Traditionally, a locomotive takes its identity and ancestry from its frames...whatever the wheels suggest; boilers, fireboxes...all are regularly replaced.
Somewhat similar to the story of the John Bull, built in 1831. Boiler replaced, cylinders, wheels, etc. the frame interestingly enough is original. Then finally ended up as a stationary boiler for a sawmill. When it was "restored" even more changes were made. However, as John Bull had no sister engines there is no mystery surrounding its identity.
As I recall, the legend goes that John Bull was delivered to the Camden & Amboy Railway in pieces with no instructions on how she was supposed to be assembled. It was up to the railway's chief engineer, Isaac Dripps, a veteran steamboat engineer who had never seen a railway locomotive before, to put the parts together as best he could. Originally, she had been meant to be an 0-4-0 similar to Canada's first engine "Dorchester", but Dripps made several modifications during the assembly process and shortly into her operating life. Among these were leaving off her side cranks and coupling rods, leaving her as a rather unusually proportioned 4-2-0, refitting her with a valve gear of his own design after the one she'd come with proved problematic, and after a short time in service fitting her with a set of guiding wheels to help her better ride the rough American track, mounted on the world's first cowcatcher, meant to help with the largely unfenced right-of-way. On her "restoration" by the Pennsylvania Railroad at their Altoona Shops in the 1880's, she was more or less rebuilt based more on the engineers' whims than any surviving documentation, into a shape that they estimated roughly approximated her 1831 form. Nonetheless, after some years on display in the Smithsonian and following another overhaul at Altoona, she was able to steam under her own power all the way from Philadelphia to Chiago for the 1893 World's Fair and then back to Washington afterwards, even counting President Grover Cleveland among the passengers in her replica C&A coaches. Open to corrections.
@@sirrliv That's the story as I know it. Conservation and preservation where not given much thought at that time, so a lot of material, that we today would love to have preserved was trashed when the loco was "restored". One comment about Dripps' assembly though, is that the locomotive was ordered by Robert Stevens, who had seen steam locomotives before, and almost surely would have been available to Dripps if he had any questions. There is another very early British locomotive in the U.S. that has more of the original engine left, the 1838 Rocket built by Braithwaite, Milner & Co. It was late in its career modified with a cab and a saddle tank, but these were readily removed when the engine received cosmetic restoration for the 1893 World's Fair. Unfortunately, at some point after that, the smokestack was shortened. It's a pretty interesting engine with a Bury-style bar frame, I remember seeing it at the Franklin Institute 15 or so years ago, and was quite surprised as I had never heard of it before I saw it.
I think the identity confusion must be purely to do with lack of accurate records from when the engine worked for the Harbour Board, but it must BE Lion; by my deduction, it must be that when the engine was re-boilered by the Harbour Board, they decided for a longer boiler barrel as they thought it would make for better water passage than the boiler with which it was sold to them; and then when the Princes Dock pumping house opened, rather than invest in a brand new pump and since the Harbour Board probably had bought a more contemporary engine to do Lion's shunting duties, they simply installed her in the pumping house and modified her accordingly, especially since the new boiler would have been still have been in good shape and therefore couldn't easily be wasted. Therefore it is indeed Lion; only it's a blend of parts from her Liverpool & Manchester days, her Harbour Board period and the cosmetic judgments of the London Midland & Scottish Railway in her 1920s refit. Samuel F.
HI Samuel. When the locomotive now known as Lion was discovered doing duty as a pumping engine there was no name plate, no builders plate, no clue as to its identity. We know the Harbour Board purchased Lion in May 1859 - but what gets overlooked is that the Harbour Board purchased two similar engines at the same time. And already had a couple of obsolete 1830s engines at work. We don't know whether it was Lion or any other locomotive working for the Harbour Board which was used as a pump on Princes Graving Dock in 1875. It might even have been another old scrapper entirely. When the locomotive now know as Lion was first found it was considered to be an old LNWR locomotive (correct) from the Manchester & Birmingham Railway; oral tradition suggested it had been once called Lion or Tiger and had belonged to the LNWR. We just don't know it *is* the same locomotive as purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway in 1838, which subsequently became Ballast Engine No. 14 on the LNWR. After the locomotive is purchased, the paper trail goes cold other than for the 1865 boiler but again, there's no name, no claim nothing on the paperwork for that 1865. It doesnt say "Boiler for Lion". But the dimensions do correspond with the present boiler. Anyway, you can find out more in my book :-)
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Fair points, but here's the catch of mine; they would not just pick any random engine to make over as a pump. Based on other cases where a locomotive was sold on to private industry and preservation on account of good mechanical condition and recently-overhauled state, it could surely be agreed on that they would have taken advantage of an engine that had refit work done to it only a decade prior and was still in good shape. Also its Lion name was likely removed once it had come into the hands of the LNWR, so there must be support there with the name not being evident in post-L&M records. Samuel F.
