Jump to content

ex-mainline steam locomotives sold to industry


Recommended Posts

It may not be on-line, but one of my favourite books is Mainline to Industry by Frank Jones, published by Lightmoor Press. It may not go as far back as @Michael Hodgson would like, but it starts from just before the start of the 20th century and gives a fairly comprehensive coverage of all subsequent purchases, with around 100 photos of a wide variety of locos in their new environments.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

No - the survivors 1420, 1442, 1450 and 1466 were all sold into preservation directly.

In terms of modern GWR locomotives sold into industry - 

1600 pannier (NCB), 1500 pannier (ditto), 57xx pannier (NCB, LT), 8750 pannier (NCB, Stephenson Clarke, Hayes scrapyard)

Another thread has dealt with this topic in detail.

 

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

To the best of my knowledge the largest (in terms of numbers of wheels) tender locomotive that went from a main line to industry was the 2-6-0 MSWJR sister to "Galloping Alice".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AdamsRadial said:

To the best of my knowledge the largest (in terms of numbers of wheels) tender locomotive that went from a main line to industry was the 2-6-0 MSWJR sister to "Galloping Alice".

The Beyer Peacock 0-6-4T engines of The Mersey Railway beat that. At least four were sold into industry. I know the extant one worked at a colliery and at least two worked at docks in South Wales. I think another was exported to Australia to work at a colliery, too.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, this is the book you need for steam;

.

Mainline to Industry

by

Frank Jones

pub

Lightmoor Press

.

.

Unless you require details of ex-BR diesels, then you will need;

.

Ex-BR Diesels in Industry

by

A.J.Booth

pub

Industrial Railway Society

.

.

.

 

OIP.jpg

Ex-BR.jpg

Edited by br2975
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, AdamsRadial said:

To the best of my knowledge the largest (in terms of numbers of wheels) tender locomotive that went from a main line to industry was the 2-6-0 MSWJR sister to "Galloping Alice".

 

2 hours ago, Ruston said:

The Beyer Peacock 0-6-4T engines of The Mersey Railway beat that. At least four were sold into industry. I know the extant one worked at a colliery and at least two worked at docks in South Wales. I think another was exported to Australia to work at a colliery, too.

Yes, but the 0-6-4T locos were tank engines. Unless you are thinking in German, tender locos are different.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Regularity said:

 

Yes, but the 0-6-4T locos were tank engines. Unless you are thinking in German, tender locos are different.

But who counts tender wheels, and since when were they a measure of how large a locomotive is?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ruston said:

The Beyer Peacock 0-6-4T engines of The Mersey Railway beat that. At least four were sold into industry. I know the extant one worked at a colliery and at least two worked at docks in South Wales. I think another was exported to Australia to work at a colliery, too.

 

Yup, one made it down here 

 

http://www.australiansteam.com/JAB 5.htm

 

And its still in existence! One of my favourite locomotives. Spent many a day in my youth climbing on the Cecil Raikes in Steamport. I think its amazing that two of these survive to this day. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Ruston said:

But who counts tender wheels, and since when were they a measure of how large a locomotive is?

You were responding to AdamsRadial’s remark about a tender loco, with info for about a tank loco, which you have just stated are different things to be measured differently, at least in your mind.

And why not count tender wheels - it’s required to operate the loco, so why not think of the tender as a semi-detached bunker designed to carry more fuel (coal/oil and water) and/or to reduce the axle weight?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

You were responding to AdamsRadial’s remark about a tender loco, with info for about a tank loco, which you have just stated are different things to be measured differently, at least in your mind.

And why not count tender wheels - it’s required to operate the loco, so why not think of the tender as a semi-detached bunker designed to carry more fuel (coal/oil and water) and/or to reduce the axle weight?

 

They are to be measured the same, as in the wheels on the locomotive. I don't count the tender wheels because no one counts them. Have you ever seen a Pacific written as a 4-6-2 plus anything from 4 to 8 wheels? The tender is needed to operate but it isn't part of the locomotive. Diesel brake tenders were needed to operate certain trains but they weren't regarded as part of the locomotive. You never see a photo of an E.E. type 3 captioned as a Co-Co+oo+oo, or whatever it would be.

I rest my case. :drag:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

Would the ROD 2-8-0 locos sent to Australia count?

The Mersey Railway also had 2-6-2 tanks, rather prettier than the 0-6-4's, and a couple of them went to collieries too.

