Current and Proposed New-Builds

I thought that the GWS had stated that they were no longer interested in main line operation. FWIW B.R. rated the 47xx as 7F.
Ray.

 

Most likely out of date. My understanding is that the GWS has no current plans to do any main line running. Never say never, but at the moment I believe the thinking is that resources are badly needed elsewhere.

 

That's what I thought. It seems a bit dodgy to be promising the ride in return for cash, but there's nothing about when the first main line train will run, which could be in the indefinite future, when the donor is no longer alive.
Edit: Corrected a typo.
Re-edit: Clarification now received: see my later post.

 

All of which does rather suggest that new build efforts would be best concentrated on the small proportion of the projects underway which are actually useful locos for the railways we have to operate them on...
But I expect I'm wasting my breath.

 

More to the point, how important either numerically or historically is the 47xx?

 

I wonder... If memory serves me right a lot of the new builds in progress now were set up in the few years before Tornado steamed again, presumably inspired by the fact that people could see Tornado was going to be completed, which made it seem more likely their own new build could work. If Tornado hadn't been so much of a success, how many other new build projects do you think we would actually have?

 

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking there?

Noel

 

same question could be asked about the P2. Small class, built for one specific duty in Scotland and didn't run in its original form for very long

 

If we were to look at building a new loco, what are the 'significant gaps' in the current ranks of heritage loco's.

The 'Saint' is important because of its role as the GWR's first 2 cylinder 4-6-0, by comparison the 57xx is important (amongst other things) because of the numbers built.

The 47xx?

 

We've been here before - the significant historical gaps are mid nineteenth century locos, roughly between 1845 and 1870.

Just concentrating on the GWR, the 19th century standard gauge GWR is a far more significant omission than yet another Churchward-pattern big engine. Churchward was undoubtedly a design genius, but his oeuvre is as well represented in preservation as pretty much any other CME. Armstrong - nada.

Tom

 

A handful of 1845-1870 period locos did just about reach BR too. On the LMS, a few Kirtley 0-6-0s, the GWR contributed a few 2-4-0 tanks, don't know about the LNER, the Southerns Beattie tanks are already represented.

a few of these would be more of a gap filler.

Also, the GCR and LNWR, two big, important railways are poorly represented in preservation, there's not many pre grouping Scottish engines, no Cambrian, apart from two narrow gauge engines on the Welshpool and Llanfair.

 

I did this chart a while ago, showing the distribution of 146 surviving standard gauge nineteenth century locomotives - I included locos between 4' and 5' gauge as "standard" (so Puffing Billy and Wylam Dilly are included - it would seem silly to exclude them on the basis of a few inches of gauge); and included replicas of otherwise unrepresented locos (but didn't include replicas of surviving locos - so "Catch me who can" replica is included in the 1800 -1809 list; but the various "Rocket" replicas; Locomotion replica etc aren't included because the original exists).

The 1850s and 1860s are comparatively poorly represented, with just three (*) surviving locomotives from the 1850s and only eight from the 1860s.

Moreover, those locomotives that do survive from that period – in which mainline railways were developing very rapidly – are hardly typical of the common mainline locomotives of the period. Of the three locomotives surviving from the 1850s, none can really be described as providing a good representation of the era. The Hetton Colliery locomotive, built around 1851/2 and now preserved at Beamish, was built as a lookalike replica purporting to be of a design from thirty years earlier, i.e. from the early 1820s. Oxford, Wolverhampton and Worcester No. 252, built by E B Wilson in 1855, now consists only of frames, cylinders, motion and two of the three axles; its survival owing to its latterday use as an instructional model – interesting, but hardly giving the public an impression of mid-Victorian motive power. The third and final survivor from the 1850s, is the 0-4-0T Wantage Tramway No. 5 “Jane” (now at Didcot). It is small even by the standards of the time, and somewhat rebuilt from original appearance.

