George Stephenson’s Locomotion, as ‘preserved’ in 1857, hauls a homage to the original inaugural train at the Stockton & Darlington Railway centenary celebrations in 1925. GETTY IMAGES

Stockton-Darlington-1.jpg

Stockton & Darlington: Better than the first

Newly overhauled De Winton 0-4-0VBT Chaloner shunts in the yard at Pages Park to collect the carriages for the ‘Leedon Flyer’ during the Leighton Buzzard Railway’s autumn gala on September 28 2024. GRAHAM NUTTALL

Keeping-it-in-the-family-1.jpg

Keeping it in the family

Krupp 0 6 0T Tom with a Van Hool bus in the colours of the Vicinal, used up until the 1970s. KEVIN HOGGETT

Steam-News-27th-Feb.jpg

Six in steam at Maldegem steam festival

Pendennis Castle and Flying Scotsman run side-by-side down the Avon Yard, near Northam, Western Australia, on the return from a day trip to Northam from Perth on September 24 1989. GARY MERRIN

Didcot-News-27th-Feb.jpg

Rivals to reunite at Didcot, but still no main line for ‘A3’

The-next-train-is-cancelled-1.jpg

The next train is cancelled

Non-stop-to-Yeovil-1.jpg

Non-stop to Yeovil

A-bit-more-than-200.-1.jpg

A bit more than 200…

Cockatoo-Island-A-different-breed-1.jpg

Cockatoo Island: A different breed

New-builds-in-focus-1.jpg

New-builds in focus

The-Pacific-Beater-1.jpg

The ‘Pacific’ beater

Where-next-for-heritage-railways-1.jpg

Where next for heritage railways?

Blue-Peter-newly-overhauled.jpg

Blue Peter’s first public railtour for 23 years

the-train-at-the-top-of-the-world-image-1.png

The train at the top of the world

564_news_gala_ELR.jpg

Locos large and small shine at East Lancs gala

564_News_bluebell-gala.jpg

Magnificent ‘Seven’ stars at Bluebell ‘Giants of Steam’

564_News_mid_hants_gala.jpg

Mid-Hants goes Great Western for autumn event

Display_BWS_1600x900.jpg

6 issues for only £19.99

Articles

News

Features

Steam Railway Magazine

Back Issues

Latest Issue

Newsletter

Our Magazine

Inside-the-Latest-Issue-568.png

Steam Railway SR568 - out now!

Enjoy reviews, expert commentary and stunning photography with our latest subscription offer. Save yourself 39% on shop prices with FREE UK delivery, plus receive rewards, discounts and prizes you will love!

Discover the world of steam with a subscription to Steam Railway magazine. Each issue is packed with the latest news, reviews of current railway books, our steam and gala event guide, your stories from the railways and some of the very best railway photography,

Our subscribers say:  
"Plenty of news and features to keep you wanting to read more." David, June 2024  
"Have brought this for years, my Dad loves it and looks forward to receiving it each month." Loraine, March 2024.

Choose the right subscription offer for you… with a **Print**+ subscription receive 13 issues with **FREE UK** delivery to your door, plus easy access to our digital issues or choose a **Digital only** subscription.

_For full terms and conditions, visit :a[https://www.greatmagazines.co.uk/offer-terms-and-conditions]{href='https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatmagazines.co.uk%2Fblack-friday-deals&amp;data=05%7C02%7Cjulia.howell.contributor%40bauermedia.co.uk%7C4b08b2fc250f49f3b3f908dd0d31bc6d%7C0e79f3f34eeb48ed815e2876c379e863%7C0%7C0%7C638681229497392265%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=HGOtkbhEDVDGDxmnjArr%2FeF5Sioo28xIEdUOzcr4ZbI%3D&amp;reserved=0' target='_blank' rel='noreferrer noopener'}_

2025 marks the bicentenary of the Stockton & Darlington Railway. However, to understand why it is so significant, we first need to explore – perhaps perversely – what it is not. Historian ANTHONY DAWSON explains.

2025 marks 200 years since the opening of the Stockton & Darlington Railway. For a railway that enjoys worldwide renown, naturally major celebrations and events are planned throughout the year across Britain, and enthusiasts the world over are gearing up to commemorate this illustrious milestone.

But while every enthusiast would arguably agree that the S&DR is special and that the bicentenary of its opening is a landmark worthy of celebration, how many of us truly understand why the S&DR is so momentous? Indeed, putting the Stockton & Darlington’s importance into context isn’t exactly straightforward, nor can it be boiled down to a particular ‘first’. Therefore, to understand why the Stockton & Darlington is so important, we need to look at what it wasn’t.

Simply, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, while the S&DR was not the beginning, it was the end of the beginning. Although it wasn’t the first of anything, as early railway historian the late Andy Guy put it, it was ‘better than the first.’

#### **Was the Stockton & Darlington the first railway?**

That depends on your definition of what a railway is, but Dr Michael Lewis summed it up nicely over 50 years ago as “a prepared track which so guides the vehicles running on it that they cannot leave the track”. A short, simple definition which means it can include the Diolkos of the Classical World, the rutways of 19th-century Australia, and the guide-pin railways developed in Germany and Austria in the Middle Ages.

The earliest evidence for railways in this country comes from the Lake District when German-speaking immigrants led by Daniel Hochstetter introduced them to silver mines at Caldbeck during the reign of Elizabeth I. These railways consisted of longitudinal planks which guided an iron pin secured to the bottom of a four-wheel mine cart, working rather like a slot-car.

But the first railway in England was very likely that built by Huntingdon Beaumont in 1604 to carry coal from his pits at Wollaton near Nottingham down to the River Trent. It was made entirely from wood and greatly improved the transport of coal for onward shipping by water. So pleased was Beaumont with this new technology, he invested heavily in four similar railways around Newcastle, which were built to carry coal down to the Tyne. Beaumont, however, failed to break into the local market. This, coupled with heavy investment in his new railways and his lavish lifestyle, led him to being declared bankrupt, ending his days in a debtors’ prison. But, despite this inglorious start, the seeds were sown. And, following the turmoil of the English Civil War and Commonwealth period, wooden railways began to spread across Shropshire where they took on the name ‘Railed Way’ and the North-East where they were known as ‘Waggonways’ – two different names for the same idea. Indeed, as excavations on the first railway in Scotland – the Tranent to Cockenzie Waggonway of 1722 – have shown, there was very little new in the technology of a wooden railway. It’s essentially a giant ladder laid on the ground. They used old ideas to provide a solution to a new problem.

The 18th Century saw a transport revolution on land and water. The early waggonways carried largely coal and other minerals down to a staithe or wharf on a river or canal for onward shipping. Thus, they grew hand in hand with the canal network and many canal companies even owned their own waggonways as feeder lines. There was a transport revolution on the roads as well with the growth of turnpikes. Taken together, this transport revolution fed and fuelled industrialisation and growing urbanisation, particularly in the north of England. Improved transport links meant coal could go to market quicker. It meant it was cheaper at the point of sale, which meant greater profits and, in turn, greater demand.

#### **So, if the Stockton & Darlington wasn’t the first railway, was it the first to use iron rails?**

Again, not really, no. Iron was first used almost as ‘armour plating’ for the wooden railways, apparently first at Coalbrookdale but possibly elsewhere where lengths of cast iron were nailed, later screwed, to the running surface of the wooden rails to improve their longevity. It was a logical evolution from these cast iron strips to the development of cast iron ‘bar rails’ which developed into both cast iron edge rails and to cast iron L-shaped ‘tramplates’.

Becoming popular from the 1790s, cast iron railways were superior to wooden railways in all but one respect – the rails were brittle and frequently broke. It meant loads carried on them had to be light, and it didn’t help that instead of being supported by transverse wooden sleepers, the ends of these rails were supported on large stone blocks. This meant that they were difficult to keep to gauge, and lacked any elasticity, and from the bumping and jolting of heavy horse-drawn coal wagons, meant rails – and early cast iron wheels – broke frequently.

