48624

A matter of opinion! It wasn't when she was first restored but about five years later, and the tender platework was 'thin', rather than shot full of holes. 2968 had been taken out of service to have her tyres replaced and the opportunity was taken to renew the tank, although this overran the tyre fitting. To prevent further loss of service, she was temporarily paired with 5110's (not 5000's) 4000 gallon Stanier tender as a matter of contingency.

You might have just upset one - me!

Good idea!

Don't even think about it!

 

I thought 2968 was paired with 45110's tender because its own kept derailing, and only once it was sorted did it run with its Fowler tender? Personally I think the Fowler tenders look a bit daft behind anything larger than a 4F, and that includes anything they ran with in service.

 

No, it "didn't keep derailing." It derailed twice, the incidents being a year apart, in identical circumstances on exactly the same stretch of track, which now has a check rail.

I wonder how these rumours start!

 

I got it from two sources - some photos in my personal library, dated 1947, 1949 and 1957 show it coupled to a Fowler tender. Add to that the conversation I had with some of the very knowledgeable chaps in the 48624 Society who showed me further photos illustrating the same pairing and took the trouble to talk to me on Saturday, and I think that's sufficient for me to make my statement...

I am well aware it was withdrawn with a Stanier tender - I did choose my words carefully and used the term 'most of its working life' - I would deem 1943 to at least November 1957 to be just that, as the loco only lasted another seven years in service... It may have had a Stanier tender at other intervals, of course... the point I was trying to make was that it would be nice, and prototypical to boot, to see it paired with a Fowler tender. Frankly I'm surprised that, given the fact Impala appears to like an argument, more hasn't been made of the fact that 48624's tender is a welded one...

But I obviously know nothing! [-([/quote:116jwtz9]

In the 1947 and possibly 1949 photos, what style of LMS lettering did it have?

Regards
Dave

 

Stupid boy!

 

Sadly I can't tell! The loco isn't particularly clean in either photo and I can't make out any lettering on the tender... The loco number is 8624 in both cases, both photos taken on shed at Willesden so possibly LMS or early BR days?

However, the loco was originally given a 4000g tender in 1943 and was definitely paired with the tender of 45612 'Jamaica' in 1959... so I dunno :-k

Anyway, I've done enough research for one week! The big question - Fowler tender or not?

As to painting (4)2968 into LMS red... a different thread perhaps? On the '8F' it may not be 'right' but it looks good! Obviously it's only my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as everyone else is entitled to theirs!

 

Well, Andrew, you appear to know precious little, as there have ALWAYS been Stanier tenders of both the rivetted and welded varieties. In the closing years of steam, the short walk from your home to nearby Skew Bridge would have produced innumerable examples of each type passing by and in indiscriminate use between Black Fives, 8Fs, Jubs, Scots and Rebuit Patriots.

It all depended upon where any particular tender was constructed. Ostensibly to the same external dimensions, individual railway workshops - and the numerous sub-contractors - each had their individual ideas on how the individual components should best be put together. Indeed, some might argue that "Tornado's" tender looks 'wrong', merely because photos of some earlier class members clearly depict row upon row of rivets along the side sheets. However, not being an expert on things that happened on the other side of the Pennines, I am nevertheless led to believe that this depended entirely upon whether the item was built at Doncaster or Darlington! (Can anyone add to this?)

And, of course, we are only too aware that sheer economics in today's world dictate that any life-expired tender-tops being re-constructed will now be all-welded versions. For 21st Century working steam, unless the tedious exercise of applying dummy rivet heads can be undertaken at little cost, it would appear that the rivetted tender is ultimately doomed to extinction!

Personally speaking, rivetting parts together was synonymous with the age of steam and I felt that this process ultimately enhanced a locomotive's appearance. A 'pig' to paint, or even to clean, let alone to apply a BR transfer over the top of, at least it gave me something to focus my enlarger upon .... if not, indeed, for yet others of our hobby to count!!

 

Goodness me, that's a bit rich.

It's a matter of record that 8624 was fitted with a welded tender from new, and it ended up at Barry with one.

You were the one that claimed that it spent "most" of it's life with a Fowler tender. I would have thought it was perfectly correct to point out that might not be true. It's not a matter of liking an argument, simply a question of accuracy. After all it's not difficult to check such things these days, and apparently 48624 had a Fowler tender from Nov 1959 to Jan 1965. Someone on here has even revealed which engine that tender came from. As far as the 1940's are concerned I suppose that can be proved or otherwise by checking the Engine History and Record cards.

