Locomotives that NEARLY made it

I’d suggest despite their commonness, 0-6-0 goods engines are perhaps the most poorly represented group. Only 2 GWR examples of which only one is working, for example. Four southern and predecessors examples, five LNER, seven LMS examples (four of which are of one class).

 

I would have thought the WD 2-8-0 would be up there somewhere...

Richard.

 

The LNWR DX-class 0-6-0 goods was not only the most prolific steam loco class built for use in the British Isles (857 for the LNWR plus 86 for LYR, total 943) but also the most prolific missing from the preservation scene.

Second is probably the Midland Johnson 0-6-0s that were subsequently lumped together as "2F" (totalling 891 including 26 for the SDJR & MGNR), but it is arguable whether they were in fact a single class (they were a mix of 4ft 11in and 5ft 3in, and were built across the period when steel replaced wrought iron as the main constructional material).

Plenty more prolific 0-6-0 types completely disappeared. The Midland Kirtley double-framed 0-6-0s, the LNWR Webb "coal engine", the LNWR "Cauliflower", the Patrick Stirling GN 0-6-0s, Drummond Caledonian "Jumbo" .................

At the other end of the scale, there has been a 100% survival of the two locos built for the Welshpool & Llanfair!

 

The predecessors of the Southern were smaller companies and therefore didn't build locos in the numbers of a DX goods. However, I'd suggest a couple of notable classes that missed out despite being built in large numbers.

One was the LBSCR Stroudley D tank, of which 125 were built - that represented something like 30% of the company's then fleet of locos. (By contrast, the Black 5, considered ubiquitous on the LMS, was rather less than 10% of the LMS fleet at its peak).

The other honourable mention should go to the SER Cudworth "118" class 2-4-0 passenger locos, of which 110 were built, probably about 25% of that railway's locos.

With regard 0-6-0s: I think you can identify broadly 6 generations of such locos, and we are lucky amongst the Southern constituents to have surviving examples of:

• generation 3.5 (Stirling O, reboilered);
• generation 4 (Wainwright C);
• generation 5 (Maunsell Q);
• generation 6 (Bulleid Q1)

We are missing a very early example (generation 1); an example of the first standardised 0-6-0s (such as a Cudworth goods) (generation 2); and a genuine unmodified generation 3 loco. Examples of generation 1 and 3 exist for the northern companies; for example "Bradyll" (gen 1); the NER long boiler goods (generation 3). Gen 2 (of which the DX goods would be an example, as would be the Cudworth standard goods) is completely missing.

(The forgoing being a simplification; the reality is more of a continuum that clearly delineated transitions).

Tom

 

They had to go find two in a tunnel in Sweden. Then they cut up one of those as well!

 

Whilst the survivor ended up on the Worth Valley complete with fake British Railways livery.The other was accidentally scrapped whilst folk from the Nene Valley were negotiating to buy her. Shades of Ben Alder being scrapped by apparent accident ...........

 

Shame for such an important type

 

I think the whole era @Jamessquared calls "Generation 2" is a big gap in preservation generally (and the few there are are non runners). This applies to all types of locos, not just 0-6-0s
Both the Midland and LNWR are underrepresented in preservation, relative to their size and importance. Given how prolific they both were in 0-6-0 construction, maybe that is a gap where a new build might be justified, especially as it's a type likely to be useful on many heritage lines (yes, I know some "need" bigger locos).
Of the LNW types, the DX is the biggest gap, although personally I think a Cauliflower might be a better bet for a new build (even though I think it's more Generation 3 in Tom's definition?).
The RPSI do have two remarkable survivors: GSWR 101 Class 0-6-0s in both essentially original format and in later superheated format. Both out of traffic at Whitehead (one in bits) at the moment, but both have run on the mainline in relatively recent years.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

A little known irony of locomotive history is that the last DX in existence was scrapped as late as 1948, in Belgium.
See loco no 18 half way down this page: https://rixke.tassignon.be/spip.php?article966&lang=fr
They had passed through the hands of the LNWR (as both DX and later as SDX) and then close to a half century on the Chemin de Fer International de Malines à Terneuzen.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Out of interest, what are your rough delineations (he says, completely ignoring the last line), particularly in the early generations? Looking at your examples, I would guess that Gen 4 is a saturated 0-6-0 in a fairly developed form, Gen 5 is a superheated 0-6-0 and Gen 6 is the Q1, but you may be thinking of the generations in a chronological rather than technical sense.

