Demic Barry/other Wrecks

Yes, it would. The LNER built and used many 8Fs, and the Southern also built batches for LNER usage. They all appeared with LNER lettering and numbers, these, like the GWR built ones, on the buffer beam. The LNER ones were renumbered into the 35XX series before transfer to the LMS post-war.

The difference between the GWR and LNER built examples is that all the former were built for the LMS, so had LMS Insignia and numbers. They were then immediately loaned to the GWR, but were LMS property.

 

Quite possibly, but the Patriot has a particular appeal for some, like me, whilst not an LMS aficionado, who support this project for more than merely (!) recreating a lost class of steam locomotive. It means much more than that to me as ex-Mil, hence my support for it. The others are all GWR types so naturally get my vote (but sadly not my money as I can't afford it (2807 to help support!).

 

Indeed, this is an argument which has been done to death on here whenever new builds are discussed and discounted, ultimately the Grange, County, Patriot and 47xx started and progressed because there was sufficient people who wanted to support them with time and more importantly money. What people want to support is an entirely personal thing and as you quite rightly say often depends upon having enough money to spread the love amongst projects you desire to succeed.

 

The 8Fs built by the LNER were to all intents and purposes, LNER locomotives. They were owned by and run by the company. The design was effectively being made under license from the LMS and WD.

Given the O6 designation, they filled a gap in the 2-8-0 requirements until enough of Thompson's O1s were built, together with the WD 2-8-0s (LNER O7s) coming into LNER stock to allow them to be sold to the LMS.

I do not know who took the decision at the LNER to construct 8Fs for themselves (having already built batches for the WD) but it is interesting to note that the front pony truck design was then almost verbatim copied onto the Gresley V2 and Thompson O1, L1 and K1 (later Peppercorn) designs.

No doubt Darlington and Doncaster works were looking closely at the Stanier design for their own work, Gresley's swing link pony trucks by then being identified as a potential cause of several derailments, requiring replacements on a number of loco types.

The LNER encyclopaedia has an excellent page on the O6s here.

On the subject of the Barry example - I know you can't save them all. It was one of many Stanier designed machines that have survived and not unique. By the time it entered Barry, it is doubtful much of its LNER origins would still be extant (one of the differences being, for instance, how the tenders were put together - with Darlington and Doncaster using different rivet types and therefore giving markedly different finishes to the LMS examples), but given so few LNER built locomotives survived overall, to scrap this one for a GWR new build (particularly in an era when new boilers are being built outright) pains me.

 

In that case, why were the frames of 48518 scrapped? It pains me too to see it scrapped as an LMS afficianado

 

Life expired? Not much left anyway? Who knows. Once the wheels and horn blocks, cylinders and boiler have gone, you just have two big long bits of metal held together with a few smaller bits of metal. To all intents and purposes, scrapped.

 

you're choosing to ignore the point that it wasn't only the GWR new build that benfited but also it's fellow LMS design Patriot and presumably one of Mr Riley's Black 5s and other non GWR locos.

 

I'm not ignoring it at all. It is fair to say that the 8Fs scrapping has helped a number of LMS engines in preservation in a way in keeping with how the LMS works operated when overhauling locomotives and I wouldn't begrudge them that at all.

I do however remain skeptical that the choice of modifying the 8F boiler was the right decision for the GWR County. That clearly is not the same as, for example, reusing the LMS design pony truck wheels or the brake gear, or cylinders or similar. It has produced something which is not quite one or the other and I wonder if there will be other issues not as yet seen going forward. I can only speculate.

 

i think they are only using the inner firebox, or is it the outer? The bit that the flange blocks to build it were also used for the Counties.

 

You are not quite correct about the 8Fs built at Doncaster and Darlington. 8Fs 8500 to 8559 were built at the two works under LMS orders 162 and 167. They were LMS locos. Indeed, I am looking at a photo of 8500, ex-works at Darlington, with LMS on the tender.
The 68 Class O6 locos were built to LNER orders, with the first 25 being built at Brighton Works and given LNER Nos 7651-7675. The remainder were built at Darlington and Doncaster. This was after the first LNER re-numbering and all the Class became 3100-3167. In the second renumbering scheme they became 3500-3567. All the Class were loaned to the LMS just before Nationalisation and were allocated LMS Nos 8705-8772.
You mentioned the tenders. One other difference was that all the Doncaster and Darlington built tenders had disc wheels, rather than spoked.

 

Didn't the GWR County have a higher boiler pressure than the 8F?

 

Looking at my own words again, I didn't make that clear and you are right to make that distinction - but Darlington and Doncaster did build batches of O6s for the LNER, I hope that is not in dispute? which was the crux of my point regarding the pony truck.

 

Yeah, County 280 later reduced to 250, 8f 225.

 

Either way a perfectly serviceable Stanier 8F boiler has been reduced to a kit of parts to build what is effectively a new type of boiler. Could a new boiler not have been built, ala Tornado and soon to be Patriot, P2, etc etc...?

I'm not convinced it has saved much money and it has reduced the overall pool of Stanier 8F boilers that could have been reused by one.

Hindsight of course, is a wonderful thing - what's done is done.

 

Indeed. The rule book got re-written with Tornado. What is possible now cuts those who are/were aggrieved by such decisions just a little deeper.

 

The rule book is constantly being rewritten, things now commonplace were the cutting edge once, such as Duke of Gloucester's cylinders and front tube plate, 61264's firebox and so on. It has not been unreasonable for a long time to anticipate these boundary's to be pushed back.

What this discussion highlights is the difference between true replica building and full size railway modelling.

Sawdust.

 

are you sure it was perfectly serviceable? I suspect there's a good chance it would have needed considerable work which might include tube plates, barrel , smoke box and firebox parts, don't they all. Not serviceable anyway..

 

In the case of 48518s boiler it wasn't hindsight. All this was said before it was dismantled.

 

With regards to the costs I imagine this has been done to death on one of the plethora of threads on here which seem to emerge every so often and regurgitate the same arguments, possible worth looking it up, however unless one takes the view that the GWS deliberately broke the boiler as it wasn't GWR (which does seem to be the angle of certain posts?) it obviously must have presented the most cost effective approach, I recall from the GWS Echos of the time that a very long feasibility study was completed.

And a 'perfectly serviceable' set of apparently unique frames have been scrapped despite there being a number of boilers that could have potentially been used to restore the locomotive.

I am not a big fan of what happened and agree with you regarding hindsight, however I do find the way that a) this is being presented as some manner of GWR v. LMS spat (despite both companies ceasing to exist c.60 years ago) and b) whilst many are very keen to seem to take the GWS task, they are entirely silent about querying those who stripped the frames, had other parts and ultimately scrapped what was actually potentially the only 'LNER' components actually within the locomotive before anything happened.

At least some consistency please?

 

I'm not in any means presenting it as a "GWR vs LMS" spat. The fact remains that the LMS groups have used the 8F parts with minimal alterations for locomotives that can use those parts. The GWR group has used an LMS component and modified it into a form neither LMS or GWR.