The en­gines that could have been, and those that never were

PHIL ATKINS ex­plores the tan­ta­lis­ing sub­ject of en­gines that nearly were: de­signs that failed to get be­yond the draw­ing board, and new mem­bers of ex­ist­ing classes that were never built.

Steam Railway (UK) - - Contents -

Nearly 23,000 steam lo­co­mo­tives en­tered ser­vice on Bri­tain’s rail­ways be­tween 1901 and 1960 ‑ but hun­dreds more were also au­tho­rised at one time or another, and so tem­po­rar­ily ‘ex­isted’ on pa­per at least, only to be can­celled for a va­ri­ety of rea­sons. Some of these were repeat or­ders for ex­ist­ing classes, al­lo­cated higher run­ning num­bers that would never be reached. In other cases, en­tirely new de­signs were in­volved, un­for­tu­nately des­tined never to see the light of day, al­though the ac­tive con­struc­tion of at least one of these ac­tu­ally com­menced. Dur­ing the 1920s, and on two dif­fer­ent rail­ways, the un­usual sit­u­a­tion arose of sched­uled large pas­sen­ger tank lo­co­mo­tives be­ing changed dur­ing con­struc­tion to be­come ten­der en­gines in­stead.

Chop and change

Bri­tain’s larger rail­ways pre­dom­i­nantly built their own lo­co­mo­tives, and be­fore 1923 lo­co­mo­tive can­cel­la­tions were un­com­mon. Nev­er­the­less, late in 1903, at the end of his long and distin­guished 31‑year ten­ure at Derby, S.W. John­son of the Mid­land Rail­way ini­ti­ated an out­side‑cylin­der 0‑8‑0 heavy min­eral en­gine, and a 4‑4‑4 pas­sen­ger tank en­gine. Ten of each were au­tho­rised for con­struc­tion in Derby Works, but both were can­celled al­most im­me­di­ately in early 1904 by his suc­ces­sor, Richard Dee­ley, who him­self also put for­ward 0‑8‑0 pro­pos­als with­out re­sult. (These were fol­lowed by sev­eral Fowler 2‑8‑0 schemes, of which one at least re­sulted in the Som­er­set & Dorset 2‑8‑0s). The pro­posed 4‑4‑4T even­tu­ally ap­peared, re‑vamped as the di­men­sion­ally sim­i­lar but dis­tinctly dis­ap­point­ing ‘Flat­iron’ 0‑6‑4T, of which 40 were built at Derby in 1907. Later that same year, the North Eastern Rail­way or­dered ten more of the two ex­tremely el­e­gant four‑cylin­der com­pound 4‑4‑2s, Nos. 730/1, that it had built the pre­vi­ous year. Al­though seem­ingly never can­celled, for some rea­son these en­gines sim­ply did not ma­te­ri­alise, re­put­edly be­cause of the prob­lem­atic ques­tion of pa­tent roy­alty pay­ments de­manded in con­nec­tion with cer­tain un­usual de­sign fea­tures. It is pos­si­ble that the very im­pres­sive but dis­tinctly un­suc­cess­ful NER Class R1 (LNER D21) 4‑4‑0s were built as sub­sti­tutes for these. At this time on the Great Western Rail­way, G.J. Church­ward’s lo­co­mo­tive stan­dard­i­s­a­tion pro­gramme was get­ting into its stride, par­tic­u­larly per­son­i­fied by his taper boiler 4‑6‑0s, the two‑cylin­der ‘Saints’ and four‑ cylin­der ‘Stars’. Di­rect de­vel­op­ments of the lat­ter as the ‘Cas­tles’ were built un­til as late as 1950, but the last ‘Saint’, No. 2955

