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?

Steam-Railway-Awards copy.jpg

THE STEAM RAILWAY AWARD: Your chance to vote

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

slieve_gullion.jpg

Slieve Gullion steams for first time in over 20 years

No.-11-Maitland.jpg

The official voice of preservation

bagnalls.jpg

The right person for the job…

bws-banner-price-and-discount.jpg

Subscribe to Steam Railway magazine

Articles

News

Features

Steam Railway Magazine

Back Issues

Latest Issue

Newsletter

Our Magazine

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.

I had started my footplate career at 55C Farnley Junction as an engine cleaner in April 1962, earning £3 12 0 shillings for a 42-hour week. However, it wasn’t about the money; it was about fulfilling my schoolboy dream and emulating those footplatemen in the tales of Ransome-Wallis, O.S. Nock and so on. To further my footplate ambitions, I left Farnley Junction early in 1963 to move up the ladder from passed cleaner to fireman at the legendary Nine Elms shed, on the Southern Region. I was now firing Bulleid’s ‘Pacifics’ on the types of services that O.S. Nock – whose ‘Locomotive Practice and Performance’ column in _The Railway Magazine_ I avidly read – and of which his contemporaries were recording the performances. The schoolboy dream was now my everyday reality.

The enginemen’s mess room at a big shed like Nine Elms swirls with banter and rumour and, at the beginning of February 1965, the big rumour was that there was to be an attempt to run non-stop from Waterloo to Yeovil. It hadn’t been done before and this was my chance to be the first fireman to do so. I knew the job would go to a top link crew, so I set about finding out which crew it would be and if I could persuade the fireman to swap turns with me. The driver was Arthur ‘Spot’ King and his fireman was a lad called Hennings (Dave?). Driver King had earned his sobriquet ‘Spot’ from his habit of asking his fireman to ‘spot that one for me’ – a request to look out for the next signal, usually a distant signal which could be seen first from the fireman’s side of the footplate.

Persuading fireman Hennings to change turns involved money changing hands because the mileage payment for a trip to Exeter and back was a not inconsiderable sum. Mileage was paid at the rate of one hour’s pay for every 15 miles over 140 miles; the round trip from Nine Elms to Waterloo and Exeter and return was 360 miles – 60 miles further than the crews worked on Euston Carlisle services and worth more than 14 hours of mileage pay! A very generous whip-round from the enthusiasts on the tour meant I wasn’t out of pocket, however.

Having persuaded fireman Hennings to swap turns, the next step was to convince driver King and the running shed foreman that I was up to the task. My regular three-link mate Eric ‘Sooty’ Saunders assured them I was a capable and efficient fireman and could, despite my tender years, be trusted to do the job. I would be the first fireman to work non-stop from Waterloo to Yeovil!

Our engine for the trip to Exeter and back was ‘Merchant Navy’ No. 35022 _Holland America Line_ – chosen because she was fitted with a 6,000-gallon tender. The Southern Railway did not have any troughs and the distance between Waterloo and Yeovil is 123 miles – at the very top end of the range for a ‘Merchant Navy’ without taking water. Indeed, water consumption was considered so critical that Arthur Jupp, the footplate inspector riding with us on the day, told me before we left Waterloo that if the water had dropped below the tap (less than 3,000 gallons) when we passed Worting Junction we would have to stop at Salisbury for water.

I had insisted on getting my own engine ready – ‘if tha’ wants summat done reet then do it thi’sen’. The 9am start out of Waterloo meant booking on not long after 7 o’clock. We didn’t get back to Waterloo until 8.30pm, 13½ hours after booking on which, added to the mileage and Sunday rates of time and ¾, meant that for the day’s work I would receive 37½ hours pay – almost a week’s wages. However, this was not about the money; it was about being fireman on a rail tour making a record. Thanks to Don Benn, John Daykin and Mark Thomas of the Southern Locomotive Preservation Group, I now have a complete log of the tour, except for the Yeovil Junction to Exeter section of the Down trip.

The schedule for the 122.9 miles to our first stop at Yeovil Junction was 123 minutes – not excessive for a ‘Packet’ with only ten coaches (370 tons tare), but sharp enough when the need to conserve water is taken into consideration. Departure from Waterloo was ‘on time’ if not a minute early and the key to our success would be careful handling of both boiler and engine over the coming miles. This was not going to be a trip on which speed records would be broken but that did not mean that we would be merely trundling along, as the schedule demanded a mile a minute average. After the compulsory 40mph slack through Clapham Junction, the gradient increases up through Earlsfield. From here the serious shovelling begins. Clear of the Clapham slack, driver King began to get No. 35022 into her stride and our speed had risen to 55mph by the time we passed through Wimbledon; it was up to 64mph at Raynes Park and 70mph as Surbiton slid by. As we settled into a steady 70/71mph through Esher, Hersham and Walton, I was firing to a rhythm of six to eight shovels full and then a short break before repeating the pattern but firing different sections of the grate. Driver King was keeping to within seconds of the booked timings and ’22 was steaming well as we approached West Byfleet where we were brought to a dead stop by signals, probably caused by a movement across our path at Woking.

