The next newbuild

My understanding Corbs is that there is a lot more commonality between the 76's and the 82's. 76079 for instance has the first cylinder produced from the 82 pattern.

 

I think the 82045 group have said they share many components. Im not sure what, but Im sure 82045 will be using somthing from a 77.

 

They do have 77014s chimney but since it has a crack in it and is unusable. Its going to be used as a pattern I gather.

 

So I gather from looking at the website, roll on the day it steams out of Bridgnorth

 

The 82xxx and 84xxx also have some commonality of components, and the 82045 and 84030 groups have collaborated on production of e.g. rear pony trucks, as I recall.

Tom

 

76s, 77s and 82s have common cylinders, front pony trucks and some motion parts. The 77s and 82s have many more common components, such as wheels, axles, axleboxes, axlebox underkeeps, boilers, smokeboxes, the list goes on.

 

I was under the impression the 75/80xxx had common cylinders with the 76/82/77s and that the you only need one cylinder pattern for both Lh and Rh cylinders. There are more parts that are hidden that will be common to all ie regulator valves/ brake valves/ lubricators.

 

Then. I'm sorry to say, your impression was wrong, certainly with regard to cylinder commonality. Don't know about regulators but brake valves and lubricators were proprietary items, bought from outside industry.

 

Quite correct, Steve. Interesting to note that the cylinders on Standard locos are normally handed by the position of the steam chest drain boss only. On the cylinders for the 76, 77 and 82s, the front drain cock flange is lower/thicker than the rear one, as well.
The regulators and regulator valves on the 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82 and 84 classes are the same. However a larger, modified pilot valve was designed for the 75 and 80 classes in 1959, with the main valve being altered to suit. Not many locos were modified, but one managed to find its way onto 2MT 78059, now being converted to 84030 at the Bluebell. I found this out when a replacement pilot valve casting was supplied, only to be told it was too small. They rectified the situation by taking the existing main valve out of 80100 and used that with the new casting.

 

I've a feeling that the 78XXX that used to be on the SVR was the same.

 

Throwing myself in the firing line again - but what the hey…

So locomotive X gains a reputation for axle boxes overheating during service with British Railways. In the modern day, roller bearing axle boxes are being used on the most modern steam locomotives being built or in service. This type of problem can be resolved easily.

Stating that building locomotive X is a bad idea because it had axle box problems in service is bit silly, let's be honest.

Examining the root cause more clearly: locomotive X was designed during the second world war and built directly afterwards. One austerity measure was to fabricate axle boxes instead of casting them. This one austerity measure continued with a number of designs - some suffered problems, others didn't.

This was one austerity measure too far perhaps and this can in the modern day be resolved very easily.

Other issues - locomotive X had leaking tanks in service. In the design stage of a modern version of locomotive X, the tanks can be re-designed or all welded to be better water tight and prevent these issues. Minor design tweak.

So once you've resolved those major issues, you have a version of locomotive X that potentially works better than the originals whilst also offering the power and range you require of a new locomotive for a heritage line.

Look at what is being done to the Gresley P2 design - arguably the original design is not fit for purpose in the modern day, so tried and tested modifications as fitted to the A1 Tornado are being used along with careful study and re-design of other parts to solve issues. Would we say the P2 design shouldn't be built on the basis of the problems of the originals? No, we trust the people building it to rectify those problems and produce a reliable machine.

There are no problems, only solutions - and that's why I'm founder member no.103 towards no.2007.

Oh - did I not mention? Locomotive X was a Thompson design. Surely not another example of anti-Thompson thinking for the sake of it…?

 

Go ahead and build it then.

 

Interesting response - not quite sure you've grasped the point I was making but I'm used to that now.

For any new build, there will be obstacles to overcome and places where the original design is not fit for purpose for the modern day. I think to exclude any designer or design on the basis of reputation (except possibly Paget's and Fowler's Ghost!) is silly. More to the point - do they serve a purpose and fulfil a need (see 3MT), do they set the world alight in terms of passion (see P2) and on the basis of both, is there the money and engineering support to build it? If all is yes then go ahead and build it.

I'm not naive - I know that to suggest any new build Thompson design would not be met with any enthusiasm. That's part and parcel of the problem with the designer's rep, not the design's problems. If we are going to have a debate about "what should be built" then be consistent in your views and not treat every locomotive design differently simply on the basis of their designer. The P2s arguably have worse and more difficult to fix problems and that has not stopped two separate groups from starting to build theirs.

There are no problems, only solutions.

 

Those who can, do. Those who can't, talk about it. Which one are you?

 

You fail to mention the axlebox modifications carried out on ten Neasden based locos of Class X in 1954. Manganese steel liners were fitted and the wedges done away with. This mod resulted in no further axlebox problems on the modified locos.

 

Clearly a doer if I'm supporting the P2 amongst others. However you are still missing the point I'm making so I'm happy to leave it at that.

But while I'm here - anyone like a Thompson L1 with roller bearing axle boxes in LNER Apple green? Similar size to a 4mt with similar power and fuel capacity but offering something different? No, just me? Fair enough.

 

I think there was a facebook page for that very project a few months/years back...

 

If you're going to build an LNER tank loco, then the obvious choices are an V1/V3 or an L1. Then it comes down to which will attract the most support? Whilst I fully support your argument that certain historical engineering frailties shouldn't stand in the way of worthy new-builds, you then can't resist playing the Thompson card. The loco's should be judged on their merits, including construction cost and 'usefulness' but the key factor is their ability to generate the funds for construction, and for me, that would be the V3 as the best all-rounder of the bunch.

 

And I would not disagree with you one iota. I'd happily support a V1/3 but equally I'd argue if we have the P2 design finalised, then you 3/4 of an A2/3 in theory and all the associated standard parts between two Pacifics and a mikado. It'll never be built by a group I'll wager which is a shame in my view.

However all of this is redundant I suspect as the V4 has been mooted for the one after the P2...

 

Ah yes...! Well that's been discussed elsewhere and I agree with the majority largely.