CHURCHWARD’S ‘28XX’ LEGACY
For anyone who hoped for a pause in disposals from our nation’s collection, that hope has been dashed. This time, the National Railway Museum has decided that Churchward 2-8-0 No. 2818 is no longer important enough to keep for the nation, which has for decades entrusted it with its care. The much-trailed ‘third engine’ follows North Staffs Railway 0-6-2T No. 2 and LSWR 4-4-0 No. 563. The ‘28XX’ will go to Swindon. This magazine believes, however, that the 2-8-0 should remain part of the National Collection - for reasons we explain below. We are in new territory. In the past, the NRM has said disposals “certainly won’t include any steam locomotives” (NRM Head Andrew Scott, SR279, 2003) and indeed that “the rules laid down… are unlikely to enable us to transfer ownership” (Head of Knowledge and Collections Helen Ashby, SR325, 2006). That view has changed - “to say that you can’t dispose of something from the collection clearly isn’t the case” (Head Curator Andrew McLean, SR468, 2017). Such is the background against which former Shadow Culture Secretary Kelvin Hopkins could argue to the journal of the Museums Association: “Giving away irreplaceable and immensely valuable examples of Britain’s proud industrial heritage” sets “a dangerous precedent for all our national museums, which could be followed by other institutions if not stopped, and indeed reversed, as a matter of greatest urgency.” More than 50 years ago, BR’s curator of historic relics - and ‘father’ of the modern collection - was clear that engines “have been selected as examples of outstanding developments in locomotive design.” John Scholes was thinking not only about individual engines in isolation, but their relevance together. He argued that “when the whole collection of locomotives is complete, it will trace the history and progress of the British steam locomotive right from its earliest days to its replacement by electric or diesel motive power.” Arguably Britain’s greatest engineering gift to the world would be documented from start to finish. The nation would hold a permanent record of technological progress. Ultimately, this comes down to a view of the world - and of the place museums have in the life of the nation, in documenting progress, and in bearing witness to history. Of course, all museums must operate in the time they live in - and recent times have not been easy. Over the five years from 2010, the Science Museum Group, of which the NRM is part, lost 30% of its government grant. Under its ‘One Collection’ project, named as a priority in its 2017/2018 plan, the Science Museum lists significant plans for
the future, including redevelopment of the Great Hall and names as a priority to “sustain and grow our world-class collection.” However, it also argues for “a rigorous programme of collections review and ethical disposal” and for upping the pace of agreed disposals “by reducing the median time to dispose from eight to six months”. The NRM says, though, that its locomotive disposals process “is not a financial thing, where we need to get rid of all our stuff and downsize” - but is about keeping the collection “in proper conditions” and “as relevant and up-to-date as possible” (SR468). That means it must see good reasons for not wanting to keep the ‘28XX’ in the collection. Yet under Scholes’ argument, even partially dismantling a collection such as that of the NRM must surely, by definition, make it incomplete. And while priorities undoubtedly change, the then NRM Head Andrew Scott contended (SR215, 1998) that changing emphasis was precisely an argument against ridding collections of exhibits “because as time goes on so the relevance of what you have changes. In the 1960s and 1970s, Victoriana went totally out of fashion and some museums got rid of their anthropology collections. Now they regret doing that.” Against such a background, how do you define which item (collected by BR or not) is ‘weakest’ - and determine that for evermore, regardless of shifting priorities? Plus, once you start, do you not effectively begin a competition ‘to the bottom’? And at what point is a collection no longer representative? So, ultimately… keep Rocket and Evening Star and you’ve portrayed passenger and goods, start and finish. Add a diesel, an electric (which could even be the Japanese ‘Bullet’). Job done…? Surely not, though, if you want to retain, as the Science Museum Group’s plan