Of all the places one might chose to be stopped by signals, West Byfleet wasn’t one of them. From Byfleet, the drag up to milepost 31 begins to make itself felt – to make matters worse, No. 35022 began to slip as we restarted. Despite the slip, Woking station was cleared at a little over 30mph and milepost 31 was passed at a creditable 55½mph. For the record, being stopped by signals doesn’t mean that the run wasn’t non-stop. Non-stop, as far as the crew are concerned, is that no station or water stops were made between Waterloo and Yeovil.

The little dip down from milepost 31 through Sturt Lane and on to Farnborough saw speed rise back into the 70s just beyond Fleet, and 76 before Hook and another signal check brought speed down to 35mph. Basingstoke was passed in a shade over 58 minutes, 10 minutes down.

With water still in the tap as we cleared Worting Junction, Inspector Jupp gave qualified thumbs up to running through to Yeovil. With the next 15 miles mostly downhill, I had time to wet my whistle with, what by now was, pretty stewed tea; what mattered was it was wet. Whitchurch flashed by at 77mph, Hurstbourne at 82, and Andover Junction at 88mph. Tea break over, it was time to begin putting a few more rounds on ready for the climb to Grateley.

Speed had dropped to 69mph as we passed Grateley but was back up to 77mph as we sped through Idmiston Halt – the station for the Porton Down germ warfare research establishment (trains only stopped by special stop order issued to the driver) – reaching 85mph as Porton itself was passed.

Permanent way slacks at Tunnel Junction and again through Salisbury station saw us passing Wilton at 46mph, 12½ minutes down on our schedule. By the time we passed Dinton, speed was back in the 60s and I was back on the shovel as we climbed the long 1in145 to Semley through which we passed at 57mph. More than 100 miles into our journey, we dashed through Gillingham at 70mph. This was all new railway to me, as Nine Elms crews rarely ventured beyond Salisbury. New railway has its excitement for the enthusiast; for the fireman, it presents problems of when to fire, when will the driver need steam, and when will the running be easy. When you don’t know the road, making these judgements means relying on others to tell you what is coming up over the next few miles.

From Gillingham to Yeovil, the line is punctuated by two short climbs – one from around milepost 106 and another by Templecombe – but in between these humps there is some good running and No. 35022 reached the 90mph mark as we hurtled through Sherbourne. The 17½ miles between Gillingham and our stop for water at Yeovil were covered in a shade under 17 minutes despite a check as we ran into Yeovil itself. The actual start to stop time for the 123 miles from Waterloo to Yeovil was 132 minutes, nine more than the schedule; the net time was 118 minutes, five minutes under the set timing, making our average speed slightly more than a mile a minute.

From Yeovil, driver King needed a pilotman as he had not signed the road beyond Yeovil, and so we were joined on the footplate by driver Morley of Yeovil Junction for the run to Axminster where some enthusiasts were to make a tour of the Lyme Regis branch while the remaining tour members went on to Seaton Junction for a trip on the Seaton branch. The trip down the Seaton branch was made using four coaches of the main train, and I persuaded Inspector Jupp and driver King to let me go along for the ride.

Back on the footplate after my jaunt down the Seaton branch, it was time, once again, for some serious graft. Seaton Junction is at the beginning of one of the most difficult banks on the entire route and we were going to be tackling it from a standing start. From Seaton Junction to Honiton is roughly seven miles, the last 4½ miles of which are at 1in80 and then into Honiton tunnel.

When we left Seaton Junction, No. 35022 had been standing idle while the Seaton branch trip was made; this is never a good situation when an engine has been working hard and is then left to sit, as the clinker begins to set and the fire doesn’t get enough air through it. The coal was the dross from the back of the tender and of very mixed quality, with a high dust content. This also adds to the fireman’s difficulties. My abiding memory of the slog up to Honiton summit was working with the dart and the shovel as I struggled to keep 160lbs pressure and a half glass of water, alternating with hanging from the cab window watching for the tunnel and the summit – it was a long 4½ miles. And, I would have to say it wasn’t my finest hour as a fireman, as we dropped time hand over fist all the way up the bank. A lesson learned the hard way.

Next stop was Sidmouth and for the enthusiasts a run down the Sidmouth branch and then round the Exmouth branch back to Exeter. For No. 35022 and us, it was light engine to Exmouth Junction shed where we could eat, drink, and ready ourselves for the long journey home. Meanwhile, an Exmouth Junction crew cleaned the fire, turned, coaled, and watered No. 35022 – and, unwittingly, created the drama which was to occur as we began to climb from Salisbury Tunnel Junction to Grately an hour or so later on our return journey.

Engine and men suitably refreshed, it was time to go off-shed and collect our train. The start from Exeter was 18 minutes late at 4.13pm. Running over foreign metals is hard in daylight; it is even more difficult at night, and again I was depending on the pilotman to let me know when the banks, both up and down, were coming. We were scheduled to take 50 minutes for the 49 miles from Exeter to Yeovil Junction – a tight schedule and one which wasn’t met. We were another six minutes late by the time we stopped for water and parted company with our pilotman. We swapped the pilotman for a footplate visitor – there goes my seat again!

Just as we did on the outward leg, we were to make the run from Yeovil to Waterloo non-stop, and this time the schedule was 121 minutes for the 123 miles. By the time we had finished taking water and were ready for the off, we were 26 minutes late. The 39 miles from Yeovil to Salisbury were scheduled to take 43 minutes, which included a 30mph permanent way slack between Gillingham and Semley. Milepost 100 was passed at just a shade under 60mph and the Tisbury Gates to Dinton section saw speeds of 76mph at Tisbury Quarry and 80mph at Dinton before slowing for a 40mph slack through Wilton.