What was needed was a superior type of rail, ones made from wrought iron. First rolled in any quantity in 1820 at Bedlington Iron Works, the Stockton & Darlington was probably the first railway to use wrought-iron rails on a large scale. Due to distrust of the new material, half of the line was laid with cast iron and half with wrought. It was a major technological breakthrough and one crucial to the development of the locomotive.

#### **So, the Stockton Darlington wasn’t the first railway or the first to use iron. But was it the first railway authorised by an Act of Parliament?**

The Stockton & Darlington was quite late to the game when it came to an Act of Parliament. The very first such Act was obtained by the Brandlings to confirm the route of their railway from coal pits at Hunslet down to staithes on the River Aire in 1758. This was the Middleton Railway which, as we will see later on, was a pioneer in more ways than one. The Act safeguarding the route of the railway also committed Brandling to selling coal at a fixed price in Leeds, as well as sending a regular tonnage down the line.

Getting such an Act was very expensive and required having a Parliamentary Agent and introducing a Private Members’ Bill. It would then have to go through both Houses and committee stage and, unless the Bill could demonstrate it was for the public good, could be thrown out at any stage. It was a big risk, but ultimately worth it. Even though the Middleton had an Act, it didn’t mean it was a public railway. It was owned by the Brandlings, to carry their coal to market. It wasn’t open to any other users, and wasn’t a public right of way.

#### **So if the Stockton & Darlington wasn’t the first railway authorised by an Act of Parliament, surely it was the first public railway?**

Not really. All the railways built in the 17th and 18th centuries were private railways, built over private land. But, for a railway to be public – to be public right-of-way – that meant it needed an Act of Parliament. It also meant that, until 1825 when the law was changed, an Act was also needed to form a joint-stock company.

The first public railway in England was the Lake Lock Railroad, formed in 1796. Opened in 1798 and linking collieries near Wakefield to the Aire & Calder Navigation, the LLRR was a public railway because it was open to any user upon payment of a toll and because its capital was held in publicly traded shares. In order to get around the law, the LLRR was operated under the auspices of a Trust Deed. It is probably the earliest example of a company established to build and operate a railway. The LLRR didn’t operate the railway itself, but rather allowed colliery owners to run their own trains on it, for which a toll was paid. In fact, anyone could run their wagon on the LLRR so long as they paid the toll and it was of the right gauge.

The other contender for the first public railway in England is the Surrey Iron Railway of 1803, which did have an Act of Parliament – as every other public railway would require. The first public railway in Scotland was the Kilmarnock & Troon of 1812, which was also the first public railway to use steam locomotives. Another first traditionally claimed for the Stockton & Darlington. Sorry.

#### **Okay, so was the Stockton & Darlington the first to be designed and built for mechanical operation?**

Well, yes and no. It was the first public railway designed to be worked mechanically. But it wasn’t the first to be operated mechanically. The Middleton Railway in Leeds was worked by locomotives from 1812 and, according to an American visitor writing in 1825, the entire transport system to get coal to the staithes was mechanical. The only human involvement was in the act of hewing the coal underground. Everything else was by machine.

Despite this technological progress, Middleton wasn’t designed or built to be worked mechanically. It had been an ordinary horse-worked railway until the arrival of John Blenkinsop in 1808 who did much to redesign the railway and ultimately mechanise it. The first railway to be designed from the beginning to be worked mechanically was the Hetton Railway of 1822. This was designed by George Stephenson and used a combination of stationary engines, rope haulages and level sections worked by locomotives. It was a masterpiece which clearly demonstrated the future direction of railways.

#### **So, you’ve said the Stockton & Darlington wasn’t the first railway or Act or public railway. Surely it was the first to use locomotives?**

Again, it depends how you define ‘use’ but the very first steam locomotive was run on the Pen-y-darren Tramway near Merthyr in South Wales in February 1804. It was a single-cylinder machine, with the cylinder immersed in the boiler. It had a return flue boiler and a geared drive. Despite popular depictions of it having a large flywheel and lofty chimney, it wouldn’t have been able to fit through the tunnel if it had possessed such features.

Trevithick’s locomotive operated at 50lb/sq. in and was based on his existing high-pressure stationary engine design. He built around a dozen such machines during the early 19th Century but ended his days, like so many pioneers, in penury.

However, the first railway to commercially use steam locomotives was that old pioneer, the Middleton Railway in Leeds, in 1812. Designed and built by Matthew Murray, four of them were built for use in Leeds, where they lasted – despite one blowing up – until the early 1830s. Three were built for use around Newcastle-upon-Tyne; three under licence for use near Wigan, and once for service in South Wales. A working model was sent to the Tsar of Russia and copies were built in modern-day Belgium and Poland. This means not only were they the first locomotives in commercial use, but the first built in any number and the first to be used in many countries around the world. A real triumph of engineering.

That said, however, prior to 1825 no one had ever attempted to run a locomotive as far as George Stephenson did; the furthest they had ever run was a few miles. George threw down the gauntlet to his detractors and locomotive naysayers and, such was the faith in steam power, that he designed and built a steam railway to be worked by locomotives not just for a couple of miles but for tens of miles. Twenty-six miles, in fact.

#### **But these railways so far have all been coal-carrying lines. Was the Stockton & Darlington the first passenger railway?**

Unofficial passenger carrying goes back into the 18th Century, on what were private mineral lines. The first public railway, as authorised by an Act of Parliament and which authorised the railway to do so was the Swansea & Mumbles Railway of 1807. This was a horse-drawn service, working to a timetable and, in 1812, saw the first railway station open in Swansea.

The first passenger service on a public railway in Scotland was in 1813, on the Kilmarnock & Troon. Again, it was horse-worked but like the Stockton & Darlington tickets could be bought from local inns along the line – as well as refreshments and parcels left there to be carried by the railway as well. There was a long history of public passenger railways before 1825; therefore, the Stockton & Darlington was tapping into an existing idea.

#### **So, if not the first passenger railway, then was the S&DR the first to use steam for passenger trains?**

Again, it depends how you define this. Yes, the opening train of the Stockton & Darlington was indeed pulled by a locomotive, and which included a purpose-built passenger carriage and passengers travelling in coal waggons, but that was a one-offevent. It wasn’t the start of a regular steam-worked passenger service. Indeed, the Stockton & Darlington’s passenger service was horse-worked until 1833.

However, even if it was only a one-off event, the S&DR’s inaugural train still can’t claim to be the first time that passengers had been conveyed by rail behind a steam locomotive. For that, we need to go right back to the beginning, to February 21 1804, when Trevithick’s Pen-y-Darren locomotive undertook its trail-blazing journey. On that day, it pulled a train of coal waggons carrying workmen and, so flushed with success were they, that a proposal was made to couple up a private carriage behind the engine and pull that. Sticking with Trevithick, his _Catch Me Who Can_ of 1808 was pioneering in two ways – it was the first purpose-built passenger locomotive, as well as the first to haul fare-paying passengers when it operated on a circle of track close to what would become the site of Euston station in London. Furthermore, the first steam-worked train on the Middleton Railway also included passengers.

The first regular steam-worked passenger service wasn’t begun until 1830 – not on the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, but the little Canterbury & Whitstable Railway which opened that May. Like the Stockton & Darlington, the line was worked by a combination of stationary engines and a single locomotive – the now preserved _Invicta_, designed and built by Robert Stephenson & Co in Leeds immediately after _Rocket_ – and it was operated to a regular timetable, pre-dating the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway in September 1830 by some months.

