The one thing I take away from your excellent video is that there are people, like yourself Anthony, who do not just accept as given what we are told is fact/history. But have the confidence and skills to do the spade work, present us with the results and then allow us to come to our own conclusions. Thank you Sir.
I’m not surprised. I’ve experienced it myself. An ancient wagon sat outside a scrapyard in Fife. All the experts were convinced it was the only survivor of the Fordell Railway. ( 4ft 6inch gauge ) A crane and lorry were arranged to rescue it. The crane broke down and a worker from the scrapyard came out to see what was going on and said he remembered the wagon coming from WPR ( standard gauge ) everyone thought he was talking rubbish until someone produced a tape measure and and the wagon turned out to be standard gauge. Lol. All the embarrassed experts got in their cars and sped off and the wagon abandoned.
Excellent video! Memory is a fickle thing: When we briefly had a demo line going at Coed y Parc, Penrhyn Quarry Railway, we had an 0-4-0VBT visit with the general appearance of a DeWinton loco', of which the PQR had at one time owned several. Yet 'Iorwerth' was actually nearly half the size of a real DeWinton, had a chain drive from a single cylinder from a steam-launch (or similar) not two cylinders working a cranked axle, and had been built in the owner's garage just two years prior to its first visit from oddments and named after ex-PQR engineman Iorwerth Watkin Jones who donated the tiny vertical boiler to the project (originally used in a bakery, in nearby Bangor, to relife stale bread by steaming it in the oven!)... Anyhow, on 'Iorwerth's first visit to the demonstration line, a little old lady _insisted_ she remembered _this exact_ locomotive running there 80years prior, and refused to believe the owner telling her he'd built it in his garage from oddments!
Seems to me that the story breaks up as follows: Evidence for this locomotive being Lion: possibly faulty recollections of an old codger, possibly dodgy research by an early luminary of railway history. Evidence that this isn't Lion: everything else...
Seeing the lead wheel and crank axel wheel having a different amount of spokes pointed out I can't unsee it and it annoys me greatly, AMAZING VIDEO AS ALWAYS! I love a good railroad mystery
Fantastic video. What ever loco it is, it has a rich history, as an original, rebuilt, replica and as a film star. As a graphic designer and love of visual history, I’d love to see an historical animation of all the components of the original Lion, turning into the loved loco of today. Maybe a project in the making. 😉
This reminds me of the question regarding Dolgoch and Talylln's identity from their extensive rebuilds that followed the purchase of the Talyllyn railway for preservation. I think, whether or not this engine is infact Lion, that's nearly a more exciting aspect of herself. Also I think the opportunity to have a newbuild of how Lion would have looked in 1830s condition vs the Manchester & Birmingham 0-4-2 is a prospect many are ignoring 😁. (Or might be my delusions to want more Era 1 newbuilds. Twin Sisters is high on my list) Also, the mention of the Bird class reminded me of reading in your book on the L&MRs locomotives and I must admit I did laugh out loud at the classmate named 'Bat'. One of these things was not like the other
I absolutely adore the idea of mystery concerning the origins of the locomotive acclaimed as Lion. The 1840s and 1850s were a fascinating period of British rail history and I love the notion of a series of mishaps leading historians to believe the Lion we have as the original.
Golly, what a marvellous set of responses to a very detailed piece of research. The big problem with many surviving old engines is the number of repairs, rebuilds and general maintenace they went through, particularly if it wasn't very well recorded. Somebody mentioned the General and the Texas, which are a good example. General was later blown up; both survived regauging (possibly by shifting the tyres on the wheels centres), conversion to coal burning and a very long active life. How much of the original engines is incorporated in them now is a moot point. Something must have happened at some point to require this engine's leading wheels replacing - probably with a spare set that were handy. We've all seen photos of wagons with spoked wheels at one end, discs at the other (the repair shop used what was available) - and I've seen photos of both British and American 4-2-0 and 4-4-0 engines with similarly mismatched pilot truck wheels. Whatever her original identity and owner, this engine clearly had a very long, useful active life during which she underwent a number of repairs and modifications. We are the richer for the simple fact that she has survived to be known as 'Lion'. Just out of interest, did Ernest Twining, roughly speaking Ahrons' contemporary (I think) have anything to say about her? Brilliant, and very dedicated, patient piece of research. Loved it - particularly the photos of the old lady in 'as found' conditon.
This rather reminds me of the Titanic 'switch' theories that were popular about 20 years ago in that... At the end of the day it didn't matter which ship actually sank that night, what mattered was the story of 1500 people dying. Similarly... It doesn't matter if it's really a locomotive originally named Lion, or just some other locomotive - almost everything that made this loco iconic happened after any such switch happened anyway.
It's like the other long-standing 'discussion' regarding whether the 'Flying Scotsman' in preservaton is the same F.S.that used o hurtle up and down the East coast!
I noticed when taking close-up pics of several locos in preservation, that a loco is primarily a name/number plate. When you look at the numbers stamped on a lot of the parts, many come from different locos. For example, S&DR No.88 tender has 4 different types of axle-boxes, and wheels of different spoke profiles to each wheelset. The general enthusiast sees an 'original' steam loco: The 'Rivet-counter', (Moi 🤪), sees a giant Meccano set.
Other than with Lion the cylinders, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels all carry the same stamps. So they all belong together as a matched Set. Which makes it very unlikely that Lion was made from different locomotives. 🙂
I don't know about the early years but certainly in more recentn steam era times, the imperative when an engine went into shops for overhaul and maintenance was to get it out and back in traffic asap. They'd be completely disassembled, parts sent to the relevant shops and, in return the next available spare components sent back to the erecting shop. What came out was highly unlikely to be what had gone in...... though in very early days, with a lot less standardisation of parts that might have been different, of course.
fantastic video as always but may I put forward the thought that all the talk of "original material" in my opinion does not really matter. When we talk of pre-1860's locomotives, most of the time the original material has long since been lost to history. What matters most is that the restorations of the locomotives are faithful to what they are. That the replicas as well as the original engines don't retain all 100% original components, but components that make it look like how it was when in service. By that logic, the Lion we have today is not Lion to me. She is culturally and historically significant and a wonderful locomtoive, but like you are annoyed by, the Restoration that was done was not faithful to the original L&MR locomotive she once was. Sure the evidence of the larger cylinders, spare boiler, and everything do give credence to the theory that she is not Lion, but I also think that she might be Lion, just having gone through the most trying time for locomotives, when the majority were rebuilt heavily, lost to history, or stripped down so much, that a lot of as built material is nonexistent. Hopefully this all makes sense
That's not quite true. We know "Rocket" is pretty much complete with plenty of material remaining from 1829 and from its working life. Same with "Sans Pareil", "Invcita" and also "Agenoria". "Locomotion" is more difficult. But usually these locomotives had short working lives, were rendered rapidly obsolete and put to alternative uses with little money or desire to later modify them. We know that Lion was probably rebuilt in 1841 to build a completely new locomotive other than in name and number. the "bottom end" (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank and trailing axle and their wheels) all belong together as a "set". They;'re all of a piece. Its an 1840s locomotive, but with a later boiler sat on top, said boiler probably incorporating the key dimensions but not appearance of that fitted in 1841. The big problem, as I say in the video, is that the cylinders and pistons are of 1840s type, and belong with the wheels, frames etc. There's no evidence of a cylinder change. Which is why I think we're not dealing with Lion. Such a change would be unlikely and if made after the 1840s would have been of a different type, and there's no evidence for a change. 🙂
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory huh, I think I’m starting to understand your perspective and point more. I struggle to sometimes get the point but thank you for the extra clarification
He guys, in my opinion it is not neccarcerry to have a running Original... as sample: old guns ore canons : i dont need to fire an 200 hundred year old Material with the risk of destroying it and in the worst case injure someone! A full modern copy with modern material will disturb only the pivotcounters and Bufferlickers ... "Preserve the Fire, not pray to the Ashes!"
This reminds of the _Railway Series_ book where Thomas goes to the Railway Museum at York and met Iron Duke, who said that broad gauge was used for the GWR back in the 1800s, speaking as though he lived through that time. Ya know, despite the fact that Iron Duke is a replica and was built five years before when the book takes place.