describes it, a collection that “is best in the world for our fields”. However, the NRM says that, as an eight-coupled goods engine, there is “a duplication of what the ‘28XX’ does… not dissimilar duties to the ‘Super D’ and ‘O4’.” Which brings us to the GWR 2-8-0 itself. We will not at this point revisit the still very live arguments of the individual merits of the last surviving ‘Knotty’ steam engine, or Adams’ outside-cylinder ‘T3’. Yet surely, deleting a standard Churchward twocylinder locomotive does create by far the biggest gap of the three. In the British steam locomotive’s engineering story, there’s a case to be made that George Jackson Churchward comes only after Trevithick (who invented it), and the Stephensons father and son (who effectively made it work). In essence, he is the 20th century’s greatest steam designer. In fact, there is an argument that the ‘28XX’ is one of the most important locomotive designs in preservation today, of any type. One well-versed key LNER supporter believes the Churchward engine to be more significant than Flying Scotsman. Indeed, the ‘A3’s’ designer himself, Sir Nigel Gresley, said: “locomotive engineers in this country owe more to the ingenuity, inventiveness and foresight of Churchward than to any other chief mechanical engineer.” It was Churchward who ramped up standardisation in design and manufacturing; and Churchward who - drawing technical influence from America and France - reinvented the steam locomotive for the 20th century. Like HMS Dreadnought (1906), there was before Churchward - and after. He formally took over at Swindon in 1902. His standard passenger 4-6-0 (which became the ‘29XX’, or ‘Saint’) and freight 2-8-0 (‘28XX’), plus 2-6-2T (‘31XX’), heralded a new way of thinking. The 2-8-0 was this country’s very first. As for what followed, passenger locomotives developed from the ‘Saint’, freight from the ‘28XX’; a direct line leads from the ‘28XX’, through the ‘8F’ and Riddles War Department engines (none of which are in the National Collection) to Evening Star. Yet post the ‘28XX’ disposal, the collection will have as few Churchward engines as it has ‘Deltics’, a design that only ran to 23 locomotives, including prototype. The NRM says of No. 2818: “technical elements are shared with City of Truro, which was a key point.” Yes, ‘Truro’ is a fascinating crossover with a Dean-style bottom end; an important stage in engineering evolution, but in no way the ground-breaking Churchward design. As a four-cylinder 4-6-0, Lode Star stands aside from the main thrust of Churchward standardisation. ‘Truro’ and Lode Star are both glamorous ‘namers’, but that is an enthusiast perspective. The ‘28XX’ is the two-cylinder standard machine. Even outside the collection, there is no ‘29XX’ - hence the drive to create a new one - and any ‘Large Prairies’ are later versions from Collett. They are part of the legacy, not the revolution. Of other surviving ‘28XXs’, only the incomplete ex-Barry No. 2873 (dismantled) and No. 2874 (under restoration) still have inside steam pipes as per the original design; neither have straight frames. Also surviving from the great designer are the decidedly non-standard 0-6-0ST No. 1363 (1910), some ‘42XX’ 2-8-0Ts (introduced 1910/oldest survivor from 1916), and ‘45XXs’ (introduced 1906/oldest survivor from 1924). All of which surely means that the 1905-built inside steam pipe and straight-framed No. 2818 is the most perfect example the 21st century has of British steam’s ‘Dreadnought’ moment. Although not entirely in original condition, it is from the very first year of the production 2-8-0s. Then there are the achievements of the ‘28XXs’ in their own right. In the First World War, the Royal Navy largely ran on South Wales coal. But with the Grand Fleet based at Scapa Flow the vital link became the regular supply trains, named after the fleet’s famous admiral. Churchward’s 2-8-0s worked the ‘Jellicoe Specials’ through to northern England. How important were they? Author Keith Pybus has compared the engines’ contribution with that of the ‘Dreadnoughts’ - and the Sopwith Camel, Maxim gun and Mk IV tank (see www.shropshireremembers.org.uk/jellicoe-specials-shropshires-front-line). By that time, Britain’s first 2-8-0s had a l ready transformed the movemen t of g oods on rail, then a far more important business than passengers. Instead of shorter trains or double-heading, the ‘Twenty-Eights’ pushed what could be moved to 100 wagons and set a UK haulage record, of over 2,000 tons.
