Current and Proposed New-Builds

Yes please!

 

All very much in the Sturrock era.

Jenny Lind? https://www.gnrsociety.com/locomotive-class/jenny-lind-type-2-2-2/

Sturrock 7ft Single? https://www.gnrsociety.com/locomotive-class/229-class/

Or perhaps a "Large Hawthorn"? https://www.gnrsociety.com/locomotive-class/large-hawthorn/

 

The drawings exist for Jenny Lind, they just need scaling up by 16 times

Sent from my SM-A356B using Tapatalk

 

A double-frame 0-6-0 would be different (Beattie for preference, obviously). A Beattie 2-4-0 also (as running in Mr. Adams time).
Pat

 

The major expense is always the boiler, and I'm very surprised that there has been no further activity to do a rebuild around the T1 boiler, after all, what classes used it? along with inside cylinders, that has to be a very simple machine to build, and there are not that many Adams locos that survived anyway,

 

The biggest single expense in a loco is often the boiler, but it isn't the majority. So even with a boiler you still have most of the money to find. And with an old boiler, the question is how much saving does it give you, since it will still need a repair. So the existence of a boiler might cut a project cost, but not by much and certainly not by enough to switch a project from "unviable" to "viable". Maybe having a restorable boiler might cut the total project cost by 10-15% at most.

There are a fair number of Adams locos in preservation - a T3, an 0415, two B4s and an O2. That's more locos, and a wider spread of types, than almost any other pre-grouping CME.

I suspect the problem with that boiler is two-fold. Firstly there is the question of "what" to build. A T1 0-4-4T would be useful, but is probably insufficiently different from the M7 and O2 that currently exist to really enthuse a big funding base. An A12 would be different, but would be more expensive (needs a tender in addition to the loco) and suffers from the fact that almost no-one under the age of about 90 would remember them.

The second question is "who" would build it. My strong feeling is that for locos designed for heritage line use, there is a strong advantage on having them built on, and for the use of, a specific heritage railway. (32424 at the Bluebell; 82045 at the Severn Valley etc). I think it is easier to motivate supporters of a railway to fund something they will subsequently see the use of; it saves money with a project not being peripatetic around which ever workshop has the current assembly contract; and it makes subsequent management of the loco easier. So if we are to see a T1 or A12, I think it will only happen if one of the existing former LSWR lines step up - which means MHR or Swanage. I can't see either of them wishing to take it on.

Tom

 

Handsome thing, isn't it?

I'm interested to note that here's another example of the GNR and LBSCR thinking something was a good idea (see also: the Ivatt Atlantic).

 

My suggestion would be a Midland Railway Kirtley double framed 0-6-0. They were the start point of the six coupled Midland goods engines, of which hundreds were built, culminating in the 4F. They massively outlasted similar contemporary designs on other railways, four managed to get to nationalisation, and one was actually renumbered to 58110. You've even got a choice of liveries! Midland, LMS and BR

 

I noticed that @Avonside1972 said "no more 0-6-0s, please!".

Well, how about https://www.gnrsociety.com/locomotive-class/avonside-0-8-0-tank-engines/ ??

An unfortunate side-effect of all this has been to encourage me to purchase the four volumes of Groves' Great Northern Locomotive History...

 

I make it twenty 0-6-0s preserved, spanning 100 years of construction, and a fifth of them are from one class. Conversely there are 24 LMS 4-6-0s preserved!

 

Another consideration is the boiler is a Drummond example that were considered inferior to the original Adams design.

 

Another consideration might be to make road transport as easy (therefore cheap) as possible, given the number of time engines can be loaned out, either on hire or for a gala. A rigid wheelbase tank is the basic idea; a 0-6-0 or 0-4-2 tender engine would use smaller trailers than the big guns.
Just a thought.
Pat

 

How many of those are GWR panniers I wonder?

 

Well, it says 0-6-0, not 0-6-0*T...

 

I meant twenty 0-6-0 tender locos. Surprisingly they're not that well represented. There are 20 Bulleid Light Pacifics as well. Add in the other preserved Pacifics (not including 60163) and that brings the total up to 40.

By that I was referring to the fact out of 20 0-6-0s preserved, 4 of them are MR/LMS 4Fs.

 

I think it is 20 tender locos:

• Derwent
• S&D 1001 class No. 1275
• GWR Dean Goods No. 2516
• GWR Collett Goods No. 3205
• SECR Stirling O1 No. 65
• SECR Wainwright C No. 592
• SR Maunsell Q No. 541
• SR Bulleid Q1 No. C1
• MR Fowler 4F No. 3924
• LMS 4F No. 4027
• LMS 4F No. 4123
• LMS 4F No. 4422
• L&YR 2F No. 957
• L&YR 3F No. 12322
• CR Class 812 No. 828
• GER No. 564 (J15)
• GER No. 1217 (J17)
• NER No. 65033 (J21)
• NER No. 65894 (J27)
• NBR No. 673 “Maude”

Tom

 

Yes, I suddenly realised that and amended my post as they crossed...

 

Does that J94 which was converted into a tender engine count?

 

No. Does it count as preserved when it's so heavily altered to how it was in service?

 

In its original form as a saddle tank, it would have counted as preserved, presumably?