Despite the check at Wilton, the timings were being kept as we approached Salisbury and a dead stand for signals. The 39.3 miles had taken 43 minutes 45 seconds, a mere 45 seconds down. The signal stop was almost three minutes and, when the ‘right away’ came, we were 29 minutes late. I was back on familiar territory now and I knew just what was coming. Once clear of Salisbury station and tunnel, the line climbs steeply over the next ten miles to Grateley. Once out of the tunnel and past Tunnel Junction Signal Box, the shovelling is near continuous up to Grateley – or at least it would have been had the mother of all lumps of coal not fallen across the shovelling plate, completely blocking it.

Opening the door to the tender, I began to hack at the boulder with the coal pick. The lump refused all attempts to split or crack it – a task hampered by the fact that the coal doors prevented a clean swing. Something was going to have to be done; either we would have to stop in section and deal with the problem, or I could climb through the coal door into the tender while we kept going and then attempt to remove the lump through the coal door. Climbing into the tender when the engine is in motion is not only a serious contravention of the rule book, it is also not recommended from a personal safety pointof-view either. With driver King acting look-out and Inspector Jupp watching my position in the tender I began to wrestle the lump free and onto the footplate. Inspector Jupp and I heaved it whole through the fire door – it wouldn’t fit on the shovel anyway. Not quite copy book firing with double-fist size lumps, but we did keep going.

Over the summit at Grateley, the line descends toward Andover and our speed increased from 69mph through Grateley to 86mph at Red Post Junction, touching 90mph through Andover Junction. From here, there is only the pull up through Hurstbourne and Whitchurch to Overton – just one more concerted effort on the shovel and then easy street all the way to Waterloo. Despite the adverse gradients after passing Andover Junction, speed remained in the 70s except for a brief dip down to 68mph between Whitchurch and Overton. Basingstoke was passed with speed up in the 80s and this was being maintained with some ease until a signal check at Fleet brought us almost, but not quite, to a stand. The 36 miles between Grateley and Fleet had been covered at an average speed of 77mph.

The remainder of the journey back to Waterloo was broken only by a permanent way slack through Woking and the permanent speed restriction through Clapham Junction. Amazingly, the return journey had also taken 132 minutes – just the same as the outward journey from Waterloo to Yeovil – and the net time was 121 minutes, exactly the time scheduled, though our arrival was 39 minutes late.

It had been a long, tiring but enjoyable day. We may not have made it non-stop but we did make the 123 miles without taking water – and it was still two weeks to my 18th birthday!

#### September 1825 has gone down as a key date in the history of the railways. But the unfortunate truth for Stockton & Darlington Railway fans is that while the line from Witton Park to Stockton was new, most of the technology was not. A little over 30 miles away, one railway is hoping that 2025 will help it to shine a fresh light on the evolution of railways a century earlier.

The New Year was kicked off in style with the nationwide ‘Whistle-Up’ to start Railway 200 celebrations. One of the most active on January 1 was the Tanfield Railway in County Durham. It turned out eight locomotives to take part in the whistling, five of them steam, and managed to secure a slot on BBC Breakfast news.

For Tanfield, the year 2025 isn’t about a 200th anniversary – but its 300th anniversary. What’s more, it’s not just a big birthday party being planned for ‘Tanfield 300’, as General Manager David Watchman told us, it’s a wholesale programme of work designed to change perspectives about railway history centred around this milestone anniversary.

“It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity,” says David. “We do want to look back at the end of the year and think ‘wow’ we’ve put on a really good show. But we also want to have reached new audiences and made people realise that there’s a lot more to early railway history.”

In the case of the Tanfield route, there really is a whole lot more to early railway history too. Working backwards from what everyone at Tanfield somehow considers to be ‘modern’ history perhaps best illustrates just how much. In 1839, the Tanfield line became part of the Brandling Junction Railway. That’s not a railway name on the tip of many tongues in 2025, but for a period the BJR route into Gateshead was part of the first iteration of the East Coast Main Line. The Tanfield line became arguably the world’s first fully fledged branch line. During the Brandling Junction period, the Tanfield route had its own passenger service and recent research suggests that limited steam locomotive operation could have been introduced by the 1840s too (about 40 years earlier than previously believed).

The southern section of the current Tanfield Railway is something of a historical enigma. It was definitely there by 1839 and probably a lot earlier, but the historical information is complicated by the fact that there have been at least four different arms of the Tanfield route through the area. One served pits in Tanfield village and one served East Tanfield colliery via the western bank of the Causey burn; both via the famous Causey Arch (which we’ll return to shortly). Then there was a route from Causey to pits essentially opposite the front gate of what is now Beamish Museum. And, finally, the route that exists now down the eastern side of the Causey burn. Three of those four are definitely 1720s routes, whereas the exact date of the current route is a bit of a mystery – there’s evidence to suggest that it was a lot earlier than 1839, but nothing conclusive.

