LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust and proposed new build

No ones expecting it to lug 6/7 Mk1's up to Cauldon Low, but say a Vintage Train (which the CVR could well of assembled by the time of completion) of load 3/4 or use restricted to Alton/Froghall - Leekbrook (or out to Stoke if that lines gradients are not too severe) then I don't see too much trouble.

The George England's on the Ffestiniog are too underpowered for normal service, but that doesn't stop them being usefull.

 

Hello Tony.

Thanks so much for your questions. I can't answer them all right now and I'm not privy to all the 'behind-the-scenes'discussions and negotiations but as information comes to light and I'm cleared to release it, I'll do so here. For now I'll attempt to answer to the best of my knowledge.

As I understand it the focus is on preservation lines rather than mainline use but these were powerful engines for their size so would anything preclude them from being used on mainlines other than a few fewer carriages? They put out almost 21,000 lbf of tractive effort which is very respectable for an engine of this size. Incidentally I'm originally from Australia and there I've seen smaller classes of engines used for mainline charter and excursions.

Of course as you say, an engine with large drivers is ideally suited to higher speed running than is afforded by most preservation lines. However, the Bluebell's H2 Atlantic's drivers are only 2 inches smaller and no doubt when completed this engine will never be able to 'stretch her legs' on the Bluebell's line yet this hasn't put the chaps there off from undertaking that particular project (The tractive effort of the H2 and George the Fifth are almost identical incidentally).

As to nostalgic appeal. I'm personally too young to have seen steam in operation so I personally don't hold a nostalgic regard for the 'Big-four' or more likely, BR-era steam. Besides, if the success of preservatin steam rests on nostaglic appeal alone then preservation steam is in big trouble. Personally, Pre-grouping actually holds far more appeal than latter periods and given that there are a few Pre-grouping classes under construction (not least the appeal of pre-grouping classes at the likes of the Bluebell where there's a predominance) I personally believe that there's a market for pre-grouping and certainly for a 20th century LNWR express class engine (of which tragically none exist). Besides, the livery will be black, be it in LNWR or LMS livery so I hardly think that the BR-enthusiasts will be too put off by it's presence. For layman and enthusiast alike I'm sure that such an engine would be a draw-card in the same way that the Replica Rocket is (and no one is alive today to remember the original running on the London & Manchester after all yet it draws the crowds!) - The LNWR Georges were handsome machines, well-designed and well-regarded. 4-4-0's tend to be well-proportioned machines and the George the Fifth class were no exception.

As to a homebase and partnerships, I understand that discussions are under way. You are right that a home-base will be needed. Paul, Bruce and Derek are all too aware of this. As to running on preserved lines, I'm sure the completed engine will ultimately run wherever it's wanted - there's no need for a line to have an association with the LNWR.

Good questions though and of course, taking a scalpel to the proposal is very much welcome. As I said, I'll answer where I can and I'm sure more information which should answer some of the questions will be forthcoming. Again I'll remind everyone that Paul, Bruce and Derek should be at Railfest with a stand from the 8th to the 10th and will be open to answering questions directly.

 

Agreed. I certainly don't think it would be any less suitable for preservation-line use than much of what has come down to us in preservation and likely to be more suitable than a great deal of it. I'm sure a completed LNWR George will be afforded the opportunity for some high-speed running at times too. They were fairly economical and simple machines and as a new-build the costs of running should be lower.

 

Just a thought but would Crewe be an ideal choice as a base for construction? Ex LNWR Works with good amount of space (possibly) and will be building 45551's boiler when the funds are in place.

It does sound quite a nice well thought out project and a lot better than the Facebook ones set up by people of around my own age.

 

LNWR Heritage for many reasons would be ideal of course, not least because of the appeal of having a substantial amount of this engine built in Crewe. I can't say at this stage, in part because I don't know all the details and what discussions and negotiations are taking place. Suffice it to say there are moves to establish affiliations and partnerships and I'm sure should these be established, then the project will take on a more serious lustre. At this stage all I can say is that once something is concrete and official, I'll jump on here as soon as possible to broadcast it.

The fellows of course welcome any queries and tenders of interest. Contact can be made at: GeorgeVtrust@gmail.com

 

Must head off for now but I'll keep an eye on the thread and try to reply to everyone's comments. Cheers!

 

Why do people think that big wheels are a problem? You don't need big wheels to go at 25 mph, but they aren't a problem. A steam loco exhibits maximum tractive effort at minimum wheel revolutions so large wheels and slow speeds are not a problem in terms of haulage. Big wheels allow the loco to go faster, but that's all.

 

You need somewhere to be based, a place to run one it's finished. Somewhere where the railway with its membership organisation can support you, put regular updates in the magazine, provide volunteers, workshop, etc. It can visit other lines of course, but it needs a home. Ideally that should be an ex-LNWR line or in or near LNWR territory as this maintains the heritage link. You then need to go and pitch your engine to their management, like Dragons den and reach some kind of agreement.

So what are the options?


[*]Lakeside & Haverthwaite, right area but a bit out of the way.


And was never on the LNWR - Furness Railway me thinks

 

[*]Lakeside & Haverthwaite, right area but a bit out of the way.


