42424 - New Build Fowler Tank

When they finally got them, the Fairburn P4 tanks were well regarded, as were the BR standard equivalents. Of course, by then the permanent way had largely been improved, the Maunsell Ks really being what you might call "track sensitive" while running over what was undeniably poor permanent way on the South Eastern Section. Although the visible impact of Sevenoaks was the rebuilding of the K class into U class tender engines (and changing locos under construction and under order from tank to tender engine), probably the more significant impact was a major programme of p/way improvements.

Tom

 

My apologies for the further thread diversion - but just to pick up on this. It makes for an interesting contrast, Thompson and Bulleid. Both developed 6ft 2in "mixed traffic" Pacifics. Both experimented somewhat (Thompson undoubtedly the more conservative of the two). Their circumstances were different as CMEs. Thompson had limits placed upon him by the LNER board in terms of what he could and couldn't build, rebuilds being the order of the day. Bulleid had much more of a free reign and it shows.

When I wrote my original post at the beginning of the year I was I must admit very cynical about Bulleid, however further research, writing and reading has allowed me to mellow somewhat and - like Thompson - there's no simple answer to the enigma that is Bulleid.

Back to Fowler - but with a related point. The Fowler 2-6-4T was a lovely looking locomotive and I rather think Thompson looked to this and Stanier's 2-6-4Ts when developing his own L1. It would be nice to see the Fowler machine recreated one day.

 

The Metropolitan Railway had what was in effect a two cylinder W (or tank equivalent of a N class mogul, if you like), built from the Woolworth's parts bin, though I think they were also essentially used only on freight work.

http://www.lner.info/locos/L/l2.php

Tom

 

They got paranoid about using 2-6-4 tanks after the River class derailed at Sevenoaks in 1927, due to its bad riding, although the problem was more the track. They were rebuilt into U class 2-6-0s but after the accident, but before rebuilding, one was tried out on the GN out of Kings Cross and rode well up to high speeds.

The same thing happened with the Hastings DEMUs after the Hither Green accident in 1967, again, one was run up to speeds on the GN with no ill effects, whereas on the Southern their ride was bad also.

The W class tanks were restricted to freight work only as a result, although the Brighton had some 4-6-4 tanks which did not appear to be a problem.

 

I think they did have the same problem, with the result that after the first one was built, the subsequent ones had the capacity of the side tanks drastically recued, and a well tank fitted to bring the water capacity back up. Visually, there was no change since, although the side tanks were modified internally to reduce their capacity, the outer shell was retained to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the locomotive. Ultimately they were rebuilt as N15x 4-6-0 tender engines, though that was not therefore because of poor riding, but rather on account of their duties disappearing with Brighton electrification, and a tender engine with large capacity tender was more useful on the South Western section to which they transferred.

Tom

 

They also had two 4-6-2 tanks which were never rebuilt, Bessborough and Abergavenny

 

I think the W was probably only agreed by the Civil Engineer on the grounds that they absolutely wouldn't be doing passenger work. They were trialled post war on passenger duties to Tunbridge Wells and promptly banned due to instability at speed (according to D.L. Bradley). The Southern did continue to use their tank engines with leading bogies on passenger work; the Brighton Baltics were only converted to tender engines because their duties were electrified, the J class stayed in tank engine form to the end and both the big Urie classes could be found on passenger duties (very occasionally in the case of the 4-8-0s). It all tends to suggest that there was something marginal about either the Southern permanent way, or the standard Maunsell pony truck. Given that the K class was fine on the GN main line and both the Fairburns and Standard 4s were successful on Southern metals, I'd guess a bit of both.

There's a lot of interlinked development, because Eric Langridge (who had worked on the design of the Urie tanks) wrote that he only managed to persuade Chambers to accept long travel valves on the Fowler tanks because he was able to point at the K class as an example that 1.5" lap could be used without terrible consequences. I'd hazard a guess that they wouldn't be so fondly remembered if they'd got similar valve events to the Fowler class 3 2-6-2.

 

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread but it was this post that caught my eye and led me to sign up.

I have a very personal interest in this restoration project, especially with the BR no. 42424 ( Previously LMS 2424 of course.)

The attached photograph was taken at Tebay and the gentleman leaning out of the cab door is my Grandfather, Fred Waidson, who drove this engine for a number of years on Shap Bank.

I will be the first to admit that I am on a very steep learning curve at the moment but would be interested in getting involved in such a project if there were any skills I could contribute.

 

It's fantastic to hear that you're interested in being part of the project. As I hope you can understand, this project is currently on the back burner with all efforts from the team going to 5551. But once this is complete we will move onto this. Obviously there are some in the current team that don't have an interest in the tank so there will be many roles to fill and all levels of experience are required. We would very much like to have you on board. Are you a member of the Patriot project at all?

 

No, this is all pretty new to me.

I have a keen interest in history and run my own living history education business, I trained primarily as a photographer but I have some basic workshop skills and a diverse working knowledge of historical crafts as well so I'm not sure exactly what may be of most use.

Four generations of my family were railwaymen up at Tebay where this locomotive worked and it is that connection that draws me to this project.

I can certainly appreciate that things are on the back burner at the moment but I would very much like to get involved in some way when this starts up.

 

That’s awesome.