TheAccountOfMine

Not many are aware that no.91 - a sister of 90 - was rebuilt into a slightly awkward looking saddle tank. Originally authorised in 1878 as C2, along with a second engine, C3, the GS&WR’s acquisition of the Castleisland Railway in 1879 lead the “C” numbering sequence (likely an abbreviation for “Castleisland”) to be dropped. The pair would be out-shopped in April / June 1881, carrying the numbers 91 and 92 respectively. 91 carried a coach-portion similar to 90’s, whereas 92’s had seats lining the sides. Unlike 92, which retained the coach-portion until withdrawal in 1945, 91 was rebuilt in 1924 with a saddle tank - a strange choice given that 90 had been rebuilt as a side tank, not to mention nos.99 and 100, which had been built as side tanks in the 1890/91. I’m not aware of any official reason as to why a saddle arrangement was chosen. Whatever the case, the engine lasted until 1930 before withdrawal, leaving the saddle tank saga as an odd footnote in the history of the 90 class.

No doubt if finished the M&GN 4-4-0 will be fabulous, but there’s already an LNWR “George the Fifth” and a replica of GCR 567 under construction, both of which are also 4-4-0s, with the former project having mainline running in mind. So whether the demand for a third new build in this category exists is debatable, especially since the other two have already made significant progress, including frames, and an existing cylinder block in 567’s case. I think it would make more sense to invest in these two projects rather than start a third, but then again I’d love to be proven wrong!

Indeed, the precedent has been set for Fairlie new builds. The single Fairlie “Talieson” on the Ffestiniog was built in 1999, as a sort of replica / successor to the original “Talieson” which was broken up in 1924. The new engine incorporates the original reverser lever - so whether that makes it a replica or a very very comprehensive rebuilt, is for you to decide . McDonnell’s Fairlies didn’t actually feature flexible steam joints, at least not in the way Fairlie’s did: the pipes of McDonnell’s engines simply had enough flex in them so as not to break whenever the driving bogie shifted - undoubtedly a more precarious arrangement, though saved the fitters from the headache of having to keep flexible joints steam tight. That unique McDonnell Fairlie layout is the main reason I’d love to see a replica, as it would serve an educational role and show a more unusual side to loco engineering - compared to some of the more “nice to have” engines, such as a J26, which I love don’t get me wrong, but wasn’t an engine that broke any moulds or set new boundaries, whereas the “double-bogie[s]” were true unsung pioneers!

Bit of a random pick I know, but I’d have to go for one of McDonnell’s “double-bogie[s],” as they were known by Inchicore men. There were only two of this type built - 33, 34 - the former in late 1869, with the second engine following a few months later in 1870. Aside from their absolutely gorgeous appearance, they were the first single Fairlies in the world - an innovation to which McDonnell doesn’t get due credit for. Similar back-tanks followed after these two, however they were built as conventional locos rather than being articulated: this was a result of the colossal royalties demanded by Fairlie. Thus the later back-tanks, which were likely intended to be Fairlies but altered mid-construction to a non-articulated set up to avoid royalties, were more rigid by comparison. Shortly after 33’s completion, the first of Fairlie’s Ffestiniog locos made headlines in the engineering press, undoubtedly overshadowing McDonnell’s engines, leaving them to be observed as a mere footnote. Having either 33 or 34 with us today would fill a gap in the history of locomotive technology, and represent one of Ireland’s lesser known contributions to it.

Is there any copyright attached to this image? I don’t plan on using it commercially or anything, but I’m wondering if it would be grand to put in a facebook post.