@@samuelfarris1949 The boiler made in 1865 by the Harbour Board has no names no claims. In terms of size it is highly likely that they would have made one to suit the locomotive, i.e. so it was a replacement in terms of size. That's just how new boilers are made. We dont know which to any of five elderly locomotives owned by the Harbour Board it was built for. IF the Harbour Board replaced Lion's original 7ft 4in boiler wth one a foot longer, then that would have meant new frames - and no one was building sandwich frames engines then - new valve gear, new connecting rods, new eccentric rods, new coupling rods. Basically a completely new locomotive. It is highly unlikely they would have built a new locomotive to accommodate a new boiler. It's more likely the boiler was made to the dimensions of an existing boiler. And that it was made to fit which ever locomotive needed it as the drawings had no name, no claim. Then, again there is also evidence currently carried on "lion" was second-hand, coming from Locomotive 149. And there is also evidence that the boiler currently carried by the engine was made, or renewed or extensively repaired in the 1890s. The fact it is made from Low Moore Iron, that the rivets are hand closed suggest a mid-19th date, as do the plate sizes especially for the firebox plates as plates so large could not be made before about 1849. There is also evidence that Lion in fact ran as a Saddle Tank whilst working for the Harbour Board which would explain why it is fitted with a Leeds type boiler. That would be a pretty simple conversion: the old boiler was pretty much worn out, build a new boiler, throw away the tender and put a saddle tank on and some coal bunkers. Just look at some of the wierd and whacky machines turned out by Isaac Watt Boulton from geriatric locomotives to see the type of conversion I'm talking about. And £350 for a new boiler, plus saddle tank etc would be about right. But the point is, the present boiler on the locomotive was made to replace a boiler the same size. And that size does not correspond with known historical data for Lion.
@@samuelfarris1949 The problem with the Habour Board records, is not that they're not accurate. Far from it. They're very detailed. But also it's that there's literally tons of them. In weight. Hundreds of minute books and miscellaneous files, folders and papers, most of which has never been catalogued other than the official records of the Company (finances, minutes).
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Just edited my previous comment, so it just focuses on what I believe must be an eligible case to justify why the two look similar but have differences to them. I must say it's quite an interesting matter this, but I must say it can be fun as well as serious to draw down the plausible explanations to the one that best fits the outcome. Thank you Dawson; a most riveting online discussion. Hope my final decision helps in any way, and all the best with your book. Samuel F.
I saw her in the Titfield Thunderbolt when the film first appeared. Praise to the LMS for rescuing her. I never did quite get the detail of Gab Motion for the valve gear though. What a shame she is 'stuffed' (just like City of Truro!). PS, I speak RP but admire your diction. I love to roll my R's, now that I can speak Polish, but were you an actor/ (forgive my intrusiveness!).
Thankfully in the early 1990s Liverpool Museums took an enlightened approach to "lion" and decided that any future restoration and operation - both of which are destructive - would represent too much loss of historic fabric. Therefore, like "Rocket", "Locomotion", "Puffing Billy" she has been preserved and conserved in a climate controlled environment for future generations to learn from. Indeed, in writing my book on "lion" and carrying out an archaeological investigation of her, we have learned a great deal about her history and construction and even the quality of the materials used to build the locomotive. Something which would be lost in any "restoration". The work done in 1979 would not be sanctioned now as far too much material original to the locomotive's working life was lost including the regulator, main steam pipe, all the fixings, and brass boiler tubes. And no record was made of them. Absolutely heart-breaking. Happily more enlightened views are coming to the fore regarding the preservation and conservation of historic working machinery other than "restore it, steam it" but I think it will require a generational shift for the average enthusiast. The Spirit of the 1970s and early days of preservation live on with "steam everything!", that and for Heritage Railways "more track!" Both are not sustainable. To answer your question about diction: I am a stammerer.
Wow! Thanks for that Lion history lesson. I'm currently building a 5" g model, it's great to learn for about this engine, looking forward to your book.
Yes, I've seen. There's also a replica being built, too, of the locomotive in as-built condition (without the silly brass firebox cover). we hope to steam her in 2030 for the bicentenary of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway.
@@thomashenderson3901 About the original engine or the replica? we're hoping to start a website and gofundme this year. We do have a facebook page, but everything has been put out of kilter due to the pandemic. out first funding targets are for the boiler and crank axle. Those are our single biggest expenses. For the original engine: www.waterstones.com/book/lion/anthony-dawson/9781445685052
Hornby have announced that they are working on a HO/00 model of Lion as preserved for future production. This a generating a good amount of interest. Inspired as a follow up after the high demand for their replicas of Rocket and coaches.
