Oxford Rail Wish List?

[Downer]

Definitely the LMS's turn.  I would personally prefer a Fowler 2-6-2T, but the Stanier version had a wider spread.

[Colin]

Could the one chassis fit both? I had always assumed that the Stanier loco was basically a rework of Fowler's design, in the same way as the 2-6-4Ts.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Indeed so, and generally suggested as the reason why no significant improvement was obtained. Requires different detail parts to adapt the mechanism to the two classes though. (Past information has suggested that there isn't a massive saving in having a shared mechanism layout, the expense is in tooling the detail parts to provide the correct exterior appearance.)

 

IF Oxford are doing the reasonable thing in 'going the rounds' of the groups, and IF they have an eye on the most significant gap in RTR model provision for the LMS, then it stands out as the rational choice. Couple of hundred in total over both classes, and very widely distributed around the system.

 

Counts against:

the well liked LMS 2-6-4T family, and with two good models and one dated available;

the five other LMS passenger tanks available/announced;

the BR std 3 and 4MT tanks for the LMR steam period;

I make that ten alternatives to purchasing a 'breadvan'.

 

How would it fare against such delights as an LT&SR Whitelegg 4-4-2T or a CR McIntosh 0-4-4T? Example available to measure or scan, elegance and very lovely pre-group livery options...

[Colin]

Love to see a Tilbury tank, the LTSR was my local line for many years.

I always rather liked both versions of the LMS 2-6-2Ts, although I am well aware that the real locos were somewhat less than successful.

 

Still waiting for that Buckjumper.........

[Bomp]

Definitely the LMS's turn.  I would personally prefer a Fowler 2-6-2T, but the Stanier version had a wider spread.

I'd be up for a Stanier one.  Number 146 to match my warrant number, please.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I always rather liked both versions of the LMS 2-6-2Ts, although I am well aware that the real locos were somewhat less than successful...

 Yet they must have been adequate to the purpose or 'something would have been done'. The Stanier boilered version was definitely better on one piece of evidence. The NLR services out of Broad Street which ran onto the LNER. including the ex-GN main line was a traction problem for the LMS, with the ancient NLR 4-4-0T's in need of replacement. The Fowler 2-6-2T among others was trialled and 'couldn't', reglularly running short on steam the identified problem. The replacement traction settled on was the 3F 0-6-0T which were flogged along very effectively and generally stood up to the work very well.

 

The final few years of operation before the outbreak of war in 1939 saw some Stanier 2-6-2T brought in alongside the 3Fs, and these by accounts I have heard 'performed'; presumably the new boiler would steam freely enough to overcome the less than stellar valve events. The 2-6-2T enabled an increase of load to seven non-gangwayed and had gradients of 1 in 60 to deal with between Broad Street and the main line, plus the ruling gradient of 1 in 200 on the main line where brisk running was required between the many stops out to Potters Bar. That  suggests that while they may not have possessed the reserve of power over their work that the 2-6-4T's displayed and which made them so well liked by crews, they were up to their class 3P rating.

[Colin]

A couple of Stanier locos were trialled on the Somerset & Dorset line in the '50s, I have a feeling that the gradients were a bit too much for them as they were soon sent packing.

[The Johnster]

WD 2-8-0 trialled unsuccessfully on the S & D as well, when the WR took over.  Again, it was 'unsuccessful'. as these sorts of trial usually are.  They are never an objective assessment of what a different type of loco might be able to do. the new loco just turns up and is put on a duty it ought to be able to cover, with the enginemen just left to get on with it as best they can.  They don't know the best way to handle the new loco, which inevitably runs out of steam, or uses too much water between supplies, or lets itself down in some such embarrassing way and is declared a useless pile of foreign junk by the locals before being sent home in disgrace.  The WD at Bath Green Park never stood a chance; the men liked their existing 2-8-0s which had, after all, been specifically designed for them, and knew them intimately, and were in no mood to accept a stranger foisted onto them by the enemy (G)WR which fairly obviously didn't have their interests at heart.

[farren]

I'd be up for a Stanier one. Number 146 to match my warrant number, please.

Your wish is my command

Number 146 fresh out the paint shop brand new.

 

Coppy right Farren Pears

Edited February 3, 2017 by farren

[gismorail]

Definitely the LMS's turn.  I would personally prefer a Fowler 2-6-2T, but the Stanier version had a wider spread.

Totally agree with this one ....a glaring missing link on both counts though I#m led to believe that the Stanier tank was a very poor steamer and was not popular with loco crews .

