42424 - New Build Fowler Tank

But joking apart, that drawing is representative of the locos towards the end of their lives, after Churchward had done a lot of work to standardise components across the classes. Back in the 1890s they... but this is not the place for a lecture on GWR loco development, however [gratuitous and shameless plug] next year I should have a book coming out...

 

Improved draughting and spark arrestor for the Dukes. Most of the Barnums were later superheated too, though the process started later than for the Dukes. The Barnums did later get their smoke boxes extended as far as the short frames would allow.

 

Similar but very different machines underneath the largely identical boilers. You could argue that having both represents the final curtain of ECML Pacific design. The later standard 7MTs, the Britannias, don't count (not regulars in any form out of KX and certainly not on the prestigious expresses out of KX).

Any locomotive class not represented is a gap in itself, you have to question just how much that class contributes to the overall story of railways. You could argue very reasonably that a Thompson L1 or Gresley K3 or a Raven Atlantic are more representative of the LNER story than the P2: but none of those does quite the same job as the P2 in exciting and encouraging people.

I have no interest in the new build Fowler tank - the Patriot to me was a locomotive that WAS one such gap missing in preservation - but I wish the team wanting to build one success all the same.

 

I don't think any of the replicas proposed fill an actual gap in Preservation, only a gap in a spotters notebook.
Actual gaps in preservation are locos that were iconic in some way or involved some technical (or otherwise) step forward in the development of steam power not represented anywhere else. I can only think of "Leader" offhand!.

 

Frame length, driving wheel size, connecting rod lengths, splashers, type of regulator, single to kylchap chimneys (only one A2 matched the A1s with a kylchap and conventional regulator - Bronzino), smokebox length...

There's a myriad of differences not entirely obvious to begin with but become clearer as you study the two classes further. Both designs have their roots in Thompson's A2/2 really and from the A2/2 the original P2 design (look at the cartazzi, wheel spacing, the boiler type chosen as standard, and a few other details).

Personally speaking I think the biggest gap in LNER preservation is the Gresley K3 - the "big engine" which started the big engine policy after all.

 

Depends on your definition of regular but the Immingham Brits were regulars on the Grimsby /Cleethorpes pax trains.

 

How about a Caley "Dunalastair"?

 

I'm not sure that the Leader could be considered a step forward in steam development!

I'd nominate the Jenny Linds (the first really successful standardised locomotive). I'd also suggest something representative of the first truly successful
coal-burning locos from the 1850s, complete with brick arch. In their different ways, both were a step-change in locomotive development.

Probably worthy of another thread...

Tom

 

Fair point but I wonder which one would have the wider route availability on the modern railway.

 

Undoubtedly most of our choices of steam locomotive to build are based on a semblance of completism. The various GWR 4-6-0s and the Patriot, in addition to Tornado, show that. I agree wholeheartedly: that doesn't make them less worthy subjects in their own way.

The K3 is the gap: route availability would be better than the A1 or P2 but still restricted in a number of ways. A V4 would certainly have less route restriction, but is not (to my mind) in any way contributing greatly to the story of the LNER with just two examples, limited in geographical use across the system, and quite understandably replaced (and well replaced) by the Thompson B1 and Peppercorn K1s thereafter.

 

I dunno, I find it hard to argue against the A1 as being the ultimate actual development of the British express steam locomotive without the flaws that characterised some of the other claimants. If you're going to build a replica locomotive primarily for the job of running trains on the mainline its the sensible choice.

 

2999.

 

Ticks all the boxes...

 

If a Saint, then why not a Star?

 

We do have one in preservation - Lode Star - so there's no development gap as such for GWR (and thusly locomotive) design.

 

Just one man's opinion, but Leader was the biggest waste of resources, time and effort that Britain has seen with locomotive design since potentially Fowler's Ghost.

 

I think that's rather harsh on poor Fowler.

 

The Saint was the real game changer.