There is a real thing called "false memory" which is where people think they remember or experience something which they did not. It's something I've come accross a lot of in my work as a historian, especially of perception and experiences of historical events through diaries and letters home. Even within 24 hours of an even people's memories can change or be affected by what other people have said to them etc. It's also interesting that memories can change in line with the prevelant historic view of an event. A lot of research was done on WW1 veterans - until the 1960s the generals like Haig and French were wonderful, best generals they ever had. From the 1960s onwards - when the view of Haig et al was changing - suddenly these veterans remembered Haig was an idiot, and a butcher. It's all absolutly fascinating, but means the further in time a source was created perported to be describing historical events by one who experienced them, the more contaminated they are and less reliable they will be.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I can only imagine the existential crisis a living engine would face to be told they are a replica of something else or be told they were someone else their whole lives. Too bad Lion can't just tell us if she is the real Lion!
At the end does it really matter that an early steamlocomotive survived the odds and was preserved under the wrong name? The most important part is that engine X from the 1840's is still with us. She is just an engine called Lion. She is nearing here bicentenial age in the 2040's thats a very big achievement. Also Engine X has been called Lion longer now then what she original was named/numbered from the start.
I think your right about possibly being a Stephensons made locomotive, as design wise it looks alot like their earlier work, before the restoration that is.
Thoroughly interesting. Lion is never recorded as carrying No.149, is it (Was there any loco with an 0-4-2+T that carried that number around in the UK during the 1840s)? Anyhow a very enjoyable video; to me I don't mind that Lion isn't Lion as long as the loco doesn't continue to pretend it is, which probably will continue. Which is a shame as a more obscure locomotive from the 1840s got into preservation and people don't even know. Again great video and I'm glad there is a significant amount of 1840s material left on the loco.
I love the video's Andrew, please keep them coming. Lion captures the history of an age and while it might not be the Lion built in 1838, it is the Lion named in 1924 and for the last hundred years it's been a part of our history, and so we should perhaps settle for the know fact that this engine may not be the original Lion but it certainly is an engine called Lion which commemorates an age of innovation and of skills which is lost today.
Dear Mr.Dawson, I would like to see a video on the most interesting "locomotive" from the 1837, the Galvani. It was the first electric locomotive, and was exhibited at the 1841 arts exhibiton. I just think it would be intersting as it is a rarly discussed locomotive on youtube. Thank you for reading.
That would indeed be a fascinating subject. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia has an article on the "Galvani", but it lacks the bits and pieces of contemporary background story that make Mr. Dawson's videos always so compelling.
Regardless of all the facts stated here, Lion is still my favourite steam locomotive. And she still deserves to be in the Museum of Liverpool given its age and history working for the docks. If I ever become stupidly rich, I would commission two replicas of Lion. One in original L&MR condition called Tiger. And the other in persevered condition called Thunderbolt.
There was a propsal, lead by myself to build a replica of Lion in as built condition with the 'dressing up' firebox cover to it could post as Thunderbolt. Sadly, despite having serious initial collatoral (£50K) no one came forward to support it.
It is an 1840's locomotive, whatever modifications it may have had since then. Surely that is enough for us to appreciate the technology of the period? Does its name matter?
If it's a Stephenson locomotive, there's another option. Robert had a habit or reusing his popular nameplates - multiple Meteors in 1830 and 1832 and a Sampson class locomotive called Rocket in 1836. Could there have been multiple contemporary Lions?
This is a fantastic and informative video, it's likely I have placed a deposit with Rapido for an imposter! Actually, I'm okay as it's the Titifeld Thunderbolt I am purchasing, which we know at least, to be accurate :) Off to see if you've covered any aspects of the Wisbech and Upwell tramway now, my favourite line from history.
So, basically, the cylinders don't match the description for those that Lion should have had, but they, the valve gear, rear driving wheel etc. match and are from the 1840s. The front, replacement driving wheel and crank are later and were made in Bolton. Considering the two 1858 locos were also built in Bolton, I would suppose that it is likely that 'our Lion' has parts of at least one of the Bolton engines. That said, 'our Lion' has matching older components that would be less likely to be put on later in life- the 1840s cylinders and valve gear- so I would suggest that 'our Lion' is/was a mish-mash of designs (even before the 1920s restoration), with the 'basis' being a loco built or rebuilt in the 1840s which had cannibalised Bolton-made components added on later- probably from one of the 1858 locos. Maybe one of the 1858 locos gave out whilst the other needed a replacement wheelset (perhaps following an accident), and if this was immediately before reuse as a pumping engine then mismatched numbers of wheel spokes would have been even less of a worry. Industrial railways always had a tendency to recycle older equipment, so to me this seems plausible. Furthermore, in my mind this 'basis' could potentially be Lion, reasoning being 1. Lion was indeed sold to the dock company and 2. the records/evidence of Lion's rebuild are- like everything from this period- far from concrete fact. Although Lion shouldn't have these cylinders according to the records, the records themselves may not be complete, or (however unlikely) Lion could have had another extensive rebuild later which replaced the valve gear and cylinders. Of course, we would need to conduct further research on the other docks locomotives to find out which could be the 'basis loco' for 'our Lion'. For all intensive purposes, it could even be one of the LNWR 2-2-2 locos bought in 1859 with Lion, but converted into an 0-4-2 with Bolton parts (having bought 2 locos from them the year prior) to make them more suitable as goods engines- which would explain the mismatched driving wheels. Either way, until compelling evidence of it being another prototype appears, I'll just say that 'our Lion' is Lion with extra bits put on.
The two 1858 locomotives *weren't* built in Bolton. They were sold by a firm *in* Bolton. We don't know who built those two 1858 locomotives. The frames, valve gear, cylinders, pistons, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels are all of a set. They belong together. They're of a piece. No evidence of anything being swapped and change around. The leading axle and its wheels are later but still pre c.1860 due to the material they're made from (Low Moore Iron) and the quality of the iron. The fact that the bottom end (other than the leading axle) is a set, belongs togther - the stamps prove it - makes it very unlikely that the "bottom end" of Lion is "bitsa".🙂
Oh well, there goes that theory. Still, it seemed almost too good for coincidence that the first two times I ever heard of Bolton having anything to do with locomotive manufacture/sale etc. happened to be two separate cases in the same video (and before anyone replies, yes, I know and have long known about Horwich works, but that's Horwich, not Bolton). In that case, I would probably recant my earlier theory and just say that the engine found at the pumping house IS Lion, at least until anyone can prove the existence of another locomotive owned by the company which better matches the preserved loco than whatever documentation has survived about Lion. As far as I'm concerned, until that point, it's Lion. And even if it were proven otherwise, everyone knows of 'Lion' as 'Lion', and have done so for nearly a hundred years- knowing otherwise wouldn't stop it being Lion, because it would be just as much 'Lion' as it had always been: the question- what's in a name? I'm somewhat more intrigued into the logic of the mismatched wheelset- the tyre had 'Crewe' stamped on it, so presumably someone (the LNWR?) stuck it there after 1850 as you said- but why replace the wheelset when the engine was obsolete and sold off anyway in 1859? Sudden traffic requirements? And even then, couldn't they have at least matched the number of spokes on each set if it was newly machined to fit- a lack of care isn't something I particularly associate with Crewe.
@@captaincool3329 The tyre was put on by the LNWR at Crewe but not the wheels and axles. Engine tyres, like those on cars, are changed when they become worn. What we know is the tyre was rolled at Crewe, probably fittd at Crewe and from analysis of the tyre and the fixing bolt show them both to pre date 1860. We dont know when the replacement axle and wheels were fitted. The tyre doesnt date the wheel. Given that Rothwell & Co ceased trading in 1864 it means the wheels must pre-date then. Rothwell & Co also supplied two, 0-4-2 luggage engines to the Liverpool & Manchester Railway at the same time as Lion and Tiger were ordered from Leeds. Liverpool Museum suggest the wheels came second hand from a Bolton & Leigh Railway locomotive - but don't cite any sources. The locomotive probably broke its leading axle in an accident and there was a spare set of cast iron five feet diameter wheels in stock for it.
The story is getting more and more interesting. When I first saw the movie Titfield Thunderbolt and saw 'Lion', I thought it was a movie prop. There was something wrong with that smooth copper box at the back. It looked like some sort of addition to make it look more 'old fashioned'. I know very little about locomotives but I think I have a keen eye for detail and, in it's present form, 'Lion' doesn't look quite right to me. That is my lay person's view. I like your summing up of it being an older loco with a later boiler. I would still like to see that copper box taken off though.
