How well represented the different railway companies are in preservation

Thank you, Andrew, for the fascinating analysis, which must have taken up a fair bit of time.

I was pretty well aware of how many engines from the different pre-grouping companies had survived, but seeing the tables of percentages of the overall stock was quite an eye-opener. I was aware, especially as a great fan of the Southern and its constituent companies, that all three were well represented compared with many other pre-1923 companies, even if, in the case of the LB&SCR, it was due to the large number of Terriers. However, the percentage charts do show just how badly many companies are represented, including some larger ones like the L&NWR. Midland and GCR.

Another interesting analysis would be to exclude engines which will most likely never steam again, We obviously cannot be 100% sure in every instance, but this would take quite a few NRM locos off this list. I would guess that when it comes to steamable or potentially steamable locos, the LB&SCR would still come out top for absolute numbers and the L&SWR for variety of classes. What, however, is rather poignant is that, for those of us too young to have been around when at least a few engines of most pre-grouping companies were still on BR's books, we will never get the chance to travel behind an engine from the LT&SR, Highland or G&SWR and that numbers of "core period" locos drop down to a probable maximum of 2 from the L&NWR (Coal Tank and perhaps Super D), 2 from the Midland (Half Cab and 43924), 2 from the GER (564 and perhaps 229) and 2 from the GNR (1744 and 1247). Rather sad really.

Still, I guess we must be grateful for what does survive, but these statistics do explain why pre-grouping engines do draw the crowds, both on the lines where they are based and as guest engines. They really are quite special.

 

But quite a few locos steamed after preservation eg Thundersley & several 'Scottish' locos so I don't see any obvious reasons why they cannot steam again. I seem to remember the NRM saying that they had no objection in principal to the GNR Atlantics running again.

 

I'd be very happy if I was wrong and you were right about this!

Any incentive to steam 990 and 251 may be somewhat diminished by the construction of 32424 which has much in common with the larger GNR Atlantics, but even so, I'd be happy to see one or both of them working again.

The only other point I would make is that these NRM engines aren't getting any younger. When the Midland Compound (which has also steamed in preservation and which I would love to see in action again) was withdrawn in 1951, Lion was 113 years old. It did steam back in 1980 and what a sight it was!! However, it needed to be handled gently due to its age. Now MR 1000 is older than Lion was when, as 41000, the Compound was set aside by BR. It's quite a shock when you put it in these terms.

 

Indeed, I've often thought that. When "Locomotion" was shoved around at the S&D centenary, it was (by definition) 100 years old. Now it is not far short of 200; meantime, I think a majority of the locos I've been on are now well over 100! You have to start asking archaeological questions about how the provenance of remaining components, and how significant that provenance is, which will inevitably give different answers if you are a museum or an operational railway, and will in any case require a case-by-case answer.

Tom

 

251 needs her superheater refitting before she'd be in any way decent.

 

Essentially true!
I suppose it would be nice (WIBN(c) PH) if thinking a bit more about the relative scarcity/absence of some railways' locos in preservation:
1. made us value the rare ones more.
2. concentrated minds about which locos from some of the big underrepresented lines might be worth steaming (several formerly operating locos have languished lately for lack of funds for next overhaul).
3. led people to consider whether restoring some of the museum locos to steam might be worthwhile in terms of telling the story of Britain's railways a bit more holistically.
4. concentrated new build efforts* on the lines which are very unrepresented.
5. broadened out the question of company representation to e.g
carriages, stations, liveries, etc.
But I suspect all of this will be lost in a tide of misplaced 1960s nostalgia...

* in as much as there are about "filling the gaps" - other separate factors such as building easily maintainable cheap to operate locos of suitable size and power are quite valid in themselves.

 

I've stumbled across this interesting thread from you on the numbers of locos preserved from the different Pre-Grouping companies. A couple of thoughts to add.

Firstly, the Hull & Barnsley was a separate entity until taken over by the North Eastern in April 1922. It had 161 locos at that point, but rapid withdrawals meant that only 138 survived to be allocated LNER numbers in 1924. The H&B fleet became extinct in 1956 and none survived into preservation.

Secondly, to complete the picture across the British Isles, we can look at the situation in Ireland. I am unsure of exact numbers, but think that the approximate loco fleet sizes for the three largest Irish companies were:
- Great Southern & Western - 370
- Great Northern - 200
- Midland Great Western - 140

There are 4 survivors each from the GS&WR and GNR, but nothing from the MGWR. The MGWR took the initiative to acquire Woolwich-built Maunsell Moguls, the first entering MGWR service just before the 1924 GSR merger. In one sense, the nearest to a MGWR engine can now be found on the Bluebell & Swanage Rlys!

So the H&BR and MGWR(I) can be added to the list of companies with over 100 locos but none in preservation - alongside the Barry & Rhymney.

 

A thread resurrection!

Yes, good points there.
The MGWR in particular is a great loss, with some interesting and unique locos.
A particular shame that none of the K class 2-4-0s were preserved, since some lasted so long.
I'd love a new build, but it's not gonna happen!