#### **So, other than not being the first railway, nor the first iron railway, nor the first railway authorised by an Act of Parliament, nor the first to use locomotives, be designed for mechanical working, or the first to carry passengers, what has the Stockton & Darlington done for us?**

The Stockton & Darlington could not have existed without the two centuries of railway history which came before it. During those two centuries, crucial ideas and crucial technologies were worked out from the track to locomotives, to carrying passengers and legal structures. So, while the Stockton & Darlington wasn’t really the first of anything, it was the culmination of that previous development and evolution. It represents the bringing together and synthesising of existing ideas into a new concept. A public railway, authorised by Act of Parliament, to carry passengers, to use steam locomotives and use iron rails. In many ways it was, as Andy Guy noted in 2016, ‘better than the first’.

But it wasn’t the first. It wasn’t the first railway, first steam railway, nor the first main line railway. But what it did do was put the railway squarely on the map and in the public consciousness showing what a steam-worked railway could do, laying the foundations for everything that came afterwards. The Liverpool & Manchester and the birth of main line railways as we know them simply wouldn’t have happened without the Stockton & Darlington. So, when we ask, ‘what exactly has the Stockton & Darlington done for us?’, the answer is rather a lot. Even it perhaps wasn’t totally the pioneer it is sometimes made out to be.

**PART ONE**  
While 1877-built De Winton 0 4 0VBT _Chaloner_ may not have won the _Steam Railway_ magazine readers’ award, it remains a hugely historic and interesting locomotive. And, it has been owned by the same family since 1960. Its saviour and owner ALF FISHER tells its remarkable story.

I had come up from Euston to Liverpool on a Friday night behind a ‘Lizzie’ with 16 bogies in tow. It was not a sparkling performance with a lame ‘Patriot’ on the Manchester relief ten minutes ahead of us, and arrival was 50 minutes late – not unusual but still unwelcome. My friend John Ward had said we were to have a day out in North Wales as he had something to show me. What he meant was that he had discovered the narrow gauge on our doorstep, or nearly.

We were approaching Mold when I was told to stop the Morris Minor, borrowed for the day from my father. We scrambled up a bank to find a little shed. Knowing John, I was not surprised to find a trio of woebegone engines in residence: two Bagnalls and a Kerr, Stuart, or vice versa. I had seen the narrow gauge a few years earlier on a solo visit to mooch around the abandoned Boston Lodge works at Porthmadog, thinking how wonderful and impossible it would be if someone could save that particular railway. Seeing these very small engines, it occurred to me that the house I had just bought had a space at the side where one of these could comfortably fit and be admired. However, I did nothing about it until John told me a few months later that they had disappeared. A quick letter to the owner, the Castle Firebrick Company, brought a quick reply telling me how disappointed they were as they had wanted to give them away to someone who would appreciate them.

But the weird idea of buying a locomotive persisted and I contacted Penrhyn Quarry, which advised that it would be happy to sell its redundant engines for scrap value. This put them completely out of reach for me as they were valued at £10 per ton, and they appeared to be from about six tons upwards. A year or so later, John told me about some more reclusive, smaller and rather strange engines he had unearthed in the Nantlle Vale in Caernarvonshire. Mistakenly, I thought the smallest would be about two tons and, in a fit of generosity, I made an offer of £21 which, after an initial rebuff, was eventually accepted.

It was 1960. I had just bought myself a steam engine, and a decidedly odd one. This was soon noticed by well-meaning friends whose response was, ‘Why didn’t you buy a ‘REAL’ locomotive?’. I suppose if I could have afforded a ‘Quarry Hunslet’, a ‘Dock Tank’ or even a ‘Jinty’, then I would have done. There was, of course, a reason – two in fact. Whatever I bought had to fit in the garage space at the side of my end-of-terrace house. Secondly came affordability. At ten pounds per ton scrap value, there was little option but to choose the smallest and cheapest I could lay hands on. And if I had bought a ‘Jinty’ I wouldn’t have owned _Chaloner_, and life just wouldn’t have been the same. How fortunate this turned out to be. Almost by accident, I had become the owner of an ancient piece of machinery which was to exert an influence over me and my family for the next 60-plus years.

Admittedly, it was a trifle weird. The boiler was vertical, as were the cylinders. It was missing some basics one expects, such as springs, a dome and a cab. It had emanated from De Winton and Co., a small ironworks on the quay in Caernarfon in 1877, that produced machinery for the slate trade in addition to locomotives, and we now know this was the first of its new improved ‘Standard’ class. It was cheap to build and cheap to buy, thus very popular locally, and was followed by some 30 locomotives of the same basic type, including enlarged versions and an adaptation with inside frames for 3ft gauge railways. For over half a century they had pottered around the quarries of North Wales largely unloved and unnoticed.

So, 64 years later, we can look back on its rescue and transformation and judge how far we have come since she became part of the Fisher family.

Like vintage car owners, locomotive owners can become totally obsessed with their possessions and spend a lifetime devoted to the object, or sadly they can start a project with great verve and enthusiasm until something more interesting comes along or funds run out – just two of the reasons for the smaller, uncared-for locomotives one sees decaying in sidings on so many preserved lines. Alternatively, you can persevere, and once you’ve overcome the feeling that everything is totally impossible you strive until something works and then you must push on to make it work even better.

So it was with me, and later with son David, but for me, with a lifelong passion for locomotives and absolutely no mechanical experience whatsoever, it was to be a long haul. Looking back, I sometimes question whether I have been the motivation for _Chaloner_’s revival, or if _Chaloner_ has truly been the one in charge. Has she, like the proverbial house cat, been an apparently passive pet, or one which, like the cat, dominates the scene almost unseen?

Nevertheless, we all know that owning a locomotive needs a bottomless pit of resources, but like any hobby or sport, it can provide so many aims and challenges, so much despair, stress, anguish and yet quite unparalleled satisfaction when it eventually proves worthwhile.

Anyone who has followed the progress of _Chaloner_ will have caught on to the fact that the foremost principle guiding the care of the locomotive has always been conservation, conservation, conservation. It would be nice to say this was my noble principle from day one, but it wasn’t – it was purely accidental. Quite simply, it was due initially to a complete deficiency of funds to replace anything larger than a couple of nuts and bolts. Being only a couple of years married, with our first house, there was not much in the kitty for a frivolity such as a battered, rusty steam engine. In fact, the whole purchase of the locomotive from Pen-yr-Orsedd slate quarry in the Nantlle Vale was in dire jeopardy when I was informed that there would be an additional charge of £10 for hauling the locomotive down two inclines on a Saturday morning (overtime rates for the men), plus £35 to bring her by road on low-loader from North Wales to Hertfordshire. Added to the £21 purchase cost, the total of £66 (nearly £1,300 in today’s money) was way beyond my resources.

This was the point where _Chaloner_ became inextricably a part of the family. As my wife had recently retired from the Met Office, she benefited from their practice of awarding a ‘dowry’ to female employees about to retire and embark on motherhood. Nobly parting with half of her £50 dowry, the deal was sealed. For her contribution, she was rewarded daily by having to gaze on a rusted hulk from the kitchen window, a hulk which slowly transformed into something more presentable.

It was always a matter of chance who would be delivered at the house first. Son David, (_Chaloner_’s current owner), made it first by a whisker and arrived on September 10 1960, weighing in at eight and a half pounds. _Chaloner_, at four and a half tons, arrived some 24 hours later. The two were fated to be inextricably linked for ever. Not every child grows up with a steam engine in the back yard. Perhaps he had little choice, and his future was already clearly defined.

We closed the road for _Chaloner_’s unloading by simply putting two rows of cones across it. Nobody thought that it might have been a good idea to seek permission first! The lorry simply backed into the gateway of the house and accompanied by grunts and groans from friends and neighbours, she was pushed off the lorry and on to a track panel awaiting just inside the gate.

Over the next few years, a steady stream of visitors came to see the strange object in the back yard and new friends were made. The most outstanding one usually appeared in a clerical cassock and a wore a billowing black cloak. It was of course, Rev. Teddy Boston, whose recently restored Bagnall saddle tank _Pixie_ ran on his line through the rectory garden at Cadeby in Leicestershire.