From Causey northwards things get a bit more certain. Causey Arch was completed in 1727 to take the aforementioned routes to the Tanfield area. Indeed, when it was built it was commonly referred to as the Tanfield arch. It was widely celebrated and has a span of more than double the later fêted Skerne Bridge on the Stockton & Darlington Railway built almost exactly a century later.

Rails reached the Causey area in 1725. And when we say rails, I’m sure that someone will be immediately declaring them invalid because at the time they were made from wood. It’s true, they were – but this was a long way from primitive beginnings. In areas of heavy traffic, the rails were topped with iron plates. There were points, albeit without moving switch rails it would seem, turntables, double, and even triple track. How do we know all of this? Because the Tanfield line was seen as such a game changer at the time, engineers from around the world came to see it. One was a Frenchman named Gabriel Jars and his highly detailed contemporary drawings survive.

The remaining two miles of the current Tanfield Railway to Sunniside also date to 1725, as did most of the rest of the route down to the River Tyne. But just to emphasise the sheer scale of the evolution that took place in railed transport in this part of the world, one section of the line to the Tyne reused an earlier waggonway route; none other than the Whickham Grand Lease way of 1621. That’s not a typo, it really did date back to 20 years before the English Civil War. And before anyone splits hairs about the terms ‘railway’, ‘waggonway’, ‘railroad’, or whatever – they were all used interchangeably by the early 18th Century. The word ‘rail’ in this use seemingly has its origin in those who first described what to them looked like a fence on its side. Tanfield’s claim to be the world’s oldest working railway is a solid one.

Trying to do justice to that history sounds like one heck of a challenge, but it’s one that the team at Tanfield have certainly not shied away from. Key to their plans is a short stretch of trackbed where those routes to Tanfield diverged adjacent to the current Causey Arch station. It was last used in the 1930s when the London & North Eastern Railway moved its rails right across to the edge of the cutting here as part of a package of works to avoid subsidence. Now it’s going to be re-laid, not with steel or iron rails, but with wooden ones.

The trackbed itself has already been prepared for the rebuilding. By the time you read this, woodwork should be already under way with a planned completion of mid-summer. It’s not just symbolic rails that are being re-laid though. Up at the railway’s Marley Hill workshops, the construction of a replica waggon is also beginning. The waggon will no doubt open a few eyes too as it will clearly demonstrate where what became the ‘chaldron’ waggon and its larger descendants that were widespread until just before the First World War really came from. Impressively, but not unusually for the independently spirited Tanfield Railway, all of the work is being done in-house following extensive research. Naturally, occasional 1720s-style horse haulage is also in its sights.

“It will give a direct comparison with the current railway,” David says. “Visitors will be able to see just how much the ‘modern’ railway has in common with the 1720s railway. It also means that the world’s oldest working railway will get a little longer.”

The launch event for the recreated waggonway is pencilled in for July 19/20 with a very historically focused event using the current railway, mainly as a means of transport to get people to Causey where they will be able to learn more about early railways. Somewhat appropriately, at the opposite end of the station, Causey Arch’s bay platform is also being re-laid, with steel rails (90lb bullhead to be precise), to accommodate mobile visitor facilities during the event. Funding has been secured to adapt a vehicle for the purpose in the medium term to give regular facilities for this idyllic station in a very unusual and historically sensitive location.

It’d be wrong to think that David’s plans are focused on the very early days of railways and horse traction. It must be remembered that the coal-owning families that created the Tanfield route in the 1700s were the same ones who funded George Stephenson in the 1800s – the legendary ‘Grand Allies’.

“The thing that makes what happened here really exciting is that there was this essentially unbroken line from the 1620s to at least the 1920s or 1930s where this part of the world was at the forefront of railway development,” enthused David. “From the wooden waggonway era right through the birth of the steam locomotive and up to the development of early diesel and electric locomotives, Tyneside was the place it was all happening. Even the offshoots of development with the likes of early steam locomotives at Middleton Colliery in Leeds or the Stockton & Darlington Railway itself, all happened with Tyneside expertise at their core.

“It’s really something that the North East can be proud of. And virtually everyone who lives here has family that worked in coal mining, ship building, steel works or the railways that served them. Many people in the North East have a link to the history we’re trying to showcase.”

To try and do justice to all of that, Tanfield has changed its events programme completely for 2025. The focus is on heritage and historical events while some familiar favourites such as the line’s 1940s weekend have been rested.

The year kicks off on February 23 with an event aimed squarely at the local community, acknowledging that very often people don’t visit the heritage on their doorstep. No fewer than 300 free tickets are being given to local people and groups to encourage them to change that habit. Befitting a launch event for ‘Tanfield 300’ as the programme has inevitably been dubbed, there’ll also be freight trains in action and a more intensive timetable than normal for a Sunday in February.

An increased number of freight trains is unsurprisingly a theme for the whole of 2025. What is surprising is that freight trains at Tanfield are now turning a profit. A brake van suitable for ‘ride on’ freight trains was brought to the railway in 2024. It carries the identity of a lost ex-London Midland & Scottish Railway-built brake van sold to the National Coal Board for use at a North East colliery. It has allowed Tanfield to introduce ‘guard experiences’ where participants shadow a qualified guard and even don appropriate costume on board a freight train. The venture means that running a demonstration freight train has gone from a loss-making decision of the heart into a viable business choice – especially where it can be combined with a footplate experience offer. David has high hopes that the concept can be expanded and improved in the years to come.

