LNWR Bloomer

Tyseley is Mainline orientated these days, thats much is true, but remember they already have an operational Steamer unsuitable for their core interests - Peckett 2004 that can usually be found at open days with a Shunters Wagon & Toad, and that has less earning potential than the Bloomer

 

Theres a group looking into building a Samson or a Large Samson locomotive. lets see how long that takes?
they have got a facebook group that people can join.
THE SAMSON PROJECT

 

I thought the original Bloomers were built in Wolverton - southern division of the LNWR under McConnell?

 

The first twenty were built in 1851-3 by Sharp Bros (later Sharp Stewart & Co) in Manchester; another five were built by Sharp Stewart in 1861, and five by Kitson of Leeds in the same year. The L&NWR Southern Division's Wolverton Works built ten in 1862.

 

Right, thanks for the clarification Mencken. I guess that a quick glance at 'Locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division' by Harry Jack, which sits on my bookshelf would have answered my question.

 

No prob, Knotty. That's the book I found it in.

And of course none of them was ever numbered '670' - as the Tyseley Bloomer is. That's just Tyseley's address in Warwick Road, probably influenced by a very inaccurate painting by Hamilton Ellis of a Bloomer numbered '607'. Bonkers, but reproduced all over the place.

 

I am afraid that there is more than a little inaccurate supposition in some of the stuff which you have posted on here Mencken. We did indeed decide to use the number 670 for no other reason than it was our address in the Warwick Road. We were not in any way influenced by the Hamilton Ellis painting as it is the wrong colour, out of scale and somewhat inaccurate. If you had carried out sufficient research before jumping in with both feet you would have found all of this info and lots more in the series of articles which appeared in Railway World at the time that we were constructing the loco. The research that went into the locomotive owes a very great deal to the work which Harry Jack did in digging up stuff that hardly anyone else was interested in for no other reason than he thought it was worth doing. I spent a vast amount of spare time over a period from1986 to 1990 doing well over 100 drawings for the loco and there is an awful lot of it in existence. I personally do not intend to see that go to waste, but we currently have to be very practical and apply such funds as we can generate to the activities which give us the best return on the cash to keep the business afloat.

Over the past 5 or 6 years we have actually made quite a lot of motion for it, water pump and so on, and essentially it needs the driving wheels fitting, slidebars pistons etc lining up and the motion assembling, boiler casing, chimney safety valve casings, brass beadings and firebox corners, various rudimentary valves and such pipework as they were fitted with. The problem is that there are people out there who are quick to write in carping but nowhere near as many prepared to put their hands in their pockets and come up with significant amounts of cash. The last serious donation came from Christopher Awdry in memory of his father who was a great fan of McConnell, a number of years ago and it was enough to manufacture quite a lot of the motion.

One thing that I can tell you is that we have no intention of giving it away to another organisation, and we are unlikely to want to be tearing all over the country to various private railways as that would get in the way of our core activities. I also have a view that it is not the sort of locomotive that could, or should be handed over to the rank and file for operation. We do not particularly see film work as terribly attractive as it requires huge inputs of time to satisfy the Luvvies demands, and anyway they have never generally been noted for their attention to accuracy where railways are concerned - anyone remember the 1930 pannier tank in the supposedly Edwardian film of the Railway Children?

So please Mencken go and gripe elsewhere because you do not possess the slightest chance of altering our views on what we shall do with it.

Regards
Bob

 

I'm hardly "quick to write in carping", bob.meanley. 1986 is a long time ago.

But, believe me, I'm very glad to see you don't intend to see all your good work going to waste.

 

Mind you to digress horribly, how many people even on this forum do you suppose could reliably tell the difference between say an 1854 class pannier tank with an enclosed cab and a 5700 if they were unable to read the number plate?

But I will grumblingly and mumbling admit that whilst there were certainly Edwardian pannier tanks I'm not sure there were Edwardian pannier tanks with enclosed cabs. Oddly RCTS doesn't seem to say when the enclosed cabs started to be fitted.