RPSI, FfRS, TRPS, RERPS, RHDRA, WLLRPC

 

In their original form with "fly-away" cabs, Atock's 2-4-0 & 0-6-0 tender engines were like nothing else on the planet. But if any had been preserved, they would have looked quite different due to later rebuilding.

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug...LWAYS/MIDLAND-GREAT-WESTERN-RAILWAY/i-rmQmRp4

Irish preservation resources are limited, and I believe that the Downpatrick Railway is the only broad-gauge heritage railway. But it could probably make good use of one of Atock's small branch-line Class E (J26) 0-6-0Ts, if only any had survived.

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug...LWAYS/MIDLAND-GREAT-WESTERN-RAILWAY/i-QDNfznb

The RPSI has a project for a new-build NCC Class W 2-6-0, but that will doubtless attract much more support than a project to re-create a 19th century type.

 

A very interesting thread and well done for trying to put a degree of objectivity into a very partisan subject!
As a supporter of things both the SR and GCR, I am both pleased about the SR and encouraged about the GCR (1 new build).

 

Yep, in my fantasy world where a newbuild was feasible, I'd go for the original configuration!

Worth noting that the newbuild NCC mogul is happening partly by accident: suitable wheelsets and other components survived, and a second boiler suitable for the Jeep and/or a newbuild Mogul was a sensible investment anyway.
There was quite a strong lobby within the RPSI proposing a second Jeep should be built instead, because No.4 has proved so reliable and operationally flexible.
However the lure of bringing back the missing class proved more appealing.
I for one am looking forward to seeing it in NCC Crimson Lake...

I think there is secretly a large number of RPSI members who would absolutely love to see a newbuild VS class! But the reality is that keeping the existing fleet - already including three GNR 4-4-0s - going is a big enough task already.

RPSI, FfRS, TRPS, RERPS, RHDRA, WLLRPC

 

Steps in or steps out*? One of the small locos losses I particularly mourn is T&CLR 2-6-0T Argadeen, which somehow survived the odds to make it into the 1950s, a charming little machine and would've been perfect for Downpatrick. Mind you, I cant help thinking the same about the surviving SL&NCR 0-6-4T Lough Erne, sitting cold at Whitehead (or SL&NCR "Railcar B", for that matter).

*small as they were, the steps fouled the Waterford & Tramore loading gauge, meaning the E class sent south under GSR auspices had theirs modified to suit. A real tragedy was an original W&T 2-2-2WT, earmarked for preservation in the 1930s, coming off the line, in the process doing enough damage to end up scrapped.

 

Maybe worth noting that before he came to the GCR, Robinson was loco superintendent of the Waterford & Limerick Rly. While at Limerick, he designed a number of engine types including 4-4-0s, 0-6-0s and 4-4-2Ts that prefigured classes produced during his early period on the GCR. His 53-Class or Jubilee-Class W&L 4-4-0 also had a strong resemblance to GCR 567, now the subject of a new-build.

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.../WATERFORD-LIMERICK-WESTERN-RAILWAY/i-nvGJQJb

A new-build VS would certainly be nice, but the GNR(I) is already fairly well represented in steam preservation, with three 4-4-0s and a 2-4-2T from a fleet of around 200. The Northern Irish and Cross-Border lines (less the L&LSR) have more generally done reasonably well, the Southern Irish lines less well. An oddity is that, while it is usually large passenger locos that are most likely to be preserved, the three operational Southern Irish broad-gauge engines are all goods types - two GS&WR 0-6-0s and the DESR 2-6-0.

Well, I am always learning new things from Nat-Pres!

 

FWIW, my personal preference for an Irish new build would be a Cork, Brandon & South Coast Railway 4-6-0T.

Undoubtedly there is no "need" for a VS, and it would hardly fill a significant gap, but it would be a loco more suited to the RPSI's type of operation on the modern mainline railway. And besides, they were just about the most handsome locos ever, anywhere! But what I was expressing is that secretly lots of RPSI members (including me) would absolutely love to bring back 207 "Boyne", the one that got away. But we also know it's not a realistic prospect.

RPSI, FfRS, TRPS, RERPS, RHDRA, WLLRPC

 

In case anyone doesn't know why a VS is such an appealing (fantasy) idea, here's some footage:


RPSI, FfRS, TRPS, RERPS, RHDRA, WLLRPC

 

Not saving one of the Bandon Tanks was a criminal oversight. 'Fraid I'm still gonna plug the GNRI. If it's WIBN 'let's build one' candidates, I'd still plump for an SG2 as just about the best of any 0-6-0 designs to grace any companies' lines in the entire British Isles, in terms of their attractive proportions and just plain old 'go anywhere and get the job done' for decades ..... and would handle the RPSI 7 car set with ease, which is also happens to be the reason even I wouldn't try to justify recreating a GS&W 'Kerry Bogie' as a viable choice - dammit!!