Id love to see all the 1930s additions taken off to be honest and present the locomotive far more honestly, rather like with Ballaarat. Not "over restored" but the silly firebox cover has been part of the locomotive since 1930 so it's as just a part of it as any other.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I'm glad it's not just me. There is a lot of interest in Lion and other very early locomotives, and it seems to be building. There is enthusiasm for returning things to their original state, as much as possible, and maybe it will gain momentum and the decision will be made. Can you imagine the unveiling? I'm optimistic. I just realised that Hornby will be furious 😄
That type of 'haystack' type firebox was contemporary to the times, and may likely to have been a conversion from the original Stevenson design in a later rebuilding, presumably in the 1840's.
@@stephenarbon2227 Lion catagorically does not have a 'Haystack' firebox. Underneath the 1930 brass cover which is designed to immitate one is a high crowned wagon-top firebox of the type you'd see on a Manning Wardle saddle tank or a Quarry Hunslet. The present boiler dates from 1865 or later.
She more than likely Is lion, just having been rebuilt extensively to keep her in service for an extended period of time, even the General and Texas are a bit different in appearance than they were during the famous locomotive chase, and Sierra Number 3 looks different than it did before the wood cab was replaced with a spare steel cab after it's first major accident, even the boiler is brand new. The john bull had to be restored back to it's original appearance when it was donated to Smithsonian, the 1927 replica represents its later appearance when it was turned into a 4-2-0 instead of the 2-4-0 as it was built. People forget that steam locomotives were once regularly operating machinery and things were changed during certain maintenance periods to keep them running. A lot of strange franken locomotives were made in the early days of railroading so an older set of cylinders, an older frame and a newer boiler (but still older) and old safety valves and whatnot were added.. That poor locomotive.
It's not really the case with Lion that it's a "bitsa". The chassis - the frames, the cylinders and pistons, valve gear, crank axle and trailing axle and their wheels are all of a set. They all have stamps made by the same tool and are all of the same type and style. They belong together. The oddity is the leading axle and wheels but they too are early. This means that the chassis of the locomotive is pretty much a complete 1840s locomotive, which can be closely dated from 1840 to c.1846. Hope this helps :-)
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Steam locomotive rebuilds were strange back in the early days that's for sure, which means it's a miracle they were able to make a working locomotive out of what they had! It's most likely a mash up of 2 locomotives, which had a wreck, boiler was totaled on one, frames and whatnot totaled on the other. Either way an early locomotive survived to be preserved as an operational engine!
@@raymondleggs5508 There's no evidence at all for any accidents. The present boiler was made in 1865 by the Mersey Docks & Harbour Board and it was heavily repaired in 1902. What we're looking at today is an 1840s chassis married to an 1865 boiler. It's not a mash up to two locomotives.
@@raymondleggs5508What you’re describing is speculation with no consideration for the evidence. Where’s the evidence for two seperate locomotives having accidents at the same time that also conveniently only damaged the parts which would allow the two to be combined?
@@OwenBudd1 No not at the same time but possibly close enough in time that parts from a scrapped locomotive had been used to cobble together a locomotive from remnants of lion. Look at the old photos of some old logging lcos and some other industrial locos and you'll see some cobbled together contraptions after all the only thing it has to do is run and pull wagons.
Could it just be that Lion is the real thing but had so many replacements and improvements over time that no parts from its 1838 form still exist today?
The "bottom" end (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank & trailing axle and their wheels) are all of a set, and belong together. They're closely date from 1841-1846(circa). Which fits for Lion - if it is Lion - having been rebuilt by Dewrance and Woods in 1841. The only changes since then have been new leading wheels and a much later boiler. It's a pretty mcuh complete 1840s locomotive but minus the boiler.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory was it quite normal for engines built with water pumps to remain in service into the late 1850s early 1860s? I am guessing that the fact that the lack of a water injector wasn't a massive issue for the enginemen all those years ago.
How did a locomotive run a pump? was it just using the boiler to supply steam for a pump engine? or was the pump some how attached to the driving wheels of the loco? (google was of no help)
It is equally possible that the locomotive known as the Lion, is a mixture of the 3 locomotives, of a similar design, that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, had purchased, along with with other parts, from other obsolete locomotives, that were built around the same time. This mix and match would most likely have taken place, when it was converted into a pump engine, and the resulting locomotive was called the Lion. Of course this is just a theory, and it could be any of the 3 locomotives that were in the shed, with parts of other locomotives added to it.
As I've mentioned in the video and elsewhere up thread, the "bottom end" of Lion (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels) all belong together and are a "set". The stamps all match up and correspond. The leading axle and wheels are different. So that what we're looking at is a complete 1840s chassis with a later boiler plonked on top. 🙂 The evidence of the stamps suggests it's not a mix and match loco.
Mixing and matching wasn’t really possible in the 19th century - not in the way that you’re describing here. We’re talking hand made pieces that are largely made to specifications that match the other parts. There is a reason that interchangeability of parts was such a big deal during WW2, because it wasn’t really possible to just swap parts around without major re-working. These early locomotives were not meant to have interchangeability with each other, and they weren’t made to standardised dimensions in the way we understand it.
I enjoyed the video. I'm confused now. Is it Lion or not? Lol. Either way... It sure is pretty. Glad it was saved from a pump house... no matter who it is
I think if you add the context of the period to this mystery, it goes some way to explain it. This was the grouping era when the new companies engaged in publicity and promotion to establish strong corporate identities and heritage. What greater prestige coup for the LMS than to claim it's heritage back to the LMR - especially with the centenary coming up? Its great rival the LNER had "Locomotion" afterall! So, with no obvious early survivors operational, deliberately or inadvertently identifying the loco as "Lion" was more important than if it was really just old L&Y stock. A case of confirmation bias based on wanting to discover a LMR loco.
Oh yes, absolutely. The LMS were very aware of the PR success then LNER had enjoyed with the Stockton & Darlington centenary in 1925, especially as it came only two years after the LNER et al were formed. It was a great feel good event for the LNER and the public and helped unify the LNER (the LMS at the time was fighting like cats in a bag).
Do we know the provenance of the locomotives purchased from Thompson and Co of Bolton? This might reveal further details that could be verified on the preserved locomotive.
Thank you Anthony for this intriguing video. I have only just discovered this series and will certainly be watching more episodes. Do we have any idea as to the kind of locomotive from which the current boiler came? The shape of the firebox suggests a saddle tank from one or the Leeds builders to me.
The present boiler is probably that made in 1865. All we know about it is that it is made from Low Moor Iron. It was heavily repaired in 1901, which would for for the age profile of such a boiler which saw very little use.
Another one? You spoil us sir. Has any work been done to work out where the two candidate locomotives offered for sale were used prior to their being offered for sale? Guessing the firm mentioned was a contractor or just a trader in such things buying them up and selling them on?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I more meant, and could have maybe worded it better to, do we know how the foundry got them to he selling them second hand as this could open up some avenue to working out a possible provenance for whatever we see today in terms of its original operator which seems deeply unlikely to be the L&MR.
@@Samstrainss Haven't a clue I'm afraid. The contemporary newspapers are full of adverts for second hand locomotives, especially the LNWR which was divesting itself of old and obsolete locomotives under John Ramsbottom. Similarly the L&Y was getting rid of a load of old engines. Usually contractors would snap them up, use them on construction jobs and then sell them on or scrap them.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory ah well, perhaps someone with an intimate knowledge of the LNWR or L&YR can shed some light on weather they recorded the buyer when selling off a loco. If they did do so as a rule of thumb then it becomes an interesting, if slim, chance that a note exists recording the transaction which at least gives it a railway it came from. Step by step we go closer to a true identity.
It sounds like the dock authority didn't keep records after purchasing. So there is a good chance that not many internal records were not kept either. Let say Lion and others worked the docks for 15 years. They would have been rebuilt, overhauled, chopped up, scrapped and salvaged on site. Quite a lot of ports and docks had their workshops afterall. They could have even rebuilt the boiler on sight The bore size inconsistencies can be put down to cylinder rebores over next 45 years. A 1/4 inch skim every 5 years or new liners could account for that. And it all sounds like dock authority simply did everything on the cheap for as long as possible.
The cylinders haven't been re-bored from 12 inches tho - and the Docks & Harbour Board spent over £300 on a new boiler for "a" locomotive in 1865. That's a very expensive boiler - it's more than just a new boiler. That's new boiler plus other work. I suspect, given the form of the boiler with the high crown firebox and that there's no fitting on the barrel itself that which ever locomotive it was which received the boiler was rebuilt as a saddle tank. A tender engine would be pretty useless shunting on the docks to be honest. 🙂
While it would be nice to know whather it is Lion, or which other loco it could be, the fact is that this locomotive has been called L&M No.57 "Lion" for longer than it ever had any other identity. I doubt that will change any time soon.
