of turbines has come on in leaps and bounds since it was originally designed and I reckon a much improved, reliable and powerful version of it could be built. But at what financial cost?

The comparison with the P2 valve gear is an interesting one as the P2 lentz gear is a proven commodity on other loco designs but requiring more thought and careful adaptation on the new one. I suspect the final design will solve a lot of issues. The A1 trust haven't failed yet and they have a working steam locomotive out there. Even so - and I said as much when the P2 was announced at the time - I'd have preferred an as-built Earl Marischal style P2, because the Walschaerts gear is proven and would have cost a lot less to develop - and as there's a very similar set on the surviving Gresley V2, a lot less R&D to do. But it wasn't my choice and I stick behind the P2 Trust as - well - I trust them in their engineering.

Quite agree - and in any event, the now streamlined Duchess has the potential wow factor to turn it into quite a public celebrity if overhauled and then handled carefully. I suspect Scotsman could be the flag bearer for the NRM for mainline steam - if that now all goes according to plan, then with careful backing and sufficient interest, what is to stop the NRM from alternating behind certain locos for its mainline activities?

 

When you look at what was being chosen for the National Collection (accepting we can't save everything) to not have a Great Western Saint, a Stanier Pacific, one of Gresley's K3s or similar and to then omit Britain's first successful Pacific class (any of the remaining Gresley A3s would have done - personally speaking, why wasn't Papyrus saved?) along with ignoring great swathes of still working pre-grouping locomotives was almost criminal.

But as far as I am concerned, there is one omission that was very grave and that was not preserving one of Ivatt's LMS diesels, either 10000 or 10001. The first main line diesels in this country going for scrap? Just seems woefully short sighted.

 

Simon I really could not agree with you more about 10000. I know we're going off topic but Modern Traction isnt that well represented in the NRM why a 25 (as a representitive of the small sulzers ie 24,25,26,27) isnt in the collection I'll never know. And who's bright idea was to say no to 56006? The earliest example of BR's 1st Modern type 5 and its deemed not important enough? Someone wants shooting

 

That was because until the late 1970s the NRM had no policy on Modern Traction and it was the late Brian Webb who helped alter that policy. Sadly he died before his efforts succeeded but I was able to continue his work on behalf of the Diesel & Electric Group through the Consultative Panel for the Preservation of British Transport Relics leading to the decision to include D8000; D200 and 84001 as the first examples of a Modern Traction Policy. In fairness the NRM had already received D8000 before that policy change but had not considered other exhibits AFAIK until Brian's paper was accepted as NRM policy.

That meant - as noted - that the scrapping of both Ivatt diesels in the 1960s was too early for any national interest to be shown, given the concentration at the time of preserving the rapidly-disappearing steam locomotives. Sadly Brian agreed that this was a travesty but felt that too much time had passed when York was established for any corrective action to be taken.