Jump to content
 

Oldest loco at grouping


Killian keane
 Share

Recommended Posts

Err... Furness Railway number 3 was built in 1846 and owned by several companies up to and including BR prior to going to the NRM collection, granted it was a none runner but it pre dates your NLR crane tank by 12 years. This would possible make it the oldest loco at nationalisation, and quite possible the a contender for the 1923 grouping!

 

Your original post does not say the loco needs to be a runner, so......

 

Kind regards

 

Ian

Edited by 11B
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

That was the one in 1923?

 

I think the NBR 0-4-0 tender engine (1868) was the oldest in the LNER group, but I may be wrong.

 

The GNSR Class 43 numbers 44, 45 and 48 all lasted to 1925, reclassified as D47's by the LNER. No. 44 was delivered in March 1866 and was the oldest of the 3. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornwall built in 1847 was still in departmental service until at least 1925. Rebuilt in 1858, but so was the Crane Tank.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_2-2-2_3020_Cornwall

 

There were also 88 LNWR DX Goods built in the 1850s which were still in service in 1923 and some lasted until 1930.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_DX_Goods_class

 

Don't forget Lion. Built in 1838 and still working as a pumping engine until the mid 1920s. Then restored to close to it's original condition by the LMS and steamed occasionally until the late 1980s.

 

http://www.lionlocomotive.org.uk/history.html

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I would say Cornwall if the criteria is locomotives in regular service (departmental counts) and owned by the original company or it's direct successor.  Lion was certainly capable of raising steam, but was not owned by any successor of the Liverpool and Manchester and was the property of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.  It was not capable in 1923 of moving under it's own power, but was capable of restoration to be able to do so at a later date; I suspect that it was simply a matter of the connecting rods powering a pump rather than the driving wheels from which it had been disconnected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also depends on how you define loco age. Some early 0-6-0 locomotives from GWR constituents like the West Midland nominally lasted a very long time, but in practice had been repaired, renewed and rebuilt so much that the only thing in common with the original was the wheel arrangement. Even the number plate had changed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, jwealleans said:

In that case, Locomotion No.1, plinthed at Darlington.

 

I think the OP means in service, though.

I don't think so.

 

Killingworth  Billy pre-dates Locomotion possibly by quite a bit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-44482970

 

Yes I was surprised as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

I don't think so.

 

Killingworth  Billy pre-dates Locomotion possibly by quite a bit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-44482970

 

Yes I was surprised as well.

 

It had an impressively long service life too. Most locos of that era had a short life simply because technology was advancing so rapidly. Rocket was pretty much obsolete by the time the Liverpool and Manchester opened. Just compare the difference between Rocket and Lion, the latter built not long after the L+M opened.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I would say Cornwall if the criteria is locomotives in regular service (departmental counts) and owned by the original company or it's direct successor.  Lion was certainly capable of raising steam, but was not owned by any successor of the Liverpool and Manchester and was the property of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.  It was not capable in 1923 of moving under it's own power, but was capable of restoration to be able to do so at a later date; I suspect that it was simply a matter of the connecting rods powering a pump rather than the driving wheels from which it had been disconnected.

 

The driving wheels as far as I can tell were acting as flywheels in its pumping role. More details here: http://www.lionlocomotive.co.uk/Rescue.html

 

Andy G

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, uax6 said:

 

The driving wheels as far as I can tell were acting as flywheels in its pumping role. More details here: http://www.lionlocomotive.co.uk/Rescue.html

 

Andy G

It's telling that 'Lion' was No. 57 on the L&M Railway. Shows how much groth there must have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Titan said:  Rocket was pretty much obsolete by the time the Liverpool and Manchester opened. Just compare the difference between Rocket and Lion, the latter built not long after the L+M opened.

 

By the time of the opening of the L&MR, it had been recognised that the layout of the Rocket wasn't suitable for commercial use, the Northumbrian, which took part in the opening of the L&MR, though looking similar to Rocket had a proper smokebox and firebox, with less steeply inclined cylinders. The real step forward came with the reversal of the Rocket wheel arrangement from 0-2-2 to 2-2-0 and the use of inside cylinders in the Planet of 1830 and then the extension of the boiler, requiring carrying wheels, resulting in the 2-2-2 layout of the Planet Patentee type in 1833.  This was the progenitor of classes of express locomotives that served British railways for at least the next 30 years.

 

Lion was built in 1838 and is an example of the development of the Patentee type for goods use by providing a second set of driving wheels (from 2-2-2 to 0-4-2) for added traction, its contemporary classification was as a "luggage" engine.

 

Stephensons went through 3 design iterations over a period of 9 years to get from Rocket to Lion!

Edited by Hroth
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

...Stephensons went through 3 design iterations over a period of 9 years to get from Rocket to Lion!

Not unexpectedly if you compare to more recent progress, as the Stephensons were part of a small group of engineers defining the bleeding edge of progress in railway technology, when this was the most advanced technological development field of its day. (Brunel, who he?) Exceptionally rapid progress for its time, when technical development typically ran at a somewhat more relaxed pace, which justified the later term of industrial revolution. The world was changed forever, since then we have become thoroughly accustomed to rapid technical development.