Adding to your observation about the parts of the loco not fitting properly and that not being an issue because it was a stationary pumping engine, is it possible that it wasn't any particular loco at all but made up of spare parts from many locos all from the same 1840s era? Just guessing here!
Alas not. The "bottom end" (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels) all belong together and we know this from the stamps on them. If they were a mish-mash of parts the stamps would be different, and they'd be of a subtly different type and style. And they're not. So we know the "bottom end" belongs tog ether and is a pretty much complete 1840s locomotive 🙂
I was not aware before now that there were two locomotives sold in 1874 to the Harbour Board. However I still am inclined to be assured the engine we have now is indeed the much-rebuilt Lion. We don't know exactly what Manchester & Birmingham Railway Nos. 12 or 13 looked like for a start, plus it is my firm belief that even as early as said date Lion was "particularly fortunate" to have averted the fate of the scrap-men. The Harbour Board people would surely have been aware even then they had an engine on their hands that was a former-relic of the old Liverpool & Manchester Railway, so to prolong its existence for as long as possible they bought another surplus engine to take over its shunting duties while it was installed in the pumping house. Regards, Samuel Farris.
Witam, bardzo fajne filmy o historii kolei. Bardzo interesujące materiały. Mieszkam w Polsce w okolicy najstarszych linii kolejowych z 1842 i 1943 r. Jeździły tu parowozy od Stephensona i od Sharpa. Jeden z parowozów Sharpa został sfotografowany po eksplozji kotła we Wrocławiu Swiebodzkim. Z tego co wiem parowozy te były zbudowane przypuszczalnie wcześniej bo w 1842, lub możliwie że już w 1841 r. A więc w wersji pierwotnej. Czy są rysunki tendra do parowozów Sharp & Brothers o długości 16' ?
Cześć. To bardzo interesujące. Nie wiem, czy istnieją konkretne rysunki lokomotyw. Sharps wykonał „standardową” lokomotywę. Więc najbliżej do polskich, jakie przychodzi mi do głowy, jest ta zbudowana w Danii: ruclips.net/video/LUy6Vmf3y6g/видео.html
It isn't because the stamps and the style and type of frames, cylinders, pistons, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels all belong together. They're a matched set and the stamps attest to them belonging together. The only oddity is the leading axle and wheels but they too are pretty early. So the chassis of the locomotive can be dated from 1840 to about 1846.
An interesting Historical review, but really brings us no closer to the truth. It does however bring one pertinent question to mind; how much of an original locomotive can you change, before it is no longer the original locomotive? At one of the scale is the LMS 10000 project. A Class 58 subframe mounted on Class 77 bogies isn't LMS 10000, anymore than a "cut & shut" Class 37 on Class 20 bogies is a Class 23. At the other end of the scale are the former Barry scrapyard locos now in fully functional condition. Where is the line, and who draws it?
The LMS 10000 group are not trying to claim their loco is the original 10000, but is a replica of it built with what they can. Same with the Class 23. Both however have more engineering than just being a cut and shut job.
@@BR69843I didn't sat that that is what they are claiming. It was a general question of interest. Read what I typed, not what you thought that I'd typed.
I'm not saying it's a kit of parts at all. The locomotive as preseved is a complete 1840s chassis (frames, cylinders, pistons, valve gear and two out of three sets of wheels and axles) married to a later boiler. The tender is a modern fabrication.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I have read your book about Lion. it revealed a lot of information about her that I had not heard of previously. what type of valve gear will the recreated Lion have
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory so would that have been with in the fuel range for a engine like her? would it have been difficult to service Lion during her time as thunderbolt as I understand that the station didn't have a pit to clean her out in the morning
My Grandad said Lion was so heavily modified, it now carries the name The Flying Scotchman. He worked in Crewe Works, so must be right. I hope this answers everyone's questions ..
The intervention by Crewe was, for the time, quite minimal: replacement chimney; replacement smokebox doors; new splashers; new springs; new footplate rails; the silly firebox cover; and a completely new tender. The core of the locomotive, the frames, wheels, cylidners, valve gear and boiler were unchanged and date from c.1840 to c.1860s. 🙂
We can trace the history of the boiler, but not the cylinders. There's no real evidence of them being swapped. They belong with the frames, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle, and two wheel sets.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I bought a camper once it turned out to be the front of one the back of another with fittings from a 3rd - its resale value was less than half - it seems this may be a vehicle wearing another's identity - maybe we should call it the Titfield Thunderbolt something we know it certainly was?
Don't you think that the story is much more interesting because there isn't a paper trail? 😁 Who was this chap Salter? The gauges he invented would seem to be a very important part of the rail story.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory because that was all you could afford. The traction motors on thte 5WES EMUs reused the traction motors off the 4REP EMUs instead of more modern and efficient traction motors.
Scandal, intrigue, locomotives impersonating each other, mysterious part swapping. All is not what it seems. It's outrageous. This warrants a serious, investigation into the matter. ..... Clearly, someone is lion, Anthony.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Glad to hear you finally recovered. Long term illness is no fun. And you're now Dr. Anthony Dawson. That must be such a personal buzz after years of hard work. If I hadn't done so earlier - congratulations.
It is equally possible that the locomotive known as the Lion, is a mixture of the 3 locomotives, of a similar design, that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, had purchased, along with with other parts, from other obsolete locomotives, that were built around the same time. This mix and match would most likely have taken place, when it was converted into a pump engine, and the resulting locomotive was called the Lion. Of course this is just a theory, and it could be any of the 3 locomotives that were in the shed, with parts of other locomotives added to it.
There's no evidence of it being a "mix and match". The frames, cylinders, valve gear, trailing and crank axle and their wheels are of a set and belong together. The stamps are made with the same tool, and in terms of technolgoy and style and manufacture they're a "set". The "bottom end" is a complete 1840s locomotive chassis basically, with later leading wheels and axle. The boiler is different, and not from the 1840s. That's only the real major change and difference 🙂
The one thing I take away from your excellent video is that there are people, like yourself Anthony, who do not just accept as given what we are told is fact/history. But have the confidence and skills to do the spade work, present us with the results and then allow us to come to our own conclusions. Thank you Sir.
I’m not surprised. I’ve experienced it myself. An ancient wagon sat outside a scrapyard in Fife. All the experts were convinced it was the only survivor of the Fordell Railway. ( 4ft 6inch gauge ) A crane and lorry were arranged to rescue it. The crane broke down and a worker from the scrapyard came out to see what was going on and said he remembered the wagon coming from WPR ( standard gauge ) everyone thought he was talking rubbish until someone produced a tape measure and and the wagon turned out to be standard gauge. Lol. All the embarrassed experts got in their cars and sped off and the wagon abandoned.
This is why I love railways and history- we are always discovering more and hypothesizing!
To be honest we are just lucky to have it!
Excellent video!
Memory is a fickle thing:
When we briefly had a demo line going at Coed y Parc, Penrhyn Quarry Railway, we had an 0-4-0VBT visit with the general appearance of a DeWinton loco', of which the PQR had at one time owned several. Yet 'Iorwerth' was actually nearly half the size of a real DeWinton, had a chain drive from a single cylinder from a steam-launch (or similar) not two cylinders working a cranked axle, and had been built in the owner's garage just two years prior to its first visit from oddments and named after ex-PQR engineman Iorwerth Watkin Jones who donated the tiny vertical boiler to the project (originally used in a bakery, in nearby Bangor, to relife stale bread by steaming it in the oven!)...
Anyhow, on 'Iorwerth's first visit to the demonstration line, a little old lady _insisted_ she remembered _this exact_ locomotive running there 80years prior, and refused to believe the owner telling her he'd built it in his garage from oddments!
Seems to me that the story breaks up as follows:
Evidence for this locomotive being Lion: possibly faulty recollections of an old codger, possibly dodgy research by an early luminary of railway history.
Evidence that this isn't Lion: everything else...
