Demic Barry/other Wrecks

(30)499 - never steamed in preservation. Under restoration at the Watercress Line. Plan is to restore it to LSWR condition (& livery) for its centenary in 2020.
30506 - complete and under overhaul at the Watercress Line.
30825 - under overhaul (private site, I think) but essentially complete thanks to taking the best bits from 30841. Back in traffic next year perhaps?
(30)828 - complete and under overhaul at the Watercress Line
30830 - at NYMR. Unrestored and needing a lot of work but the plan is to restore it at some point.
30841 - frames, wheels, cab at the NYMR somewhere. Don;t think there's much else and almost certainly no tender. Frames are bent, I believe.
(30)847 - in working order on the Bluebell.

I think the Urie group at the Mid Hants has a spare boiler as the original on 506 was in very bad condition. This is why the NYMR-based Essex Loco group has three sets of frames/cabs/wheels but only two boilers.

Please correct anything that is out of date or incorrect, but that is how I think the current situation looks regarding S15s.

 

Re Johns post on S15's, 30506 is pretty close to running and should be in steam and working next year. 499 is also coming on apace, the Urie Society are doing an absolutely great job and I look forward to a stove-piped S15 in the not too distant future (as John says the idea is to have 506 and 499 in steam together in 2020 when they are both 100 years old! And they do have a spare boiler.

 

Stanier started with 1" frames, which proved prone to cracking so were increased. Also, this class was built not only by the LMS but the other three railways, as well as several private builders. This also accounts for the use of different materials.

It matters because it alters the dimensions of all the associated components: stretchers, horn guides, cylinders and motion brackets, which all have to be machined to match the frame thickness.

 

And of course 48518 was an LNER-built example, though what difference that makes I have no idea. But it's always seemed a shame to me that we have restored examples built at Crewe, Ashford, Swindon and Glasgow but the Doncaster one slipped through the net. Without it, the story of the wartime build programme is incomplete.

Wikipedia does say the frames were scrapped but I've never seen any definitive statement to that effect from anyone up there who would know.

 

There was a scurrilous rumour the frames were cut without prior consent of the owner.
All in all it became a sad demise because the donor parts should have been made from scratch if required by the respective recipients. Simply expedient vulture picking in my view, 48518 was historically valuable yet I do not believe it was offered complete to a potential restorer, only the frankenstein builders?

 

Historically valuable? Well I guess so but to what extent I don't know. When there are more than one preserved it becomes somewhat less important to save every last one. Just preserving it because it's there might not be the most sensible course of action in the big scheme of things. Of course to an Owner that course is irrelevant and other factors come into play, but historical value? I'm not sure about that.

 

Do I recall a comment that the wheelsets associated with 841 are swap outs which are pretty tired as well?

 

So, just out of curiosity; what led to (30)841 now being in the state it is, because 25 years ago it seemed to be quite a fine example?

 

Given what we have seen with other giftings, I can only express how very wrong I think breaking 48518 up was. Its accademic now but if the slightest effort to secure a home for its long term preservation had been made I am sure a better outcome could have been accomplished. I am thinking of donation to a GC, NYMR, Weardale affiliated body where there would have been a historical connection. Aside from that, the national collection is missing a vital representation of the sort and Shildon would have been a fitting cosmetic restoration place. When the apparently excellent condition of the loco remains is also taken into account it borders on scanadlous what was allowed to happen. Personal view, no offence intended or implied.

 

Discovering that the frames were bent was the story I heard.

 

The Vale of Glamorgan council weren't going to do anything with the Barry 10. Attitudes changed, and they look upon the history of the scrapyard with distain nowadays and have virtually erased every trace of it. And no one else wanted them, they had been exposed to the sea air for too long, parts were stolen for other projects... They are or were, wrecks. Buxton of Cambrian Transport wanted 48518 and the others broken up for County parts for years, and no one could stop him.

 

On various trips 841 made onto the mainline early in it's preserved life it had various problems. After it's first (I think) Grosmont overhaul the owners wanted to take it mainline. It made one outing to Saltburn, during which it rode badly at any speed higher than 30mph, or so I heard at the time.

I remember Kim Malyon saying he'd seen a photo of an S15 on it's side on a flat crossing, which turned out to be 30841.

Sawdust.

 

Well its a great shame that obsessive GW completists were on hand to collude in the multifarious destructions. Always seems odd to me there are folk keen to break something of history that has survived against the odds, to create a hybrid of something else. Personal view again, no offence etc.

 

History repeats. Wales, and by extension the UK, lost many many examples of different steam locomotives from various companies and backgrounds thanks to GWR condemning them all for standardization.

Jump forward to today, and yet strangely despite the drive for GW completists, not a single one of 72xx's... fantastic and huge tank engine machines, have been put back into operation/service.

I can't fathom why they didn't focus their attentions on them, and decide to break up the only surviving LNER-built 8F, No. 48518. There are some very odd goings-on and controversies in the heritage movement...

 

you really ought to check before posting, both 7200 and 7202 get closer to completion with every newsletter and 7229 is reported to now be under restoration.

The problem with all 2-8-0s is they aren't the most suitable loco to use in service and therefore have not tended to be at the top of the queue for resources.

It copmes down in the end of the choice of those putting in the money and time.

My only comment on you blaming the GWR for all the missing locos in preservation is to say it's piffle.

 

Really? I know some of the tanks can be a little jerky but going at 25mph is what they were designed to do. I always assumed it was just because there were an awful lot of 2-8-0s out there and they weren't particularly glamorous that so many were sat around.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Well as 26D_M pointed out, its a sad waste of a unique 8F locomotive to build a replica.

Its not that restoration of the 2-8-2T 72xxs that's the problem (obviously), its the fact that we still haven't had one running since the 1970s purchase date, and we're losing machines to vanity projects. Why everyone in GWR circles is totally obsessed with Counties and Granges, is beyond me. There's not much difference between them and Halls or Manors.

 

yes jerky is my experience, quite unpleasant in some cases.

 

I agree with the tanks, never noticed it on any tender engine though.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

I understand the reason for it but Joe Public doesn't and I can't imagine some of them being very impressed