Current and Proposed New-Builds

I did this chart some while ago, giving the number of standard gauge(*) locomotives in preservation from each decade of the nineteenth century. (See note below on how I counted).



The surprising thing is that the very early period is comparatively well represented, not only in replicas, but a surprising number of originals: Puffing Billy, Wylam Dilly, Locomotion, Rocket, Sans Pareil, Novelty (kind of), Invicta, Bradyll, Copperknob etc. There is then a distinct absence of locos from the middle of the nineteenth century, particularly the 1850s, before a resurgence of comparatively modern locos from the 1870s onwards.

Of the three locomotives surviving from the 1850s, none can really be described as providing a good representation of the era. The Hetton Colliery locomotive, built around 1851/2 and now preserved at Beamish, was built as a lookalike replica purporting to be of a design from thirty years earlier, i.e. from the early 1820s. Oxford, Wolverhampton and Worcester No. 252, built by E B Wilson in 1855, now consists only of frames, cylinders, motion and two of the three axles; its survival owing to its latterday use as an instructional model – interesting, but hardly giving the public an impression of mid-Victorian motive power. The third and final survivor from the 1850s, is the 0-4-0T Wantage Tramway No. 5 “Jane” (now at Didcot). It is small even by the standards of the time, and somewhat rebuilt from original appearance.

Coming to the 1860s, there are eight survivors, but again they are not especially representative of mainline motive power of their era. Two are small industrial shunting engines – a Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0WT and Coalbrookdale No. 5, an 0-4-0ST. Two are the Furness Railway 0-4-0s, Nos. 20 and 25, of which 25 exists as latterly rebuilt into a saddle tank, and No. 20 has been reverted to its original form as a tender engine. LNWR No. 1439, of 1865, is again a small 0-4-0ST shunting locomotive. Midland Railway 158A of 1866 is more typical of front-line motive power of the era, though as currently preserved, it has been rebuilt with a larger boiler, cab and modern tender and its appearance is thus more typical of a late nineteenth century locomotive. NER No. 66 “Aerolite” – nominally from 1869 – bears almost no resemblance to its original form, having been rebuilt in 1886, 1892 and 1902 and, in the process, even changed wheel arrangement twice and from simple to compound form of propulsion. As currently preserved, essentially the locomotive dates from 1902, with possibly nothing beyond its identity from its 1869 origins still remaining.

This leaves only Metropolitan A class No. 23, of 1866 as still representative of a mainline passenger locomotive from the 1850s and 1860s in something like original form.

Tom

(*) Defined as 4'0" to 5'0", which encompasses the Padarn loco at one end and Puffing Billy at the other, but excludes on the one hand narrow gauge locos such as the Tal-y-llyn locos; and broad gauge on the other such as "North Star" and "Tiny". From memory, the calculation of numbers for the very early locos included operational replicas if they were unique, but not if the original still existed; i.e. "Rocket" and "Planet" both account for a single loco in the figures - "Planet" as a replica; "Rocket" as an original ignoring the replicas.

 

Indeed in reply to both of you 30854, Jamessquared. That's one of the problems making "new" loco's of that period 1840-70. Materials have changed/improved radically in the century and a half +/- since then, not to mention the knowledge too. There was a serie on the BBC back in 1992 about the replica ships based on those Columbus, used to sail to the "New World." One of the crew, a Spanish [from memory] Naval Officer, remarked that whilst they could replicate the physical conditions of the voyage. They couldn't replicate the mental conditions, in so much as in the present day they knew where the Americas' were and knew how long it'd take to sail there from Spain. Where as Columbus and his crews didn't.........

What's more I quite agree with your remarks.

 

Both it and the Standard 2MT derived from it have given me many happy days in railway preservation when I used to volunteer at the Great Central Railway. 78019 one of my absolute favourite locomotives. Easy to fire, keep the boiler pressure up, drivers love it in the winter and summer, could take all but our heaviest trains. I miss seeing 78019 weekly as I used to as a student.

If I won the lottery tomorrow, 78019 would be my first choice for a fast track overhaul. Special place in my heart.

 

Which comes back to my previous post (I forget whether on this or another thread) about needing to consider how to recreate the audience as well as the vehicle. We need - and not just with new builds - to go further down the road of shifting visitors ' perceptions out of the today, and into seeing a past world; something IMHO that preserved railways have significant room in which to improve - for preserved and replicas alike. I suggest a re viewing of the early part of the Tornado Top Gear for a sense of where the value might be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Simon - personal associations and affections all play their part. I think Stepney was the first loco I ever cabbed, as well as (so I am told) taking me on my first-ever train journey, so it'd be that for me...