Tanfield’s investment hasn’t just gone into brake vans. In March the railway will officially relaunch one of its stars back into traffic – Robert Stephenson & Co.-built 0 6 0T No. 3 _Twizell_. Constructed in 1891 for James Joicey’s colliery empire, this elegant machine was ironically destined to work on the route from the collieries around Beamish that replaced one arm of the Tanfield waggonway. _Twizell_ is currently on a very long-term loan from Beamish Museum and has just returned from a ten-year overhaul that included firebox work undertaken at Israel Newton. At the time of writing the veteran is undergoing running-in.

In May, the peak of the celebratory season gets under way with four weekends of action that has been given the title of ‘Great North Festival of Railways’. The first two weekends of May will have a firm Victorian theme with 1863-built Furness Railway No. 20 as the headline guest. It’s also highly likely that at least one more Victorian steam locomotive will be joining the line-up for the month with negotiations under way. For now, the _Steam Railway_ team are sworn to secrecy about what it might be.

It’s not all about the visiting locomotives in 2025. Tanfield has a fleet of six steam locomotives available for traffic at the moment. _Twizell_ will be joined by Andrew Barclays _Horden_ and _Stanley_, Hawthorn, Leslie 0 4 0ST Keighley Corporation Gas Department No. 2, plus Robert Stephenson and Hawthorns-built 0 4 0ST _Sir Cecil A. Cochrane_ and National Coal Board ‘Austerity’ No. 49. If you add in the resident diesel fleet (all of which are locally relevant too) that figure rises to nine, so it’s clear to see that a good show is well within Tanfield’s capability.

Tanfield’s long-standing focal event for enthusiasts is the ‘Legends of Industry’ gala weekend. This year it’s a three-day event over June 20-22. Again, at least one visitor will be taking part with the focus for this event being on locomotives that were built, or worked, in the North East. Negotiations are well under way for a machine that hasn’t worked in the area for around 50 years. With the sizeable home fleet in action too, David is expecting it to be the biggest industrial railway event of the year. With at least seven steam locomotives expected to be in action it’s also looking set to be the biggest gala Tanfield has ever hosted.

In August, attention is likely to return to Causey Arch for a theatrically focused event designed to engage new audiences with early railway history. Such a dramatic location lends itself well to drama of a different kind, but David has other ideas too. “The plan we’re working on at the moment has got a bit of comedy, a bit of fun for families, but it’d educate a new audience.” Waggonway comedy is undoubtedly a new niche that has never before been tackled on the stage – but if ever there was a time to do it, this is it.

Not content, the railway will round off the year with another gala event over the weekend of October 18/19 … although the name, the ‘Gan Canny Gala,’ might need some explaining to those of us who aren’t native to the North East. ‘Gan Canny’ is a traditional alternative to saying goodbye and wishing someone a safe journey in the region. This slot is normally a ‘home fleet’ gala, but for 2025 there’s yet again a visit in the offing.

“Think early steam,” says David, although he very much sees this event, and indeed all of the events planned at Tanfield in 2025, as complementary and not competitive to the Stockton & Darlington events, and a great opportunity to increase understanding of how the evolution of railways took place.

“There are clearly still people out there who believe George Stephenson got up one morning, decided to build _Locomotion_ and the Stockton & Darlington Railway, then suddenly railways were born. It clearly didn’t really happen like that.

“It’s a bit like suggesting the iPhone was the world’s first mobile phone. Railways are just the same – but with an even longer evolutionary period. I think Tanfield is best placed to help people understand,” says David.

Back in 2000, Tanfield celebrated its 275th anniversary with one visiting locomotive (North Eastern Railway ‘H’ class No. 1310 from the Middleton Railway) and a couple of the home fleet. Progress made in the intervening years is clear to see. But what comes after ‘Tanfield 300’?

“I very much see this as a legacy year,” says David. “Hopefully it will kick start a lot of projects. A priority is new buildings to get more stuff under cover. Plus a focus both on being more museum orientated and more business-minded at the same time.”

Preparatory and planning works are already under way for one of those buildings; a large two-road structure at Marley Hill that will become the railway’s seventh new building put up to house or maintain rolling stock since preservation, the majority of those completed since 2000. The railway has also completed a large amount of work to stabilise and preserve Marley Hill engine shed – including reinstalling smoke hoods that allow locomotives to be lit up inside the shed as they last were in pre-preservation days... creating a spectacle for visitors to the oldest working steam engine shed in the world.

Although largely unnoticed, the railways rolling stock collection has also changed in recent years with some vehicles leaving for restorations to be progressed, and others to find new and more appropriate homes entirely. Although the Tanfield Railway has always been focused on rolling stock relevant to the North East, it did collect a few stragglers on the way and there has been an acceptance that those vehicles that don’t score highly in their relevance will probably never reach the front of the queue for attention.

“We’ve been through a difficult time of reviewing stock,” David adds. “Some items have left, hopefully some new stuff will arrive that better meets our collections policy and that process will continue.

“With more undercover storage we’ll be able to make a lot more of the collection presentable and in time more accessible to visitors too. Our collection is second to none and has a host of amazing stories to tell. But at the moment we aren’t good enough at telling them. We have the skills, the knowledge and the passion to do that within the team at Tanfield, but we do need to focus on it a bit more.”

