LMS Hughes Crab 42859

There isn't much LMS from this time, it's a great loss. Sometimes bad things happen despite everyone's best efforts.

 

From speaking to the scrap yard at the time the tender was cut. As I would have bought it.

No parts have ever been to lincs wolds.

The wheels never turned up.

The boiler was cut.

From enquiries I have made the frames have been cut.

Its a shame, but it is done. if you want to see a working crab go to bury at the weekend. It's very pretty. If you want to get involved with a long term restoration project they can probably help with that too.

 

It sounds as though the Crabs didn't get the recognition that was due given their obvious qualities

 

It's often the case; something on second string duties that just gets on and does the job is frequently not really noticed by outsiders, regardless of how well footplate crews appreciated them. I think much the same happened to the equivalent mixed traffic 2-6-0s on both the Great Western and the Southern.

 

Because what's left is almost worse than useless, and is owned by someone who clearly doesn't want to sell it.

Why would it be totally wrong for a new build? We would only be going back to what Hughes intended.

 

Good point, there were more 43XX's that any of the 4-6-0 classes on the LNER as far as I can make out there were large numbers of Gresley Moguls and of course the Southern ones need no introduction.

 

And, between us, the various preserved railways have all the skills required to build new (and appropriate for our use) locos from scratch - as is already going on at Llangollen and other places, and as already been done by the teams at Boston Lodge and the Lynton & Barnstaple in narrow gauge.

 

But we have a huge quantity of rolling stock that is currently rotting outside and unrestored..................

 

I'm not quite clear on this, John - are you referring to coaches and goods rolling stock, or locos?

If coaches / wagons, I think the biggest investment any line can make is to build a big enough shed to get their rolling stock out of the weather, and the UV light from the sun. It's always seemed daft to me to spend a load of money and a huge amount of labour in doing a first class restoration on a vehicle, and then park it out in the open, where the rate of deterioration is so much worse than it would be under the most basic of covers. I've been shown coaches, for example, which are normally parked up facing East / West - which means that one side get's far more of a beating from the Sun's UV rays than does the other side; boy, can you see the difference, even after only a few years!

As regards new build locos, certainly many railways have locos waiting in the queue for a rebuild which are ideally suited to their line. But think about lines which are still relying on engines which are not suited to their operation at all - such as those which have been unable to source any steam locos except short wheelbase shunters (or even no steam locos at all). Locos like Austerity 0-6-0s have helped many lines get up and running, in the days when they only had a very short length of track - in some cases, only a few hundred yards. But any such lines which now expect their trains to run at 25mph over a track length of miles soon realise their limitations. Shunters such as the Austerities were expected to run at around 5 - 6mph, not 25mph. Unless modified, they can't be notched up as much as they need to be a line speed on the level; they ride roughly enough to be needlessly tiring for their crews, knock themselves about, and do the same to the track and trackbed, creating avoidable extra work for the P-way gang and costing the railway money in repairs.

I've done a day's firing on a Jinty - and then the following day on an Austerity; it was like going from a saloon car to a builder's dumper truck, and really brought home just why one of the P-way gang was so adamant that he wished that line could get rid of every one of their Austerities. But, what could they find to replace them? They were scratching around for years!

Which brings me to the other side of the problem; so many of the engines which were saved from being scrapped were large express engines. Wonderful engines, I grant you - but they were designed to work at express passenger speeds, and hauling very long trains, not to run at 25mph with five or six coaches behind them, which is all that many lines can accommodate in their platforms and passing loops. From a lengthy discussion I had with a loco superintendent on one line about the coal consumption of such locos, I can well believe that, even if you can fill every seat on a short train behind an engine like that, you may well barely cover your costs. In contrast, he said, a class 3 loco on their regular service can show a profit, even with fewer coaches and far fewer passengers.

So which type of loco is going to be offered the most running days by a railway, and which is therefore going to have the best chance of raising sufficient money to cover the overhaul costs when the ten year ticket runs out? Clearly, the sort of loco which would have been used by the original railway for branch passenger working - which is just what our preserved lines equate to in normal working.

But we come back to the snag; more and more lines are outgrowing their shunters, and needing engines which are suited to their services - but there aren't enough to go round.

To put it in perspective; the number of preserved Merchant Navies and West Country / BoBs - thirty one in all.

Now compare that with the number of surviving Jinties, BR Standard 4 2-6-0s, BR Standard 4 2-6-4Ts, BR Standard 2 2-6-0s - in total, thirty two. Not one of the BR Standard 2 2-6-2Ts or the BR Standard 3s have survived.

Yet which have the greater scope in preservation, both for running trains economically on preserved lines, and paying for their upkeep?

I've no beef with anyone who wants to preserve an express passenger loco, or build one from scratch, as with 'Tornado' - how they spend their time and money is none of my business. But I do think that projects to new build the smaller to medium classes are just as deserving of support - and let's not forget the draw of a preserved line which could say to the enthusiast market:

"You know how all those BR Standard 3s were scrapped? Well, we've built a brand new one, turned it out in lined blackberry black livery, temporarily given it the number of a Standard 3 which used to work in this area - and you can see it in action and ride behind it next weekend!"

And how much publicity would it garner, in both mainstream and specialist press?

 

I'm not quite clear on this, John - are you referring to coaches and goods rolling stock, or locos?

If coaches / wagons, I think the biggest investment any line can make is to build a big enough shed to get their rolling stock out of the weather, and the UV light from the sun. It's always seemed daft to me to spend a load of money and a huge amount of labour in doing a first class restoration on a vehicle, and then park it out in the open, where the rate of deterioration is so much worse than it would be under the most basic of covers. I've been shown coaches, for example, which are normally parked up facing East / West - which means that one side get's far more of a beating from the Sun's UV rays than does the other side; boy, can you see the difference, even after only a few years!

