LMS 2P 4-4-0

Could have quoted a number of posts but surely another factor in the current batch of 'cut and shut' (and hence affects the era of GWR design they hail from) is the GWR standardisation policies mean that 'mixing the parts of the kit' seems easier - of course, the GWR are British, so 'standard' carries a very different meaning to 'all bits fit everything' but the GWR got closer than most!

Steven

 

I can certainly see your point but actually we are probably approaching a position where to 'restore' some locos (The Adams Radial comes to mind as one) would really involve building a replica.

I suspect there would be a good business case that building a batch of brand new, medium power and discretely modernised locos would provide better value for money than a serious of bespoke overhauls, but the problem is having the funding to hand - if you could get say half a dozen BR Standard 3s (or LMS versions for that matter) coming out at say £1 million each and know that, with good maintenance and thanks to new boilers and other components, they next 3 or 4 overhauls are going to be £200k instead of £400k, then the numbers could look good. A lot of 'ifs' there and, as I have said before, a very experienced steam engineer was firmly of the opinion that one £ 1/2 million every 40 years should make the other overhauls nearer £200k with an existing loco, which makes 'new build' less attractive.

Going forward. providing a probably smaller fleet of reliable locos will become ever more important so that the advertised 'product' is reliably available. Increased new build, but focused on affordable and reliable rather than what appeals to enthusiasts may have a part but only if a funding model that doesn't rely on 'An A1 for the cost of a pint per week' can be found.

Steven

 

A little modest improvement then but essentially a locomotive that looked like a 2P but was a little more faithful to the original. Small dividing line here really. Never mind.

 

(Continuing thread drift: much of the recent stuff here would be better on https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/current-and-proposed-new-builds.985610/ )

I too agree on the desirability of some representation of the late 1800s standard-gauge GW designs.

To my mind there are good cases for some of the GW new(ish) builds but much weaker for others.

The Saint represents the first production series of the whole range of 4-6-0s; before that there were only a very few prototypes that differed significantly from the production series. The 4700 represents what was a new concept at the time, a powerful locomotive specifically intended for fast freight. The Granges, although only introduced in the Collett era, would have been the powerful (for the time) mixed-traffic version of the Churchward range. If they had been introduced in Churchward's time, as originally intended, it seems very unlikely that anyone would have bothered to build a 6 foot version, so there would eventually have been hundreds of them instead of the hundreds of Halls, and maybe Stanier's Class 5MT design would also have had 5'8" wheels. The Granges as eventually introduced had improved steam passages, which could be an argument either way: they were even better than the Churchward version would have been; or they were a later untypical variation.

On the other hand, the Churchward Counties were an also-ran design, and there is some uncertainty as to the justification for the Hawksworth Counties being built in the first place, so I see a much poorer case for those two. Possibly the best justification for the Hawksworth County is as a thank-you to Vale of Glamorgan Council and Barry.

 

As I understand it, the 47xx was built instead of the Grange, with obvious advantages, and then the Hall was built as an alternative to building more 47xx, neatly squaring the circle. Essentially, building a replica Grange or 47xx does not add anything to presenting the story , and are just satisfying the trainspotterism. (that's not necessarily a bad thing). If you want to fill the gaps with replicas, there are far more important gaps that could do with filling.

As for the Adams Radial dilemma, maybe the original fabric should be conserved and a new loco built. Rather in the way the FfR have done/are doing with (at least) two of their Fairlies

 

I thought it was the Manors which were preferred to the Granges, but the 8-coupled requirement trumped 6-coupled at the time ....... The sheer variety of Dean 4-4-0's was confusing enough, but all those later domeless Swindon 'standard' designs can really flummox a chap!

 

I think new builds can be broken down into two groups - those that meet a traffic need and those that fill a historical gap and then beyond that they fit into three types:

i) Mainline locos
ii) Heritage workhorses ie 82xxx
iii) High Day and Holiday locos.

So hence some fairly impractical designs might get built over more seemingly practical/useful designs because the pull of their 'filling a historical gap' is greater than say an alternative project which might be useful but doesn't have the 'sexiness' of something else.

A winning project is one that combines historical sexiness with contemporary usefulness.

TBH - I think that there are 4-4-0 from every company that would make useful additions to preserved lines across the country. Whether that is a Small Ben, an L1, a Cambrian 4-4-0 etc etc.

 

the Grange was on the famous Churchward masterplan and the 47xx, broadly similar with a bigger boiler, replaced it.