Indeed they have. So too another UK manufacturer. Of course the model coaches Hornby have produced to run with their model of Rocket are those built by the LMS at Derby in 1930 to run behind Lion at Wavertree Recreation Ground in September 1930. Whilst the models are lovely, the Rocket model is inaccruate and the carriages, well, let's just say they can only be used in the preservation era and not in any historical models. One hopes the Lion model will be more accurate; again with it being in post-1930 condition can only be used in a preservation rather than historical setting.
In reflection of what I stated in my previous debate with the video's creator, and having recently updated the Wikipedia page on 'Lion', here are some new thoughts I've gathered. The Wikipedia page states that Lion first received its present-dimension boiler and associated modifications during its 1841 rebuild at Edge Hill, and despite the evidence explained in contradiction of Lion having received new boiler dimensions while in L&M service, I have to take the time placement that the Wikipedia source gives as valid, given that, as Andrew Dawson pointed out to me in my previous debate with him, sandwich-frame construction for engines was already obsolete by 1865. Even by 1850, locomotives with wheels placed outside the frames had become the general norm in design practice for fairly obvious maintenance-based reasons. So it would have been basically a new boiler, with a different rivet layout because it was another firm that provided it, and doing away with the original tender in favour of a saddle tank, given that it would have not been doing much to consume its water by shunting within the harbour limits. The lack of evidence supporting 'Lion' being the engine given a new boiler in 1865, might be legitimately explained, as I touched upon fleetingly before, that 'Lion' would have already lost its name going right back to when it was absorbed into the London & North Western Railway, who clearly would have removed the name and just applied a number, given that 'Lion' was a goods engine and the LNWR, like many railway companies, only ever named its main passenger engines. As far as the Harbour Board would have been concerned, the engine sold to them in 1859 just had a number. So I'd say the Harbour Board were instrumental in preserving 'Lion' without knowing it had that name when first built until the Old Locomotive Committee determined that. As for why known records from the Liverpool & Manchester Railway state Lion always ran with a 7ft-4 boiler, it is most likely that when it was rebuilt at Edge Hill, the company directors were simply not told how extensive the rebuild actually was; they would have passed Lion as a rebuild of an old engine rather than an almost new locomotive in order to keep expenditure down. I can certainly agree that the cosmetics the LMS provided in 1930 to make it look 'period' look rather dainty compared to the trim chimneys and firebox covers that even original 19th Century artwork accurately depict. Regards, Samuel Farris.
Hi Sam, having crawled all over Lion for the production of my book on Lion, I can tell you that the frames, wheels, cylinders, valve gear are all from the 1840s. The wheels were re-tyred in the 1850s. The boiler dates from 1865 and was probably rebuilt c.1900. It is highly likely Lion lost its tender working on the Liverpool Docks and was a tank engine. I dont think the tank it carried in the pump house was in use when it was a working locomotive. The Board of Directors were certainly aware that Lion had been rebuilt and that the rebuild cost more than a new locomotive. Lion however was not re-numbered when we know locomotives were renumbered when they were basically rebuilt and repaced as new. There is a list of all the locomotives repaired/rebuilt/renewed at Edge HIll and Lion and Tiger is listed as a rebuild. I'd suggest, if you haven't already, having alook at my book on Lion and also Liverpool & Manchester Locos as they go into far more detail than I can here. All the best. Anthony
Very interesting & well presented. I do wonder is this the same for what remains of Stephensons Rocket? Or is it actually said engine remodelled to a Northumbrian engine.
Rocket is very definately Rocket. The boiler barrel, cylinders, crossed head, pistons, piston rods, frame, axles and some firebox components date from 1829. The valve gear is an in-service replacement (1829-1836) and the wheels are also in-service replacements (1839-1836). The present chimney and carrying wheels date from a mid C19th restoration when it went on display at the Patent Museum, latterly the Science Museum. It's a remarkably complete locomotive. Lion, however, may not even be Lion as the locomotive now on display does not match any known historical dimensions of Lion.
Surprised no build numbers are on the frames etc. as was done by later manufacturers, eg FR 20, ok 20 odd years later, was only correctly identified from the stamps inside the frames.
There are stamps on the crank axle and valve gear, but simply with L&M and component number. They're all made with the same stamp and the style of stamp is c.1840-1850s. So it confirms the crank axle and valve gear belong together.
did her appearance in the Titfield thunderbolt do anything for the Lion and was she in working order at the time they made the filming for it or was she restored for her staring role? I understand that during the making of this Film Lion had a special driver who acted as her minder who made sure that she was not damaged during filming?