Teddy was nothing if not forthright. ‘Alf! What on earth is the point of having a steam engine if it doesn’t go anywhere? Now get cracking and let’s see her working’. I was shocked by this order. Nothing could have been further from my mind, and the thought of getting her working filled this non-engineer’s mind with horror. But it was a challenge which could not be ignored.

So began a knuckle-crunching year, learning the hard way how to chisel out rusting tubes at both ends – all 76 of them. Neighbourly tolerance must have been near breaking point as each hammer blow resonated loudly around an empty boiler in a suburban back yard every evening. Suppliers were also tolerant and helpful. Dewrance and Co. donated two missing brass tallow cups (or oilers) while a far bigger contribution was a complete set of new tubes, gratis, from the Universal Tube Company. These were the earliest days of purchase and restoration – for context, it was two years before Alan Pegler bought _Flying Scotsman_. Requests for help from the trade were thus quite novel and more likely to be met with a good response.

The boiler tubes were new; the boiler was not. The holes in the tubeplates were so varied in diameter that some new tubes dropped completely through the holes to the ground below while some were tight and had to be driven in. Other tube holes were oval! This was an early lesson in how the maintenance of industrial locomotives was far removed from that of the main lines and, significantly, a foretaste of what to expect as the repair of the engine would progress.

Eventually the tubes were all inserted and expanded and the day of the boiler inspector’s visit for a hydraulic test arrived. It was to be the decisive moment, to learn if my introduction to basic engineering would pass the test. Pumping the boiler up to pressure soon became impossible when jets of water shot out from both ends of the water gauge, and I was gutted. ‘No problem’, said the obliging inspector. ‘Just pop down to the nearest garage, ask for an old inner tube, and give me a couple of sixpences.’ Puzzled, I obeyed and returned with the trophies. Removing the gauge glass and packing, he roughly cut two pieces of the rubber tube, spread them over the two openings in the water gauge, laid the sixpenny piece coins on the rubber and tightened everything up with the gland nuts. Within minutes the test was complete, and my first re-tubing of a boiler had been worth the bruises and late nights. In view of the thin tubeplate, it was agreed that she should run only at a reduced pressure of 80lb/sq. in which, to my lasting regret, we mistakenly thought would be adequate.

It may have been a foretaste of the highs and lows which were to accompany the whole restoration process, but it was a necessary prelude to raising steam for the first time in some 14 years. A fortnight later, following re-packing of the water gauge, the fire was lit, and a gathering of keen neighbours assembled to watch. With the engine raised up on blocks, the regulator was opened and to everyone’s amazement, the wheels revolved, in fact quite rapidly. Nevertheless, the onlookers were blissfully unaware of a new problem which only I encountered. The weather had produced a torrential downpour all day, meaning that observers had to watch from within the house. Despite my soaked condition, I soon became aware that every time I opened the regulator, there was a change in the nature of the heavy rain, which unaccountably turned very hot and exceedingly dirty. So, I learned another enduring lesson that, unlike conventional locomotives, these ‘Coffee Pots’ with vertical boilers do not possess a dome to collect the steam at the driest point, and that ‘priming’ – carrying boiling water with the steam to the cylinders – is an occupational hazard which must be avoided whenever possible.

The incentive for me to complete the work came in 1968, being the launch of the Leighton Buzzard Railway, then known as the Iron Horse Railroad. The young volunteers were looking for a steam engine to open their railway and I happened to have one, however odd and totally unsuitable. The first test steaming on the eve of opening in June 1968 was traumatic. We put in a nice level fire and to our delight she steamed up quite rapidly – so far, so good. However, there was a slight hiccup. Yes, the safety valves blew off on cue at 80lb/sq. in, but by now there was a roaring fire, and the boiler pressure stubbornly rose remorselessly. ‘Get that injector on, fast!’. ‘It’s already been on for ten minutes!’ came the reply. There was no remedy left but to shovel out some of the raging inferno. In short, the pressure reached somewhere around 135lb/sq. in before the pointer on the gauge stabilised and started descending and life came back to normal. The following day was the railway’s opening day and was less traumatic with nothing more significant than three derailments and _Chaloner_ characteristically misbehaving by depositing her entire fire and firebars in the middle of a main road after a particularly vicious jolt. This was never going to be like owning a ‘REAL’ engine.

To say that the early workings there were fraught would be an understatement. There was no water supply at the shed and the locomotive had to be topped up from a horse trough at Marley’s Tile Works almost a mile down the line. This was fine until one momentous day in November when we took _Chaloner_ on a solo outing down the line to Leedon Loop, then the end of the manageable line, intending to top up on the return journey. It was extremely foggy and bitterly cold with a hoar frost all day. While waiting there, our guest – the familiar clerical figure in billowing black cloak – emerged belatedly through the fog and we decided to head back. However, every time the regulator was opened slightly, even on the level, showers of hot water were violently ejected from the chimney until water in the gauge glass was quickly invisible. All this was taking place on level track, but we still had to get her up the 1 in 24 gradient of Marley’s Bank before the water supply could be reached. With minimal regulator opening and with four people pushing her up the grade, we eventually reached the water trough. Here appeared a problem which, looking back, might have been foreseen. The trough was coated in a thick layer of ice upon which lay a frozen hosepipe. Smashing the ice, we found the water full of bits of straw, not very compatible with one ailing injector. Luckily, there was a very ancient bucket nearby. It was a mass of holes which didn’t help. It took a nail-biting time to fill the tank and the boiler to safe levels when all concerned breathed great sighs of relief – shades of the _Titfield Thunderbolt_. Undoubtedly having a clergyman with us with a direct line to the Almighty played a big part in our salvation, but it was a narrow squeak.

The track gauge of the still-operating sand railway on which we ran was nominally two feet but widened considerably in places. Derailments were to be expected from that fact alone, though with an unsprung locomotive, rerailing was relatively simple. However, as early as opening day it was discovered that at least one pair of wheels was oval, being a quarter inch out of true, which accounted for a bone-shaking ride. The cylinder bores were similarly worn, enabling vast amounts of steam to pass by the pistons without making any contribution to power output whatsoever. More unexpected was the fact that the front axle was 2ft gauge – the approximate gauge of its home quarry – while the other was inexplicably 1ft 10¾in. While this contributed to the unfortunate habit of falling off the rails, it also accounted for a deep groove in the Tarmac on the level crossing across the A4012. One can only conclude that Pen-yr-Orsedd Quarry had broken so many axles that it had been forced to beg help from Penrhyn Quarry (which used the lesser gauge) by providing one from its own withdrawn De Winton fleet. On removal, the offending axle was found to be cracked, and a new one was produced by the local makers of forklift trucks, Lancer Boss.

Priming was a perpetual hazard, particularly when hauling a roofless ‘passenger train’, as was the case in the first season. Many were the times that passengers returned from their ride with shirts and dresses enhanced by black polka dots, while on one occasion, water softener was added to the tank, causing foaming, which not only doubled the amount of dirty water projected from the chimney but additionally produced drops which had now become the colour of blackcurrant squash. This was even less welcome and resulted in more than one claim for compensation from angry passengers. The water softening idea was cancelled forthwith.

Lubrication was by laboriously filling small tallow cups above the cylinders and steam chests with oil before and during operations. Then one day, Teddy Boston reappeared waving a mechanical lubricator from a traction engine, which in the interests of efficiency was soon fitted and is still functioning today. For feeding the boiler, there was a single Giffard injector, which, in its worn state was somewhat temperamental and caused many anxious moments. As _Chaloner_ was now regularly hauling passenger trains, though erratically, this was deemed a bit risky, and a modern Penberthy injector was found and fitted below the footplate. Both additions were essential changes, but for the first time the requirements of operation and maintenance had to be prioritised over the ethics of conservation.