Tot­worth Court, emerged from Swin­don Works as early as April 1913, al­though five more (GWR Nos. 2956-60) had orig­i­nally been au­tho­rised. Pos­si­bly on ac­count of re­duced rail­way rev­enue re­sult­ing from the re­cent miner’s strike, these had been can­celled in Novem­ber 1912. Al­ready re­spon­si­ble for four dis­tinct classes of four-cylin­der 4-6-0s - which be­tween them had large and small di­am­e­ter boil­ers, and three dif­fer­ent cou­pled wheel sizes - dur­ing 1912 on the Lon­don & South Western Rail­way, Du­gald Drum­mond ini­ti­ated a fifth such de­sign with the in­ter­me­di­ate 6ft cou­pled wheels and re­vert­ing to the orig­i­nal large boiler di­am­e­ter, to­gether with a cor­re­spond­ing 0-8-0 heavy min­eral en­gine. What need there was for a heavy freight lo­co­mo­tive on the LSWR, which had re­ceived no 0-6-0s since 1897, is un­clear - un­less it was to move Ad­mi­ralty coal to Portsmouth and Devon­port in time of war. The de­signs were re­spec­tively des­ig­nated ‘K15’ and ‘H15’, but on the LSWR al­pha-nu­mer­i­cal lo­co­mo­tive clas­si­fi­ca­tions were, in re­al­ity, works or­der num­bers. It is there­fore likely that five en­gines of each type had al­ready been ap­proved be­fore Drum­mond’s sud­den death in Novem­ber 1912, af­ter which de­sign work for them abruptly ceased. His suc­ces­sor, Robert Urie, quickly ini­ti­ated his own ‘H15’ 4-6-0 with 6ft cou­pled wheels, and the ten en­gines thus built in 1914 at Eastleigh Works al­most cer­tainly made use of the large di­am­e­ter boiler shells al­ready fab­ri­cated for the pro­jected Drum­mond en­gines. These mas­sive Urie twocylin­der en­gines would last un­til the 1950s. Be­tween 1911 and 1917, the Lon­don & North Western Rail­way at Crewe Works built 30 non-su­per­heated 0-8-2 heavy shunt­ing tank en­gines, based on its most re­cent 0-8-0s, and or­dered 40 more dur­ing 1920-21. These could not be pro­gressed im­me­di­ately, and were later can­celled and re­placed by 30 pon­der­ous, su­per­heated 0-8-4 tanks, or­dered in Septem­ber 1922. These emerged in the very early days of the LMS dur­ing 1923, and some were even em­ployed on pas­sen­ger du­ties. In Jan­uary 1922, the LNWR had amal­ga­mated with the Lan­cashire & York­shire Rail­way, whose chief mechanical en­gi­neer, Ge­orge Hughes, now headed the new com­bined or­gan­i­sa­tion. Hughes soon en­vis­aged a 4-6-4 tank ver­sion of his new su­per­heated four-cylin­der 4-6-0 ex­press en­gines, and, in ad­di­tion to 20 4-6-4Ts or­dered from Hor­wich, another 40 were or­dered from Crewe Works in March 1923. The first, No. 11110, emerged from Hor­wich just a year later, by which time the de­ci­sion had been taken to build only the ini­tial ten. In­stead, 20 4-6-0s, LMS Nos. 10455-74, were then built at Hor­wich, us­ing frames al­ready pro­filed (sur­pris­ingly at St Rol­lox Works) for more 4-6-4Ts but cut back, while the re­main­ing 30 tank en­gines were can­celled al­to­gether. Oddly enough, most of these 4-6-0s lasted barely ten years, be­ing out­lived for the most part by the 4-6-4Ts, yet such was the limited work that could be found for such large tank en­gines that there had been an abortive pro­posal in 1931 to re­build these as 4-6-0s as well.

