42424 - New Build Fowler Tank

Boy that would look good as the 10th coach in the LMS set. With say 5551/45551 on the front.

Back to 42424 and the reasoning behind it. It is the missing link in the 2-6-4T story. Just like the GWR Saint and the County.
Lets remember though. By the time this loco is finished. The people who will see this loco the most are people who have no idea which safety valve this particular loco had or if the livery is correct or if that rivet is in the wrong place by 1/8th of an inch. They will be joe public who will recognise the achievement not the engineering accuracy.

I think of the Disneyland Paris where I was taken as a youngster and spent probably half my day riding on the train that circles the park which was an American outline loco powered by a diesel engine with smoke/ steam effects out of the chimney. And to me as a kid that was enough of a steam engine and to everyone else it was the same.

I'm not suggesting the new 2300 tank should just be no more than a plywood replica with a diesel engine and steam/ smoke effects. But to the people that our hobby/ living rely on. It must provide an image of a time long ago.

 

I think that some rivet-counters will manage to survive for another 20-30 years, so don't build up your hopes.

Bob.

 

And some will even be carefully counting the screws on the lid of their coffin........

 

BIB - the Clan group are based at the GCR (after several other bases). The GCR did not choose the Clan project as a new build.


Keith

 

What you "savor" (sic) is a rake of 9-10 mostly late 1940s-early 1950s coaches in LMS 1930s livery running on an out-of-the-way ex-GWR branch line, hauled by

Well what you "savor" (sic) is a 9-10 coach train of mostly 1940s and 1950s coaches painted in 1930s livery - and with "Royal Scot" headboards no less (for which 1 9 coach train is noticeably too short) - running on a very rural single-track ex-GWR barnchline. At least though the set might be hauled by an engine from the right company, albeit one that's probably in BR livery, and it is vaguely in LMS territory, both of which are more than can be said for the LNER teak set which hardly ever sees usage with relevant engines, and is miles and miles form LNER territory.

 

Miles and miles from LNER territory? Not really, Stafford is not that far away.

 

While possibly also checking that the slots in the screw-heads are in line with the grain in the timber ?

Bob.

 

At what point would the SVR Elude your scathing Mr May, when they only run Ex GWR and BR(W) Locos (ideally with the appropriate shed allocation) and rolling stock ?
Although I see where you are coming from its criticism that's not really warranted since the permanent redistribution of heritage rolling stock to historically appropriate lines is I fear a lot less likely to happen than someone building a BR Class 6...

 

TonyMay: I feel you are being somewhat negative towards the SVR LMS coaches, and I suppose also to the inference that the Fowler tank would be out of place on the same line.

Just quickly scanning through a couple of books with Severn Valley content, it is clear that duties on that line in BR days were shared between ex-GW and ex-LMS types, in the latter case the Stanier 2-6-2T locos were seen regularly. (For instance 40110, 41207/9, and 41304)
I have also an image of an actual Fowler 2-6-4T on a Severn Valley service leaving Buildwas for Shrewsbury in 1957. (number not shown, but loco has the original Fowler cab)
Furthermore, images of Severn Valley trains tend to show more ex-LMS coaching stock in use than ex-GW types.

I would respectfully submit that the proposed new build Fowler tank would be very much at home on the present day SVR, and hauling a rake of LMS coaches.

Indeed maybe it is not too much to hope that it (42424) might actually be built on the SVR....

46118

 

Stafford was the end of one of the LNER's unwanted branches. The GNR was happy with its Derbyshire and Staffordshire extensions reaching the NSR at Egginton and acquired the Stafford and Uttoxeter Railway after it went bust.

 

Off -region use of both carriages and locos was hardly unknown: I've seen a photo of a Maunsell mogul ca. 1940s hauling a complete rake of LNER teaks, and I don't suppose you would have to try too hard to find similar pictures with GWR or LMS locos at the head.

Tom

 

Just to point out that we havent decided any location for a build at the moment. While 45551 is being built at Llangollen, and they are doing a great job, 42424 or 42300 ish depending on decisions of cab etc will be built where ever the best offer/space/ability to do the job is at the time. So it could in a hypothetical scenario be built at the SVR. Just got the matter of finishing 45551 first..... and then raising the money to build the tank! We have been discussing the part around when to actually start active fund raising for the loco... but as PH would quite rightly say "finish one before the next!". It does make me wonder though, how many people out there would donate to a Fowler tank that wouldnt donate to a Patriot? And should we offer them the chance to start to stock pile money which would go towards buying the drawings etc?

 

Not true! The Disneyland Paris locos are all real steam locos, and they were all made in Britain. It's rather refreshing to able to say that in this day and age!