Seeing the lead wheel and crank axel wheel having a different amount of spokes pointed out I can't unsee it and it annoys me greatly, AMAZING VIDEO AS ALWAYS! I love a good railroad mystery
Fantastic video. What ever loco it is, it has a rich history, as an original, rebuilt, replica and as a film star. As a graphic designer and love of visual history, I’d love to see an historical animation of all the components of the original Lion, turning into the loved loco of today. Maybe a project in the making. 😉
This reminds me of the question regarding Dolgoch and Talylln's identity from their extensive rebuilds that followed the purchase of the Talyllyn railway for preservation. I think, whether or not this engine is infact Lion, that's nearly a more exciting aspect of herself. Also I think the opportunity to have a newbuild of how Lion would have looked in 1830s condition vs the Manchester & Birmingham 0-4-2 is a prospect many are ignoring 😁. (Or might be my delusions to want more Era 1 newbuilds. Twin Sisters is high on my list)
Also, the mention of the Bird class reminded me of reading in your book on the L&MRs locomotives and I must admit I did laugh out loud at the classmate named 'Bat'. One of these things was not like the other
Twin Sisters is top of my list. We just need to invent a time machine and we are good to go!!
I absolutely adore the idea of mystery concerning the origins of the locomotive acclaimed as Lion. The 1840s and 1850s were a fascinating period of British rail history and I love the notion of a series of mishaps leading historians to believe the Lion we have as the original.
Golly, what a marvellous set of responses to a very detailed piece of research. The big problem with many surviving old engines is the number of repairs, rebuilds and general maintenace they went through, particularly if it wasn't very well recorded. Somebody mentioned the General and the Texas, which are a good example. General was later blown up; both survived regauging (possibly by shifting the tyres on the wheels centres), conversion to coal burning and a very long active life. How much of the original engines is incorporated in them now is a moot point.
Something must have happened at some point to require this engine's leading wheels replacing - probably with a spare set that were handy. We've all seen photos of wagons with spoked wheels at one end, discs at the other (the repair shop used what was available) - and I've seen photos of both British and American 4-2-0 and 4-4-0 engines with similarly mismatched pilot truck wheels. Whatever her original identity and owner, this engine clearly had a very long, useful active life during which she underwent a number of repairs and modifications. We are the richer for the simple fact that she has survived to be known as 'Lion'. Just out of interest, did Ernest Twining, roughly speaking Ahrons' contemporary (I think) have anything to say about her?
Brilliant, and very dedicated, patient piece of research. Loved it - particularly the photos of the old lady in 'as found' conditon.
This rather reminds me of the Titanic 'switch' theories that were popular about 20 years ago in that... At the end of the day it didn't matter which ship actually sank that night, what mattered was the story of 1500 people dying. Similarly... It doesn't matter if it's really a locomotive originally named Lion, or just some other locomotive - almost everything that made this loco iconic happened after any such switch happened anyway.
i was thinking 17 new heads and 14 new handles until near the end when it seems that it wasnt trigger's broom after all.
It's like the other long-standing 'discussion' regarding whether the 'Flying Scotsman' in preservaton is the same F.S.that used o hurtle up and down the East coast!
I noticed when taking close-up pics of several locos in preservation, that a loco is primarily a name/number plate. When you look at the numbers stamped on a lot of the parts, many come from different locos. For example, S&DR No.88 tender has 4 different types of axle-boxes, and wheels of different spoke profiles to each wheelset. The general enthusiast sees an 'original' steam loco: The 'Rivet-counter', (Moi 🤪), sees a giant Meccano set.
Other than with Lion the cylinders, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels all carry the same stamps. So they all belong together as a matched Set. Which makes it very unlikely that Lion was made from different locomotives. 🙂
I don't know about the early years but certainly in more recentn steam era times, the imperative when an engine went into shops for overhaul and maintenance was to get it out and back in traffic asap. They'd be completely disassembled, parts sent to the relevant shops and, in return the next available spare components sent back to the erecting shop. What came out was highly unlikely to be what had gone in...... though in very early days, with a lot less standardisation of parts that might have been different, of course.
fantastic video as always but may I put forward the thought that all the talk of "original material" in my opinion does not really matter. When we talk of pre-1860's locomotives, most of the time the original material has long since been lost to history. What matters most is that the restorations of the locomotives are faithful to what they are. That the replicas as well as the original engines don't retain all 100% original components, but components that make it look like how it was when in service. By that logic, the Lion we have today is not Lion to me. She is culturally and historically significant and a wonderful locomtoive, but like you are annoyed by, the Restoration that was done was not faithful to the original L&MR locomotive she once was. Sure the evidence of the larger cylinders, spare boiler, and everything do give credence to the theory that she is not Lion, but I also think that she might be Lion, just having gone through the most trying time for locomotives, when the majority were rebuilt heavily, lost to history, or stripped down so much, that a lot of as built material is nonexistent. Hopefully this all makes sense
That's not quite true. We know "Rocket" is pretty much complete with plenty of material remaining from 1829 and from its working life. Same with "Sans Pareil", "Invcita" and also "Agenoria". "Locomotion" is more difficult. But usually these locomotives had short working lives, were rendered rapidly obsolete and put to alternative uses with little money or desire to later modify them.
We know that Lion was probably rebuilt in 1841 to build a completely new locomotive other than in name and number. the "bottom end" (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank and trailing axle and their wheels) all belong together as a "set". They;'re all of a piece. Its an 1840s locomotive, but with a later boiler sat on top, said boiler probably incorporating the key dimensions but not appearance of that fitted in 1841. The big problem, as I say in the video, is that the cylinders and pistons are of 1840s type, and belong with the wheels, frames etc. There's no evidence of a cylinder change. Which is why I think we're not dealing with Lion. Such a change would be unlikely and if made after the 1840s would have been of a different type, and there's no evidence for a change. 🙂
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory huh, I think I’m starting to understand your perspective and point more. I struggle to sometimes get the point but thank you for the extra clarification
He guys, in my opinion it is not neccarcerry to have a running Original... as sample: old guns ore canons : i dont need to fire an 200 hundred year old Material with the risk of destroying it and in the worst case injure someone!
A full modern copy with modern material will disturb only the pivotcounters and Bufferlickers ...
"Preserve the Fire, not pray to the Ashes!"
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory It it known whom made the boiler, could it have been a static boiler from the start , then fitted to the frameset ?
This reminds of the _Railway Series_ book where Thomas goes to the Railway Museum at York and met Iron Duke, who said that broad gauge was used for the GWR back in the 1800s, speaking as though he lived through that time. Ya know, despite the fact that Iron Duke is a replica and was built five years before when the book takes place.
There is a real thing called "false memory" which is where people think they remember or experience something which they did not. It's something I've come accross a lot of in my work as a historian, especially of perception and experiences of historical events through diaries and letters home. Even within 24 hours of an even people's memories can change or be affected by what other people have said to them etc.
It's also interesting that memories can change in line with the prevelant historic view of an event. A lot of research was done on WW1 veterans - until the 1960s the generals like Haig and French were wonderful, best generals they ever had. From the 1960s onwards - when the view of Haig et al was changing - suddenly these veterans remembered Haig was an idiot, and a butcher.
It's all absolutly fascinating, but means the further in time a source was created perported to be describing historical events by one who experienced them, the more contaminated they are and less reliable they will be.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I can only imagine the existential crisis a living engine would face to be told they are a replica of something else or be told they were someone else their whole lives.
Too bad Lion can't just tell us if she is the real Lion!
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory this has nothing to do with Lion at all. but it's important all the same.
At the end does it really matter that an early steamlocomotive survived the odds and was preserved under the wrong name?
The most important part is that engine X from the 1840's is still with us.
She is just an engine called Lion.
She is nearing here bicentenial age in the 2040's thats a very big achievement.
Also Engine X has been called Lion longer now then what she original was named/numbered from the start.
I think your right about possibly being a Stephensons made locomotive, as design wise it looks alot like their earlier work, before the restoration that is.
Putting the cats among the pigeons this month, are we Anthony? An excellent and informative video nonetheless.
Thoroughly interesting. Lion is never recorded as carrying No.149, is it (Was there any loco with an 0-4-2+T that carried that number around in the UK during the 1840s)? Anyhow a very enjoyable video; to me I don't mind that Lion isn't Lion as long as the loco doesn't continue to pretend it is, which probably will continue. Which is a shame as a more obscure locomotive from the 1840s got into preservation and people don't even know. Again great video and I'm glad there is a significant amount of 1840s material left on the loco.
I love the video's Andrew, please keep them coming. Lion captures the history of an age and while it might not be the Lion built in 1838, it is the Lion named in 1924 and for the last hundred years it's been a part of our history, and so we should perhaps settle for the know fact that this engine may not be the original Lion but it certainly is an engine called Lion which commemorates an age of innovation and of skills which is lost today.