Tight­en­ing belts

Un­like the LNER, the LMS in­her­ited from its an­tecedents nei­ther a pow­er­ful, up-to-date, eight-cou­pled heavy min­eral en­gine, nor a mod­ern 4-6-2 ex­press pas­sen­ger lo­co­mo­tive. In the for­mer cat­e­gory, the LMS di­rec­tors swiftly au­tho­rised the con­struc­tion of 100 2-8-0 lo­co­mo­tives in the ‘8F’ power cat­e­gory. No de­tails about these have sur­vived, and in the event a sim­i­lar num­ber of ‘4F’ 0-6-0s were built in­stead. Can­cel­la­tion was prob­a­bly on ac­count of weight con­straints, par­tic­u­larly re­gard­ing the Mid­land Divi­sion, where they were most ur­gently re­quired. For this, a 2-8-2 in var­i­ous forms was also con­sid­ered, lat­terly in four-cylin­der com­pound form, in par­al­lel with a cor­re­spond­ing pas­sen­ger 4-6-2 for the West Coast Main Line. It would ap­pear that five 4-6-2s and five 2-8-2s were ac­tu­ally or­dered from Crewe Works in March 1926. A num­ber of draw­ings for these sur­vive at the NRM, and the late E.S. Cox re­called that “a foun­da­tion ring and some flang­ing blocks were made and, al­though I never ac­tu­ally saw them, there seems lit­tle doubt that some cylin­ders were ac­tu­ally cast as well”. More re­cently, doc­u­men­tary ev­i­dence has come to light that sug­gests two boil­ers were ac­tu­ally built, which were put to sta­tion­ary use af­ter the 4-6-2 pro­ject was abruptly aban­doned in late 1926. This fol­lowed tests with a GWR ‘Cas­tle’ 4-6-0 on the LMS, which demon­strated that a large, well-pro­por­tioned 4-6-0 (i.e. the ‘Royal Scot’) would suf­fice in­stead. Un­like its three con­tem­po­raries, the LMS suf­fered no out­right lo­co­mo­tive can­cel­la­tions amid the na­tional eco­nomic de­pres­sion that fol­lowed, in­stead per­sist­ing with lav­ish new build pro­grammes. There were, how­ever, a few mi­nor changes of plan fol­low­ing the ac­ces­sion of Wil­liam Stanier as CME. For ex­am­ple, the last five sched­uled Fowler ‘Pa­triot’ 4-6-0s, Nos. 5552-6, emerged in­stead as the first Stanier ‘Ju­bilees’, and the last five Fowler 2-6-4Ts, au­tho­rised as Nos. 2425-9, ac­tu­ally ap­peared in­stead as the first five Stanier three-cylin­der 2-6-4Ts, Nos. 2500-4. Forty-five of the lat­ter had orig­i­nally been ap­proved, but these ac­tu­ally ter­mi­nated with No. 2536, while Nos. 2537-44 emerged in­stead in 1935 as the first Stanier two-cylin­der 2-6-4Ts. A fi­nal 45 of these or­dered in 1939 were not built on ac­count of the war, but in ef­fect were later re-or­dered in 1944 in mod­i­fied, steel-sav­ing form to emerge as the first Fair­burn 2-6-4Ts dur­ing 1945-46. The nec­es­sar­ily par­si­mo­nious LNER had to en­dure a num­ber of can­cel­la­tions in the in­ter­ests of econ­omy. These be­gan with a sin­gle ‘N7’ 0-6-2T, which was deleted from a to­tal of 33 such en­gines or­dered from Don­caster Works in 1926 and built dur­ing 1927-28, sim­ply to save about £4,000 (nearly £250,000 to­day). This was noth­ing com­pared to the 20 ‘V1’ 2-6-2Ts can­celled in 1931, fol­lowed by five (uniden­ti­fied) ‘A3’ 4-6-2s and seven ‘O2’ 2-8-0s (Nos. 2962-8) in 1932. The ‘A3s’ had been or­dered in April 1932, prob­a­bly to have been num­bered 2500-4, but were called off a year later - yet a fi­nal nine ex­am­ples, Nos. 2500-8, were then or­dered only eight months sub­se­quently in Novem­ber 1933. Ten more ‘V1s’ were can­celled in 1936, and over­all no fewer than 55 Gres­ley 2-6-2Ts were or­dered only to be can­celled, which also in­cluded 25 of the later higher pres­sure ‘V3s’ dur­ing wartime in 1941-43. In ad­di­tion, a to­tal of 53 Gres­ley GNR­type ‘J50’ 0-6-0Ts were or­dered from Gor­ton Works be­tween 1930 and 1939, which were all later can­celled. Af­ter the war, this short­fall in shunt­ing tanks was solved by the pur­chase

Another 20 Maun­sell Class ‘Qs’ were or­dered in July 1937, but placed in abeyance by Maun­sell’s suc­ces­sor, Oliver Bulleid

A to­tal of 53 Gres­ley GNR-type ‘J50’ 0-6-0Ts were or­dered be­tween 1930 and 1939. All were can­celled

of 75 ex-Min­istry of Sup­ply ‘Aus­ter­ity’ 0-6-0STs, which be­came Class J94. Of greater in­ter­est was the pro­posed LNER three-cylin­der 2-8-2T, of which 12 were orig­i­nally or­dered in 1929 for the 1930 build­ing pro­gramme. They would have been num­bered 2875-86, but were can­celled. Nev­er­the­less, de­tailed de­sign work pro­ceeded and ten were re-or­dered in April 1932, only to be can­celled for the fi­nal time two months later. This Gres­ley ‘P10’ would have ap­peared be­fore the only Bri­tish 2-8-2Ts ac­tu­ally built - the GWR ‘72XX’ class, of which the first 40 were cre­ated in 1934 by re­build­ing new 2-8-0Ts Nos. 5275-94. Or­dered in Au­gust 1929, a few weeks be­fore the Wall Street Crash, these were com­pleted in 1930, but never en­tered traf­fic as a re­sult of the en­su­ing de­pres­sion in the South Wales coal in­dus­try. (A fur­ther ten 2-8-0Ts on or­der, Nos. 5295-9, and 6200-4, were never built.) Fol­low­ing the out­break of war in 1939, another 20 2-8-0Ts, Nos. 5255-74, were or­dered, of which only the first ten were built. The con­flict also prompted the or­der­ing of 60 Col­lett ‘2884’ 2-8-0s for over­seas ser­vice, but this was later can­celled, and LMS Stanier ‘8F’ 2-8-0s, and sub­se­quently MoS ‘Aus­ter­ity’ 2-8-0s, were cho­sen in­stead.