Coming to the 1860s, there are eight survivors, but again they are not especially representative of mainline motive power of their era. Two are small industrial shunting engines – a Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0WT and Coalbrookdale No. 5, an 0-4-0ST. Two are the Furness Railway 0-4-0s, Nos. 20 and 25, of which 25 exists as latterly rebuilt into a saddle tank, and No. 20 has been reverted to its original form as a tender engine. LNWR No. 1439, of 1865, is again a small 0-4-0ST shunting locomotive. Midland Railway 158A of 1866 is more typical of front-line motive power of the era, though as currently preserved, it has been rebuilt with a larger boiler, cab and modern tender and its appearance is thus more typical of a late nineteenth century locomotive. NER No. 66 “Aerolite” – nominally from 1869 – bears almost no resemblance to its original form, having been rebuilt in 1886, 1892 and 1902 and, in the process, even changed wheel arrangement twice and from simple to compound form of propulsion. As currently preserved, essentially the locomotive dates from 1902, with possibly nothing beyond its identity from its 1869 origins still remaining.

This leaves only Metropolitan A class No. 23, of 1866 as still representative of a mainline passenger locomotive from the 1850s and 1860s in broadly original form.

(*) I should probably just about include the "Bloomer" replica which I think has the potential to be a very important replica when it eventually sees the light of day - representative of an under-represented company (the LNWR); an under-represented decade (the 1850s) and of a type that was absolutely typical of the era (the 2-2-2 passenger engine).





Tom

 

Well the 47xx's were neither a large class, nor were they influential in design terms (going forward). I think the analogy to P2's is a good one (with the difference that the P2's had issues that led to them being re-built, whereas the 47x's had very success lives of over 40 years); like the P2's, they're loved as icons.

Oh, as for main line running, it's worth noting that the original plan was to use the cylinder blocks from 2861, but the project is now casting new ones; the Web site indicates this was "bring the width and height within the current Network Rail Loading Gauge – essential for future mainline running". It's hard to see them spending the money on new ones, when they already had cylinders, unless they are really intent on having the capability to run on the main line. Which makes sense, given 4709's size and weight; not too many other places it could run.

Noel

 

Interesting and informative, Tom, thanks. The Midland Kirtley double framed 0-6-0s mentioned I think would be a great choice. On all other railways double framed 0-6-0s had disappeared before about 1914, but four of them actually ran, briefly, for BR. Three of the four had been modified with bigger cabs, but one was still pretty much in its original form and this one was the final one still running, and it actually got renumbered to 58110, so one can, authentically carry BR livery, as an added bonus

 

Why is it so important to reproduce the period locomotives that managed to to "just about reach BR" ? Many perfectly useful locomotives ended their days too soon for example on the LMS with the likes of the smaller constituent locomotives being culled early on as they were only a small class. Many of these locomotives would be perfectly suitable for the work on offer on heritage railways so I'd recommend to throw off the BR blinkers and embrace the huge variety of available designs from an earlier age.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

No particular reason, just a comment that a few from that period did have long working lives and the fact that they did just impinge into BR possibly adds interest

 

Whilst I'm very much a pre-grouping fan, picking a new-build project on the basis of longevity doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It gives you greater variety to play with after your engine is built, if you paint it a new livery after a few years I'm more likely to come and see it again, and given most lines are reliant on Mk1s then picking something that could at least vaguely plausibly match with that is a fair ambition. Also considering how much did make it to the early '50s it's hardly that restrictive, there's an awful lot I wish could have been preserved from then in lieu of 18 black fives!

 

Agree strongly, apart from not wanting 18 Black fives, great locos!

 

The cylinder blocks from 2861 were designed for a no. 1 boiler. The boiler on the 47xx had a larger diameter smokebox which would not fit onto the 28xx block.

Bob.

 

The 28xx cylinders don't fit the No 7 boiler. A bodge was proposed as was building it like the prototype 4700 in its original form with a No 1 boiler, both not entirely satisfactory.