As for 42424 being "the missing link in the 2-6-4T story" - personally I think that a new standard-gauge 4-6-2T or 4-6-4T would actually fill a much bigger gap in British preservation, in that we don't currently have any examples of either preserved.

But then, how can one assess which "gaps" in British locomotive preservation are most worthy of being filled? One the one hand, you could argue that a Glasgow and South Western Railway 4-6-4T would be a great choice of large tank engine for a new-build, since there is only one GSWR locomotive currently preserved, and that is never likely to steam again. But on the other hand, it was a class of only five engines, and they had working lives of less than twenty years, so arguably they weren't a hugely important contribution to British locomotive design.

And even a 4-6-2-T or 4-6-4T would be a relatively small gap to fill compared to, say, a double-framed 0-6-0 tender engine. This was once a very widespread type on Britain's railways, yet not a single example now survives in Britain.

And as I've pointed out before, any 20th-century design is a very small "gap" compared to the gaping black hole of missing locomotive designs from the 1830s, '40s and '50s!

I hate to sound nasty to the Fowler tank team, because I've nothing against the project - if they want to see that design recreated, and they can raise the money, then good luck to them. But I just don't think we should try to kid ourselves that it will fill some great and hugely important missing link in railway preservation, because if we're brutally honest, it won't.

 

Not really "somewhat negative" - just pointing out the obvious, that many of them are in the wrong livery. As for use of ex-LMS coaches on ex-GWR lines and in the 1950s and 60s in your state of muddleheaded unbecoming self-congratulating triumphalism you're missing the two letter prefix to the familiar acronyms; ex-.Yes, EX-LMS coaches (or at least BR-built coaches to LMS design) on an EX-GWR branchline. I do not deny that this happened during the 1950s - but of course these coaches were not still by then in 1930s livery, if they had ever carried that in the first place, which many of them hadn't.

 

I dont think anyone is trying to kid them selves that it will fill some great and important missing link as you put it. We are a group of enthusiasts who like LMS locos, specifically the ones built at the start of the LMS/Fowler designs, we do believe that the loco does fill a gap in preservation being the start of a very successful line of 2-6-4tanks, how important that is in the grand scheme of things is surely upto the individual. We believe that we have the skills to do the job and our members want to see it happen as they very much like the class. So surely on your point does that mean that Tornado is also not important as its similar to an A2?

 

With any new build, you have to answer three questions: is it buildable? Is it useful? And is it fundable? The Fowler 2-6-4T I suspect is eminently buildable (in the sense that I doubt it holds any engineering horrors beyond things that have already been successfully solved on other projects); Useful? 2-6-4 tanks have shown themselves to be eminently useful, especially to larger preserved lines. Fundable? We wait and see, but I can imagine a solid group of LMS enthusiasts wishing to see one recreated, and being prepared to pay for it.

I'd agree with @MuzTrem about the fact that locos from the 1840s - 1870s are something of a dark age in preservation terms (prior to that is actually quite well represented, both in originals and new builds) and clearly represent a significant gap; and an outside-framed 0-6-0 tender engine would be an eminently sensible choice from that era (as indeed would be a 2-4-0 passenger engine). But come back to buildable - useful - fundable? Probably such locos would be buildable, but I suspect that the lines that might have sufficient resource to build such a design would probably find them a bit small to be useful; and the potential number of people who might be interested in funding such a project are diluted by virtue of the plethora of such designs in existence: even if you could find a few hundred people nationally willing to fund a mid-Victorian engine, the issue would be that no more than a few tens would coalesce around any specific design. I'd love to see such a loco, but I think a 20th century 2-6-4T from a group that already has a considerable track record is a rather more pragmatic choice.

Tom

 

Hmm, sounds almost as if you're making a case for the Bluebell to build a GWR Barnum Class 2-4-0 [grin]. In their later years they had a good deal in common with the Dukes, same boiler class, same cylinder size, but slightly larger driving wheels. So there'd be a good deal in common with the Dukedog, not least that they could share a tender... So if the Dukedog suits your revised line most likely a Barnum would...



Don't they make a pretty pair? Slightly tongue in cheek!

And, most important of all, there's even a precedent for painting a Barnum in (GWR) black.

Jim Champ

 

So what you're saying is that even in the 1890s all GWR tender engines looked the same.

 

The inevitable result of having a rational design policy...

 

Presumably the lengthened smokebox on the Dukedog is on account of a superheater header?

Side by side comparisons like that are fascinating in showing how development is maybe more organic than radical: for example, a 4-4-0 being a logical extension of a 2-4-0; a 4-4-2T being essentially a tank engine variant of a 4-4-0 etc.

As for the original point: we might one day build a Victorian express 2-4-0, but I doubt it will be specifically that one!

Tom