It would be easy to conclude that restoration work is in something of a lull, but that’s far from the case. In reality two of the biggest restoration projects ever undertaken at Tanfield are making great strides.

Currently in the locomotive workshop is Hudswell, Clarke ‘Cornist’ class 0 6 0T No. 38 (Works No. 1823 of 1949). Although built in Leeds, No. 38 was a North East machine for its entire career, starting out at Rising Sun Colliery in Wallsend. Despite a stalled restoration effort decades ago, No. 38 has never worked in preservation. At present, the volunteer workforce is close to completing the rolling chassis of No. 38 while work is also under way on the tanks and bunker. Meanwhile, boiler work has also been taking place. Volunteers at Marley Hill have removed the inner firebox and a new ‘blank’ is being made at Israel Newton, which it is planned to fit in-house at Marley Hill – a first for the line. Completion is still a couple of years off, but progress is strong

Just a few feet away, in the wood workshop, former North Eastern Railway luggage composite No. 456 is also steadily heading for completion. This 1890-built carriage was regarded as a basket case by many, having been cut clean in half when it was moved to a farm after withdrawal in 1915. But, again, an all-volunteer team have risen to the challenge of resurrecting No. 456 on a parcels van chassis.

The body was dismantled down to curb rail level and methodically rebuilt, section by section with new oak grafted in where required. At the time of writing the body is panelled, most of the doors have been refitted and attention is focused on beading. Although impossible to see from the outside, the central luggage compartment has also made it possible to adapt the carriage to provide an improved travelling experience for wheelchair users.

If No. 456 doesn’t make it into traffic in 2025, then North Eastern Railway saloon No. 1173 probably will. It’s an 1869-built four-wheeler, which appeared in _The Railway Children_. Stored for many years awaiting repairs, this unique vehicle is currently being fitted with a new headstock before being prepared for re-entering traffic. Once complete it will bolster Tanfield’s options for on-train catering and events, a very popular afternoon tea service already being a staple of the timetable. And if that isn’t enough, a further NER saloon intended for use at Tanfield – 1870-built No. 70 – is in the latter stages of restoration at Stanegate Restorations and Replicas in Haltwhistle. The waggon fleet isn’t being forgotten either with one of the railway’s Lambton Hetton and Joicey colliery hoppers currently in for assessment before hopefully being restored on-site.

“I remember saying a few years back that I wanted to help change Tanfield from being a ‘hidden gem’ to just being ‘a gem,’ David sums up. “Hopefully ‘Tanfield 300’ will play a big part in doing that.”

If the first few weeks of 2025 are anything to go by, we suspect Mr Watchman will go a long way towards doing just that!

…And now for something completely different. Perhaps stretching the definition of ‘railway locomotive’ to breaking point, ED HURST showcases the self-propelled steam cranes at Sydney’s remarkable Cockatoo Island dockyard.

Any vehicle in which steam is the primary form of motive power could be described as a locomotive – from railway engines to traction engines (more widely categorised as road locomotives) and plenty more besides.But what about steam cranes? More specifically, steam cranes that run on rails. We’re not talking about the cranes built by the likes of Grafton, Cowans Sheldon, or Ransomes & Rapier and used by British railway companies for assisting with permanent way work or recovering derailed rolling stock. The cranes we’re talking about are much bigger, running on rails much wider than standard gauge. Yet, they have a boiler, which burns coal to turn water into steam, which is then passed into a cylinder from which reciprocal motion is converted into rotary motion, driving the machine along its tracks. They are, by definition, locomotives. Just perhaps not the locomotives _Steam Railway_ usually covers…

What comes to mind when you think about Sydney? Obviously, the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. Probably Bondi Beach. Perhaps the Manly Ferry. But after that…? Picture-postcard beaches and one of the world’s most beautiful harbours set against a background of gleaming high-rise buildings, people running about their modern lives like ants…

One thing I bet you don’t think about is an island in the harbour covered in cavernous shipyard buildings, impressively large docks, a menagerie of steam cranes and vivid remnants of a penal colony (shades of Alcatraz, perhaps). Oh, and a small network of usable track, so that some of those steam cranes can occasionally be seen purposefully going through their paces. Most visitors and locals don’t know this even exists, but if you stand on the Harbour Bridge and know where to look, there it is in plain sight…

Cockatoo Island – from the word ‘Wareamah’ in the local Aboriginal language – is the largest in the famous harbour and sits more or less at the confluence of the Parramatta and Lane Cove rivers. Though developed over the last couple of centuries since colonisation, the island was once heavily wooded. Its natural 32-acre area has been increased by reclamation to a somewhat more spacious 44 acres. Despite the changes, the island remains of great importance to the traditional custodians and owners of the land.

From 1839, the island began to be used as a convict gaol. In some ways, it was almost a ‘meta‐prison’; people who had already been transported to Australia, and found to have committed further offences, were then incarcerated on Cockatoo Island. Prisoners were made to construct their own barracks, and many of the buildings from that period survive to this day. Stone was manually quarried on the island for major construction projects and, in recognition of the island’s excellent qualities for use as a shipyard, between 1847 and 1857, 1.5 million cubic feet of stone was dug out to build Australia’s first dry dock (Fitzroy Dock), which can be seen in some of the pictures accompanying this article. These days, although no longer a working dock, you can see its impressive 196m length and 23m breadth. It was the largest in the southern hemisphere when built; indeed it eclipsed all other engineering projects in Australia at the time. From these early beginnings,Cockatoo Island’s dockyards would come to play an important role for well over a century.