Re­scinded ‘Rivers’

On the South­ern Rail­way, in ad­di­tion to 20 Maun­sell Class ‘K’ 2-6-4Ts (the in­fa­mous ‘Rivers’ Nos. A790-A809, built be­tween 1917 and 1926) a fur­ther 20 en­gines, Nos. A610-A629, were or­dered in June 1926. How­ever, there were al­ready mis­giv­ings about their limited use­ful­ness, and a scheme for a 2-6-0 ten­der ver­sion, like­wise hav­ing 6ft cou­pled wheels, had al­ready been pre­pared in 1925. Then, the fol­low­ing year, on Au­gust 24 1927, No. A800 River Cray de­railed at Sevenoaks, re­sult­ing in 13 fa­tal­i­ties. This put the rep­u­ta­tion of the class, dubbed ‘Rolling Rivers’ by the press, un­der a cloud. As a re­sult, the ex­ist­ing 2-6-4Ts were all re­built as name­less 2-6-0 ten­der en­gines (Class ‘U’), and the fur­ther 20 on or­der were turned out new in this form dur­ing 1928-29, to be fol­lowed by a fi­nal ten new 2-6-0s in 1931. On its for­ma­tion in Jan­uary 1923, the South­ern Rail­way had in­her­ited a re­cent or­der by the LSWR for four more Urie ‘G16’ 4-8-0 heavy shunt­ing tanks, but with larger bunkers and the su­per­heaters omit­ted, for ser­vice at Feltham yard. This was fi­nally aban­doned in 1926 fol­low­ing the de­ci­sion to build the lighter and qui­eter three-cylin­der Class ‘Z’ 0-8-0T, of which eight (SR Nos. B950-7) were later built at Brighton in 1929. Al­though a fur­ther ten ‘Zs’ were or­dered from Eastleigh Works in April 1930, these were axed on econ­omy grounds just a year later. By 1936, even the new­est 0-6-0s on the South­ern were ap­proach­ing 30 years old, and the 20 Maun­sell Class ‘Qs’, Nos. 530-549, were or­dered as rou­tine re­place­ments, even­tu­ally be­ing built at Eastleigh dur­ing 1938-39. It is not gen­er­ally known that another 20 were also or­dered in July 1937, but placed in abeyance a year later by Maun­sell’s suc­ces­sor, Oliver Bulleid. How­ever, these were not fi­nally can­celled un­til July 1941, just as Bulleid or­dered 40 of his own un­mis­tak­able ‘Q1s’, Nos. C1-40, which were all rapidly built dur­ing the fol­low­ing year. A fur­ther 20 ‘Q1s’ were or­dered in June 1943, but can­celled in 1948. Thus the South­ern Re­gion in the 1950s would not be graced by 0-6-0s num­bered 30550-69 or 33041-60, not to men­tion some 0-8-0Ts sport­ing Nos. 30958-67. Fur­ther north there was no sign ei­ther of 20 Pep­per­corn ‘A2’ class ‘Pacifics’ num­bered 60540-59, which had been au­tho­rised in the place of 28 Thomp­son ‘A2/3s’, but which them­selves had been can­celled in May 1948. (At one point there had been ne­go­ti­a­tions con­cern­ing the pos­si­bil­ity of some ‘A2s’ be­ing built by Beyer, Pea­cock & Co. in Manch­ester). Sim­i­larly ab­sent from the 1950s East Coast Main Line scene were Gres­ley ‘V2’ 2-6-2s Nos. 60984-7, which had been com­pleted at Dar­ling­ton Works in 1944 as the un­sightly Thomp­son ‘A2/1’ 4-6-2s, by now BR Nos. 60507-10.

