New-build steam strategy coordination?

This was debated on the GSN facebook group. The group decision was that the term "unaltered" was better than "unrebuilt" as Bulleid himself called the rebuilds "altered" pacifics.

From what they are saying on Facebook seem quite confident with the project going ahead and are adveristing a working weekend. Would be interesting to see if any physical work is actually done most new builds on facebook just talk and dont do anything wonder if this will be different.

 

I only said the Clan was daft as i can't see any reason for spending money duplicating the least successful BR Standard designs. I know it is said that the new one will address the shortcomings but the main problem was they were underboilered so if you address that issue you end up with a Britannia! The future probably lies with cheaper medium size locos which will be of use to heritage lines as with the Standard 3 Tank at the SVR.

 

The 'next best thing' they got was with the entrenched Derby technology of the time, was the pathetic Garretts. Under-axleboxed and with cylinders and motion very obsolete even by 1930 standards. If the design had been left to Beyer Peacock the LMS could have had a far better loco.

 

If you could restore it but somehow keep it 'see through' on one side that would be brilliant (I'll admit I have had some red wine tonight)!

 

I think the sectioning of otherwise operable steam locomotives reprehensible. There is no need for such butchery when a fibreglass rep would do perfectly adequately.

I don't know, some folk seem to manage to make a profit - and not just the likes of Branson. Ian Riley is one. However, I'm sure Ian didn't go into steam ownership with profit as his primary motive, nor would I. If, through a solid business plan, I could make a profit from my dreamsheet plans, all well and good - if not, well, I'd happily sink some cash into it for the enjoyment and employment it would bring...

 

A little known current project is Riversimple, a British company which is working on a battery-less electric car. Their chosen primary energy source is a hydrogen fuel cell, although they say others could be used. Regenerative braking is used to capture the kinetic energy (as in a current F1 car) for accelerating back to speed from, say, traffic lights, but is stored in a bank of super capacitors rather than batteries - lighter and, I assume, cheaper. From memory 1kg of hydrogen gives a 240 mile range in a city car sized vehicle. They have other interesting ideas, for example leasing rather than selling vehicles.

Whether this technology could be adapted for railway use is debatable - it would take one heck of a bank of capacitors to accelerate a 400 ton train back up to speed. Although as SACM says above there are no problems only solutions, imagine each coach having its own capacitor pack and harvesting its own braking energy.

You mean like this?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/playing-god/

Using sugar water and modified brewer's yeast to directly synthesise diesel fuel. Relevant bit starts about 26 mins in (although the the whole program is interesting). Ironically the program IS actually BBC's Horizon.

Dave

 

Why? There is more to preservation than simply operating every available loco. 35029 is providing a better service to preservation, and is considerably more secure, than all those preserved-in-name-only Merchant Navies slowly rusting away up and down the country.

If running such a service was either technically or commercially feasible on the crowded lines in Southern England, someone would be doing it by now. The fact that there aren't such regular itinerary trips running down here, and there are Merchant Navies sitting unrestored, should tell you everything you need to know about the commercial viability of such a scheme.

Tom

 

Like your point about the 'Clans' as others before me have said if the Duke hadn't survived we'd all be saying how awful it was today.

 

Given both that we already have 3 Standard Pacifics in preservation and only a handful of Clans were built, do they represent a significant gap in the preserved steam fleet?

 

I like rebuilt Merchant Navies, as well as the original design, and it would be a shame to butcher away their history in this way. If you had enough money to do all that why not just build some new ones?

 

I agree with Tom and The Saggin' Dragon, and I would add that sectioning the otherwise-to-be-scrapped loco was probably easier and cheaper than constructing a fibreglass replica would have been. Other railway museums around the world have similar exhibits.

 

And unlike Ellerman Lines, some of those exhibits would not otherwise have been scrapped. The Manx 2-4-0T in Manchester and the Quarry Hunslet in Canada spring to mind, although of course the sectioning of such small engines is not irreversible.

 

Also a fibreglass replica would almost inevitably be dumbed down to allegedly make it easier to understand so you wouldn't be able to trust what you were looking at.

 

another way of looking at it might be that the other gaps in the standard scene are being filled (at varying pace), so the gap that the Clan represents actually gets a little wider all the time!

