Under restoration/Never steamed in preservation

31 Bulleids - 11 Merchant Navys, 20 lights.

You also missed out N15/King Arthur No. 777 'Sir Lamiel', plus aren't there more Maunsell S15's than that? 825, 828, 830, 847 (plus the remains of 841) aswell as the two LSWR Urie examples.

I also compiled a complete list of all the Barry locomotives a couple of years ago on the works forum which i update once a month on the locomotives status's.

 

Yes, you're right about the S15s - I was going on the numbers above and counting down from the other locos I could remember and got to 2! Forgot about 777 though (slapped wrist time...) Going back to the original post, I think that makes 47 pure SR locos, not 43.

The pre-grouping SR locos are rather poorly distributed: for example, there are I think 13 ex-LBSC locos, but 10 are of one class (A1 / A1x) meaning only four different classes preserved (A1/A1x; B1; E1; E4), and nothing from DE Marsh or the younger Billinton. The SECR similar - 8 locos preserved, but four are P tanks. The LSWR fares rather better with a good spread in terms of age, designer and classes (2 * Beattie 0298; 1 * Adams 02; 1 * Adams 0415; 2 * Adams B4; 1 * Adams T3; 1 * Drummond T9; 2 * Drummond M7; 2 * Urie S15).

Tom

 

You're missing nothing, I forgot to replace 4 with 2 - my own stupid fault for talking about Narrow Gauge which I know nothing about, so it didn't look wrong to me.

Two of the VOR locos are 1923 built according to http://www.uklocos.com/preservedrailwaystocklist. Only four locos come up when you do a GWR - Narrow Gauge Steam search however - them two, and the WLLR two that were built in 1903.

 

Many thanks for that - the 3rd VOR loco (Prince of Wales) was officially a rebuild of the original Davies and Metcalfe loco, although how much that was just an accounting procedure is open to speculation, but that should be listed in constituent category as well. It's often forgotten that the Corris locos on the Tal-y-Llyn were owned and run by the GWR from 1930, and indeed were nationalised and became part of BR, so they should join the constituent group as well.

Now I'll let the rest of you get back on topic...!

Steve

 

http://amertonrailway.co.uk/new/about/locomotives/steam/number1/

Is this included in the list?!

 

that's a moot point as the owners of the Corris (Bristol Tramways) never became part of the GWR. It was a swap arrangement I believe.

 

It was purely an accounting fiction to charge cost of one to repairs rather than capital. In actual fact No9 was a new loco in just like the other 2.

 

78018 Std2 is under resoration by LSLG/DLPG at Loughborough and Darlington, engine and tender respectively
78059 is being "converted" to a std2 tank at the Bluebell I think

 

do you actually know that or is it an opinion? I have never seen any proof that this is the case, although it most likely is.

 

We start getting into the familiar "what constitutes a new loco" debate again here don't we. I read up the class in RCTS on this last night. Clearly the loco has the same cylinders and motion as the new ones (based on the railmotor I believe), and also is recorded as having had a new boiler at that time so all those were without doubt GWR components. All three were put on the same diagram, so operationally they must be/have been near enough identical. On the other hand the new ones were superficially similar to the old ones so it seems plausible that there were components that were reusable, even if they have been replaced in the 80 or 90 years since. One thing that's worth noting is that in 'Swindon Steam' Cook states that there was acrimony between Collett and Paddington over the construction of the VOR locos, so maybe wool-pulling was particularly likely...

 

"The Vale of Rheidol Light Railway" - C.C.Green

 

"same diagram," that's very illuminating....would mean they were identical in my mind.

 

that's a book title...what does it say and how authorative is it?

 

That least trustworthy of all sources, wikipedia, claims that the book states that the author has compared working drawings of the orginal locomotives as built by Davies and Metcalfe, and the current Swindon design, and that no part from one could possibly have fitted the other. I have not done so, but I submit that when we are talking about a works that could take in a class of quite dreadful 0-4-2Ts and turn them out as very usable 4-4-0s then 'could not possibly' is quite a brave statement. The wiki article also claims that the book says "mechanically they are identical" which is an interesting statement when you think about it as we already know that all three most definitely have GWR cylinders, motion and boilers, and so that does imply there are other features that have variations. Of course all this was 90 years ago, and much will have changed anyway with the normal grandfather's axe principle. Cook doesn't mention the rebuild in his book, only the two new locos, but we should note that a few years later he was responsible for a grandfather's axe rebuild where 5400, originally a conversion of a 2021 with 5400 boiler, cylinders and motion (sound familiar?) emerged from the works after its first heavy general as a 5400 with all the 2021 parts discarded and replaced with new 5400 parts. Cook had ordered all the extra parts to be made while they were constructing the rest of the first batch of 54s. So even if the former 1213 is all Swindon parts now that doesn't mean she wasn't a rebuild, if you see what I mean. I don't suppose we'll ever know conclusively, and we've argued the distinctions between rebuild and new here extensively anyway.

RCTS says
VOR #1, GW1212 (eventually scrapped) had a basic overhaul with Swindon fittings (safety valves etc) Nov 1922 - May 1923,
VOR #3, GW1213 , BR #9 was sent to Swindon some time after May 1923
7 and 8 went in service July 1923 (according to Cook the board had wanted them in 1922)
1213 went back into service July 1924 so clearly was sitting in a corner of the works rather than being worked on a lot of that time, if indeed some old parts were reused.
1212 was withdrawn in Dev 1932.

 

It's the authoritative history of the VoR - have you never read it?

 

Now then, now then. Those of us who do not possess a deep interest in the narrow gauge lines are unlikely to have read much about them, and we should all be aware that there are well written, sometimes even popular books out there that are considerably less than reliable sources. So its not in any way unreasonable to ask what the book has to say on the subject, what its sources are and how credible its considered to be. After all we are here to share knowledge aren't we?

 

thank you, saved me saying it!

No I haven't even heard of it, so I'll just take your word for it that it is an Authorative source

 

I think this thread went 'off topic' by the third post

As pretty much all of the locos under restoration would have come from Barry, to find out which haven't steamed in preservation (since 1968) it's a case of finding a Barry Scrapyard list and looking at the status of the locos - which exists somewhere apparently!

Just need to determine if there are any anomalies to Barry being restored. ie: The 8F under restoration at the NNR that came from Turkey.

I think it's important, because then we can make a list and 'countdown' the final restoration, which will be quite an occasion - there being no more steam trains left to restore. My guess is the last will be 9F 92219. Unless 9F 92245 is restored.

 

'Trains' ?

Bob.

 

I don't think such a point will ever be reached. There are already locomotives which have run in preservation rusting away in head shunts which would require another restoration if they were to run again, and I fear there always will be. The supply of locomotives greatly exceeds the supply of money and labour. I don't see how they could all be brought to and maintained at even a mix of running and museum condition.