 

Did laugh a bit at the film thing - my other half now visibly winces whenever a train appears in anything on TV, waits for it to disappear off screen and then asks in a tired voice "Go on then - so what was wrong with that?" The best recent one was Bitton complete with industrial tank engine being used to double for a train arriving at a London terminus in the series about the kinder transport from Germany at the start of WWII.

 

First can I say I have no connection to Tyseley , but I was a volunteer with a society "up north" for a number of years.So have some idea of the amount of time & effort that goes into restoring locos etc.So as Mencken has such a low opinion of the people at Tyseley can he tell us his experiences of working on locos & how long the work should take ? Or is it a case of "do as I say not as I do". regards John

 

I do not have a "low opinion" of the people at Tyseley!

But I am very interested in the Bloomer Project, fully described, as Bob Meanley says, in his articles in the Railway World away back in 1988-89.

It was suggested on another thread (Tyseley's Single-Wheeler: Is the Bloomer running?) on 6th June last, that a figure "close to six figures" would see the engine finished "in a matter of months" - which is all rather vague - and yet there have been complaints that a cheque went unacknowledged and another hadn't been cashed, and there doesn't seem to be a dedicated fund. From their website, the Bloomer doesn't even seem to be included among Tyseley's "Projects".

So, instead of this curious attitude of "we have no intention of giving it away" (say, to a real museum, as was initially suggested) - it would seem sensible to open a proper fund specifically for the Bloomer, with published accounts. Then we might see some action.

 

?????

 

So, Tyseley has put out lots of coloured leaflets and appeals about a GWR 'Castle' - of which there are EIGHT examples already preserved - but nothing at all about the LNWR Bloomer. Apart from an appeal for old ink cartons (now closed) which raised a measly £1000 in five years.

It rather looks as if Tyseley isn't really interested in finishing the Bloomer. And it's occupying valuable GWR space.

So why don't they hand it over to some museum? Manchester has been suggested. Why not?

 

As Bob Meanley has already clearly stated that he has no intention of letting the Bloomer go elsewhere I can't see the point of your post.

Yes it would be nice to have a Bloomer up and running but all good things come to those who wait/win the Euromillions.

 

My point is - simply - that if Tyseley isn't going to do anything about the Bloomer (and clearly and quite understandably they aren't: they have other, and - to them - far more important things to worry about) then they should hand it over to some other outfit. A museum - say - where it might be finished and set to work.

OK?

 

Has any other museum or 'outfit' offered to take it on? If so, and if they have a funded plan, you might have a point. If not well Bob Meanley has indicated that work is continuing but at a slow rate since other things have priority for funding (and presumably for fundraising time and effort) and therefore it'll only be ready when its ready. If anybody wants it sooner than that all they have to do is find enough money.

 

Quite.

And I've already suggested that Tyseley should set up a dedicated fund, specifically for the Bloomer project. With publcation of all donations (e.g. Christopher Awdry's - and other bequests) clearly explained.

So why don't they?

 

Perhaps beacause all this would cost money and in the current days of financial hardships may not guarantee a lot of income. Therefore actually taking money away from finishing the loco.

As you have suggested tyseley have other priorities and already have an appeal running to overhaul clun castle. In my view it would be silly to have a second appeal running alongside for the bloomer. All that would happen is funds get split between both appeals and both projects take longer! Perhaps when clun is finished an appeal for the bloomer may be an option.

As bob said tyseley have every intention of finishing the bloomer, just not this week. Good things come to those who wait. Oh can I also ask why you don't feel the need to have a similar rant at the owners of locos that were saved from Barry long before the bloomer was started and still haven't been finished? After all they at least had a head start. All these restoration/New build projects take time and money and hard work from what is often a small team of dedicated people. I would suggest if you feel so strongly u can either stump up some cash or have a word with bob as I'm sure he could find you some jobs to do on the bloomer to help keep things moving?