Locomotives that should have been preserved, but weren’t.

The Decapod’s inside connecting rod wasn’t like this, being far better engineered but it does illustrate the principle. It could be split to enable it to be removed.

 

According to Pearce's book on S&D locos, it lasted until 1876, and there is a photo of it in 1875 at the Stephenson Centenary celebrations showing it still had the same arrangement. Two others of the same class were built at the same time (1846/7) and lasted until 1870 and 1876 respectively.

There were also "Rokeby" and "Ruby", passenger 2-4-0s, with the same arrangement, built 1847 and which lasted until 1875 and 1871 respectively; though they were subsequently rebuilt more conventionally in 1860. They had the coupling rods outside the connecting rod, and a long slot (rather than circular eyelet) that the crankpin could work in.

Finally there were "The Duke" and "Eden", built in 1854 and 1858 respectively, with the same arrangement as on "Commerce". They were built for banking duties; "Eden" later got rebuilt for mineral trains, but kept the eyeleted connecting rod. Both lasted in that form until 1882.

My hunch is that it worked OK on the mineral engines at very low speed (they probably rarely exceeded 15mph or so); less suitable on the passenger locos which were rebuilt.

Tom

 

Considering that there are lots of gaps I am not sure what my 10 would be but some general principles I think I would apply:

Locos that represented a change or established a significant design path

- for example a Fowler 2-6-2/2-6-4T - represented a step change in suburban tank engine design from 0-4-4 - establishes a line that runs through Stanier, Fairburn, Ivatt to Riddles.

Locos from under-represented railways, regions or designers.

- echoing @Cartman - a standard gauge Cambrian engine.
- Also a pre-Swindonism engine from the valleys.
- More Scottish representation.
- Potentially an example of English narrow gauge - ie Leek and Manifold, L&B, Southwold

Unsexy locos:

- A broader range of freight engines - more 0-6-0s. A DX as many people have said.
- An early C20 2-6-0s - An Aberdare, K3, K

An 'unsuccessful experiment' - an opportunity to learn what went wrong and potentially make it work as happened with 71000

- Kitson-Still, W1, Leader, Paget

For example:

A Billinton L would represent an under-represented designer, design type and company. (There is little Brighton from 1890 onwards), or a Manson or Smellie 0-6-0, or a Barry Railway J, would all tick several boxes of representation

 

I'm not sure about the "unsuccessful experiment" bracket - not only were the four you've listed unsuccessful, but they didn't help lead to anything either, and don't even represent a technical grouping.

 

Tend to agree, though the W1, with original water tube boiler, really is an entirely different species and a tempting prospect for thems as are well versed in computer modelling. With what is possible to establish before the first metal is cut, whilst not providing 100% certainty, would likely answer enough questions to definitively state it'd be a total non-starter. That said, one rather relevant question lingers ...... "Why?"

Looking at @Monkey Magic's list, although I also mourn the absence of any Lawson Billinton loco, a point Tom raised would need be overcome, viz: lack of drawings. The great man is said to have constructed his 9in gauge K Class mogul from a set of Brighton drawings. The loco still exists. I wonder, is that set of drawings still lurking in a Billinton family archive somewhere?

As much the Brighton fan as I am, a loco from those lines with no representation surely has to come higher on the list. The Cambrian keeps being mentioned and I agree. A fairly substantial railway of such longevity really ought to be represented. Perhaps pass over another new build express loco in favour of one of the unsung workhorses?

 

For the same reason people are interested in "the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the 'obsolete' hand-loom weaver, the 'utopian' artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott,"

The graveyards of history are littered with those who didn't make it, those who didn't adapt, those who were passed by and those who never were. Failure is as (if not more) interesting as success. Failures prove a useful antidote to the usual narrative of constant forward progression. If we are establishing an accurate historical representation then it needs to include the banal, the average, the failures and the dead-ends, as well as the path breakers and triumphs.

 

For a complete history, yes, and in the context of this thread there's a good case that more banal/average locomotives should have been preserved, both to provide a more complete history and because they would be quite suitable for pulling trains on preserved lines. But it's harder to argue that the failures and the dead-ends should have been preserved. If they had been, you couldn't use them, so all you could do would be to display them, at the expense of using the space to display something more worthy. The NRM is already throwing stuff out because there isn't enough room for everything.

 

All of which is why I agree with more representative selections being preserved. My problem is that the museums are stuffed full of the exceptions already; if we have limited capacity, then the last thing we need is more focus on the exception.

The place for that interest is in the archives and the literature; if metal is to be involved, let it be for specifically historical archaeological purposes to see why one of those wouldn’t work.

And, personally, I’d love to see Leader and a whole lot else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why could a preserved Kitson-Still, Paget or Leader not work on a preserved line? Maybe as a high days and holidays loco but no more so than say a loco from the early history of railways. Holden's Decapod might be a bit more difficult I'll grant. If I were preserving 10 locos from across UK history, I would want a failure in my collection.