 

I don't thnk Ben Alder was scrapped by accident - it happened because of a reversal of the policy decision to preserve it in the first place and was therefore deliberate. At the time it was thought important to preserve locos that were in largely original condition - hence the dropping of 451 King Arthur in favout of 777 Sir Lamiel - and Ben Alder's boiler (?Caledonian) looked nothing like it's Highland original.

Perhaps we should add King Arthur to the list of nearly made it.

Peter

 

You're forgetting Derwent!

Over in Ireland, two of the '101' class 0-6-0s survive (though, currently, only Belpaire fitted superheated No.186 looks likely to steam again). The class, originating in the 1860s, allegedly had it's roots in the LNWR DX. They were the only Irish class to number in three figures ... and among the very last in service, lasting until the early 1960s.

https://www.steamtrainsireland.com/rpsi-collection

 

Indeed quite agree Peter. That's why I stated it with......'scrapped by apparent accident.' As over the years there has been quite a debate too and fro as to whether it was "deliberate", on account of having a Caledonian boiler, in place of the original Highland one, or not.

 

I was not aware of any debate on this one - there certainly was not any at the time.

Peter

 

I knew someone would ask that ...

I was thinking in technical terms, but it is rough and ready. But in my mind, I have a sort of chronology that goes as follows - to a degree, you can apply to any stream of loco design, not just 0-6-0s.

• Generation 0: Bespoke locos, millwright tradition. Every loco more or less unique. No agreement on the "form" of a loco, i.e. variety in wheel arrangement, disposition of cylinders, positions of driver and fireman relative to each other, location of tender etc etc.
  
  Typical example: Puffing Billy, Royal George amongst 0-6-0s.
  
  Era: pre 1830 (specifically, pre "Planet").
• Generation 1: Bespoke locos or small classes, generally provided to designs by independent loco builders rather than to railway company designs. General agreement on the rough disposition of the major features of the loco (boiler, crew, cylinders etc, allowing for some oddities such as Cramptons etc.). Coke burning. No enclosed cab - just a weatherboard. No locomotive brakes beyond a hand brake, typically tender only. Tank engines rare. Locos often rapidly rebuilt to keep pace with developing traffic, with the rebuilt engines frequently bearing only a passing resemblance to their original form.
  
  Typical example: Jenny Lind 2-2-2
  
  Era: typically 1830s - 1850s.
  
• Generation 2: Developing standardisation of designs, generally designed in some detail by railway company loco superintendents, though construction may be either in house or outsourced to private loco builders. Otherwise similar to generation 1, though going through rapid process of enlargement of size and power. Most "oddities" eliminated, with most designs following a fairly small number of "templates". Early development of tank engines. Typical tender engine designs a 2-2-2 for passenger work; a 2-4-0 "luggage" engine (what we'd now call mixed traffic); an 0-6-0 "mineral" engine (goods). Early tank engines, i.e. 0-6-0T, 0-4-2T, 2-4-0T for developing suburban passenger work. Rebuilds (e.g. to generation 2.5) common but normally the rebuilt form being recognisably related to the original, for example, new boiler and cab on original under frame - see e.g. the development of the the Beattie Well tank through successive rebuilds, and how much stays the same.
  
  Typical example: Cudworth 0-6-0 goods, 118 class 2-4-0; Beattie Well Tank as originally built.
  