In the late ’50s and ’60s, industrial archaeology was just coming into vogue, and I was impressed by some fine books on the subject. Archaeology is not just discovering things but researching to improve our knowledge and, in some rarer cases, to revive and operate, while preserving original material at the same time. As noted, my original attitude towards conservation may have been accidental, but the growing popularity of industrial archaeology made me aware of the need to preserve original material wherever possible. It gradually dawned on me what an intriguing piece of history I had acquired, and the responsibility which went with it. Delving into the story of the locomotive, it became apparent that although all parts were of De Winton origin, many had come from other locomotives of the same or similar types, creating a patchwork of pieces which tell us much about engineering practice in the quarry, largely dictated by having to survive as the slate industry declined. Interchange of parts on main line locomotives was common for efficiency in moving engines out of overhaul as quickly as possible, but wholesale cannibalisation to make ends meet was an entirely different scenario. There was also a specific problem for those quarries with De Winton engines. Whereas top manufacturers like Hunslet or Bagnall could still supply spares for those operating their locomotives right up to the 1950s, De Winton had expired in 1901.

A few examples illustrate the point. The main frames are original apart from a replaced rear end. This may have resulted from a heavy shunt or a fall over the end of the tip. This replacement rear was already in place by 1927 when all the other De Wintons at the quarry were still in service, so where did it come from? The neighbouring Dorothea Quarry had withdrawn its three older examples by the First World War, so possibly they were the source. The two cylinders are not original but were taken from fellow locomotive _Glynliffon_, built in 1880, and were purloined in _Chaloner_’s 1926 rebuilding. The present water tank was acquired from the unique 1897 locomotive _Victoria_ but this tank in turn had been ‘borrowed’ from an unknown locomotive of earlier vintage. The quarry records tell us that when _Chaloner_’s crankshaft was found to be fractured in 1927, it was replaced by one taken from _Inverlochy_, also built in 1877. Curiously, when this replacement shaft also failed in 1933, yet another was robbed from the very same source, yet the remarkably resilient _Inverlochy_ survived this constant theft of its parts and inexplicably continued to run until 1938.

Sometimes, all is not what it seems. In the unique De Winton vertical boiler design, the cylinders are supported by vertical steel plates which were originally riveted to the boiler. In our case the plates are smooth and appear modern. Now, I am far from being a rivet or bolt counter, but the original works photo shows the attachment to the cylinders being by five bolts. However, the cylinders gleaned later from stablemate _Glynliffon_ as a replacement used only four bolts with different spacing. Stripping off all paint from these support plates and the bolts themselves a couple of years ago revealed punch marks on both. Surprisingly, one bolt has five punch holes while the adjacent plate has five punch holes. So, what does that tell us? Despite three changes of boiler and a change of cylinders, the supporting plates are far from modern but original 1877 parts, as are the bolts, the original five holes in the plates having been filled in and four repositioned holes made.

Evidence of other unexpected survivals can be seen in the recent photo of the driver’s side. Circular holes can be clearly seen at the foot of the cladding, for no apparent reason. The original boiler, which was scrapped in 1927, had washout plugs for boiler cleaning in these positions, rather than large mudholes as in subsequent boilers. Yet the holes in the cladding remain, proving that with one exception, the cladding was in place long before 1927 and is almost certainly original 1877 material.

From this minefield of archaeological inconsistencies, let’s return to the family home.

With _Chaloner_ the family pet having left, fortnightly trips to Leighton Buzzard by the male pair of the family had become the norm, compensated by sister Anne being provided with riding lessons at the same time. David, by now nine, had with other youngsters, found dubious employment at the railway by being delegated, among other tasks, to run behind the passenger train, beating out the many fires created by _Chaloner_ in the vegetation which abounded between the rails and elsewhere. One Sunday, when I was mercifully absent, she set fire to half a cornfield. While the fire brigade relished some practice, there had to be a reason. Unlike all ‘real’ locomotives, De Wintons do not have the luxury of an ashpan, so hot cinders could, and did, drop through the firebars without hindrance.

Despite the valiant efforts of the young stalwarts at Leighton Buzzard, her age and decrepitude began to tell. In 1970, work was done to improve the slide valves and port faces but all within stringent financial limits. The chimney was extended back to its original height so that drivers could at last go home without bleary bloodshot eyes from the smoke and ash – times when we admittedly wished for a ‘real’ engine with a chimney at a respectable distance.

The early ’70s saw a succession of crises – broken crankpins, a cracked mudhole door, a cracked axle, a fractured steam pipe, and, in 1972, the last straw came, when a pin decided to detach itself from an expansion link while running an enthusiasts’ special, causing damage to the motion which led to an enforced slumber for three years.

#### **  
Next time:** {#block-906d5e64-1989-427d-95db-2afbcc849aff}

● Alf covers _Chaloner_’s resurrection, its recent heavy rebuild, and some of its most incredible journeys. {#block-4ea4eae8-331b-481c-8cdd-9a632dd03bdd}

SIX STEAM locomotives – five standard gauge, one narrow gauge – will be in action at Stoomtrein Maldegem-Eeklo’s annual steam festival on May 3/4.

Hunslet ‘Austerity’ 0-6-0ST WD No. 196 _Errol Lonsdale_ (Works No. 3796 of 1953) will be operational, as will 1893 St Leonard-built 0-4-0T _Yvonne_, which will be working trains between Maldegem and Eeklo double-heading with Cockerill 0-4-0VBT Works No. 3098 of 1926, visiting from Haaksbergen in the Netherlands.

Resident 1926-built Le Meuse 0-6-0T _Bebert_ will also be in service, having recently returned to steam following a major in-house overhaul at Maldegem. The final standard gauge locomotive in the line-up will be Krupp-built ‘Hannibal’ class 0-6-0T _Tom_, which is now entering her third year on loan to Maldegem from the suspended Ijmuiden Steelworks steam train.

On the narrow gauge line, Maldegem’s own 1906-built Hanomag 0-4-0T _Yvonne_ will hopefully be joined by a second steam locomotive, for which negotiations are ongoing. As 2025 marks the centenary of the first public bus services in Belgium, there will be approximately 15 preserved buses on display.

NATIONAL COLLECTION ‘A3’ No. 60103 _Flying Scotsman_ and ‘Castle’ No. 4079 _Pendennis Castle_ will be reunited for the first time in 36 years at Didcot Railway Centre in May – but enthusiasts may have to wait a while to see the Gresley ‘Pacific’ back on the main line.

It comes as the National Railway Museum announced more details about _Flying Scotsman_’s programme for 2025. Its spell at Didcot from May 12 until June 2 will be its second visit to a heritage line following its already-announced period on loan to the Nene Valley Railway on February 22-March 9 (SR567). The Gresley 4 6 2 will be operational on DRC’s demonstration line on May 24-26, 28, and 31, and displayed outside the 1932-built shed alongside _Pendennis Castle_ on May 14, 17/18, 21-23 and 29/30, and June 1. It is also hoped that Hudswell, Clarke 0 6 0ST Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons No. 31 (Works No. 1026 of 1913) – formerly owned by the late Sir William McAlpine, who also previously owned both Nos. 4079 and 4472 during his lifetime – will also participate, pending the completion of its overhaul. It is currently at Didcot on loan from the Fawley Hill Railway.

In addition to its visits to Didcot and the NVR, the ex-LNER ‘Pacific’ will also be displayed at the National Railway Museum itself on April 5-20 and return to Locomotion at Shildon – where the 4 6 2 has spent much of the last year hauling brake van rides – from July 26 until August 25.

The NRM also confirmed that DB Cargo would be the locomotive’s Train Operating Company under Northern Steam Operations Ltd’s (NSOL) custodianship but, at the time of writing, there were still no scheduled main line railtours for the ‘A3’. Although the NRM said: “More trips are now in the planning stage, with details set to be released later in the year,” it added that: “_Flying Scotsman_’s engagements in 2025 will be targeted at heritage railway lines to allow access to a broad range of family audiences throughout the railway’s bicentenary year,” suggesting No. 60103 may not haul a public railtour on the national network at all during 2025.