You tell a story - this is a path that led no where.

Plus, it sets other preserved 'failures' like APT in context - railway history has always had its failures and designs that were barking up the wrong tree.

 

Because every preserved railway is doing the best it can to stay afloat with limited resources, so they will have little interest in a resource hungry failure that needs far more volunteer time (and quite possibly speciality facilities) to keep it running than a conventional locomotive. There might be some interest in such things for a gala, especially if it came with its own volunteer maintenance crew, but for day to day running I suspect it would be thanks but no thanks.

 

If that were the case then they would surely have all gone for fleet standardisation and not be trying to maintain 10 or so different classes of locomotives. If we are talking about 'would/should have done'.

As I said, one for high days and holidays. But looking at what has been preserved, it is hard to argue they were preserved with 'can these run on heritage lines'. Afterall, how many too powerful or not powerful enough locos have been preserved.

Electric traction takes up space and can't be run. Best tell those guys to sack it off.

If a failure were preserved then you treat it with the same kid gloves you treat the triumphal jewel in the crown. Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean it has no historical value.

If you tell the story you tell the whole story, not just the easy bits. Not just the story people want to hear or are used to hearing.

 

Because every operational loco costs significant money to have on the books, regardless of how much you use it. So, in my view at least, there is no longer much capacity to have a "nice to have" high days and holidays loco. Restoring such a loco would take the same resources in money, time and workshop capacity as restoring a day-in, day-out bread and butter loco, but would perform far less useful work.

(As a simple example, it is considerable work to put a loco through its annual boiler exam. You have to do that whether it's last one was 500 or 10,000 miles ago. There are myriad such things).

When preserved railways get back to being able to restore locos for fun, come along with your Paget proposal ...

Tom

 

FFS - the question was a normative 'should have been preserved'. I offered up criteria for telling a more holistic story of railway history which included acknowledging the dead ends and the failures because guess what, they are part of railway history whether you like it or not. If I had been asked 'what 10 locos should have been preserved to make lives of people living out their engine driver fantasies easier' then you'd have had a different answer.

If you set up a collection you include space for all the different elements of the story, that includes the bits that are of little to no practical use. If you have preserved a Paget or a Kitson-Still and then you have the resources and interest then you can restore and run it, no more or less so than if the resources are there to restore the pioneer Crab, William Francis, 87 or whatever loco takes your fancy that happens to have survived. And if there aren't then it sits in a warm dry museum alongside the APT, Mallard, Rocket and the L&B carriage etc.

 

You specifically asked "why couldn't it work on a preserved line?" That's a different question to whether it should have been preserved - I simply gave my view, which is that the industry is in a state in which there is very little capacity to work locomotives that can't earn their keep: no more, no less. You may disagree with that view.

"Should have been preserved" is a different question from "work on a preserved line".

Tom

 

No prospect of shovelling lots of coal into something in immediate sight then, Tom?

 

And yet people have new built (or are building) things like the Steam Elephant, the Bloomer, Broad Gauge locos

I don't see why if say the Kitson-Still had been preserved and restored to working order to why it could not as a high days and holidays loco work on a preserved railway. Likewise, I don't see why if one had been preserved why a Leader, W1 or Paget would not have the same supporters and funders as devoted as there are to say Terriers, 37s or any other engine. For example look at the people devoted to getting the 89 back to working order.

 

Taking those, the Bloomer hasn't steamed yet, and seems to have been set aside for the last decades while Tyseley concentrate on their core fleet - which rather proves my point. The Broad Gauge locos equally haven't steamed in years - mores the pity. The Steam Elephant I would argue is a day-in, day-out operational loco within the context of Beamish. It isn't a loco that only works once in a blue moon while the Georgian equivalent of an Austerity handles the Pockerley tramway for 95% of the year.

Since this is about preservation rather than new builds - had the Paget loco or Leader been preserved decades ago, they would be rusting to nothing in a siding right now; or - at best - some small technical feature - maybe the Leader bogie, for example - might be tucked away unseen in the Wroughton reserve collection while the rest of the loco was cut up decades ago. But most likely, rusting to nothing.

Tom

 

Here you go.

Edit: Drawing of whole engine added.

 

Hang on Tom, the DTG, has operated something for ‘fun’ for quite a few years now with its Class 17 ‘Clayton’ far from being a drain on resources it’s proved to be quite a crowd puller wherever it’s visited.
There’s someone who posts on here quite regularly certainly took advantage of it when it visited the railway he’s in charge of.

 

Possibly a low-use diesel is cheaper if you do a very small mileage and have relatively few costs beyond starting it up periodically to warm through and keep the batteries charged. The problem with low-use steam locos is that regardless of mileage, you have to do a boiler lift and de-tube / re-tube every ten years, and a reasonably onerous annual inspection, regardless of the mileage run. So even if you maintained a loco "in ticket" and ran zero miles per year, it still ends up costing a considerable amount every year.

Tom