LMS consituent engines set aside for preservation but later scrapped.

No sacred cow as far as I'm concerned, I just don't like seeing someone who is not around to defend themselves, having their reputation called into question over an act that can't be proved to be his/her decision.

If it can be proved to have been Stanier's decision then that's fine, let the history books reflect that, but without proof I think it's very unfair to sully his name with accusations.


Keith

 

By all means criticise Stanier for decisions that may be construed as poor in his role as CME - the decision to have different yet very similar boilers for the 5XP, 5MT and 8F always struck me as poor.

Just assuming that this particular incident was his decision, it strikes me as a logical one for a railway manager (as opposed to a heritage railway manager) to make.

 

If I were the bearded wonder, and got pendolino replacements I'd happily order them all scrapped.

:dance:

 

Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion. Regardless of where blame lies and how much blame you can reasonably apportion given the time and circumstances, I'm sure everyone agrees that it's a shame these engines didn't make it into the national collection.

Thanks for all the comments and reasoned arguments!

 

Dai Woodham was hardly far-sighted with regard to preservation. He was simply a scrap dealer who, having bought a large number of BR steam locos and wagons, realised that it was more economical to cut-up wagons than locos.

54398 Ben Alder - Any comments?

 

I've just been reading the original GWR locomotive committee minutes at Kew. I'll write up a web page later with transcripts, but it was certainly nothing at all to do with Stanier and the whole story is rather different to what is generally told...

Breaking up the locomotives was approved at board level, but only after two and a half years trying to find someone to give them away to.

http://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/northstarmyth.php

 

If only a few other scrapyards had shared Dai Woodham's lack of "far-sightedness"!

 

I am sure I read it somewhere that what happened was that they were stored in the paint shop at Derby Works. Stanier I think was being shown around presumably soon after he joined the LMS and was told that there wasn't enough space to paint locos and found out much of the space was being used to store these historic locos, so ordered them scrapped to free up the space for painting. I think after some pleading that the Johnson Spinner was spared the cull and I believe a 2-4-0 MR Kirtley Engine was scrapped too but then replaced some years later by the similar MR 158A when it was withdrawn which of course still exists. Probably Stanier after just arriving on the LMS maybe wanted to demonstrate his authority.

 

Try it with Edward Thompson and see how many pages that would generate!

 

TheYork Museum had been proposed by the NER, but WW1 then the Grouping intervened.

My understanding was that the NER did an excellent job in developing the area it served and the York Museum was a part of this as both an attraction and something that 'sold' the area

 

That's not the impression I got. Some of those engines sat for a long time before they were bought out, and given the way he priced engines that were sold on (basically at cost), he can't have ever recouped the interest he forwent on the capital tied up in them for all those years. If he was just in it as a business, he'd have cut them all up and moved on, and not let hundreds of thousands of pounds of capital just sit there rusting away, for year after year. Mind, I'm not saying he was a steam 'nut' who went all out to preserve stuff, but he did made choices that surely cost him a lot of money.

Noel

 

Dai Woodham sold the engines on the basis of their scrap value at the time of purchase for preservation, not when he bought them. I know this from our purchase of 2968: a rise in the price of scrap was imminent and we had to raise the purchase price quickly to avoid paying an excess.

 

I can't help thinking that Dai Woodham privately didn't want to cut them up and did little or nothing to stand in the way of purchase for preservation.

 

It seems to me more likely, based on what happened, that he didn't want to massively expand his workforce (and thus also equipment) with temp staff to deal with a glut of work, then let them all go again when the rush was over. But the rush continued and the workforce were busy on wagons, with the odd locomotive when it was quiet. So the locos in the yard represented a guarantee of employment to the workers. I wonder what they thought when they were eventually spirited away.

 

I assume that scrap merchants bought locos direct from BR at below scrap prices (does anybody know?). Even having them sit for years, then sold on to preservationists at scrap value(?) without having to do a thing with them would be a win/win.

 

Its complicated isn't it. A steam locomotive on its wheels needs a lot of work before its saleable as scrap. The value of scrap goes up and down. I don't know if the volume of scrap BR was generating was enough to significantly affect the market, but when you consider how much there is in one ship I doubt it.

 

Scrap merchants would bid for locos and stock by competitive tender. IIRC there was an arrangement with B.R. for the copper fireboxes to be returned and locos couldn't be sold on. When 43924 came to be sold Woodham's had to come to some sort of 'arrangement' with B.R. to re-sell the loco and others subsequently. The price always was scrap price plus X but Woodhams didn't have the, not inconsiderable, cost of cutting the locos. Sometime after 1969 but before 1973 Woodhams systematically stripped the remaining locos of most of the non-ferrous fittings and copper pipework which was a nice little 'earner' for the company!
Ray.

 

...and also prevented its unauthorised removal by third parties!

I started going to Barry in 1970. There was very little left in the way of non-ferrous material on any of the engines by then, one way or another.