 

Errr... ahem. I don't recall saying anything about 48624 not having a welded tender... I am aware it was issued with one and was scrapped with (a different) one. I was actually referring to the fact that there was an argument being made against the lesser of two comments I made about a Fowler tender; I felt hairs were being split and I was expecting details about the tender construction to be given - as they later were! I did have photo evidence to back my comments about the Fowler tender up; however according to my great uncle, who was a cleaner at Willesden after the war, tenders were sometimes swapped for short periods during fault rectification, which may explain it away. But never mind. #-o

Yup indeedy - and I don't dispute that it might not be true. But it ain't what you say, it's how you say it! And apologies for my 'dig' - I too was offended!

:-({|=

As I have referred to in my previous posts, I have three photos in two books dated 1947, 1949 and 1957 that all show the loco coupled to a Fowler tender. I have relied on the dates being accurate, which they quite possibly aren't - and I have discussed that. Perhaps I should have said "some" instead of "most" - but to be honest I doubt any of us analyse in any great detail every word we write on here... especially if it's not the critical point we are trying to make...

They did - it was me! So maybe I do know a little something after all? As a matter of interest, the tender it ended up with at Barry was a 1945 build with short spring hangers...

So, no more arguing... [-o<

Fowler tender or not - which was in fact my original question!

 

You might have just upset one - me!

Good idea!

Don't even think about it![/quote:12siwulu]

Thanks for the correction. I was only writing from memory and age plays a part in these things!!

Whilst I still like the idea of a temporary swap of tenders, I too think that red would not suit the Stanier Mogul. However, how about it appearing with its original number, 13268, LMS lined black, full rake of LMS carriages and Jinty with its original number 16461(?) on a short rake of goods wagons. Even though the Jinty may not be in steam, that is a photo charter!

 

Being as its now a passenger engine, I think it should have an LNER 8 wheel corridor tender...

So what if this loco had a fowler tender for most of its life, the point is the fact that it did have a stanier one in its working life too, where and when is completely irrelevant to be honest...

So how about a visit to the SVR to be paired with our Stanier rake of coaches [-o<

 

You might have just upset one - me!

Good idea!

Don't even think about it![/quote:2re4epqk]

Thanks for the correction. I was only writing from memory and age plays a part in these things!!

Whilst I still like the idea of a temporary swap of tenders, I too think that red would not suit the Stanier Mogul. However, how about it appearing with its original number, 13268, LMS lined black, full rake of LMS carriages and Jinty with its original number 16461(?) on a short rake of goods wagons. Even though the Jinty may not be in steam, that is a photo charter![/quote:2re4epqk]
I have heard the plan from the SMF to re-paint 2968 in its original livery as 13268 (apparently in black with the number on the tender and the LMS crest on the cabside) after its next overhaul

 

That is currently the plan, but it was taken in 1984 so will be over thirty years old by the time of the next overhaul is completed. It might be subject to review. I'd prefer it, but ultimately it's down to a democratic vote by the members.

 

I'm sure LMS2968 will confirm (which he just has as I pressed submit!) but i believe it is the Mogul Fund's wish for the loco to appear as 13268 after it's next overhaul. Just need to get 47383 done now (i believe an appeal had been launched for her in the last SVR news) and you can have your wish!

 

Bring it on!!!!!!

 

Perhaps I should have read that a little more carefully before replying! The paln was to restore the engine to her original livery: LMS lined black, number 13268. But the number would be on the cab side and the LMS letters on the tender. The LMS crest on the loco and numbering on the tender had gone out of fashion by 1934 when she entered traffic.

Apologies for any confusion.

 

Naa, lets put the number on the Tender, it'd look great!

 

Just looking at a news update on the Peak Rail website, and in respect of the 8F a date of 23rd May is mentioned, presumably as its formal "launch date".
Can anyone connected with the loco confirm please?

Thanks

46118

 

You're spot on regarding Peppercorn A1 tenders. Riveted = Doncaster built and welded = Darlington built.

 

i'm not certain that this is 100% true with regard to the Stanier tenders. They were initially fully riveted and then went over to welded construction as standard. However, there were problems with the fully welded tenders springing leaks and a compromise part riveted, part welded tender became the standard. That's as I understand it, anyhow.