Locomotives that should have been preserved, but weren’t.

Yes, please

 

I would suggest a Liberty Ship, for the UK that is, the design was based on an Austin & Pigerskill design, Empire Liberty so has very strong links to the UK, although oil firing & water tube boilers are decidedly not British practice.

So both as based on UK practice and the ship that won the war weshoudlhave had one from the US Reserve fleet when we had the chance but sadly did not.

 

4 still extant - though not in Britain!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship

Another good story is that of San Demetrio. A film well worth watching.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_San_Demetrio

 

An LNER class C13 or C14 should have been preserved. This would have been a most useful sized loco for many preserved lines, with the typical elegance of a Robinson design. Heck, if we could have also kept one of the Glossop line push/pull driving coaches, too how wonderful that would have been!

 

One that always struck me as being strange it *didn't* make it into preservation was 46256.

I know we have 3 other examples, but being the final development and carrying Stanier's name, I'm suprised it wasn't saved.

Chris

 

So were the wrecking crew at the scrap yard. Apparently, it was the one and only time they got onto the blower to ask "Are you sure we should break this one up?". Sadly, history provides the answer.

 

Funnily enough someone has basically taken up my idea, in this case however it was Greece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Arthur_M._Huddell

 

D818 Glory, as a shell on static display.

6018 King Henry VI, sale to Butlins fell through even after overhaul.

Some of the non 57xx/8750 panniers that were scrapped at Barry. Quite a few 1366, 64xx and 94xx class were scrapped there. It's a shame one or two more didn't survive, useful machines.

 

This was the preserved Jeremiah O'Brien at San Francisco 5 years ago.....

 

Given the age of a few US Naval vessels, is it fair to ask if you're absolutely sure it isn't still part of the reserve fleet?

 

How about A Rhymney A or A1 tank ? We've got a couple of early the 0-6-2 from the TVR, but nothing from the Rhymney, so an A1 would be a logical choice, especially as they were the successors of the current preserved welsh 0-6-2's and a predecessor of the 56xx and in addition to most of the class having survived into the late fifties.

 

Or something from the Cambrian? There's nothing of theirs apart from the two narrow gauge engines on the Welshpool and Llanfair.

The Glasgow and South Western is another very poorly represented railway. In a sense I think it is possibly the most obscure and forgotten of all the main pre grouping railways. It wasn't that distinctive, lacking the smart blue of the Caledonian, or the brown of the NBR, it didn't serve scenic and remote areas like the Highland, and it's locos didn't seem to be anything special, a lot of small classes. The LMS seemed to think they were a bit crap and got rid of them very quickly, the fact that they regarded the 2Ps which were sent there as a big improvement probably tells you what you need to know!

 

"The Cambrian's connection with the W&L was operational, rather than proprietorial"

I believe that, unlike the VoR, which was purchased outright by the Cambrian in 1913, a special legislative instrument was required to permit the GW to absorb the W&L ..... which in this context, is a long winded way of saying no Cambrian loco survives.

 

Sorry to ask, but how does one crank an axle to miss a rod please? I can see having a bent rod to miss an axle but not the other way round.

I'd agree with the choice of engine though, and would have opted for more from the period between the earliest days and around 1870, where we don't have all that many engines left (in comparison to other 40 year slices of railway history).

 

I would imagine it would be constructed in the same manner as a normal inside crank axle, but with the crank throws set so that they opposed the inside rods on their own limit of throw, thus giving clearance.

Richard.

 

Without going and looking it up, from memory, the axle actually went through a large hole in the rod and the axle was cranked to minimise the size of hole required.

 

This is get, so the axle is down when the rod is down and vice versa? That makes sense, thanks.

This is even more curious - the rod had a big 'ole in it for the axle? Wow...

 

Different locomotive to that being discussed I know, but ...



The connecting rod was inside the coupling rod, probably to allow the largest possible cylinders within a given width, so the con rod has a big eyelet to clear the throw of the coupling rod pin. Oh, and the slide bars are far enough apart that they don't hit the coupling rod as it swings round.

But they did weird and mysterious things on the old S&D ...

Tom