NSOL chairman Stuart Whitter said: “We have been working hard with Science Museum Group and the National Railway Museum to prepare this historic engine for operation, and to create an exciting programme of heritage railway destinations for 2025. We are very much looking forward to delivering the maximum public exposure to this iconic locomotive across a historic year for the railways.”

_Flying Scotsman_’s visit to Didcot will be the first time it has been reunited with _Pendennis Castle_ since October 1989, during the final leg of the ‘A3’s’ tour of Australia. Although No. 4079 was repatriated from Australia in 2000, this will be the first opportunity the two locomotives – which have a long, shared history spanning a century (see panel) – have had to reunite since _Pendennis Castle_ returned to steam following overhaul at Didcot in February 2022.

Not all new-build projects cross the finishing line. As part of our new-build steam survey, we look at those projects which will never see the light of day and examine what went wrong.

Building locomotives from scratch is not for the faint-hearted. For every new-build project that has reached completion, dozens more have fallen by the wayside – often without ever having made any physical progress. If we are to properly assess Britain’s various new-build projects, we should also examine those which have come to nothing.

Now, we could probably fill an entire magazine with the myriad new-build schemes that have been proposed over the years – anything from an LBSCR ‘E2’ 0 6 0T and a replica LNWR ‘Claughton’ to various Midland ‘2Ps’, a North Eastern Railway ‘Z’ class ‘Atlantic’ and a Caprotti ‘Black Five’, and countless others besides.

Almost all never progressed beyond a Facebook page or basic website, outlining their ideas and ambitions without any concrete fundraising or construction plans. They garnered a modicum of publicity before fading completely out of existence, having never cut a single piece of metal or raised a solitary penny.

Therefore, we shall ignore these various proposals and instead limit ourselves to projects which had either started physical construction and/or were actively fundraising at the time of our previous survey – as well as the serious proposals put forward by established groups already working on other new-build locomotives – finding out how far they progressed before calling it a day, and exploring why they were ultimately aborted.

**LNER ‘B17’ No. 61662** _**MANCHESTER UNITED**_

Perhaps the most high-profile of the cancelled projects is ‘B17’ No. 61662 _Manchester United_, insomuch as some physical progress had been made when it was abandoned. It’s an unusual project, as its origins, development, and fate are inextricably entwined with the other ‘B17’ new-build project – No. 61673 _Spirit of Sandringham_ which, as outlined in SR562, is making good headway at CTL Seal in Sheffield.

The story begins in 2008 when members of the North British Locomotive Preservation Group Ltd voted to decide which North British-built locomotive represented the biggest gap in preservation. Gresley’s handsome LNER ‘B17’ 4 6 0s – the design of which was contracted out to North British, which also built the first ten ‘B17s’ – came out on top. A feasibility study into the possibility of building a new ‘B17’ was then carried out. Given the class’ links with ‘the beautiful game’ – Nos. 28482872 (BR Nos. No. 61648-61672) having been named after various football clubs, giving rise to their ‘Footballer’ nickname – it was decided to seek support from a major football club. Manchester United, arguably the most popular football team in the world at that time, was chosen, hence the decision to build the locomotive that once carried the club’s name, No. 61662 _Manchester United_.

“Manchester United agreed with no strings attached and we kicked it off,” recalls NBLPG chairman Ken Livermore. “David Buck got involved about this time and we soon realised that many enthusiasts were interested but did not like the name Manchester United!”

Indeed, the group approached other clubs – including Arsenal, Celtic, Darlington, Ipswich and Tottenham – about potentially using their names, but in 2010 decided to stick to its original plan to build No. 61662. Meanwhile, the late David Buck – a lover of all things East Anglian and former owner of ‘B1’ No. 61306 ‘Mayflower’ – set up the Sandringham Locomotive Company in 2008 “with a view to attracting enthusiast support” for _Manchester United_; this was eventually wound up in 2010 and morphed into the B17 Steam Locomotive Trust the following year, which had the new aim of building No. 61673 _Spirit of Sandringham_.

In the same year as the B17SLT was formed, the NBLPG announced its _Manchester United_ project and launched the 61662 Appeal. “We agreed that the locomotive would (initially at least) be a static replica as we did not want to detract from the trust,” explains Ken. “I am a member of the trust myself and I’m very keen that they succeed.

“The 61662 Appeal received support from Manchester United FC in the form of donations of players’ kit and match balls and we received a couple of good features in their match programme.”

However, although a static replica was the initial intention, the ultimate aim was to eventually create a working ‘Footballer’ – estimated to cost £1.8 million to complete – to which end the NBLPG secured an original LNER Group Standard tender from a Doncaster scrapyard and a redundant ‘B1’ smokebox door. Indeed, the project’s now-defunct website claimed the replica Gresley 4 6 0 would “see regular service hauling special trains on Britain’s main lines” and “when not required for main line duties, we intend to hire the locomotive out for use on UK preserved railways”.

Construction of the static replica got under way at the 7¼in gauge Mizens Railway near Woking, complete with mock-up cab, smokebox, and boiler cladding to create the outline of a ‘B17’. “However, working membership for the project dwindled and by 2019 there were only a few of us turning up,” Ken recalls. Furthermore, the combined effects of outside storage and lack of maintenance during the Covid-19 lockdowns resulted in the mock-up Manchester United deteriorating considerably. “It soon became obvious that we could not continue as we were, and a vote was held among the 61662 members to decide the best way forward.”

In September 2020, 79% of NBLPG’s members voted to donate the LNER tender and other serviceable parts to the B17SLT, and abandon their aims to build No. 61662; only 2% voted to try and continue the project.

“With hindsight, maybe we should have dropped the 61662 Appeal when the Sandringham Loco Company was formed, but at that time we had a lot of Manchester United football supporters on board, and of course we were not to know how well the company/trust would fare,” says Ken. “For my part, I am delighted with their progress, and, from an NBL point of view, the trust locomotive will carry the ‘Sandringham’ name.”

Looking back, the NBLPG’s ‘B17’ project seems a little naïve. Trying to raise funds for No. 61662 when its ‘rival’ started attracting the lion’s share of support for a new-build ‘B17’ was always going to be an uphill challenge. As the continued lack of substantial progress on the Doncaster P2 Locomotive Trust’s planned replica of Gresley 2 8 2 No. 2001 _Cock O’ The North_ has demonstrated, duplicate new-build projects are difficult to justify, particularly when one group has made more headway than the other(s). Plus, having competing projects only dilutes the financial support for both by splitting potential donors.

However, while it perhaps should have been abandoned when it became clear that No. 61673 was the most viable of the two ‘B17’ projects, the decision to drop _Manchester United_ and donate the tender and other serviceable parts to _Spirit of Sandringham_ was a fine example of preservation cooperation, and the NBLPG should be praised for recognising the writing on the wall and taking the mature decision to merge with its counterpart. Certainly, it has been for the benefit of those who wish to see a working ‘B17’, not only in expediting the completion of _Spirit of Sandringham_, but also the uplift in financial support the latter project has received since _Manchester United_ was abandoned.

It’s also ironic that a project that started out as one locomotive, then split into two competing schemes, has now been reunited as a single entity once again.

**GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY ‘CLAUD HAMILTON’/ LNER ‘D16/2’ 4 4 0 No. 8783** **_PHOENIX_**

Another new-build project which started construction but was ultimately cancelled is ‘Claud Hamilton’ No. 8783 _Phoenix_.

These Great Eastern Railway 4 4 0s were incredibly handsome locomotives in any of their various guises, but especially in the ‘H88’/’Super Claud’ iteration with Belpaire firebox and valancing over the wheels. It was one of these engines – specifically No. 8783 – that the Claud Hamilton Locomotive Group was formed in March 2011 to recreate.