The beginning of Cockatoo Island’s maritime history in the 1840s was partly driven by a heightened rivalry in the Pacific between the United States and the European powers – causing Britain to seek out a centre for its naval activities. The deep waters of the harbour made Cockatoo Island perfect for this and the convict workforce was a useful resource with which to kickstart construction. A major shipbuilding and repair facility was founded on the island in 1857 and was to be in continuous use until 1991. Initially, convicts were engaged in scraping and painting vessels, but the tasks carried out here rapidly became both more extensive and more professional. In time, the island played an increasingly vital role during some critical moments in history.

In 1869, the island ceased to be a penal colony, and the prisoners were transferred to another part of Sydney. Soon afterwards, educational institutions for boys and girls were established – often using the former prison buildings – and continued to operate until 1911. These included an industrial training school for girls, a reformatory (for young women convicted of crimes) and a nautical school for boys. Conditions were harsh, particularly in the reformatory.

The dockyard continued to operate alongside, separated from the institutional area on the high ground. In 1888, the female occupants of the island were moved away, and prisoners made a return, staying there for another two decades. This tough and sustained role as a convict site has led parts of the island to acquire UNESCO World Heritage status. It is well worth exploring those structures and trying to imagine how it would have felt being incarcerated there. Just imagine being transported to the other end of the world, thousands of miles away from all that was familiar, often for minor crimes, then ending up doing hard labour on a small island without any apparent hope. Quite a contrast to the glamour of the modern harbour.

In 1890, Sutherland Dock opened, further expanding the island’s industrial capacity and eclipsing the size of Fitzroy Dock – which was still used to work on smaller vessels. By 1913, Cockatoo Island had started to serve the Royal Australian Navy, with the former prison buildings now used as offices – and it would play a pivotal role in the allies’ ability to fight in the southern hemisphere during both world wars. During the 1914-18 war, the island built over 50 ships and repaired over 150. The workforce peaked in 1919 at a remarkable 4,085 people. This period saw investment in new facilities and technology including, impressively, a new power station, which replaced the earlier pumphouse and provided electricity throughout the island.

Electricity was supplied from two steam turbine-driven generators – the largest such plant in the country. This facility fell into disuse after the Second World War, but the key structures (including an impressive chimney and the powerhouse itself, built in Federation Romanesque style) and some of the electrical, hydraulic and pumping equipment remain in place – making it an important time capsule.

The interwar years saw a decline in the dockyard’s fortunes and the facility was leased to a private company – the Cockatoo Docks & Engineering Company. Work diversified to include building mining machinery and contributions to the massive Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme.

The Second World War saw a renewed, crucial role, and it became the main South Pacific ship repair base for the Allied forces. Cunard liners _Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Aquitania_ and _Mauretania_ were converted into troop ships here in 1940. Nineteen new ships were constructed and major repairs were undertaken to 40 allied warships, including US cruisers _New Orleans, Portland, Chester_ and _Chicago._ All this required further upgrades to the island’s infrastructure, including the construction of the turbine shop you can see in one of the pictures accompanying this article. In the post-war years, refits to former naval vessels became a major focus.

In 1947, Vickers took a majority shareholding in the company that held the lease for the dockyard and would operate it in various corporate configurations into the 1980s. A new wharf allowed submarine refits to become part of the island’s work. There was even a peak in refits in association with the Vietnam War (in which Australia was an active participant).

However, by the 1960s commercial work was in decline and naval work was opened up to competition; several major contracts were won by competitors and things began to look bleak. The machinery was by this time well out-of-date and would have required expensive replacement if the facility were to have had a long-term future. The last ship to be built on the island was HMAS _Success,_ launched in 1984, and the final submarine to be refitted was HMAS _Orion_ in 1991. After 134 years of varied and profound history, things had finally caught up with Cockatoo Island shipyard, and it closed at the end of that year.

To someone who worked there in its prime, or who had suffered incarceration on the island, the many surviving buildings must seem eerily quiet and empty; large workshops, slipways, wharves and some machinery survive – allowing visitors, with a little imagination, to picture what the place would have been like in those hectic, busy years – but many buildings and most of the machinery has gone. Worst of all, the craftsmen, the apprentices, the lifetimes of skills and comradeship, the human vitality are no more than ghosts.

Nonetheless, it’s easy to see why Cockatoo Island remains so significant, and these days it appears on Australia’s ‘National Heritage List’, housing the nation’s most extensive and varied record of shipbuilding.

The preservation of the place truly began in 1995 by the Friends of Cockatoo Island, which led to the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The fact that this place remains so special owes much to those formative years and the passionate work that’s been done ever since.

By 2000, Cockatoo Island was derelict and inaccessible to the general public. As part of the important story of First Nations rights becoming more prominent, it became the scene of a protest and land claim – aligned to major campaigns then taking placing in Canberra. An Aboriginal rights group rowed to the island, claimed the land and established a camp, before embarking on legal action in the NSW Supreme Court. Although the claims were ultimately rejected, there is an enduring respect for the indigenous history of the place and remaining evidence of the camp is now officially marked. Alongside the remnants of the penal colony and the industrial structures, this chapter represents in microcosm important aspects of Australian history and the challenges that remain to this day.