 

Its always hard to work out what the original motive for a given design is, but it seems likely Churchward didn't build a 5'8 4-6-0 because the 43 moguls so exceeded expectations. Certainly after they came out Churchward announced he had all the designs he needed, which was why Holcroft left for points eastwards. The 47s were some ten years later, and I've heard it said they were built because the Great Bear had proved very useful on fast freight and demonstrated a role for them. Who knows why the Halls were built with 6ft wheels, but the basic motivation seems to have been that the 43s would run out of boiler if they were asked to go too fast with too heavy a train, and I believe traffic was heavier and trains faster than 20 years earlier.

 

It's definitely in the 'workhorse' area. Don't forget it has roots in the 483 class so there were quite a lot of them. But to compare with the Compound is like comparing a 'Castle' to a 'Hall.' And if a new boiler is £400000 its paid for itself already?

 

Wouldn't a better alternative to a LMS 2P+ be a Midland 3P?

Personally, if only intended for heritage railway use I think one of the smaller wheeled class 2s built for the S&D would have a lot going for it, including the nice blue livery (Edward face?).

 

An LMS 2P to original spec with bypass valves and bogie brakes etc. is apparently a pretty good loco - at least according to David L. Smith the GSWR boys got some very good work out of them. They would be entirely adequate for most lines. And not averse to climbing hills either.

 

Am I the only one who's noticed the "Castles can't climb hills" brigade have been silent since 5043 rather conclusively settled the matter? I think we might have just found out where they've been hiding!

 

Possibly but a SECR D1/E1would be better still

 

Good point and wait until you see what the Saint can do , they were reckoned to be better than Stars on a hilly road.

 

Apparently a Saint can shuffle around a shed yard, and that's all the owners are willing to let it do. Not even going out on hire. What was the bloody point? I imagine quite a few donors are feeling distinctly peed orff.

IMO if you must build a Midland 4-4-0, go back to the Johnson era of flared brass safety valve bonnets, round-top fireboxes and (crucially for me) dart-fastener smokebox doors without numberplates or shedplates. Inability to carry BR livery to be considered a distinct bonus. 4P non-compound would have some merit but probably too much power for those wretched Derby axleboxes... speaking of which, does the Patriot suffer that particular affliction? Or does its Claughton parentage spare it that?

And please, no more LNWR engines. Looked cheap and nasty, were cheap and usually nasty. I would be rather pleased if 49395 ended up as a pile of scrap metal, along with at least one of the surviving 4Fs (44123 is an obvious candidate, being an unrestored, unloved heap of rust).

If you want a small-wheeled Edwardian goods 4-6-0, make it a Caley Oban Bogie. Same beautiful looks and stunning blue livery as no. 828 and was generally reckoned to be a success. If you want a big-wheeled Edwardian/George V 4-4-0, let's have a Dunalastair, or an L1, or a D15. I wouldn't mind an LBSCR B2 or B4 either, preferably in small-boilered original condition (never liked the X-suffix rebuilds - same with the C2 0-6-0, a pretty loco ruined by the imposition of an overlarge boiler, as also applied to the Urie rebuilds of the Drummond Black Motors - thankfully only one M7 received the same treatment).

However, I'd rather restore Butler Henderson and 31874 first, and build some more of that Maunsell family, starting with the Metropolitan K / LNER L2 variant...

 

Well aren't you just a delightful character? I'm sure the NRM and the group restoring 44123 will be overwhelmed with your comments about their locos.

Keith

 

Restoring 44123? It's in a worse state now than when it arrived at the AVR! Let's face it, the 4F was a heap of junk when new and throwing the best part of a million quid at it would be a hugely irresponsible waste of cash. The Super D is universally loathed by those who have had the misfortune to have to drive and fire the bloody thing and also needs a lot of money spent on it which really cannot be justified on operational or aesthetic grounds. It only got done first time thanks to the proceeds from Pete Burns and Kylie Minogue! Another 8F would be a far better idea.

 

Not so. Most footplatemen without a LNWR background hated them, that's true, but many of these who had them regularly and the LNWR contingent respected, although possibly not loved, them. They were a good, willing workhorse which moved the traffic reliably and economically. Aesthetically? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and at the least I believe they had a certain charm.

And as for the 4Fs, yes, they could have been batter, but again they worked the traffic regularly and pretty reliably for over fifty years. Perhaps you need to rethink your priorities?