  Era: 1850s - early 1870s
  
• Generation 3: "Early modern engines"; built with coal-burning fireboxes from new; enclosed cabs - still likely to have no power brake on the loco, gravity sanding etc. First use of bogies.
  
  Typical example: Stroudley "Jumbo" 0-6-0, Stirling O, Stroudley Terrier
  
  Era: mid 1860s - 1890s
• Generation 4: Highly-developed saturated engines. Typically built with power brakes on the loco; more modern cylinder lubrication etc. Bogies common on larger engines.
  
  Typical example: Wainwright C; Drummond T9 as built
  
  Era: 1890s - 1920s
  
• Generation 5: Typically fitted with superheaters, piston valves
  
  Typical example: Churchward standard designs, Urie H15, Maunsell N, Maunsell Q, Gresley A1 etc
  
  Era: 1900s - end of 1930s.
• Generation 6: Modern locomotives - development of generation 5 but with focus on reduced construction cost (fabrication rather than casting; welding rather than riveting); reduced preparation and maintenance costs (rocking grates, hopper ashpans; mechanical lubrication, roller bearings); crew comfort (seats, electric lighting etc).
  
  Typical example: Bulleid Q1, Bulleid Pacifics
  
  Era: 1940s onwards

In most cases, you could also recognise a "generation n.5", i.e. a loco of generation n but which had been rebuilt / updated to include some or all of the features of a phase n+1 loco. For example, I'd call the Stirling O as phase 3; a reboilered Stirling 01 is phase 3.5, closer in features to a phase 4 loco like a Wainwright C. Similarly, a Wainwright D is phase 4; a D1 (with superheater and piston valve cylinders) is phase 4.5.

That may all of course be complete b*ll*cks ...

Tom

 

From LMR there were plenty of classes that lasted well into the 1960s that failed to reach any in preservation. A few of the more prominent in terms of numbers built examples :
Fowler/Stanier 2-6-2T from 200+ built
Johnson/Fowler 2P 4-4-0 from 160+ extant in 1959
Fowler/Stanier 2-6-4T - from classes of several 00s
Johnson 3F 0-6-0 - 200+ still around in 1959
Plenty of Scottish 0-6-0 and 4-4-0 classes

then there's the ex LNER "J" classes that we're missing just for starters :-(

 

It's one of those "urban myths" that turn up over a pint or two in the pub just like the tales of the supposed "strategic reserve." That surface every now and then

 

Of the ones you list, the 2-6-2T were not especially impressive and we're probably not missing much there (although, given we do this for fun not efficiency, the counter argument is that they'd be well suited to many heritage duties).
It's a real shame a Stanier or Fowler 2-6-4T didn't make it. For once, I think those targeting the latter for a future new build have it right.
The 2P, frankly, I don't miss, whatever the GSW chaps thought. I have a half built model of one somewhere and can't even summon the enthusiasm to finish that...

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Steam Railway Dec 2019-Jan 2020 issue has a feature on the Beet family (specifically on their involvement with Leander). This feature documents several near misses as Dr Peter Beet looked for engines to preserve;

• Fowler 4P No. 42414 - a banking engine at Tebay, which Beet tried for.
  
• Fairburn 4P No. 42210 - also a Tebay engine.
  
• Ivatt 2MT No. 46400 - Beet reportedly lined up a prospective buyer for this, but said buyer backed out of it.
  
• Peppercorn A1 No. 60158 Aberdonian - Beet reportedly wanted a 'big namer', and so set his sights initially on Aberdonian.
• LMS 'Coronation' No. 46243 City of Lancaster - Peter's "ultimate dream", but ultimately one that he was unable to afford at the time.
• Rebuilt Patriot No. 45526 Morecambe and Heysham - reportedly offered to Beet, who tried (and failed) to encourage Morecambe and Heysham council to put some money towards its purchase.
• Furthermore, one source suggested that Peter also tried to buy 'Coronation' No. 46255 City of Hereford and Ivatt 2MT No. 41286, although his son Chris had no knowledge of those two when brought up by SR.