The Harbour Trust began work in 2001 to rehabilitate Cockatoo Island (and various other former defence sites on Sydney Harbour), leading to a public opening in 2007. For the first time, we could all board a ferry in the glamorous parts of the city and travel to this historic, gritty place. As everyday life carries on all around, and modern yachts sail past, you can stroll around the island with a freedom the old convicts would have envied, and try to picture their lives, or those of the generations of dockyard workers who once worked here. Much of the detail of those periods may have gone, but so much survives that it really doesn’t take a vivid imagination to take yourself back a century or more.

Remarkably, the island still plays host to 17 cranes and a range of historic buildings that comprise the Ship Design and Industrial Precincts. Alongside the north side of Fitzroy Dock can be seen the Mort’s Dock Steam Crane, built in 1891 just across the water in Balmain. This wonderful crane (pictured on the next page) is fixed in position and has just been returned to steam.

Next to it, occupying a short section of usable track, can be found a travelling steam crane, built at Priestman’s of Hull some time between 1885 and 1890\. This crane was recently returned to steam for the first time since the 1980s. On the other side of the dock is a near-identical travelling steam crane, also in steamable condition and situated on a section of usable track. This example is fitted with platework for the wartime blackout. In addition to the activities you’d expect of shipyard cranes, these travelling cranes were also used to tow ships into dock.

Dotted around the island are numerous other cranes, varying widely in size and vintage. Now, we must acknowledge one of the strangest facts about the Cockatoo Island cranes. Although the rails are quite extensive, and once covered a large area of the island, they are not all built to the same track gauge. It is not even possible to put the cranes from one side of Fitzroy Dock onto the rails on the opposite side. No one quite seems sure how this came to be.

It has been suggested that it is because some cranes started their lives elsewhere and were moved to Cockatoo Island, so rails were simply laid to suit them. Others believe that it is merely a piecemeal arrangement; nobody ever expected cranes to need to move across different parts of the island, as they were made for a specific purpose, so the lines were perhaps built to fit the confines of each location (and some of the running sections have extremely tight clearances). A definitive answer has proven elusive, but it’s quite an odd state of affairs!

But there is one part of the island where craftsmanship and engineering endeavour continue to this day. In the industrial precinct is a workshop in which a fascinating assortment of projects are under way. If you’d visited the island on November 7 2023, you’d have found an unassuming but immensely capable gentleman called Ian Macdonald (Restoration Volunteer Supervisor). On that day, as on so many others, he was working with a dedicated team of very practical people to put the finishing touches to one of the Priestman travelling steam cranes in readiness for its steam test. Last-minute problems were tweaked and repaired with a quick weld. Imperial bolts which they had fashioned by hand (you can’t buy them anymore!) were tightened. Skills that depend on decades of practical work and keen eyes were used to carry out final fettling. Coal is roped up by hand a few metres to the firebox, and water is entering the vertical boiler at long last. Amazingly, that boiler doesn’t originate from this crane but was found in a yard in Narrabri and brought down to enable this crane to be restored. You can still see the one that was removed from the crane sitting in a nearby corner, surrounded by firewood and kindling.

In the background, we see a host of other practical jobs under way, including the restoration of a boat that will soon operate on the harbour once again. What’s going on here might be on a much smaller scale than the island’s former work – and depends much more on a passionate style of ‘cottage industry’ – but it’s clearly very much in the tradition of Cockatoo Island and is incredibly impressive.

After several hours of patient, anxious endeavours, the steam test was passed and those smiling faces revealed the kind of satisfaction that can only come from years of quiet, determined work. Steaming days are not frequent here, but when they happen the fruits of the team’s labour are there for all to see. It is hard to believe that on a recent open day, three steam cranes were in operation, moving around demonstration loads to the delight of throngs of visitors. As with so many steam preservation schemes the world over, we must thank the efforts of this dedicated group of skilled, unassuming people for what we can all just turn up to and enjoy.

If you find yourself in Sydney, a visit to Cockatoo Island highly recommended. Ideally, seek out one of those occasional steaming days. Come with plenty of time, wander about, enjoy one of the cafés here, take part in some of the cultural events or even stay the night! You can choose between camping or taking up accommodation in one of the historic buildings… And all around, the modern city looks on, hardly even noticing.

Oh, and can a visitor to the island expect to see flocks of cockatoos? It’s unlikely. The name harks back to the time centuries ago, when Wareamah was covered in red gumtrees and sulphur-crested cockatoos were plentiful. These days, you’re more likely to be set upon by seagulls, which nest here and seem to believe the whole place is theirs.

_My sincere thanks to Ian Macdonald, Andrew Moran, Michael Ring, Jeffrey Thompson, Owen Currie, Joseph Yui, Stephen Buck and Lily Pai (of the Harbour Trust) who were all extremely helpful in the preparation of this article._

#### In the fifth part of our new-build steam locomotive projects survey, we analyse those resurrecting extinct British Railways Standard designs.

Latest on Steam Railway

Latest Articles

Latest Steam Railway Magazine