[Dunsignalling]

Totally agree with this one ....a glaring missing link on both counts though I#m led to believe that the Stanier tank was a very poor steamer and was not popular with loco crews .

From what I've heard, the Fowler ones weren't up to much, either, though this generally seems to be blamed on their short-travel valves.

 

I gather that when the very willing, but ostensibly less powerful, Ivatt 2MT came along, it quickly became the 2-6-2T of preference for many crews.

 

Riddles evidently identified the deficiencies of both 3MT classes because the BR Standard equivalent was a very effective loco; albeit one only required in small numbers to fill niches where the 4MT was too heavy and the 2MT overtaxed.

 

If a model were to be made, I suspect the Fowler type might prove the more popular, because it looks less like the BR loco already reproduced very nicely by Bachmann.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

WD 2-8-0 trialled unsuccessfully on the S & D as well, when the WR took over.  Again, it was 'unsuccessful'. as these sorts of trial usually are.  They are never an objective assessment of what a different type of loco might be able to do. the new loco just turns up and is put on a duty it ought to be able to cover, with the enginemen just left to get on with it as best they can.  They don't know the best way to handle the new loco, which inevitably runs out of steam, or uses too much water between supplies, or lets itself down in some such embarrassing way and is declared a useless pile of foreign junk by the locals before being sent home in disgrace.  The WD at Bath Green Park never stood a chance; the men liked their existing 2-8-0s which had, after all, been specifically designed for them, and knew them intimately, and were in no mood to accept a stranger foisted onto them by the enemy (G)WR which fairly obviously didn't have their interests at heart.

The WD evidently didn't disappoint on what it could pull on the S&D but what it could (or more to the point, couldn't) stop. The written account sounds quite "hairy".

 

The S&D 2-8-0s only survived as long as they did because their braking system was especially effective - very valuable on a switchback route where goods trains were required to "get a move on" to clear single-line sections. Had the Stanier 8Fs been their equal in that respect, the 7Fs would probably have suffered usual fate of small non-standard classes soon after the war.

 

John

Edited February 3, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Joseph_Pestell]

While one of the LMS 2-6-2T is the "sensible" option, covering as it does the popular steam/diesel transition era, I think that a Tilbury tank might do rather well just because it is "looker". And after they were displaced from the LT&S by 2-6-4Ts, they ended up over quite a wide geographic area.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The LMS isn't short of attractive pre-group tank loco designs, and IMO heading the pack alongside the LT&SR 4-4-2T is the Caley 0-4-4T group. These two classes 'have it all', numerous in their areas of operation, decent longevity well into the BR period, gorgeous livery possibilities, and such handsome machines; and never previously a RTR model for either.

[Adams442T]

While one of the LMS 2-6-2T is the "sensible" option, covering as it does the popular steam/diesel transition era, I think that a Tilbury tank might do rather well just because it is "looker". And after they were displaced from the LT&S by 2-6-4Ts, they ended up over quite a wide geographic area.

 

I couldn't agree more!  There is also the original No. 80, 'Thundersley' available at Bressingham to scan.  I had a wonderful day, back in 2008 l think it was, when l arranged to visit, and was allowed to measure, photograph, and crawl all over it.  I have a plethora of photos including one of myself in the cab, a wonderful day's outing, and a wonderful loco to boot.

 

I had hoped that DJM might venture to do it, but with his backlog that seems unlikely now.  It might become OR's first decent loco!  Unless the N7 comes up to scratch.......

[The Black Hat]

What are you lot on about?

 

The WD's were rather successful in and around the old S&D network. Many did not ventre off the main trunk routes being kept for what would now be heavy trainloads, even if theres photographic evidence of some of them being seen on very light workings. The managed to find a role with many 9Fs allocated elsewhere, even though this type was used further north on the Tyne Dock to Consett runs.

 

WD's were often seen alongside other well known S&D area engines, such as Q6, B16, B1, K1, etc. Overall the class was successfully intergrated into the regional workings with Darlington and Thornaby having an allocation at their sheds for sometime.

[PhilJ W]

While one of the LMS 2-6-2T is the "sensible" option, covering as it does the popular steam/diesel transition era, I think that a Tilbury tank might do rather well just because it is "looker". And after they were displaced from the LT&S by 2-6-4Ts, they ended up over quite a wide geographic area.

And they could be seen working alongside N7's in East London.

[9402 Fredrick]

If the SR, LNER, and GWR locos that Oxford are doing are from pre-grouping days then we'll probably get a pre-grouping LMS loco, I'm hoping we get something Scottish next.