Dear Mr.Dawson, I would like to see a video on the most interesting "locomotive" from the 1837, the Galvani. It was the first electric locomotive, and was exhibited at the 1841 arts exhibiton. I just think it would be intersting as it is a rarly discussed locomotive on youtube. Thank you for reading.
That would indeed be a fascinating subject. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia has an article on the "Galvani", but it lacks the bits and pieces of contemporary background story that make Mr. Dawson's videos always so compelling.
ta dah! ruclips.net/video/3oAG2mjwapg/видео.html
A great video, very interesting and informative. Well done Sir. 🙂👍
Regardless of all the facts stated here, Lion is still my favourite steam locomotive. And she still deserves to be in the Museum of Liverpool given its age and history working for the docks.
If I ever become stupidly rich, I would commission two replicas of Lion. One in original L&MR condition called Tiger. And the other in persevered condition called Thunderbolt.
There was a propsal, lead by myself to build a replica of Lion in as built condition with the 'dressing up' firebox cover to it could post as Thunderbolt. Sadly, despite having serious initial collatoral (£50K) no one came forward to support it.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Pity.
This was interesting! 🚂
Glad you enjoyed it!
cool vid on the channel nice loco keep up the good vid on the channel thanks lee
Glad you enjoyed it
It is an 1840's locomotive, whatever modifications it may have had since then. Surely that is enough for us to appreciate the technology of the period? Does its name matter?
Would a rose by any other name?
If it's a Stephenson locomotive, there's another option. Robert had a habit or reusing his popular nameplates - multiple Meteors in 1830 and 1832 and a Sampson class locomotive called Rocket in 1836. Could there have been multiple contemporary Lions?
What fantastic video
I love any history on the railways
Thank you for sharing
Keep safe ARP
Many thanks! you too.
What a curious thing, and unless the locomotive could talk or we built a time machine, we may never find the real truth behind this mystery..
Hi Anthony. I've had the same broom for some thirty years; it's had 17 new heads and 9 new handles (LOL)!
This is a fantastic and informative video, it's likely I have placed a deposit with Rapido for an imposter! Actually, I'm okay as it's the Titifeld Thunderbolt I am purchasing, which we know at least, to be accurate :)
Off to see if you've covered any aspects of the Wisbech and Upwell tramway now, my favourite line from history.
So, basically, the cylinders don't match the description for those that Lion should have had, but they, the valve gear, rear driving wheel etc. match and are from the 1840s. The front, replacement driving wheel and crank are later and were made in Bolton. Considering the two 1858 locos were also built in Bolton, I would suppose that it is likely that 'our Lion' has parts of at least one of the Bolton engines. That said, 'our Lion' has matching older components that would be less likely to be put on later in life- the 1840s cylinders and valve gear- so I would suggest that 'our Lion' is/was a mish-mash of designs (even before the 1920s restoration), with the 'basis' being a loco built or rebuilt in the 1840s which had cannibalised Bolton-made components added on later- probably from one of the 1858 locos. Maybe one of the 1858 locos gave out whilst the other needed a replacement wheelset (perhaps following an accident), and if this was immediately before reuse as a pumping engine then mismatched numbers of wheel spokes would have been even less of a worry. Industrial railways always had a tendency to recycle older equipment, so to me this seems plausible. Furthermore, in my mind this 'basis' could potentially be Lion, reasoning being 1. Lion was indeed sold to the dock company and 2. the records/evidence of Lion's rebuild are- like everything from this period- far from concrete fact. Although Lion shouldn't have these cylinders according to the records, the records themselves may not be complete, or (however unlikely) Lion could have had another extensive rebuild later which replaced the valve gear and cylinders. Of course, we would need to conduct further research on the other docks locomotives to find out which could be the 'basis loco' for 'our Lion'. For all intensive purposes, it could even be one of the LNWR 2-2-2 locos bought in 1859 with Lion, but converted into an 0-4-2 with Bolton parts (having bought 2 locos from them the year prior) to make them more suitable as goods engines- which would explain the mismatched driving wheels. Either way, until compelling evidence of it being another prototype appears, I'll just say that 'our Lion' is Lion with extra bits put on.
The two 1858 locomotives *weren't* built in Bolton. They were sold by a firm *in* Bolton. We don't know who built those two 1858 locomotives.
The frames, valve gear, cylinders, pistons, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels are all of a set. They belong together. They're of a piece. No evidence of anything being swapped and change around. The leading axle and its wheels are later but still pre c.1860 due to the material they're made from (Low Moore Iron) and the quality of the iron.
The fact that the bottom end (other than the leading axle) is a set, belongs togther - the stamps prove it - makes it very unlikely that the "bottom end" of Lion is "bitsa".🙂
Oh well, there goes that theory. Still, it seemed almost too good for coincidence that the first two times I ever heard of Bolton having anything to do with locomotive manufacture/sale etc. happened to be two separate cases in the same video (and before anyone replies, yes, I know and have long known about Horwich works, but that's Horwich, not Bolton).
In that case, I would probably recant my earlier theory and just say that the engine found at the pumping house IS Lion, at least until anyone can prove the existence of another locomotive owned by the company which better matches the preserved loco than whatever documentation has survived about Lion. As far as I'm concerned, until that point, it's Lion. And even if it were proven otherwise, everyone knows of 'Lion' as 'Lion', and have done so for nearly a hundred years- knowing otherwise wouldn't stop it being Lion, because it would be just as much 'Lion' as it had always been: the question- what's in a name? I'm somewhat more intrigued into the logic of the mismatched wheelset- the tyre had 'Crewe' stamped on it, so presumably someone (the LNWR?) stuck it there after 1850 as you said- but why replace the wheelset when the engine was obsolete and sold off anyway in 1859? Sudden traffic requirements? And even then, couldn't they have at least matched the number of spokes on each set if it was newly machined to fit- a lack of care isn't something I particularly associate with Crewe.
@@captaincool3329 The tyre was put on by the LNWR at Crewe but not the wheels and axles. Engine tyres, like those on cars, are changed when they become worn. What we know is the tyre was rolled at Crewe, probably fittd at Crewe and from analysis of the tyre and the fixing bolt show them both to pre date 1860. We dont know when the replacement axle and wheels were fitted. The tyre doesnt date the wheel. Given that Rothwell & Co ceased trading in 1864 it means the wheels must pre-date then. Rothwell & Co also supplied two, 0-4-2 luggage engines to the Liverpool & Manchester Railway at the same time as Lion and Tiger were ordered from Leeds. Liverpool Museum suggest the wheels came second hand from a Bolton & Leigh Railway locomotive - but don't cite any sources.
The locomotive probably broke its leading axle in an accident and there was a spare set of cast iron five feet diameter wheels in stock for it.
The story is getting more and more interesting. When I first saw the movie Titfield Thunderbolt and saw 'Lion', I thought it was a movie prop. There was something wrong with that smooth copper box at the back. It looked like some sort of addition to make it look more 'old fashioned'. I know very little about locomotives but I think I have a keen eye for detail and, in it's present form, 'Lion' doesn't look quite right to me. That is my lay person's view. I like your summing up of it being an older loco with a later boiler. I would still like to see that copper box taken off though.
Id love to see all the 1930s additions taken off to be honest and present the locomotive far more honestly, rather like with Ballaarat. Not "over restored" but the silly firebox cover has been part of the locomotive since 1930 so it's as just a part of it as any other.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I'm glad it's not just me. There is a lot of interest in Lion and other very early locomotives, and it seems to be building. There is enthusiasm for returning things to their original state, as much as possible, and maybe it will gain momentum and the decision will be made. Can you imagine the unveiling? I'm optimistic. I just realised that Hornby will be furious 😄
That type of 'haystack' type firebox was contemporary to the times, and may likely to have been a conversion from the original Stevenson design in a later rebuilding, presumably in the 1840's.
@@stephenarbon2227 Lion catagorically does not have a 'Haystack' firebox. Underneath the 1930 brass cover which is designed to immitate one is a high crowned wagon-top firebox of the type you'd see on a Manning Wardle saddle tank or a Quarry Hunslet. The present boiler dates from 1865 or later.
I strongly agree. It just doesn't look like it was designed by an engineer. There's something a bit fishy about that big box.
She more than likely Is lion, just having been rebuilt extensively to keep her in service for an extended period of time, even the General and Texas are a bit different in appearance than they were during the famous locomotive chase, and Sierra Number 3 looks different than it did before the wood cab was replaced with a spare steel cab after it's first major accident, even the boiler is brand new.