Stillborn Stan­dards

Fi­nally, turn­ing to the BR Stan­dards, of which there were a to­tal of 999, it is well known that oth­ers were also or­dered but never built. Most no­table were a fur­ther 15 ‘Clan’ 4‑6‑2s on the 1954 build­ing pro­gramme, Nos. 72010‑24, whose prospec­tive names were even of­fi­cially an­nounced. The first five, bear­ing the names of Saxon war­lords, were des­tined for the South­ern Re­gion ‑ de­spite the fact that it was al­ready well‑stocked with such ‘Light Pacifics’ ‑ while the next ten were for the class’ spir­i­tual home of Scotland. In March 1955, un­der a sub‑head­ing of ‘Crewe Works’, The Rail­way Ob­server re­ported that: ‘it is es­ti­mated that the first of the new or­der of ‘Clans’ will be ready about May’, but then went com­pletely silent on the mat­ter. Also on the 1954 pro­gramme were ten Class 4 4‑6‑0s (Nos. 75080‑9), five Class 3 2‑6‑0s (Nos. 77020‑4), and 18 Class 3 2‑6‑2Ts (Nos. 82045‑62). All 48 lo­co­mo­tives were for­mally can­celled in Au­gust 1956 ‑ but this is not quite the end of the story, for there could have been even more Stan­dards than these. In E.S. Cox’s au­thor­i­ta­tive study of these en­gines, Bri­tish Rail­ways Stan­dard Steam Lo­co­mo­tives (Ian Al­lan, 1966), he com­mented on No. 71000 Duke of Glouces­ter (page 111): “the pos­si­bil­ity of build­ing more of these en­gines was raised in 1956,” when steam’s fu­ture was still un­clear. He may ac­tu­ally have meant ‘on the 1956 pro­gramme’, which had ini­tially been de­bated in early 1955, not­with­stand­ing the an­nounce­ment that Jan­uary of the very hastily drafted Bri­tish Rail­ways Mod­erni­sa­tion Plan. This had pro­claimed the even­tual to­tal re­place­ment of steam trac­tion, but at that time it was not fore­seen that this might hap­pen in lit­tle more than just ten years. Ini­tially it had been in­tended to thor­oughly test a rel­a­tively small num­ber of pi­lot diesels over a few years be­fore plac­ing bulk or­ders for diesels c1960. In the mean­time, it would still have been nec­es­sary to rou­tinely build new steam lo­co­mo­tives sim­ply to main­tain the nu­mer­i­cal strength of the op­er­at­ing lo­co­mo­tive stock. In­deed, a fur­ther 36 ‘Bri­tan­nia’ 4‑6‑2s (for the Lon­don Mid­land, Eastern and Western Re­gions) were, pro­vi­sion­ally at first, put on the 1956 pro­gramme, to­gether with a fur­ther 20 ‘Clans’ specif­i­cally in­tended for the North Eastern Re­gion. It would be in­ter­est­ing to spec­u­late as to which du­ties and routes they might have been de­ployed. There were also to have been ad­di­tional Class 4 and Class 5 4‑6‑0s, Class 3 2‑6‑0s and 2‑6‑2Ts, Class 2 2‑6‑2Ts, and 30 more Class 4 2‑6‑4Ts, 20 of which were ear­marked for the Western Re­gion. Re­spec­tive BR ‘top’ run­ning num­bers would there­fore have been Nos. 70090, 72044, 75119, 73175, 77037, 82072, 84039 and 80185. Also listed at this stage were five Class 8 2‑8‑0s to a new de­sign for an in­dif­fer­ent Western Re­gion, which had not ini­tially ap­pre­ci­ated the new ‘9F’ 2‑10‑0s; ad­mit­tedly, there had been some­what alarm­ing teething trou­bles with steam brakes and jam­ming reg­u­la­tors con­cern­ing the ini­tial batch on the WR dur­ing 1954. The pro­posed Stan­dard ‘8F’ 2‑8‑0 had al­ter­na­tively been out­lined in sim­ple di­a­gram form in Novem­ber 1953, both at Derby, as a trun­cated ‘9F’ with wide fire­box, and at BR HQ as sim­ply be­ing de­rived from the Stan­dard Class 5 4‑6‑0. In the event, nei­ther scheme was de­vel­oped, and ad­di­tional ‘9Fs’ were built in­stead, which the WR had grown to love by the late 1950s. But how quickly pol­icy changed ‑ by late 1956 in fact ‑ as need­less to say, none of these ‘ex­tra’ Stan­dards ac­tu­ally re­ceived fi­nal au­thor­ity. Even the last ten 2‑6‑4Ts built at Brighton Works, con­clud­ing with No. 80154, only made it past the assem­bly stage be­cause the parts had al­ready been made. The last steam lo­co­mo­tives to be ap­proved by BR were ‘9Fs’ Nos. 92203‑50 for the Western Re­gion, but only ‘with re­luc­tance’ as there were no suit­able diesels avail­able in 1956 to re­place life‑ex­pired Church­ward ‘28XX’ 2‑8‑0s, the old­est of which were al­ready past their the­o­ret­i­cal 45‑year work­ing life. (The WR had sought to build more of these as re­cently as 1953, a full 50 years af­ter the ap­pear­ance of the pro­to­type, prompt­ing the BR Stan­dard 2‑8‑0 counter‑ pro­posal). It may or may not have been a co­in­ci­dence that this to­tal of 48 ‘9Fs’ cor­re­sponded pre­cisely with that of the other BR Stan­dard en­gines si­mul­ta­ne­ously can­celled from the 1954 pro­gramme, thereby re­sult­ing in no net in­crease. Yet 60 years later, the num­ber of BR Stan­dards built will in­deed in­crease past the 1,000 mark, with new‑builds of No. 72010 Hengist and No. 82045 un­der con­struc­tion, ‘2MT’ No. 84030 be­ing cre­ated from 2‑6‑0 No. 78059, and even a pro­posal for a ‘3MT’ 2‑6‑0, No. 77021. With the bur­geon­ing pop­u­lar­ity of new‑build steam, could any more of the ‘can­celled’ lo­co­mo­tives that we have dis­cussed ‑ or even the ‘might‑have‑beens’ such as the BR Stan­dard 2‑8‑0 ‑ one day be­come a re­al­ity af­ter all?