Of all the ‘Clauds’, No. 8783 was one of the most notable, as it was one of two ‘H88s’ regularly rostered to haul Royal Trains between Liverpool Street and Wolferton, and was thus kept in immaculate condition. It was also involved in a fatal accident on June 1 1939, when it collided with a lorry carrying straw over Cross Drove occupation crossing near Hilgay station on the King’s Lynn-Ely line; four passengers were killed in the subsequent derailment, after the leading coaches of the train collided with some wagons parked on an adjacent siding.

When originally launched, the CHLG had initially intended to name the replica No. 8783 ‘Lady Hamilton’, after the mistress of one of Norfolk’s greatest heroes, Admiral Nelson, but they subsequently revised this to _Phoenix_ a few months later. From the outset, the group believed the ‘Claud Hamilton’ would take 10-20 years to complete, dependent on fundraising, and that No. 8783 “will be used primarily on heritage railways, however, it will be fitted for, but not with, APWS and OTMR etc to enable it to go main line more easily if _Phoenix_ is deemed suitable.”

Progress during the early years of the project was slow, with the first part – a wooden _Phoenix_ nameplate – only being completed in September 2013. The previous month, the group announced that it would be based at Whitwell & Reepham station, which would act as the parent company; as both organisations shared the same charity number, it has been hard to gauge just how much money the CHLG actually raised toward No. 8783.

The project reached its first milestone in August 2016 when metal was finally cut for No. 8783 – the front bufferbeam. This was followed in December 2018 by the bogie frame plates, then by the acquisition of an original Great Eastern Railway ‘Claud Hamilton’ whistle – believed to have come from ‘D16/2’ No. 1819 (later LNER No. 8819/2590 and BR No. 62590) – in 2019. However, this was the last piece of news from the group – neither the group’s blog or Facebook page have been updated since then.

Sadly, we can confirm the project is no longer active. This outcome is perhaps not surprising, as the group told _Steam Railway_ for our previous survey in 2018 that it had only raised around £2,500 since 2011, a paltry sum against the estimated £1.5 million total build cost. At that rate of income, it would have taken several millennia to raise the anticipated target, inflation and rising material costs notwithstanding.

Former project chairman Dan Knights told _SR_ in June 2024 about why the project was cancelled: “It wasn’t just lack of funds. Once Covid-19 hit, we became in charge of running the home railway, and we felt we didn’t have the time to do justice to the project. We also found issues in that there were hardly any internal motion drawings. Some drawings were marked as slide valve but were piston valve. We have some crude ‘D14’ drawings, but nothing reliable. The cost to design new motion would be huge, and I saw issues with other groups and felt it best to stop, really.

“Obtaining coal was very difficult at the time too. What would it be like when we were to finish? Should we try to look at heating up the boiler in a different way?”

While it is unfortunate that enthusiasts may never see a replica, working ‘Claud Hamilton’, the group should be applauded for taking such a pragmatic decision in the face of such serious obstacles. Indeed, other new-build groups would be wise to have similar introspection, as there are some projects that simply do not have the financial support to match their ambitions – at least not within a viable timeframe.

This was a well-intentioned scheme from a group of enthusiastic, young preservationists who wanted to attract and motivate their peers – a very noble and worthwhile endeavour – but it never generated the necessary momentum or support to make it viable, and thus success became ever more unlikely as the years went by and progress stalled. Alas, the failure of the Claud Hamilton Locomotive Group highlights just how difficult new-build steam really is, and that enthusiasm alone is not enough to make dreams into reality. Sadly, it seems a ‘Claud’ will remain a dream for now.

When it comes to missing links in British locomotive preservation, an LMS Fowler ‘4P’ 2 6 4T is arguably one of the biggest, as these versatile and handsome locomotives not only inspired the William Stanier’s own successful two and three-cylinder 2 6 4Ts (including National Collection example No. 2500), but also the Fairburn 2 6 4Ts (of which Nos. 42073 and 42085 have been preserved), and Riddles’ Standard ‘Class 4’ tanks, the latter being among the most successful and widely used BR Standard designs, working on all the BR regions almost until until the very end of main line steam.

A replica of No. 42424 was first announced in May 2015 by the LMS-Patriot Project – the group behind new-build ‘Patriot’ No. 5551 _The Unknown Warrior_ – as a planned follow-up to the Fowler 4 6 0, with an estimated cost of £1.25 million. No. 42424 was the last of the 125 Fowler tanks to be built between 1927 and 1934; it was chosen as the one to replicate because it “was the last of a batch of 29 Fowler 2 6 4 tanks which incorporated glazed side windows on the cab and other detail changes initiated by Stanier. It is this design which the LMS-Patriot Company plans to build,” the group stated at the time. “No. 42424 was the first of a batch of Stanier 2 6 4 two-cylinder tank engines and it is for this reason that it is planned to reuse the last number in the Fowler 2 6 4T series.”

The LMS-Patriot Project also said the locomotive would “be built to run on heritage lines only, albeit to main line running standard. If enough interest is shown further engines could be built,” but adding that “fundraising will not begin until _The Unknown Warrior_ is completed.”

However, following the much-publicised problems with_The Unknown Warrior_and consequent delay to its completion, the project announced in May 2021 that it was dropping its plans to build No. 42424, saying: “We believe starting another new-build in around 2024 at the earliest is not a wise decision. The locomotive would take around ten years to complete… for a sum of at least £2.5 million.”

Project chairman Colin Hall added in a later interview with _Steam Railway_: “We decided to be open with our members and say our focus needs to be onto 5551, and not blithely raise expectations without something to back it up. Until 5551 steams, \[42424 is\] definitely off the table.

It’s never wise to say ‘never’ to anything because we could end up thinking again.”

So, while a replica Fowler 2 6 4T isn’t completely dead and buried, it is likely to be some years before the LMS-Patriot Project revisits the scheme – if ever – although that doesn’t preclude another group starting its own replica Fowler Class 4 tank project. But, if a replica Fowler 2 6 4T is never realised, we can at least take comfort from the fact that the design’s legacy lives on in the form of Northern Ireland’s sole surviving ‘WT’ 2 6 4T No. 4, which is essentially an LMS Fowler tank, albeit built to 5ft 3in Irish standard gauge.

In hindsight, announcing No. 42424 before _The Unknown Warrior_ was complete was perhaps overly ambitious, particularly when the ‘Patriot’ was still years from completion – even before the engineering problems became known. A Fowler tank is a significant and important missing link, and would be a useful asset for most heritage lines (and on the main line, as No. 4 has proved in Ireland), but the decision to abandon it for the foreseeable future and focus on No. 5551 demonstrates the challenges of new-build steam, and that changing circumstances can obliterate the best-laid plans.

**SOUTH EASTERN & CHATHAM RAILWAY ‘E’ 4-4-0 No. 516**

Like Fowler tank No. 42424, a replica of SECR Wainwright ‘E’ No. 516 was also intended as a follow-up scheme – in this case, as a sequel to Brighton ‘Atlantic’ No. 32424 _Beachy Head_. And, also like No. 42424, it was cancelled before it ever really got started.

The Bluebell Railway-based Brighton Atlantic Group announced in June 2019 that it intended to build a replica South Eastern & Chatham Railway Wainwright ‘E’ class 4 4 0 once _Beachy Head_ was complete, choosing to reproduce No. 516 as not only did it represent the SECR at the 1908 Franco-British Exhibition, but it was also regularly used on Royal Train duties.

Numerous reasons were cited for selecting an ‘E’ over the other pre Grouping Southern designs the group considered, such as a Craven outside-framed 2 4 0, an ‘L’ 4 6 4T, a ‘C2X’ 0 6 0, a ‘D1’ 0 4 2T, a ‘D2’ or ‘D3’ 0 4 4T, an ‘I3’ 4 4 2T or a ‘J’ 4 6 2T: the relatively straightforward design; the availability of drawings; the commonality of design and parts with the surviving SECR ‘C’, ‘H’, ‘O1’ and ‘P’ classes; the ability to haul the majority of Bluebell services; and the availability of components, such as the tender wheelsets, brake linkages, half a steam reverser and brass dome cover. Estimated costs to complete the Wainwright 4 4 0 ranged from £1.2 to £2.5 million.