 

I was just thinking of those as well- about a dozen ROD 2-8-0s sold to Australian mining company J&A Brown in the 1920's?

 

I can't think of anything bigger sold from UK main line* to industrial use

 

(*Is one an actual ex-GCR example?, and were any of them amongst the batches leased to various UK main line railways immediately post-WW1?)

Edited by Invicta
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

Would the ROD 2-8-0 locos sent to Australia count?

The Mersey Railway also had 2-6-2 tanks, rather prettier than the 0-6-4's, and a couple of them went to collieries too.

Dorothy and Whitwood were bought by Briggs for their Whitwood colliery. Both were intact but out of use on the vesting in 1947. Noone is sure why they needed anything so large unless it was to bank fully loaded trains up the gradient and out on the the alternative L&Y Goole line .

Edited by doilum
Predictive text error
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
48 minutes ago, Ruston said:

They are to be measured the same, as in the wheels on the locomotive. I don't count the tender wheels because no one counts them. Have you ever seen a Pacific written as a 4-6-2 plus anything from 4 to 8 wheels? The tender is needed to operate but it isn't part of the locomotive. Diesel brake tenders were needed to operate certain trains but they weren't regarded as part of the locomotive. You never see a photo of an E.E. type 3 captioned as a Co-Co+oo+oo, or whatever it would be.

I rest my case. :drag:

Whatever - you were comparing apples with pears, is all, when you responded to Adamsradial you did not state that a tender loco and a tank loco were to be treated separately (in your view, which it seems, has to be the only view), you simply responded that an 0-6-4 without a tender was bigger than a 2-6-0 with a tender. 
But since when has “number of wheels” been the determinant of size? Look at a PRR I1 decapod: bigger in every respect than many “larger” locos with more wheels - ignoring the tender.

 

0-6-0 is shorthand for “six wheels, all coupled, with a tender” and 0-6-0T for “six wheels, all coupled, without a tender”. That’s what the “T” at the end does: turns “with” into “without”.

 

Diesel brake tenders were non-revenue alternatives to a “fitted head” and not comparable to a steam loco tender as it is not providing fuel, and the loco will run perfectly well without it. That’s a case of apples and oranges.

 

Whilst your case is resting, you can go back to school and learn the basics, my fiend. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

Whatever - you were comparing apples with pears, is all, when you responded to Adamsradial you did not state that a tender loco and a tank loco were to be treated separately (in your view, which it seems, has to be the only view), you simply responded that an 0-6-4 without a tender was bigger than a 2-6-0 with a tender. 
But since when has “number of wheels” been the determinant of size? Look at a PRR I1 decapod: bigger in every respect than many “larger” locos with more wheels - ignoring the tender.

 

0-6-0 is shorthand for “six wheels, all coupled, with a tender” and 0-6-0T for “six wheels, all coupled, without a tender”. That’s what the “T” at the end does: turns “with” into “without”.

 

Diesel brake tenders were non-revenue alternatives to a “fitted head” and not comparable to a steam loco tender as it is not providing fuel, and the loco will run perfectly well without it. That’s a case of apples and oranges.

 

Whilst your case is resting, you can go back to school and learn the basics, my fiend. ;)

For feck's sake, Simon, we're not actually in a court of law. Do I have to "state" every little thing? I'm fully aware of Whyte Notation, and how it works. The point is that the loco I was talking about is larger than the one he was talking about. No one, except AdamsRadial (and you, it would seem), includes tenders when comparing the size of a locomotive. According to your weird ideas, the largest steam locomotive to run on a British railway wouldn't be the LNER's 2-8-0+0-8-2 Garratt, it would be the Flying Scotsman, with two tenders - because it has more wheels!

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To try and clear up the confusion, although I suspect it's just going to increase it, I wasn't counting the wheels on the tender, I was simply differentiating tank engines from tender engines as a class. The OP had asked about the possibility of a 2-8-0 tender engine being used in industry, and while I knew of plenty of 0-6-0s and  one 2-6-0 I mentioned, there were no larger, no 0-8-0 Austin Sevens or 2-8-0 RoD sell-offs, none of the American imports after WW2. Its not surprising given the tightness of many industrial yards, I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/06/2021 at 00:05, br2975 said:

I thought this was going to be an interesting thread, it's more like Andrew Neil interviewing Diane Abbott !

Well, at least we can correctly count the number of wheels on a loco - including the tender.................:scratchhead:

  • Funny 1
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...