The tender was damaged in a collision during the making of the film. As it was not original that is hardly the end of the world. What is remarkable is that it was restored yet again by Ruston of Lincoln for the L&M's anniversary, which must have made it the worlds oldest working locomotive at that time.
@@NJPurling It was restored by Ruston Diesels in Newton-Le Willows, the old Vulcan Foundry of Charles Talyeur & Co. "Lion" was not the world's oldest working locomotive at the time as the Smithsonian Institution in the USA restored "John Bull" of 1831 to steam at the same time. It's possible "Lion" was the oldest for a brief period in 1980.
The mention of the boiler explosion, I doubt greatly can be attributed to Lion and her driver. Perhaps faulty safety valve or poor boiler platework, etc. Certainly an internal fault, not due to a banker.
I can see what you're saying but not really. Trigger's Broom had seventeen new heads and eleven new handles....whereas Lion is pretty much still the 1841 locomotive. The only major change is the boiler. Which is really quite remarkable.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory , i think it is remarkable that so many of the early locos remain. you point to the magazine article that questions whether it is the remains of lion. do you think it is? here in australia, the first nsw loco was saved and has a nice cozy home. the story is that the first victorian ones disappeared from history. however, i came across a victorian museum photo on this internet taken in 1990 of part of a frame and some wheels in a farm paddock in the north of the state. the catalog number was MM070585. i can't find it now. i have to wonder how the remnants can be left out in the open for photos to be taken and not rushed to the safety of a museum. and as china is desperate for scrap iron, i'd wonder if they are still there.
@@vsvnrg3263 I cover the history and 'originality' of Lion in my book on her - coming this Autumn. It really is quite remarkable how many early locomotives are left: amazingly all three of the Rainhill contenders still exist 190+ years later in some form or another. It's mind blowing really. One of the big tragedies of preservation is that original Great Western Broad Gauge engines were scrapped in the twentieth century. I think the big problem is a matter of cost for restoration or conservation. In the UK at most preserved lines there are rows of rusting 'preserved' locomotives in various states of repair or disrepair under a tarpaulin waiting the time, money and enthusiasm to do something with them. Carriages are even less lucky with wooden bodied C19th coachesd on bricks and under tarpaulins indefinately slowly turning into compost. Goods waggons are even less loved. All a bit sad really but entirely down to economics. One may even dare to say, with the number of locomotives sitting rusting away on sidings that perhaps too many locomtoives were saved? Heretical I know but is it better a locomotive rusting away at a preserved line than say at the infamous Barry Scrapyard? As a carriage nerd the number of rescued Victorian carriages weith little hope of running again is heart-breaking but then again they're of limited passenger carrying capacity, will be expensive to restore, and are less safe than the good old BR Mark 1 (which can carry more passengers, have electric lights and loos) then Mk 1s will be the way forward for most lines. There are some noble exceptions, however, such as the Isle of White, Bluebell and even Foxfield which all run Victorian coaching stock. Sadly at the moment there's just no the money to restore or store things properly. Gosh that's a bit down beat. Sorry.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory ,i totally concur with the points you raise. i await your book. truth can hurt. in victoria, hundreds of old pre 1880's 4 and 6 wheeled cars (most were imported from uk) were reused as smoko huts, overnight accomodation and storage sheds. they were used everywhere, including in the shunting yard near where i grew up. the railways sold many of them and every few years one turns up in a back yard as a chookhouse or such. very much modified of course. the most recent was in castlemaine. the news article referred to one that turned up in ballarat a few years prior. back in the 1950's the victorian railways restored 3 of the oldest. they are treated respectfully and are trotted out on special occasions. the wikipedia page referred to them as the victorian railways best kept secret. and as for storage, victoria has only recently provided a roof for some of its loco treasures which have been sitting in the weather near the coast.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I believe one W Stanier FRS was responsible for the destruction of what few broad gauge locos the GWR had preserved and had he got his way would have done the same to anything historic on the LMS.
Well, my brain now feels like a baked noodle. Thank you though, that was fascinating.
Traditionally, a locomotive takes its identity and ancestry from its frames...whatever the wheels suggest; boilers, fireboxes...all are regularly replaced.
Somewhat similar to the story of the John Bull, built in 1831. Boiler replaced, cylinders, wheels, etc. the frame interestingly enough is original. Then finally ended up as a stationary boiler for a sawmill. When it was "restored" even more changes were made. However, as John Bull had no sister engines there is no mystery surrounding its identity.