[Andy Hayter]

.........., I'm hoping we get something Scottish next.

 

Fried Mars bar?

 

Hat, coat.................................................................

[gc4946]

My cards are on an ex-LMS loco, too, for their next steam loco release.

 

However, Oxford Rail has so far only chosen prototypes which survive in preservation. My most likely guess could be an ex-North London Rly 0-6-0T which could be measured up from the example on the Bluebell.

 

I think the Tilbury 4-4-2T will be a commissioned model because the sole survivor belongs to the National Collection.

 

Oxford Rail could do favours by introducing RTR 4- and 6-wheel carriages, but obviously, where do they start?

 

North London Rly 4-wheelers - quite a few were sold off to minor railways, and examples survive (albeit some with incorrect underframes) for measuring up.

GWR 4-wheelers - the last weren't withdrawn from passenger service until 1953 on the ex-BPGV line and examples survive.

GER 6-wheelers - would suit their N7 (and Hornby J15) also lasted until well into the 30s on secondary services; the last were withdrawn from the ex-Mid-Suffolk line around 1951, again examples survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[9402 Fredrick]

My cards are on an ex-LMS loco, too, for their next steam loco release.

 

However, Oxford Rail has so far only chosen prototypes which survive in preservation. My most likely guess could be an ex-North London Rly 0-6-0T which could be measured up from the example on the Bluebell.

 

I think the Tilbury 4-4-2T will be a commissioned model because the sole survivor belongs to the National Collection.

 

Oxford Rail could do favours by introducing RTR 4- and 6-wheel carriages, but obviously, where do they start?

 

North London Rly 4-wheelers - quite a few were sold off to minor railways, and examples survive (albeit some with incorrect underframes) for measuring up.

GWR 4-wheelers - the last weren't withdrawn from passenger service until 1953 on the ex-BPGV line and examples survive.

GER 6-wheelers - would suit their N7 (and Hornby J15) also lasted until well into the 30s on secondary services; the last were withdrawn from the ex-Mid-Suffolk line around 1951, again examples survive.

What about the Caley 812? Also it seems their choices are classes with one surviving loco too, so a Csley 812 would be a possibilitym

[Guest Midland Mole]

Caley 812 would get my vote, without a doubt!

 

Come on Oxford, you know you should....

 

Alex

Edited February 6, 2017 by Midland Mole

[OOgaugeJaf]

Definitely the LMS's turn.  I would personally prefer a Fowler 2-6-2T, but the Stanier version had a wider spread.

Bachmann are looking after you guys!

[Dick Turpin]

Bachmann are looking after you guys!

 

Depends if you are the sort to look a gift horse in the mouth. Some have started to grumble about what looks to be the finest LMS model in many years. Hopefully this will result in more LNER models. 

[The Johnster]

From what I've heard, the Fowler ones weren't up to much, either, though this generally seems to be blamed on their short-travel valves.

 

I gather that when the very willing, but ostensibly less powerful, Ivatt 2MT came along, it quickly became the 2-6-2T of preference for many crews.

 

Riddles evidently identified the deficiencies of both 3MT classes because the BR Standard equivalent was a very effective loco; albeit one only required in small numbers to fill niches where the 4MT was too heavy and the 2MT overtaxed.

 

If a model were to be made, I suspect the Fowler type might prove the more popular, because it looks less like the BR loco already reproduced very nicely by Bachmann.

 

John

 

The original allocation of BR standard 3MT 2-6-2 tanks was to South Wales sheds, Barry, Treherbert, and Cathays, which were expecting more 5101 class prairies; the BR loco was designed and built at Swindon and uses a similar boiler and frames to the 5101.  However, as the cylinders are smaller, tractive effort is lower, and the locos were not, I was told 20 odd years later by old drivers at Canton, received favourably at their new homes.  Bearing in mind that the sheds had requested more 5101s, which were still being built new at Swindon up until 1950, and that the 3MTs had been touted as the replacement for that class, this was perhaps understandable but was put down to the GW's anti Midland (all the standards were seen as Midland engines on the WR) prejudices.  I have never understood why Standard 4MT 2-6-4 tanks were not allocated instead; they would IMHO have been very capable machines on the longer distance Valleys services.  I suspect Swindon regarded the 3MTs as replacements for the likes of TVR 'A' class 0-6-2 tanks, several of which were still in service then.   

 

Where they were not allocated in replacement of 4MT locos, the 82xxx seem to have been very well received as efficient and modern locos that were easy to prepare and dispose.