BRIAN ROBBINS

If all had gone ac­cord­ing to plan, the ‘Q1’ 0‑6‑0s could have been num­bered up to 33060 in the BR se­quence. The doyen of the class, pre­served as part of the Na­tional Col­lec­tion, heads a three‑coach Bulleid set past Holy­well water­works at the Blue­bell Rail­way, on Fe­bru­ary 11 2000.

SR ARCHIVE RAIL PHOTOPRINTS CHRIS NEVARD

It looks like a ‘cut and shut’ lo­co­mo­tive be­cause that’s prac­ti­cally what it is… No. 60508 Duke of Rothe­say was one of four Thomp­son ‘A2/1’ 4‑6‑2s orig­i­nally or­dered as ‘V2’ 2‑6‑2s, and built us­ing ma­te­ri­als from the can­celled Gres­ley ma­chines. Note the V‑fronted cab and banjo dome. Chunky Urie ‘H15’ 4‑6‑0 No. 30482 ‑ the ul­ti­mate re­sult of Du­gald Drum­mond’s at­tempts to de­velop 4‑6‑0s for the LSWR ‑ at Water­loo on March 5 1955. Maun­sell ‘U’ 2‑6‑0 No. 1618 was to have been a ‘K’ 2‑6‑4T, un­til the fa­tal Sevenoaks de­rail­ment. It is pre­served on the Blue­bell Rail­way, where it was pho­tographed at New Coombe Bridge on June 9 1992.

JOHN CHAP­MAN

Youngest-sur­viv­ing BR ‘4MT’ 2-6-4T No. 80151 is dou­bly for­tu­nate not only to have reached preser­va­tion, but to have been built in the first place. To­wards the end of its last stint at the Blue­bell Rail­way, it brings up the rear of a train leav­ing Horsted Keynes be­hind ‘P’ 0-6-0T No. 178 on May 16 2012.

Di­a­grams of pro­posed BR Stan­dard 2-8-0s for the Western Re­gion, 1953.

D. FORSYTH/ COLOUR-RAIL J.P. WIL­SON

The LMS num­ber 5554 was orig­i­nally al­lo­cated to one of a fi­nal batch of ‘Pa­tri­ots’, but ended up on ‘Ju­bilee’ On­tario, which on Au­gust 22 1964 was pre­par­ing to head north from Carlisle. One of the 999 BR Stan­dards that reached the rails, ‘4MT’ 2‑6‑0 No. 76085, shunts on the right. The would‑be pro­to­type of a fleet of 60 4‑6‑4Ts, LMS No. 11110, near the end of its short life, at Manch­ester Vic­to­ria in April 1939. The ten‑strong class was with­drawn from ser­vice be­tween 1938 and 1942, af­ter a max­i­mum ser­vice life of only 18 years.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.