As I recall, the legend goes that John Bull was delivered to the Camden & Amboy Railway in pieces with no instructions on how she was supposed to be assembled. It was up to the railway's chief engineer, Isaac Dripps, a veteran steamboat engineer who had never seen a railway locomotive before, to put the parts together as best he could. Originally, she had been meant to be an 0-4-0 similar to Canada's first engine "Dorchester", but Dripps made several modifications during the assembly process and shortly into her operating life. Among these were leaving off her side cranks and coupling rods, leaving her as a rather unusually proportioned 4-2-0, refitting her with a valve gear of his own design after the one she'd come with proved problematic, and after a short time in service fitting her with a set of guiding wheels to help her better ride the rough American track, mounted on the world's first cowcatcher, meant to help with the largely unfenced right-of-way.
On her "restoration" by the Pennsylvania Railroad at their Altoona Shops in the 1880's, she was more or less rebuilt based more on the engineers' whims than any surviving documentation, into a shape that they estimated roughly approximated her 1831 form. Nonetheless, after some years on display in the Smithsonian and following another overhaul at Altoona, she was able to steam under her own power all the way from Philadelphia to Chiago for the 1893 World's Fair and then back to Washington afterwards, even counting President Grover Cleveland among the passengers in her replica C&A coaches.
Open to corrections.
@@sirrliv That's the story as I know it. Conservation and preservation where not given much thought at that time, so a lot of material, that we today would love to have preserved was trashed when the loco was "restored". One comment about Dripps' assembly though, is that the locomotive was ordered by Robert Stevens, who had seen steam locomotives before, and almost surely would have been available to Dripps if he had any questions.
There is another very early British locomotive in the U.S. that has more of the original engine left, the 1838 Rocket built by Braithwaite, Milner & Co. It was late in its career modified with a cab and a saddle tank, but these were readily removed when the engine received cosmetic restoration for the 1893 World's Fair. Unfortunately, at some point after that, the smokestack was shortened. It's a pretty interesting engine with a Bury-style bar frame, I remember seeing it at the Franklin Institute 15 or so years ago, and was quite surprised as I had never heard of it before I saw it.
Ah yes, the Theseus engine
@@absinthefandubs9130 ,or trigger's broom.
Your voice articulation is better than a Garret.
Garratt?
Indeed...see my comment as well.
Excellent! Looking forward to the book!
Loved this short video and am looking forward very much to reading the book.
I think the identity confusion must be purely to do with lack of accurate records from when the engine worked for the Harbour Board, but it must BE Lion; by my deduction, it must be that when the engine was re-boilered by the Harbour Board, they decided for a longer boiler barrel as they thought it would make for better water passage than the boiler with which it was sold to them; and then when the Princes Dock pumping house opened, rather than invest in a brand new pump and since the Harbour Board probably had bought a more contemporary engine to do Lion's shunting duties, they simply installed her in the pumping house and modified her accordingly, especially since the new boiler would have been still have been in good shape and therefore couldn't easily be wasted. Therefore it is indeed Lion; only it's a blend of parts from her Liverpool & Manchester days, her Harbour Board period and the cosmetic judgments of the London Midland & Scottish Railway in her 1920s refit. Samuel F.
HI Samuel. When the locomotive now known as Lion was discovered doing duty as a pumping engine there was no name plate, no builders plate, no clue as to its identity. We know the Harbour Board purchased Lion in May 1859 - but what gets overlooked is that the Harbour Board purchased two similar engines at the same time. And already had a couple of obsolete 1830s engines at work. We don't know whether it was Lion or any other locomotive working for the Harbour Board which was used as a pump on Princes Graving Dock in 1875. It might even have been another old scrapper entirely. When the locomotive now know as Lion was first found it was considered to be an old LNWR locomotive (correct) from the Manchester & Birmingham Railway; oral tradition suggested it had been once called Lion or Tiger and had belonged to the LNWR. We just don't know it *is* the same locomotive as purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway in 1838, which subsequently became Ballast Engine No. 14 on the LNWR. After the locomotive is purchased, the paper trail goes cold other than for the 1865 boiler but again, there's no name, no claim nothing on the paperwork for that 1865. It doesnt say "Boiler for Lion". But the dimensions do correspond with the present boiler. Anyway, you can find out more in my book :-)
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Fair points, but here's the catch of mine; they would not just pick any random engine to make over as a pump. Based on other cases where a locomotive was sold on to private industry and preservation on account of good mechanical condition and recently-overhauled state, it could surely be agreed on that they would have taken advantage of an engine that had refit work done to it only a decade prior and was still in good shape. Also its Lion name was likely removed once it had come into the hands of the LNWR, so there must be support there with the name not being evident in post-L&M records. Samuel F.