By the way, regarding Irish locos, wasn't there a 5'3" S15?

35B, I agree about recreating the rest of the scene. No point having a beautifully restored loco when you're running filthy rusty Mk1s with 1980s moquette and carpets, minimally restored stations and no period-correct signalling. Compare and contrast with e.g. the IoWSR...

 

Not an S15, but there were the 'Woolwich Moguls' which were officially known as K1 and K1a classes. The K1 class was equivalent to the N class and the K1a class was equivalent to the U class. The locos were built by the Woolwich Arsenal (hence the nickname) as kits which were then assembled at Broadstone and Inchicore works.


Keith

 

Which I guess gives rise to an interesting pub quiz question about which railway constructed an entirely new class of locomotives to the design of a CME who had left about 15 years previously!

Tom

 

The 500 class was certainly not a million miles removed from the S15 (which appeared four years before the Irish design). The Southern locos were rather more powerful, due to the slightly larger driving wheels of the 500 (1 1/2 ins larger) and smaller cylinders at 191/2 ins (vs the 21 ins of the Urie locos), giving a T.E of 23780 lbs. The Irish design had the same 180lb/in sq BP as the original Urie S15, though the 500 class was superheated from new.

The 500 class boiler was interchangeable with the earlier 400 class. Oddly refreshing for a line where locos of the same nominal class could be found with examples of saturated and superheated boilers with both round top and belpaire fireboxes, often, following visits to the works, fitted to the same loco and not necessarily in the sequence you'd expect! Quite a few Irish classes lasted a very long time!

Intended as mixed-traffic locos, the 500s were used almost exclusively on passenger work, including expresses, in their early years. Their demise (two went in 1955, the last, two years later) was due to CIÉ policy dictat, rather than any shortcomings. That decision was not without it's critics (!). Remind you of the end of Billinton K class?

 

I always thought the Ivatt 2s are very handsome locomotives.

 

....tank and tender versions IMO. Ditto the virtually identical BR locos.

 

As well as difference in the materials used in early (pre 1870ish) locos (i.e. iron instead of steel) there is also the issue that the boilers tended to be a structural part of the loco which might not be acceptable on a new build. Some designs might be able to be modified to the more modern design of just fixing the smokebox to the frames leaving the firebox to move on them as the boiler expands, but other designs such as Jenny Linds would need to be drastically modified from the original. On the other hand traction engines have boilers as part of their structure so the problem might be more one of maintenance than approval? I think a number of early narrow gauge locos have had to be so modified over the years, the FR Englands for certain.

 

Talking of engines representing the mid Victorian era , the Bloomer will be a perfect example of main line locos of the 1850s , 60s. (If we ever see it !)

 

To a large extent, I don't think materials would be an issue. One could build an 1840s design with a steel boiler, cast steel wheels, steel forged motion parts etc without undue visible deviation from the original design - it would just be the case that the component parts were considerably stronger, and less prone to being full of hidden flaws. The function and performance would be largely unchanged apart from the reduced chances of exciting and spectacular accidents! The resultant creation wouldn't have a hope of getting a NR acceptance body to pass it off, but it should be possible to get such a creature accepted for running at sane speeds on preserved lines.

There are some areas where I can see potential for trouble - wooden brake blocks (probably only acting on the tender anyway) might be an issue, as would reliance on a crosshead or axle driven pump for the boiler feedwater (no injectors until the late 1850s, and then takeup wasn't universal immediately) - I imagine an injector would have to be discreetly hidden somewhere. Balance weight safety valves probably wouldn't be easy to get signed off either (I'm not sure when sprung Salters first gained favour).

 

I'd have thought that weighted safety valves would be no worse than Salter valves. You know what they say about Salter valves: The big advantage is that they are readily adjustable and the big disadvantage is that they are readily adjustable. We still have a few boilers in use with both of them, though.

 

Ha ha. I used to use DS11 pads when I had a Formula Ford. I didn't realise they were suppliers to the railway market.

Dave

 

Did they contain asbestos?
PH

 

As to old materials & forgings, the first Gooch 8 ft single , a 2.2.2 then, on her maiden run , averaged 50 mph from London to Bristol , correct me if I'm wrong , I'm going from memory, in 1841 ! The class of 60? Engines maintained this sort of standard for 30 years. This was Great Western mind, not the later 'Iron Dukes' Admitted they later had to have two carrying wheels in front , because of excessive front weight, but I think we dismiss the standards & materials to easily from our modern perspective.