As regards new build locos, certainly many railways have locos waiting in the queue for a rebuild which are ideally suited to their line. But think about lines which are still relying on engines which are not suited to their operation at all - such as those which have been unable to source any steam locos except short wheelbase shunters (or even no steam locos at all). Locos like Austerity 0-6-0s have helped many lines get up and running, in the days when they only had a very short length of track - in some cases, only a few hundred yards. But any such lines which now expect their trains to run at 25mph over a track length of miles soon realise their limitations. Shunters such as the Austerities were expected to run at around 5 - 6mph, not 25mph. Unless modified, they can't be notched up as much as they need to be a line speed on the level; they ride roughly enough to be needlessly tiring for their crews, knock themselves about, and do the same to the track and trackbed, creating avoidable extra work for the P-way gang and costing the railway money in repairs.

I've done a day's firing on a Jinty - and then the following day on an Austerity; it was like going from a saloon car to a builder's dumper truck, and really brought home just why one of the P-way gang was so adamant that he wished that line could get rid of every one of their Austerities. But, what could they find to replace them? They were scratching around for years!

Which brings me to the other side of the problem; so many of the engines which were saved from being scrapped were large express engines. Wonderful engines, I grant you - but they were designed to work at express passenger speeds, and hauling very long trains, not to run at 25mph with five or six coaches behind them, which is all that many lines can accommodate in their platforms and passing loops. From a lengthy discussion I had with a loco superintendent on one line about the coal consumption of such locos, I can well believe that, even if you can fill every seat on a short train behind an engine like that, you may well barely cover your costs. In contrast, he said, a class 3 loco on their regular service can show a profit, even with fewer coaches and far fewer passengers.

So which type of loco is going to be offered the most running days by a railway, and which is therefore going to have the best chance of raising sufficient money to cover the overhaul costs when the ten year ticket runs out? Clearly, the sort of loco which would have been used by the original railway for branch passenger working - which is just what our preserved lines equate to in normal working. But we come back to the snag; more and more lines are outgrowing their shunters, and needing engines which are suited to their services - but there aren't enough to go round.

To put it in perspective; the number of preserved Merchant Navies and West Country / BoBs - thirty one in all.

Now compare that with the number of surviving Jinties, BR Standard 4 2-6-0s, BR Standard 4 2-6-4Ts, BR Standard 2 2-6-0s - in total, thirty two. Not one of the BR Standard 2 2-6-2Ts or the BR Standard 3s have survived.

(MTA - I should have acknowledged the Bluebell, who have converted a BR 2 2-6-0 tender loco to a 2-6-2 tank.)

Yet which have the greater scope in preservation, both for running trains economically on preserved lines, and paying for their upkeep?

I've no beef with anyone who wants to preserve an express passenger loco, or build one from scratch, as with 'Tornado' - how they spend their time and money is none of my business. But I do think that projects to new build the smaller to medium classes are just as deserving of support - and let's not forget the draw of a preserved line which could say to the enthusiast market:

"You know how all those BR Standard 3s were scrapped? Well, we've built a brand new one, turned it out in lined blackberry black livery, temporarily given it the number of a Standard 3 which used to work in this area - and you can see it in action and ride behind it next weekend!"

And how much publicity would it garner, in both mainstream and specialist press?

 

All valid points. However this thread is about a loco that no longer exists and has drifted into building a modified replacement.

When you can see a working example in bury this weekend!

Phone em up and ask to change the number and the nice chaps there probably would.

Please don't build new versions of what we have already and let 42859 rest in piece(s).

 

Yes, but that's my point, John - there's only one Crab left; what's so wrong with another railway which wants one being allowed to build one, whether it does it from scratch or based on parts from another? I really don't get "letting it rest in peace' - it's a machine, not the body of a beloved relative! If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, all those 'restored from Barry wrecks' currently working would have been left to "rest in peace" with Dai Woodham until they'd either rusted to a pile of red dust, or been chopped for scrap.

I s'pose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

As you say - there is a Crab left: in fact two, if you count the one in the NRM. No one is stopping you (or anyone else) starting a project to build a third, but you are probably looking at the thick end of a couple of million quid, at which point choosing something unique moves the fundraising challenge from “almost impossible” to the heady realms of “merely really difficult”.

Tom

 

Correct, back in the eighties the owner was a Microprocessor Applications Engineer whose father was a retired LM region driver. All public knowledge, page 55 of the (excellent) book The Barry Locomotive Phenomenon.

 

To clarify, as I feel my point is getting lost.

42859 is an ex crab, it has passed on! This crab is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

 

So you're in favour of a Fowler 2-6-4 tank then! Hopefully it won't be too much longer until that can start once 5551 is complete and ok. And unless I'm going completely crazy I feel like someone once said that someone who was either near or at the Mid hants railway has some motion, which they acquired from Barry, that was off this crab and could fit a Fowler tank... So that is actually relevant to this thread. But I might be completely wrong.

 

I'm sure I've said this before, but the 2-6-4T valve events were based on those of the Crabs, but the mechanical components were not the same. Just look at the length of the expansion links for a start. The Crabs used a very long link following American practice; the tankies used one of normal British length. I wouldn't depend on anything from the Crab fitting your new project.

 

Yes, the motion dimensions of the two Classes are totally different.

 

Well, that started a hare running! All I was saying was that if one wanted a Crab, and it _is_ a useful loco for a larger preserved line, than building new makes more sense than wasting time trying to acquire the few remaining pieces from someone who does not want to sell them.

It is easier to build an extra loco of a class that already exists, because there is a reference for anything for which drawings might not be available. The general public aren't going to care whether it is unique or not, unless its Flying Scotsman, Royal Scot, or Mallard.