@@samuelfarris1949 The boiler made in 1865 by the Harbour Board has no names no claims. In terms of size it is highly likely that they would have made one to suit the locomotive, i.e. so it was a replacement in terms of size. That's just how new boilers are made. We dont know which to any of five elderly locomotives owned by the Harbour Board it was built for. IF the Harbour Board replaced Lion's original 7ft 4in boiler wth one a foot longer, then that would have meant new frames - and no one was building sandwich frames engines then - new valve gear, new connecting rods, new eccentric rods, new coupling rods. Basically a completely new locomotive. It is highly unlikely they would have built a new locomotive to accommodate a new boiler. It's more likely the boiler was made to the dimensions of an existing boiler. And that it was made to fit which ever locomotive needed it as the drawings had no name, no claim. Then, again there is also evidence currently carried on "lion" was second-hand, coming from Locomotive 149. And there is also evidence that the boiler currently carried by the engine was made, or renewed or extensively repaired in the 1890s. The fact it is made from Low Moore Iron, that the rivets are hand closed suggest a mid-19th date, as do the plate sizes especially for the firebox plates as plates so large could not be made before about 1849. There is also evidence that Lion in fact ran as a Saddle Tank whilst working for the Harbour Board which would explain why it is fitted with a Leeds type boiler. That would be a pretty simple conversion: the old boiler was pretty much worn out, build a new boiler, throw away the tender and put a saddle tank on and some coal bunkers. Just look at some of the wierd and whacky machines turned out by Isaac Watt Boulton from geriatric locomotives to see the type of conversion I'm talking about. And £350 for a new boiler, plus saddle tank etc would be about right. But the point is, the present boiler on the locomotive was made to replace a boiler the same size. And that size does not correspond with known historical data for Lion.
@@samuelfarris1949 The problem with the Habour Board records, is not that they're not accurate. Far from it. They're very detailed. But also it's that there's literally tons of them. In weight. Hundreds of minute books and miscellaneous files, folders and papers, most of which has never been catalogued other than the official records of the Company (finances, minutes).
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Just edited my previous comment, so it just focuses on what I believe must be an eligible case to justify why the two look similar but have differences to them. I must say it's quite an interesting matter this, but I must say it can be fun as well as serious to draw down the plausible explanations to the one that best fits the outcome. Thank you Dawson; a most riveting online discussion. Hope my final decision helps in any way, and all the best with your book. Samuel F.
Excellent video, look forward to your book
Very good!
I saw her in the Titfield Thunderbolt when the film first appeared. Praise to the LMS for rescuing her. I never did quite get the detail of Gab Motion for the valve gear though. What a shame she is 'stuffed' (just like City of Truro!). PS, I speak RP but admire your diction. I love to roll my R's, now that I can speak Polish, but were you an actor/ (forgive my intrusiveness!).
Thankfully in the early 1990s Liverpool Museums took an enlightened approach to "lion" and decided that any future restoration and operation - both of which are destructive - would represent too much loss of historic fabric. Therefore, like "Rocket", "Locomotion", "Puffing Billy" she has been preserved and conserved in a climate controlled environment for future generations to learn from. Indeed, in writing my book on "lion" and carrying out an archaeological investigation of her, we have learned a great deal about her history and construction and even the quality of the materials used to build the locomotive. Something which would be lost in any "restoration". The work done in 1979 would not be sanctioned now as far too much material original to the locomotive's working life was lost including the regulator, main steam pipe, all the fixings, and brass boiler tubes. And no record was made of them. Absolutely heart-breaking. Happily more enlightened views are coming to the fore regarding the preservation and conservation of historic working machinery other than "restore it, steam it" but I think it will require a generational shift for the average enthusiast. The Spirit of the 1970s and early days of preservation live on with "steam everything!", that and for Heritage Railways "more track!" Both are not sustainable.
To answer your question about diction: I am a stammerer.
excellent
Wow! Thanks for that Lion history lesson. I'm currently building a 5" g model, it's great to learn for about this engine, looking forward to your book.
Yes, I've seen. There's also a replica being built, too, of the locomotive in as-built condition (without the silly brass firebox cover). we hope to steam her in 2030 for the bicentenary of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I didn't know about the proposed replica build, just been reading a couple of articles I found, very exciting news. Thanks.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Where could I find out more?
@@thomashenderson3901 About the original engine or the replica? we're hoping to start a website and gofundme this year. We do have a facebook page, but everything has been put out of kilter due to the pandemic. out first funding targets are for the boiler and crank axle. Those are our single biggest expenses. For the original engine: www.waterstones.com/book/lion/anthony-dawson/9781445685052
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory The replica. Exciting project for sure! Thanks for the link and I'll check out the book.
Hornby have announced that they are working on a HO/00 model of Lion as preserved for future production.