However, just three years after it was first announced, in the summer of 2022 the Brighton Atlantic Group said: “We have now abandoned our project to build a SECR ‘E’ 4 4 0. It would have been lovely to do. However, the fact is that the Bluebell is much more in need of overhauling some of its many out of--service locomotives.” Thus, any prospect of seeing a replica SECR ‘E’ seemingly evaporated.

Brighton Atlantic Project secretary David Jones explained to _Steam Railway_ the rationale behind abandoning the ‘E’ at the time of _Beachy Head_’s launch last year: “The original idea was to build a LBSCR ‘K’ class ‘Mogul’. That would have been lovely, but having looked into it and realising that we’ve never have seen the end of it because it would have taken so long, we decided to abandon that. And then this idea of an ‘E’ class came up. That was largely to do with the fact that it had similar parts to the ‘C’, ‘H’ and ‘O1’, so we thought we could combine things and build an ‘E’. It would have been quite a useful engine – even though it wasn’t LBSCR – but in the end we decided that it was going to be too big a job.

“So, we looked at other ideas, and there’s always been pressure on the Bluebell to get the Adams ‘Radial’ overhauled, so we thought we’d take that on instead. There wasn’t that much support for the ‘E’ actually, from within the Bluebell’s membership – they’re mainly Brighton people!”

Indeed, an ‘E’ was arguably something of an odd choice, given that the original locomotives didn’t exactly inspire a dedicated following, handsome though they were. Furthermore, by the group’s own admission, based on its age profile, “it is unlikely that the present team will see this project through”, so perhaps abandoning the ‘E’ in favour of something more realistically achievable was a sensible move.

And, not all is lost. While the ‘E’ may be no more, the group is instead taking on the overhauls of two London & South Western Railway veterans – ‘B4’ dock tank No. 96 _Normandy_ and Adams ‘Radial’ No. 30583, neither of which have steamed for many years (since 1990, in the Radial tank’s case). As David told _SR_: “If we’d gone ahead with the ‘E’ class, nothing would have been done to the Adams – to either of the Adams engines, actually. In some respects, it’s been advantageous to both the ‘Radial’ and _Normandy_ to abandon the ‘E’ class.”

Thus, No. 516’s demise means two pre Grouping stalwarts will get another lease of life in preservation, which is arguably more than--adequate compensation.

**GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY ‘J23’/ LNER ‘J50/2’ 0-6-0T No. 8905**

Another new-build project cancelled since our previous survey is the replica of LNER ‘J50’ 0 6 0T No. 8905.

Launched in April 2013 by a group of Bure Valley and North Norfolk Railway volunteers, “many different locomotive designs were looked at, but it was decided to rebuild LNER 0 6 0 ‘J50/2’ No. 8905… as it was a local engine to where the group members live and was an unusual ‘J50’ as she was based at places where very few of her sisters were allocated,” said the group’s website. It added: “The ‘J50s’ were very powerful for their size, having a tractive effort of 22,963lb/f – 1,000lb/f more than a ‘B12’. This will make it perfect for long passenger trains on preserved railways.”

For _Steam Railway_’s previous new-build survey in 2018, J50 Group chairman Jamie Ringwood estimated that building No. 8905 would cost “between £1.3 million and £1.5 million, depending on the cost of materials”, but that the group had only raised £895 in total at that point. Physical construction never got under way, with progress limited to creating some 3D drawings of the ‘J50’ tank, and acquiring a general arrangement drawing from the National Railway Museum.

However, the group announced in February 2019 that “due to circumstances beyond our control, it is with regret that The J50 Group will be closing.” The group did not elaborate further as to why the project was calling it a day, but considering it would have taken several thousand years to raise the money needed for No. 8905 based on the project’s income, the outcome was perhaps inevitable.

While it was great to see a group of young enthusiasts coming together to take on a new-build project, they perhaps underestimated the sheer scale of the challenges – and costs – involved.

What conclusions can we draw from these aborted projects? In the case of _Manchester United_, the lesson is arguably that duplicate new-build projects are a fool’s errand, particularly when one is substantially more advanced than another. The fate of No. 61662 should sound a stark warning for the Doncaster P2 Locomotive Trust, whose scheme to build a replica of No. 2001 _Cock O’ The North_ is lagging considerably behind the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust’s own significantly more advanced Gresley ‘Mikado’, No. 2007 _Prince of Wales_. Although No. 2001 is planned to appear in its post-1938 ‘A4’-style streamlined form – whereas No. 2007 emulates _Cock O’ The North_’s original semi-streamlined configuration – the two designs are arguably not sufficiently different to warrant separate new-build projects. This is evidenced by the great disparity in financial support for both projects, as explored in SR562. With physical progress on _Cock O’ The North_ being a fraction of that made by _Prince of Wales_, and with income far below what is required to complete No. 2001 within a realistic timescale, will the Doncaster ‘P2’ eventually join this list?

In the case of both the ‘Claud Hamilton’ and the ‘J50’, while you cannot fault the enthusiasm of those behind either project, nor their desire to inspire their peers, the failure of both projects demonstrates the importance of building sufficient momentum and gaining the necessary support early on. If a project fails to inspire sufficient support at the outset, then generating it later down the line becomes an increasingly uphill challenge.

As for the Fowler ‘4P’ tank and Wainwright 4 4 0, both were announced by well-established groups with years of experience in building steam locomotives. That both projects, each of which were sensible propositions, have since been abandoned suggests perhaps the appetite for new-build steam is waning. Certainly, the challenges facing any new project starting today are considerably more problematic than those facing projects launched 20 or 30 years ago, with ageing workforces and supporters alike being incompatible with most new-build projects’ 20-year gestation periods. In short, neither group felt their respective projects could be completed within the lifetimes of their teams, while continually rising costs for materials and labour made fundraising even more challenging than it was for their predecessor schemes.

It is also interesting that all the aborted projects listed here would have been ground-up new-builds – i.e. not relying heavily on legacy components such as pre-existing boilers, and instead following the _Tornado_ path in being built from scratch. This is particularly interesting when you consider that the three standard gauge new-build projects to have been completed since _Tornado_ – the ‘Saint’, the ‘Grange’, and _Beachy Head_ – all benefited to varying extents from major pre-existing parts.

And how many more names will join this list? Since we started this latest survey, two more hitherto active projects have stalled – Highland Railway 4 4 0 No. 54398 _Ben Alder_ and North Eastern Railway ‘K’ 0 4 0T No. 559. The latter managed to get further than any of the projects mentioned here, having a complete boiler made before the scheme stalled. However, while both are currently in abeyance, neither has strictly been cancelled. _Ben Alder_ is officially “in stasis”, while No. 559’s builders are hopeful of re-engaging with the locomotive’s sponsor and restarting its construction. However, without a positive change in their circumstances, Nos. 559 and 54398 may yet join the ranks of failed new-build locomotive projects.

And what about the other currently active projects? Without mentioning any specific schemes, there are several projects whose current financial situations and lack of substantial progress suggest that they may also be destined to end up as well-intentioned but ultimately ill-fated ideas. While it may be too early to write them off yet, we need to see some substantial improvement in their fortunes to remove them from the endangered species list.

Former Nine Elms fireman DAVE WILSON recalls his experience on the footplate of ‘Merchant Navy’ No. 35022 _Holland America Line_ when it travelled from Waterloo to Yeovil non-stop, 60 years ago.

This is an account of events that took place 60 years ago on February 28 1965 – just two weeks before my 18th birthday.

Latest on Steam Railway

Latest Articles

Latest Steam Railway Magazine