LMS consituent engines set aside for preservation but later scrapped.

... and I think the two Kings at Barry had been re-directed there as they were over the axle load to reach the yard that had originally tendered for them.
Ray.

 

I'm not sure about that; I'm too busy at the moment to try and find data on when the wagon influx ended, but I have the strong impression that it was years before the bulk of the locos were bought out.

A lot of the locos certainly sat there and rusted for many years. If he was just in it as a business, why do that? Like I said, those locos represented capital which was just sitting there, not earning anything. (And as to the notion that he was letting the scrap appreciate in value - if so, why not do that to all his scrap?)

Noel

 

Thread drift?

 

On NatPres? Never!

 

{Apologies for continuing the drift, but having made some claims, I now need to follow up.}

So I had a chance to do some research, and I think both of us have some points.

Although the supply of wagons did dry up from time to time (e.g. at the start of 1980), more always seemed to appear in fairly short order (although the types changed over time). So that kept the work-force at Woodham's busy.

But quite a few old diesel locomotives did apparently get disposed of too - in preference to cutting up the steam engines. Another point is that although he had to pay rent for the space he was using, more than a few locomotives were purchased, but then left there for some time (years in some cases) without being charged rent.

I found a quotation (in the foreword to "Barry Locomotive Phenomenon") from Robert Adley which I think is apt: "his tolerance, patience and goodwill". He was a businessman first and foremost, but it wasn't all about money with him. I'm sure that if he had to, to keep his work-force employed, he would have cut up the engines - but somehow, he almost always managed to avoid it! Not an accident, or purely luck, methinks...

Noel

 

Nearly always. But a couple of locos succumbed long after the preservationist arrived when the wagon supply temporarily dried up.

 

I watched "Timeshift - The last days of steam" on BBC4 on Wednesday 18th April at 11.00pm. It was a repeat from about 10 years ago, but will still be available on iPlayer.
It included an interview with Dai Woodhams, he seemed to have quite a sense of pride that some of the engines that had been through his hands were now restored and running.

 

I don’t know if that was the programme I caught a clip of but I did see Dai Woodham standing next to an engine saying how wonderful it would be when restored. Trouble is the loco was 92245, which currently seems to have no prospect of restoration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Which is why I edited my post to add "almost" to the "always"!

Noel

 

I note that LNWR 790 Hardwicke was withdrawn by the LMS in 1932 and stored at Crewe Works for some 30 years before going to Clapham Museum:

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/790-hardwicke-2-4-0-lnwr-precedent-class/

Presumably, Stanier's approval must have been obtained for the retention of Hardwicke at Crewe? Given that Crewe had a central role in the construction of Stanier's new locomotives, he must have spent a lot of time there and Hardwicke could hardly have been hidden from him. Possibly the key difference for Harwicke was that it had been involved in a specific historical event (the 1895 "races to the north") and so had a fame that the Midland engines did not have.

 

True. They were locomotives that were not unique though - and I suspect that that was a deliberate move.

 

deleted

 

I was just about to reply to that!

 

Memory can play tricks but I seem to recall that The Railway Magazine actually made a public plea for Hardwicke to be preserved when she was withdrawn in the 1930s. Whether that was actually decisive in persuading the LMS to preserve her, I don't know. But the fact that there was public interest in the loco may have helped to dissuade Stanier from reversing the decision.

Of course, Cornwall and Pet were also set aside for official preservation at Crewe. The former had been used for some high-profile publicity events in the 1920s, notably the 1925 Shildon cavalcade, so again, that may have helped to save her. Pet was so small that one can only assume Stanier felt the potential space saving wasn't worth the aggro!

 

sorry
my comment did not stand up to scrutiny !

 

Thank-you for your thoughts above. That certainly does seem a plausible explanation for how Hardwicke came to be preserved in the same year (1932) that the engines at Derby were scrapped. I also suspect that, in the light of the Derby episode, someone at Crewe made sure to identify a storage location for Hardwicke that did not get in the way of Works activities.

Of the Derby casualties, the scrapping of the Kirtley double-framed 0-6-0 was probably the greatest loss. I don't think that any other double-framed goods locomotive has survived in preservation in Britain. It is remarkable that the LMS inherited no fewer than 471 of these engines from the Midland at Grouping in 1923 - mostly from the curved-frame series built 1863-74, but a few from the even older straight-frame series. Most of their contemporaries on other lines had been scrapped well before 1914.

 

Presumably not a memory as of the original publication!

Noel

 

You can say that again. The only six-coupled double-framer preserved in Britain is the Mersey Railway's Cecil Raikes which, though a charming engine, is hardly representative of the genre.

This is why it makes it me laugh inside when new-build projects like the A1, Patriot, Standard 3 etc. say that their chosen designs will fill important gaps in preservation. Those are not gaps! Not having a double-framed 0-6-0 in preservation - any double-framed 0-6-0, from any company - that's a gap.

(Not having a dig at the new-build projects mentioned, only making the point that most railway enthusiasts tend to forget that railways did, in fact, exist before 1948...!)

 

Four of the Midland Kirtley 0-6-0s survived in 1948 and one of them actually lasted long enough to become BR 58110.