This a generating a good amount of interest. Inspired as a follow up after the high demand for their replicas of Rocket and coaches.
Indeed they have. So too another UK manufacturer. Of course the model coaches Hornby have produced to run with their model of Rocket are those built by the LMS at Derby in 1930 to run behind Lion at Wavertree Recreation Ground in September 1930. Whilst the models are lovely, the Rocket model is inaccruate and the carriages, well, let's just say they can only be used in the preservation era and not in any historical models. One hopes the Lion model will be more accurate; again with it being in post-1930 condition can only be used in a preservation rather than historical setting.
Maybe the problem was, someone pointed at the locomotive and said, 'You ain't Lion." And everyone else said "It must be true, then."
It was just any old thing, lion about in a shed.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Going for a simba-ontic build
@@delurkor The reason its got a copper cap chimney is it couldnt wait to be a king.
Hw peculiar, I am curious now about it's origins now, the engine sure had strange going ons when at the docks
In reflection of what I stated in my previous debate with the video's creator, and having recently updated the Wikipedia page on 'Lion', here are some new thoughts I've gathered. The Wikipedia page states that Lion first received its present-dimension boiler and associated modifications during its 1841 rebuild at Edge Hill, and despite the evidence explained in contradiction of Lion having received new boiler dimensions while in L&M service, I have to take the time placement that the Wikipedia source gives as valid, given that, as Andrew Dawson pointed out to me in my previous debate with him, sandwich-frame construction for engines was already obsolete by 1865. Even by 1850, locomotives with wheels placed outside the frames had become the general norm in design practice for fairly obvious maintenance-based reasons. So it would have been basically a new boiler, with a different rivet layout because it was another firm that provided it, and doing away with the original tender in favour of a saddle tank, given that it would have not been doing much to consume its water by shunting within the harbour limits.
The lack of evidence supporting 'Lion' being the engine given a new boiler in 1865, might be legitimately explained, as I touched upon fleetingly before, that 'Lion' would have already lost its name going right back to when it was absorbed into the London & North Western Railway, who clearly would have removed the name and just applied a number, given that 'Lion' was a goods engine and the LNWR, like many railway companies, only ever named its main passenger engines. As far as the Harbour Board would have been concerned, the engine sold to them in 1859 just had a number. So I'd say the Harbour Board were instrumental in preserving 'Lion' without knowing it had that name when first built until the Old Locomotive Committee determined that. As for why known records from the Liverpool & Manchester Railway state Lion always ran with a 7ft-4 boiler, it is most likely that when it was rebuilt at Edge Hill, the company directors were simply not told how extensive the rebuild actually was; they would have passed Lion as a rebuild of an old engine rather than an almost new locomotive in order to keep expenditure down.
I can certainly agree that the cosmetics the LMS provided in 1930 to make it look 'period' look rather dainty compared to the trim chimneys and firebox covers that even original 19th Century artwork accurately depict. Regards, Samuel Farris.
Hi Sam, having crawled all over Lion for the production of my book on Lion, I can tell you that the frames, wheels, cylinders, valve gear are all from the 1840s. The wheels were re-tyred in the 1850s. The boiler dates from 1865 and was probably rebuilt c.1900. It is highly likely Lion lost its tender working on the Liverpool Docks and was a tank engine. I dont think the tank it carried in the pump house was in use when it was a working locomotive.
The Board of Directors were certainly aware that Lion had been rebuilt and that the rebuild cost more than a new locomotive. Lion however was not re-numbered when we know locomotives were renumbered when they were basically rebuilt and repaced as new. There is a list of all the locomotives repaired/rebuilt/renewed at Edge HIll and Lion and Tiger is listed as a rebuild.
I'd suggest, if you haven't already, having alook at my book on Lion and also Liverpool & Manchester Locos as they go into far more detail than I can here.
All the best. Anthony
Very interesting & well presented. I do wonder is this the same for what remains of Stephensons Rocket? Or is it actually said engine remodelled to a Northumbrian engine.
Rocket is very definately Rocket. The boiler barrel, cylinders, crossed head, pistons, piston rods, frame, axles and some firebox components date from 1829. The valve gear is an in-service replacement (1829-1836) and the wheels are also in-service replacements (1839-1836). The present chimney and carrying wheels date from a mid C19th restoration when it went on display at the Patent Museum, latterly the Science Museum. It's a remarkably complete locomotive. Lion, however, may not even be Lion as the locomotive now on display does not match any known historical dimensions of Lion.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thank you greatly Anthony very much appreciated
Surprised no build numbers are on the frames etc. as was done by later manufacturers, eg FR 20, ok 20 odd years later, was only correctly identified from the stamps inside the frames.
