Locos that didn't even qualify as a 'might have been', but really deserved preservation

Well, sort of!

 

Drummond F13 4-6-0 had Walschaerts valve gear (outside; Stephensons inside) in 1905, and was followed by the other Drummond 4-6-0s. More successfully,
LBSCR J2 (1912). Urie H15 (1914) are a couple of pre-WW1 examples that spring to mind. The Maunsell N class was designed in 1914, though construction didn’t start until 1917.

Tom

 

To add to the chorus, the GER B74 (LNER Y4) of 1913 is another, with a totally conventional outside Walschaerts layout. Admittedly, a class that was not large in number, size or geographical distribution...

 

No, it doesn't. It's got nothing to do with enthusiasts, that is the definition of 'rebuilding' within the railway engineering profession. Rebuild means a fundamental change, not a repair. Enthusiasts should take their views from the professionals and not the other way around.

 

Didn't the original Davies and Metcalfe engines have inside Stephenson's gear? According to Cook it was replaced with Walschaerts of the same design as the railmotors.

 

As with renewal, another word that confuses enthusiasts, its important to distinguish how the word was used as a technical term within the railway industry from how the word is used as a non
technical term by the public. And even the meaning of technical terms can change. In my own profession when we talk about hacking an IT system together we mean something very different from the way the newspapers use the term - although we also use the term in that sense too.

 

A Midland 3F, anyone? Pre-grouping, nice size...

 

AIUI, the gear was inside the frames, but squeezed in between those and the wheels, rendering it somewhat tricky to access. Around grouping , a senior GW wallah allegedly commented "what do you expect if you buy locos from an injector manufacturer?". Given the speed with which VoR motive power was addressed, you have to suppose there was a real imperative to replace two locos which were only 20 years old.

Re: the valve gear on the 1923 locos, that's my understanding too. I recall reading that the Churchward Railmotor group studied the VoR locos, before the original GW drawings were located in tbe bowels of the NRM archive, which I believe confirmed that particular piece of received wisdom.

 

Steam launch version of valve gear if I remember correctly, and yes sandwiched between the frames and the wheels. When it got worn it would rub on the wheel face.

 

Ok, I'm up for the challenge.

L&YR Highflyer - preferably a piston valve version
LNWR Problem - ditto
Original LNWR 3cyl compound 0-8-0
GER Super Claud (someone is working on this I believe)
G&SWR superheated 4-6-0 (before interfered with by Whitelegg)
Papyrus.
Silver Link
And , to be fair :
Sir William A. Stanier, F.R.S..

 

It was Gooch valve gear not Stephenson's, and it was done because the customer's original specification called for the valve gear to be concealed.

The positioning between the frames and the wheels makes a bit of sense if you look at the space available. If it had been placed conventionally inside the wheels it would have occupied the whole width, and made access from a pit between the rails very difficult - remember that the pit would have been less than 2ft wide. With the gear outside the wheels the space above the pit was unobstructed and access was rather better. So it wasn't a bad compromise and it did actually work quite well.

I am not suggesting that it was a particularly good design, as an outside valve gear would clearly have been better, but I do wish that some of you would study things properly and understand why they were designed as they were, before picking holes in them.

 

I think your first paragraph sums it up quite well. Since when do the aesthetics of fashion dictate good engineering practice?

Whether the valve gear arrangement on the VoR's original D&M locos was the only reason behind their comparatively early demise, I don't know, but it's certainly a factor which attracted particular comment (which may be being diplomatic!). Looming at many contractor built NG locos, a boiler life of around 20 years wasn't uncommon. Even the famously parsimonious Talyllyn only got 24 years out of Dolgoch's original boiler. From all accounts, the D&M locos emerged from Cambrian ownership in a generally run-down condition.

What I do find odd is the fact that the GW committed the resources necessary to produce a bespoke design, at a time when much of the mainline fleet from absorbed companies was still pretty run down in the aftermath of WWI. Consider the scope of rebuilds to Cambrian, CM&DP or M&SWJ locos and tell me Swindon didn't go the extra mile to bring absorbed stock up to GW standards. Ok, so it speaks volumes about the importance attached to VoR traffic (still a year-round common carrier route then), but surely not of more importance than the valleys coal traffic or the sprawling ex-Cambrian SG system?

Just a aside ..... I wonder if the VoR's prewar electrification plans of the original company ever got looked at before the GW committed to the 1923 locos?

 

At the expense of thread drift, I have seen it argued that the GWR wasted a lot of money rebuilding acquired loco's that either could have been left until life expired or were never any use in the first place - Galloping Gertie anyone?

 

Sounds more like a case for a new thread than drift .... the policy, that is, not Galloping Gertie (which would either deserve it's own thread under new builds .... or not)!!

 

Those M&SWJ 2-4-0's which survived into the 1950's looked absolutely delightful - so near and yet so far. To say nothing of being a good size for most preserved lines.

 

We are getting off topic, but I think the GWR over-estimated the potential of the VoR. However they could not have forecast the economic conditions which were to come.

The locos were certainly run-down after 20 years of hard work with indifferent maintenance. Faced with a worn out loco and no suitable replacement, what do you do? You can replace it like for like - warts and all. You can rebuild it and try and get rid of the warts. Or you can build a new and improved version from scratch. With all the facilities of Swindon the costs of the three options are probably comparable.

As far as aesthetics vs. engineering goes, it could be argued that the GW retained the Edwardian style in their very effective standard locos for far too long, and of course they too were quite keen on concealing the valve gear!
.

 

Of course there is an argument that the VofR didnt 'make money' via its own fare box but in an era when most visitors came by (GWR) train it helped make money for the 'main line' service to Aberystwyth

 

Why am I reminded of this - a minuscule branch that exists to generate traffic on a straggly branch that leads off a secondary line that leads from ...

"The Vermin only teaze and pinch
Their Foes superior by an Inch.
So, Nat'ralists observe, a Flea
Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller yet to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum:
Thus ev'ry Poet, in his Kind
Is bit by him that comes behind"

(Jonathan Swift)

Tom

 

Or a Drummond class 700 Black Motor - those would do 90% of what we need

As this thread is a bit of a shopping list now, I'd like more 1850s and 1860s locos. We are blessed with an amazing collection of the very earliest engines, then not much until about 1870...

How about one of those Sturrock engines with a steam tender?