And was never on the LNWR - Furness Railway me thinks

................and is more or less purely a commecial opportunity nowadays. How about the Ribble Steam Railway as a base - there's a line that seems to be quietly forging ahead.

 

Ideal of course but hardly necessary. Absolutely the engine will need a home-base. I personally don't know the particulars as I'm not involved in the decision-making process - merely a messenger - but I do know that the issue is being discussed both internally and with other parties, and is considered a priority. Right now they're heading up to York to man the Railfest stand however perhaps in the coming week or fortnight I can find out from them if there's anything more concrete to announce. I'll let you know either way.

 

Indeed Ribble looks to be an impressive operation from what I've seen and heard. I must go there myself someday.

 

Since when does size matter ?

9f's, 8fs, Bulleid Pacifics are allabundance in preservation on preserved lines... Non of them are particularly optimum for a preserved line.

If large wheel 4-4-0's are still not relevent, then maybe Cheltenham shoud be retired after Railfest ?

 

To add, some people forget that many locomotive classes were designed with a specific service or even a particular line in mind. Rarely are preserved locomotives performing anything like the services they were designed for.

As to Cheltenham, I wish I could be to York just to see her back in steam. That alone would be worth it for me. A beautiful engine and by the looks of it, a credit to the team who restored her.

 

Out of curiousity does anyone know where a George the Fifth would rank if you put it in the BR power rating system so people can understand it's capabilities ?, I'd imagine something in the range of 3/4P.

 

According to the Ian Allan London Midland Region Book they were classified 3P.

Weight (Loco) 59 tons 17cwt.

Pressure 180 lb/sq in

Cyls (I) 20 1/2" X 26"

Driving Wheel Dia. 6' 9"

Tractive Effort 20,640 lb

Valve Gear. Joy (Piston Valves)

 

When one is constructing a new machine it is quite a good idea to make something appropriate for its anticipated use. This is why the G5 and 3MT 2-6-2T projects appeal to me and just about nothing else on the stocks at present does; certainly not the scheme under discussion. The plethora (dictionary definition "unhealthy superfluity") of Bulleid pacifics and other inappropriate machinery is due to the politics of the scrap metal trade as much as anything else.

One of the ironies of the J39 project was that although there were doubts about the ability of those involved to make the scheme work, the choice of prototype was a sensible one.

P.H.

 

Paul, where have I said that its suitability hasn't been considered? While admittedly, the heart rules in any new-build proposal, the trustees haven't simply discounted the practicalities of building such an engine and as I've alluded to earlier, they've sought expert opinion on the matter. That expert opinion suggests that the George the Fifth class is an eminently suitable new-build. Relatively simple mechanically while very powerful and efficient for their time. Subtle technical changes will hopefully address some of the deficiencies but the George the Fifth class were in no way a lemon. They were very sound engines.

The size and loading gauge is more appropriate than any Pacific or 4-6-0 for preservation line use while producing a tractive effort which rivals some of the smaller 4-6-0's. There is as far as I can see, no reason why it couldn't perform mainline excursions (given too these were mainline express engines of their day) although the focus is certainly on preservation line circuit. Not to diminish the marvellous and inspiring achievement that is Tornado but I think would be easy to say that this proposed new-build would more suitable for preservation line use than an A1 Pacific while still being capable of performing mainline duties. The suitability or otherwise of an LNER A1 for preservation line use didn't deter that team pursuing their dream.

6-coupled goods and small tanks are of course excellent choices for new builds (the G5 and Holden F5 are a testament to that and I've personally put money into the F5) but a George the Fifth is in no way a poor choice, far from it.

 

And fair enough too, both are very worthy proposals and merit all the support they can muster, and no doubt more. You're absolutely entitled to support whatever new-build or preservation proposal you personally deem worthy, or even none at all. However, please don't presume that this proposal and the decision-making behind it is any less rational and any more emotionally-driven than your own preferences or indeed that the decision-making, which has taken place behind the scenes of other serious new-build proposals, including the two you cite.

The job of any such proposal is to convince a critical mass of individuals to get behind it and people's decision-making (whether to get behind it or not) will undoubtedly stem from a mix of reason and emotion. We certainly don't expect to convince everyone and perhaps we may not even convince a critical mass but please don't for a minute think that an impractical engine class ill-suited to any modern usage has been selected willy-nilly here.

 

If an Ivatt Class 2 can regularly take 5 up the gradients of the KWVR, I don't see any reason why this locomotive couldn't manage the same on the Churnet Valley, at least between Froghall and Leekbrook. I think that would be the perfect base for it.

 

Speaking for myself and not as a representative of the trust (thus my personal opinion which neither reflects the opinion of the trust nor their intentions) I think the Churnet Valley would be an ideal base too. There's a lot of merit to your suggestion, not least because it's fairly close to home territory for an LNWR type especially given that North Stafford and LNWR were closely affiliated and had friendly relations. Many an LNWR type would venture into NSR territory back in the day. The CVR is really nice operation from everything I've seen through some very picturesque scenery.

Hopefully I can get a little bit more information from the trustees on this matter soonish.