There are stamps on the crank axle and valve gear, but simply with L&M and component number. They're all made with the same stamp and the style of stamp is c.1840-1850s. So it confirms the crank axle and valve gear belong together.
did her appearance in the Titfield thunderbolt do anything for the Lion and was she in working order at the time they made the filming for it or was she restored for her staring role?
I understand that during the making of this Film Lion had a special driver who acted as her minder who made sure that she was not damaged during filming?
Wait until October :-) www.waterstones.com/book/lion/anthony-dawson/9781445685052
The tender was damaged in a collision during the making of the film. As it was not original that is hardly the end of the world.
What is remarkable is that it was restored yet again by Ruston of Lincoln for the L&M's anniversary, which must have made it the worlds oldest working locomotive at that time.
@@NJPurling how much coke or steam coal and water do you think the replica tender carried
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory i have now got a copy of your new book
@@NJPurling It was restored by Ruston Diesels in Newton-Le Willows, the old Vulcan Foundry of Charles Talyeur & Co. "Lion" was not the world's oldest working locomotive at the time as the Smithsonian Institution in the USA restored "John Bull" of 1831 to steam at the same time. It's possible "Lion" was the oldest for a brief period in 1980.
The mention of the boiler explosion, I doubt greatly can be attributed to Lion and her driver. Perhaps faulty safety valve or poor boiler platework, etc. Certainly an internal fault, not due to a banker.
Watch the Patentee video on this channel, it explains all.
6:30 trigger's broom.
I can see what you're saying but not really. Trigger's Broom had seventeen new heads and eleven new handles....whereas Lion is pretty much still the 1841 locomotive. The only major change is the boiler. Which is really quite remarkable.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory , i think it is remarkable that so many of the early locos remain. you point to the magazine article that questions whether it is the remains of lion. do you think it is? here in australia, the first nsw loco was saved and has a nice cozy home. the story is that the first victorian ones disappeared from history. however, i came across a victorian museum photo on this internet taken in 1990 of part of a frame and some wheels in a farm paddock in the north of the state. the catalog number was MM070585. i can't find it now. i have to wonder how the remnants can be left out in the open for photos to be taken and not rushed to the safety of a museum. and as china is desperate for scrap iron, i'd wonder if they are still there.
@@vsvnrg3263 I cover the history and 'originality' of Lion in my book on her - coming this Autumn. It really is quite remarkable how many early locomotives are left: amazingly all three of the Rainhill contenders still exist 190+ years later in some form or another. It's mind blowing really. One of the big tragedies of preservation is that original Great Western Broad Gauge engines were scrapped in the twentieth century. I think the big problem is a matter of cost for restoration or conservation. In the UK at most preserved lines there are rows of rusting 'preserved' locomotives in various states of repair or disrepair under a tarpaulin waiting the time, money and enthusiasm to do something with them. Carriages are even less lucky with wooden bodied C19th coachesd on bricks and under tarpaulins indefinately slowly turning into compost. Goods waggons are even less loved. All a bit sad really but entirely down to economics. One may even dare to say, with the number of locomotives sitting rusting away on sidings that perhaps too many locomtoives were saved? Heretical I know but is it better a locomotive rusting away at a preserved line than say at the infamous Barry Scrapyard? As a carriage nerd the number of rescued Victorian carriages weith little hope of running again is heart-breaking but then again they're of limited passenger carrying capacity, will be expensive to restore, and are less safe than the good old BR Mark 1 (which can carry more passengers, have electric lights and loos) then Mk 1s will be the way forward for most lines. There are some noble exceptions, however, such as the Isle of White, Bluebell and even Foxfield which all run Victorian coaching stock. Sadly at the moment there's just no the money to restore or store things properly. Gosh that's a bit down beat. Sorry.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory ,i totally concur with the points you raise. i await your book. truth can hurt. in victoria, hundreds of old pre 1880's 4 and 6 wheeled cars (most were imported from uk) were reused as smoko huts, overnight accomodation and storage sheds. they were used everywhere, including in the shunting yard near where i grew up. the railways sold many of them and every few years one turns up in a back yard as a chookhouse or such. very much modified of course. the most recent was in castlemaine. the news article referred to one that turned up in ballarat a few years prior. back in the 1950's the victorian railways restored 3 of the oldest. they are treated respectfully and are trotted out on special occasions. the wikipedia page referred to them as the victorian railways best kept secret. and as for storage, victoria has only recently provided a roof for some of its loco treasures which have been sitting in the weather near the coast.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I believe one W Stanier FRS was responsible for the destruction of what few broad gauge locos the GWR had preserved and had he got his way would have done the same to anything historic on the LMS.