In a business that thrives on economies of scale - and at a time when railways really were the backbone of the nation - this was a leap forward. A step change. Think today’s Class 66 and then some. No wonder then that the 2-8-0 became the standard heavy freight wheel arrangement across multiple railways… (the ‘O4’ followed six years later) and even the North British tried out one of the originals, borrowing a ‘28XX’ in 1921. At home, the GWR didn’t build the final one of the slightly modified ‘2884’ engines until 1942; and the design was represented in the 1948 exchanges. BR finally pensioned off the last in 1965: they were still running when Harold Wilson spoke of the ‘white heat of technology’, and more than six decades after Churchward drew up the original version. What’s more, even latterly they were still doing what they were built for - vindication in itself. The final ‘2884s’ lasted longer than Evening Star, built five years before. Naturally, in making the case for the ‘28XX’ we are absolutely not arguing for deleting Evening Star from the National Collection - or indeed Lode Star or the other similar four-cylinder 4-6-0s, Caerphilly Castle or ‘KGV’ - any more than either of the ‘D eltic ’v ar i an t s or Maunsell express engines Cheltenham, Sir Lamiel or Lord Nelson. Equally, STEAM is a fine museum and - like the many other surviving Swindon engines - a ‘28XX’ is of course relevant to the town where it was built. Yet in our view, there is no compelling reason why it cannot be loaned like those other NRM locomotives with which it will in future share a home, but not an owner. Why must this particular national asset be given away when Caerphilly Castle, King George V, City of Truro, ‘Dean Goods’ No. 2516, pannier tank No. 9400 and North Star are on loan? The NRM says that transfer, over loan, “will give this engine the best future possible and reflects our duty to ensure the National Collection remains sustainable, relevant and engaging”. Ask yourself this: if our arguments above stack up, and yet we are prepared to lose the ‘28XX’, where does that leave our National Collection? Especially the next time there’s a review? For while York has said that the current process ends with this third engine, that does not rule out the possibility of further disposals in future. Given what we have said above, it is clear Steam Railway believes that giving away the nation’s ‘28XX’ is the wrong way forward. We believe that if Britain is in the business of telling the story of our railways - let alone technological progress, engineering and science - then the ‘28XX’ should be a proud part of the collection that is held and managed on our behalf. To be clear, these arguments were only intended in support of an institution that the magazine and its readers have done so much to assist over the years. In fact, they were specifically in response to what we understood that the museum has offered. In an NRM blog, published on May 25, in the wake of the controversy caused by No. 563’s disposal, Senior Curator of Rail Transport and Technology Anthony Coulls said: “Given the interest the ‘T3’ has aroused... we’re committed in future to go above and beyond these [sector best practice] requirements and will advertise every rail vehicle disposal… “We are currently involved in discussions regarding one possible future disposal, which, with the transfer of the ‘T3’ 4-4-0 locomotive number 563 to the Swanage Railway, concludes our work with the rolling stock collections as part of the activity we’ve carried out since 2010.” This stance was reaffirmed by the museum’s Head Curator Andrew McLean, who told Steam Railway in an interview conducted five days later (SR468): “Once a disposal has been agreed to and firmed up, we will advertise it, so people can make comments. Obviously, anyone else who might have an interest in acquiring a particular vehicle... will have the opportunity to do so through that.” He added: “I think it’ll be pretty clear that there will be plenty of notice about what we’re trying to do and to give people the opportunity to make whatever representation they want in terms of the particular vehicle.” Clear? We thought so. But that’s not how it has turned out with No. 2818. Yes, the NRM had indeed announced its plans before transferring ownership. However, only around three weeks separated the August 11 announcement and the expected completion of legal transfer around the turn of the month, despite the Museums Association disposal toolkit (which the NRM is signed up to) suggesting a minimum of two months for responses to be received. This would potentially have seen ownership change hands in October, allowing wider consultation. Why didn’t this happen? Because the NRM says that the GWR engine’s disposal “has gone through prior to that one [the new process] coming in. 2818 has been part of the previous survey.” So, as far as the NRM is concerned, the impassioned argument that we’ve presented in support of the ‘28XX’, originally intended to form part of the consultation that was apparently introduced will, sadly, fall on deaf ears. What now? MP Kelvin Hopkins says that he will call for the restoration of the 2-8-0 to the National Collection as part of a wider parliamentary debate. We wholeheartedly support him in that aim. In our view, it is hard to overstate the significance of Churchward’s 2-8-0.
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS IN THIS COUNTRY OWE MORE TO THE INGENUITY, INVENTIVENESS AND FORESIGHT OF CHURCHWARD THAN TO ANY OTHER CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER SIR NIGEL GRESLEY