The john bull had to be restored back to it's original appearance when it was donated to Smithsonian, the 1927 replica represents its later appearance when it was turned into a 4-2-0 instead of the 2-4-0 as it was built.
People forget that steam locomotives were once regularly operating machinery and things were changed during certain maintenance periods to keep them running.
A lot of strange franken locomotives were made in the early days of railroading so an older set of cylinders, an older frame and a newer boiler (but still older) and old safety valves and whatnot were added.. That poor locomotive.
It's not really the case with Lion that it's a "bitsa". The chassis - the frames, the cylinders and pistons, valve gear, crank axle and trailing axle and their wheels are all of a set. They all have stamps made by the same tool and are all of the same type and style. They belong together. The oddity is the leading axle and wheels but they too are early. This means that the chassis of the locomotive is pretty much a complete 1840s locomotive, which can be closely dated from 1840 to c.1846. Hope this helps :-)
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Steam locomotive rebuilds were strange back in the early days that's for sure, which means it's a miracle they were able to make a working locomotive out of what they had! It's most likely a mash up of 2 locomotives, which had a wreck, boiler was totaled on one, frames and whatnot totaled on the other. Either way an early locomotive survived to be preserved as an operational engine!
@@raymondleggs5508 There's no evidence at all for any accidents. The present boiler was made in 1865 by the Mersey Docks & Harbour Board and it was heavily repaired in 1902. What we're looking at today is an 1840s chassis married to an 1865 boiler. It's not a mash up to two locomotives.
@@raymondleggs5508What you’re describing is speculation with no consideration for the evidence. Where’s the evidence for two seperate locomotives having accidents at the same time that also conveniently only damaged the parts which would allow the two to be combined?
@@OwenBudd1 No not at the same time but possibly close enough in time that parts from a scrapped locomotive had been used to cobble together a locomotive from remnants of lion. Look at the old photos of some old logging lcos and some other industrial locos and you'll see some cobbled together contraptions after all the only thing it has to do is run and pull wagons.
Very informative video well done Anthony. I still love Lion as it is.
Thanks 👍
Rocket was heavily modified during it's lifetime, so it's completely possible that the loco is Lion, just modified numerous times over it's lifetime.
'New' locomotives were sometimes described as 'rebuilds' for accounting purposes.
Could it just be that Lion is the real thing but had so many replacements and improvements over time that no parts from its 1838 form still exist today?
The "bottom" end (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank & trailing axle and their wheels) are all of a set, and belong together. They're closely date from 1841-1846(circa). Which fits for Lion - if it is Lion - having been rebuilt by Dewrance and Woods in 1841. The only changes since then have been new leading wheels and a much later boiler. It's a pretty mcuh complete 1840s locomotive but minus the boiler.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory was it quite normal for engines built with water pumps to remain in service into the late 1850s early 1860s?
I am guessing that the fact that the lack of a water injector wasn't a massive issue for the enginemen all those years ago.
@@eliotreader8220 it was perfectly normal, yes.
I guess the irony is that she been Lion longer now than she hasn't!
Fascinating, great research, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
first sounds déjà vu, but the other video is still there 😉
How did a locomotive run a pump? was it just using the boiler to supply steam for a pump engine? or was the pump some how attached to the driving wheels of the loco? (google was of no help)
Good question.
The engine was used to drive a chain pump. IIRC in its later years the boiler wasn't even used, steam was fed to the cylinders from a remote source.
A gear train was attached to the crank axle wheels. See my book "Lion: the Story of the Real Titfield Thunderbolt"
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thankyou.
I knew about there being gaps in the history, but had no idea just how wrong it may have been.
It is equally possible that the locomotive known as the Lion, is a mixture of the 3 locomotives, of a similar design, that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, had purchased, along with with other parts, from other obsolete locomotives, that were built around the same time.
This mix and match would most likely have taken place, when it was converted into a pump engine, and the resulting locomotive was called the Lion.
Of course this is just a theory, and it could be any of the 3 locomotives that were in the shed, with parts of other locomotives added to it.
As I've mentioned in the video and elsewhere up thread, the "bottom end" of Lion (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels) all belong together and are a "set". The stamps all match up and correspond. The leading axle and wheels are different. So that what we're looking at is a complete 1840s chassis with a later boiler plonked on top. 🙂 The evidence of the stamps suggests it's not a mix and match loco.
Mixing and matching wasn’t really possible in the 19th century - not in the way that you’re describing here. We’re talking hand made pieces that are largely made to specifications that match the other parts. There is a reason that interchangeability of parts was such a big deal during WW2, because it wasn’t really possible to just swap parts around without major re-working. These early locomotives were not meant to have interchangeability with each other, and they weren’t made to standardised dimensions in the way we understand it.
If the loco we know as Lion now has been known as such for longer than the original, then I think it’s valid to say this loco is more Lion than Lion
I enjoyed the video. I'm confused now. Is it Lion or not? Lol. Either way... It sure is pretty. Glad it was saved from a pump house... no matter who it is
I think if you add the context of the period to this mystery, it goes some way to explain it. This was the grouping era when the new companies engaged in publicity and promotion to establish strong corporate identities and heritage. What greater prestige coup for the LMS than to claim it's heritage back to the LMR - especially with the centenary coming up? Its great rival the LNER had "Locomotion" afterall! So, with no obvious early survivors operational, deliberately or inadvertently identifying the loco as "Lion" was more important than if it was really just old L&Y stock. A case of confirmation bias based on wanting to discover a LMR loco.
Oh yes, absolutely. The LMS were very aware of the PR success then LNER had enjoyed with the Stockton & Darlington centenary in 1925, especially as it came only two years after the LNER et al were formed. It was a great feel good event for the LNER and the public and helped unify the LNER (the LMS at the time was fighting like cats in a bag).
Do we know the provenance of the locomotives purchased from Thompson and Co of Bolton? This might reveal further details that could be verified on the preserved locomotive.
Alas, we do not. All we know is their basic dimensions - which match that of the preserved Lion.
That is very confusing but interesting
Thank you Anthony for this intriguing video. I have only just discovered this series and will certainly be watching more episodes. Do we have any idea as to the kind of locomotive from which the current boiler came? The shape of the firebox suggests a saddle tank from one or the Leeds builders to me.
The present boiler is probably that made in 1865. All we know about it is that it is made from Low Moor Iron. It was heavily repaired in 1901, which would for for the age profile of such a boiler which saw very little use.
Thank you. So the number 149 on the back plate doesn’t get us anywhere ?
@@RichardLamin-pm6hg Nope. It's a "Leeds" type boiler which to my mind suggets Lion was running around as a tank engine in the 1860s.
That’s an intriguing thought! I suppose a tank engine would have been more suited to work around Liverpool docks.
@@RichardLamin-pm6hg Yep. And many other old locomotives were rebuilt as such either by mainline companies or contractors like Isaac Watt Boulton.
Another one?
You spoil us sir. Has any work been done to work out where the two candidate locomotives offered for sale were used prior to their being offered for sale? Guessing the firm mentioned was a contractor or just a trader in such things buying them up and selling them on?
They were a foundry in Bolton, yes. They had second hand locos for sale.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I more meant, and could have maybe worded it better to, do we know how the foundry got them to he selling them second hand as this could open up some avenue to working out a possible provenance for whatever we see today in terms of its original operator which seems deeply unlikely to be the L&MR.
@@Samstrainss Haven't a clue I'm afraid. The contemporary newspapers are full of adverts for second hand locomotives, especially the LNWR which was divesting itself of old and obsolete locomotives under John Ramsbottom. Similarly the L&Y was getting rid of a load of old engines. Usually contractors would snap them up, use them on construction jobs and then sell them on or scrap them.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory ah well, perhaps someone with an intimate knowledge of the LNWR or L&YR can shed some light on weather they recorded the buyer when selling off a loco. If they did do so as a rule of thumb then it becomes an interesting, if slim, chance that a note exists recording the transaction which at least gives it a railway it came from. Step by step we go closer to a true identity.
It sounds like the dock authority didn't keep records after purchasing. So there is a good chance that not many internal records were not kept either. Let say Lion and others worked the docks for 15 years. They would have been rebuilt, overhauled, chopped up, scrapped and salvaged on site. Quite a lot of ports and docks had their workshops afterall. They could have even rebuilt the boiler on sight The bore size inconsistencies can be put down to cylinder rebores over next 45 years. A 1/4 inch skim every 5 years or new liners could account for that. And it all sounds like dock authority simply did everything on the cheap for as long as possible.