 

3 hours ago, jwealleans said:

...This could run and run.....

We have to define more closely, possibly something like:

 

which was the oldest railway locomotive still in essentially original design condition and employed in active service with one of the Big Four at formation?

 

What I have read suggests that commentators writing in the early 1920s looked at 'Cornwall' as the oldest loco that could be seen operating at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to mention it, but Planets and Patentees were different engines; there is a relationship, but Patentees were bigger with a bigger boiler and firebox. And Lion came from  Todd, Kitson and Laird, not Robert Stephenson & Co, and was very different to Patentee.

Edited by LMS2968
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Stephensons went through 3 design iterations over a period of 9 years to get from Rocket to Lion!

This is what I love about history.

 

Thing i love about history is it keeps repeating itself...

 

in the 1990’s we all had 9.6, 28.8, 56.4 kp bit modems.

then we had home ethernet, followed by wifi.

all with 10 years, and in the next 5 we wont be using any of that at home.

 

whats the connection to Rocket and Lion..

All are communications devices using a network, evolving technolgy  in a similar time span.

 

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The oldest loco on the GWR was the 1856 built Sharp, Stewart 0-4-0ST from the Birkenhead Railway

GWR number was 96

The next oldest was another BR Sharp, Stewart 0-4-0ST number 95 & a Beyer Peacock 0-4-0ST, number 92 both from 1857

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Not unexpectedly if you compare to more recent progress, as the Stephensons were part of a small group of engineers defining the bleeding edge of progress in railway technology, when this was the most advanced technological development field of its day. (Brunel, who he?) Exceptionally rapid progress for its time, when technical development typically ran at a somewhat more relaxed pace, which justified the later term of industrial revolution. The world was changed forever, since then we have become thoroughly accustomed to rapid technical development.

 

We have to define more closely, possibly something like:

 

which was the oldest railway locomotive still in essentially original design condition and employed in active service with one of the Big Four at formation?

 

What I have read suggests that commentators writing in the early 1920s looked at 'Cornwall' as the oldest loco that could be seen operating at the time.

Not really fair to mention Brunel, who was a civil engineer and not involved much with the development of main line steam locomotives.  Gooch was your man for that on the GW, and his connection was very much to Stephenson!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In those days, the line between civil and mechanical engineering was a little blurred: both the Stephensons started as mechanical engineers with locomotives but became - successfully - involved in civil engineering. Brunel began as a civil engineer but was less successful at making the change, at least as far as locomotives were concerned, he being responsible for some terrible examples. Mostly, his involvement in mechanical engineering concerned ships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

I hate to mention it, but Planets and Patentees were different engines; there is a relationship, but Patentees were bigger with a bigger boiler and firebox. And Lion came from  Todd, Kitson and Laird, not Robert Stephenson & Co, and was very different to Patentee.

I did differentiate between Planets and Planet Patentees*, which as I said, had a bigger boiler and firebox, and a pair of trailing carrying wheels to support the back end.  I'll put my hand up to implying that the Lion was a "Stephenson" loco and not identifying it fully as a Todd, Kitson and Laird product, which was not intentional, but it IS a Patentee layout with an extra pair of driving wheels replacing the leading carrying wheels of the Patentees.  I suppose that got around the patent aspect of the Stephenson loco.

 

* I believe that they were originally called "Planet Patentees" because they took the layout of the "Planet" and extended it, with Stephensons "patenting" the extension to cut off the competition.

 

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Not really fair to mention Brunel, who was a civil engineer and not involved much with the development of main line steam locomotives.  Gooch was your man for that on the GW, and his connection was very much to Stephenson!

If I recall correctly, Brunel specified the very first GWR locos, which turned out like a number of BR Pilot Scheme diesels, ie poor.  Realising that he didn't have the time or expertise to sort things out, he then head-hunted Gooch to provide the GWR with effective locos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Hroth, that wasn't how I read your post and others might also possibly be confused, but your second post clarifies and shows we're talking the same language.

 

Patentee, L&MR No. 33, was the only one of its type supplied to the L&MR, and was also the last loco supplied to that railway by Robert Stephenson& Co. It was unique in another way: it was written off after its boiler exploded on 12 Nov 1838, the only loco boiler explosion suffered by the L&MR in its fifteen tears of independent existence. The first loco in Germany, Der Adler, was a Patent type.

 

No. 57 Lion was not in railway service at the Grouping, or even on a railway, but was shut up as a pumping engine for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Co. so isn't really part of this thread, She was presented to the Liverpool Engineering Society in March 1929 and restored to working order by the LMS to take part in the L&MR Centenary celebrations the following year, so never railway owned following her sale by the L&MR in 1859.

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Hroth said:

If I recall correctly, Brunel specified the very first GWR locos, which turned out like a number of BR Pilot Scheme diesels, ie poor.  

He put together a list of what he thought were desirable specifications, which isn't quite the same thing. The result was some peculiar and impractical locomotives, but Brunel hadn't done anything approaching designing them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...