The cylinders haven't been re-bored from 12 inches tho - and the Docks & Harbour Board spent over £300 on a new boiler for "a" locomotive in 1865. That's a very expensive boiler - it's more than just a new boiler. That's new boiler plus other work. I suspect, given the form of the boiler with the high crown firebox and that there's no fitting on the barrel itself that which ever locomotive it was which received the boiler was rebuilt as a saddle tank. A tender engine would be pretty useless shunting on the docks to be honest. 🙂
While it would be nice to know whather it is Lion, or which other loco it could be, the fact is that this locomotive has been called L&M No.57 "Lion" for longer than it ever had any other identity.
I doubt that will change any time soon.
Hi Anthony, "Lion" had a sister engine called "Tiger".
Adding to your observation about the parts of the loco not fitting properly and that not being an issue because it was a stationary pumping engine, is it possible that it wasn't any particular loco at all but made up of spare parts from many locos all from the same 1840s era? Just guessing here!
Alas not. The "bottom end" (frames, cylinders, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels) all belong together and we know this from the stamps on them. If they were a mish-mash of parts the stamps would be different, and they'd be of a subtly different type and style. And they're not. So we know the "bottom end" belongs tog ether and is a pretty much complete 1840s locomotive 🙂
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thanks for the reply.
I was not aware before now that there were two locomotives sold in 1874 to the Harbour Board. However I still am inclined to be assured the engine we have now is indeed the much-rebuilt Lion. We don't know exactly what Manchester & Birmingham Railway Nos. 12 or 13 looked like for a start, plus it is my firm belief that even as early as said date Lion was "particularly fortunate" to have averted the fate of the scrap-men. The Harbour Board people would surely have been aware even then they had an engine on their hands that was a former-relic of the old Liverpool & Manchester Railway, so to prolong its existence for as long as possible they bought another surplus engine to take over its shunting duties while it was installed in the pumping house.
Regards, Samuel Farris.
Even though this engine is likely not Lion it's still lion to me
Me too!
Witam, bardzo fajne filmy o historii kolei.
Bardzo interesujące materiały.
Mieszkam w Polsce w okolicy najstarszych linii kolejowych z 1842 i 1943 r. Jeździły tu parowozy od Stephensona i od Sharpa. Jeden z parowozów Sharpa został sfotografowany po eksplozji kotła we Wrocławiu Swiebodzkim. Z tego co wiem parowozy te były zbudowane przypuszczalnie wcześniej bo w 1842, lub możliwie że już w 1841 r. A więc w wersji pierwotnej. Czy są rysunki tendra do parowozów Sharp & Brothers o długości 16' ?
Cześć. To bardzo interesujące. Nie wiem, czy istnieją konkretne rysunki lokomotyw. Sharps wykonał „standardową” lokomotywę. Więc najbliżej do polskich, jakie przychodzi mi do głowy, jest ta zbudowana w Danii: ruclips.net/video/LUy6Vmf3y6g/видео.html
Perhaps the current lion was a bit like Sir Haydn and combination of locomotives?
It isn't because the stamps and the style and type of frames, cylinders, pistons, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle and their wheels all belong together. They're a matched set and the stamps attest to them belonging together. The only oddity is the leading axle and wheels but they too are pretty early. So the chassis of the locomotive can be dated from 1840 to about 1846.
Is it possible that Lion is an amalgamation of locos, recieving the cylinders and valve gear off a loco which had been scrapped?
So if there is a newbuild it shouldn't look like Lion. 🤔
That's correct. Lion has only looked the way it does since 1930.
An interesting Historical review, but really brings us no closer to the truth. It does however bring one pertinent question to mind; how much of an original locomotive can you change, before it is no longer the original locomotive? At one of the scale is the LMS 10000 project. A Class 58 subframe mounted on Class 77 bogies isn't LMS 10000, anymore than a "cut & shut" Class 37 on Class 20 bogies is a Class 23. At the other end of the scale are the former Barry scrapyard locos now in fully functional condition. Where is the line, and who draws it?
The LMS 10000 group are not trying to claim their loco is the original 10000, but is a replica of it built with what they can. Same with the Class 23. Both however have more engineering than just being a cut and shut job.
@@BR69843I didn't sat that that is what they are claiming. It was a general question of interest. Read what I typed, not what you thought that I'd typed.
are you saying that the engine they believed to be Lion a kit of parts?
I'm not saying it's a kit of parts at all. The locomotive as preseved is a complete 1840s chassis (frames, cylinders, pistons, valve gear and two out of three sets of wheels and axles) married to a later boiler. The tender is a modern fabrication.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory so it's not a case of Trigger's broom then in the case of the wheels then?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory should we be lucky that this engine was saved at all despite the fact that we will never know it's true identity
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I have read your book about Lion. it revealed a lot of information about her that I had not heard of previously. what type of valve gear will the recreated Lion have
Bolton is a long way from Liverpool isn't it?
About thirty five miles.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I mean for a old engine like Lion on the main line under her own steam power.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory so would that have been with in the fuel range for a engine like her?
would it have been difficult to service Lion during her time as thunderbolt as I understand that the station didn't have a pit to clean her out in the morning
Could she have been alive to tell us her story!
One would hope she had a Leeds, not a Scouser, accent. Reet proper Leeds lass. Aye, gradely.
Thanks for another interesting video; it sounds like you are in danger of using facts to spoil a good story...
I love the sound myths make when you shatter them.
Lion is the mechanical Anna Anderson.
My Grandad said Lion was so heavily modified, it now carries the name The Flying Scotchman. He worked in Crewe Works, so must be right. I hope this answers everyone's questions ..
The intervention by Crewe was, for the time, quite minimal: replacement chimney; replacement smokebox doors; new splashers; new springs; new footplate rails; the silly firebox cover; and a completely new tender. The core of the locomotive, the frames, wheels, cylidners, valve gear and boiler were unchanged and date from c.1840 to c.1860s. 🙂
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory My comment was just a joke, i do appreciate your dedication to research.
My mum had the same broom for 60 years, only had 4 new handles and 6 heads.
Still the working life of "lion" is truly remarkable.
That's ok
Gosh very analytical - The cylinders are not original Lion nor is the boiler but would you expect them to be for an engine well used?
We can trace the history of the boiler, but not the cylinders. There's no real evidence of them being swapped. They belong with the frames, valve gear, crank axle, trailing axle, and two wheel sets.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I bought a camper once it turned out to be the front of one the back of another with fittings from a 3rd - its resale value was less than half - it seems this may be a vehicle wearing another's identity - maybe we should call it the Titfield Thunderbolt something we know it certainly was?
Don't you think that the story is much more interesting because there isn't a paper trail? 😁
Who was this chap Salter? The gauges he invented would seem to be a very important part of the rail story.
Or they reused cylinders of a larger diameter of the 1840 pattern.
Why would a railway works put on a set of obsolete cylinders and pistons when a locomotive came in for work?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory because that was all you could afford. The traction motors on thte 5WES EMUs reused the traction motors off the 4REP EMUs instead of more modern and efficient traction motors.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 That's a very plausible theory tbf
👍👍🚂🚂
Scandal, intrigue, locomotives impersonating each other, mysterious part swapping. All is not what it seems. It's outrageous. This warrants a serious, investigation into the matter. ..... Clearly, someone is lion, Anthony.
Oh you know just lion around, trying to make some roarsome content.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Glad to hear you finally recovered. Long term illness is no fun. And you're now Dr. Anthony Dawson. That must be such a personal buzz after years of hard work. If I hadn't done so earlier - congratulations.
It is equally possible that the locomotive known as the Lion, is a mixture of the 3 locomotives, of a similar design, that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, had purchased, along with with other parts, from other obsolete locomotives, that were built around the same time.
This mix and match would most likely have taken place, when it was converted into a pump engine, and the resulting locomotive was called the Lion.
Of course this is just a theory, and it could be any of the 3 locomotives that were in the shed, with parts of other locomotives added to it.
There's no evidence of it being a "mix and match". The frames, cylinders, valve gear, trailing and crank axle and their wheels are of a set and belong together. The stamps are made with the same tool, and in terms of technolgoy and style and manufacture they're a "set". The "bottom end" is a complete 1840s locomotive chassis basically, with later leading wheels and axle. The boiler is different, and not from the 1840s. That's only the real major change and difference 🙂