If the Hengist project shut down tomorrow, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that in a decade or two it will be the only gap in the BR stable, so then it'll be truly significant!

 

A significant Gap ? no. But a Gap nevertheless.
The Gap is the ' excuse' to new build and there are very few gaps left to fill with practical versatile locomotives in the upper power classes: Whats left ; Turbomotive ? Fury? Hush Hush ? Thompsons cut and shut ex P2'S ? a V4or other ' variations on what we have already'.

A Clan has a decent enough case and im not going to go there in terms of what they we're good or not good for, because the simple fact is that one is being built slowly but surely and when it is built it will be a welcome addition to any preserved line roster, and deliver mainline performance in excess of Black fives, Halls, Jubilees, B1's, 8F's King Arthurs Standard 5's. all of which have found Gainful employment there

 

Whist i fully support the plan to new build missing engines such as the stand 3 tank, and converting the bluebells std 2 mogol into its tank variant, there are some that if i can be honest do not appear to have the planning and the fund raising behind them, that the patriot group, or the std 3 group have, and if they are to actually get their engines beyond an engineers drawing, need to up their game, day dream s such as the L1 or the v4, just make people think its going nowhere, i wont bother, where people like the A1 trust, have it spot on, with the P2, they have funding already in hand to have the frames cut and have started collecting parts that will one day build the loco, where as others are not even any where near it, yet may have been trying to fund raise for much longer.

 

Building one of Thompson's larger 6ft 2in Pacifics (A2/2 and A2/3) is not as daft an idea as some make out.

If the A1 Trust were to look at it, they'd find from their research into building the P2 that they already have, between the latter engine and 60163 Tornado, almost all of the R&D for an A2/3 more or less done between them.

If the same reasoning was followed for a new Thompson Pacific A2/3 as per a Peppercorn A1 and a Gresley P2, you'd find the A1 trust in a remarkably good position for building one. The reason for this is the lineage from P2, to A2/2, to A2/3, to A2 and A1 whereby there are many commonalities through the lineage.

The frames for an A2/2 have 70% commonality with the P2 - from between the front and forward middle of the Mikado's driving wheels rearwards (this is where they were cut on the Mikados to make the Pacific format).

The boilers can be shared between all three - the A1 Trust already holds the patterns for the 6ft 2in driving wheels.

All three use the same tenders and tender wheelsets. All three can use the same roller bearing axleboxes.

The P2 valve gear and A2/2 valve gear share commonality of parts, and they already have experience in building a locomotive with three sets of valve gear in Tornado.

Casting the cylinders wouldn't be an issue, and arguably the R&D for Tornado's outside cylinders might be suitable too.

The difference is of course desire. I suspect outside of myself and a few other enthusiasts, the demand to build a Thompson Pacific is low. Thus deciding to build one, aside from the very welcome shortening in R&D time, shared components and tooling available, would require a feat of incredible PR to convince the general public that building a Thompson Pacific both fills a gap (which it does - but admittedly a small one) and would also fulfil a need. On both those points you could say the argument for building one is lacking.

Which in my view is a shame, but that's just me.

 

I still think every locomotive should be operated at some point, there's absolutely no point in keeping a locomotive a cold, static heap of steel, because that doesn't enthuse anyone. Granted, 35029 is at least secure, but a sound boiler has been butchered, it stands little chance of ever running again, and I think that's sad. Yes, there are several Merchant Navies which are yet to be restored, and that's also a pity. Of course, if you operate everything at the same time, you're left with nothing when they all go out for overhaul, but that can be avoided through careful planning.

There is some room for such an operation. There were some successful runs to Weymouth this summer, and the much-discussed raising of the steam speed limit to 90mph would be very helpful - we all know the MNs would happily run ton-up all day, so for them to be stuck to 75mph (usually blowing off the whole time) seems daft.

Potentially operable, and it was sitting in a yard where hardly anything got scrapped. The other side still isn't hot and damp to the touch! If the NRM really cared about using that loco to enthuse the public, it'd be thrashing down the SWML, not sitting at York with bits hacked out of it!

Ultimately it's up to a loco owner what they do with their locos. If Chris Beet decides to fit Leander with a 2A boiler, that's his prerogative. Most of the MNs ran only 5-10 years in altered form, and the unaltered locos were widely felt to be superior. I happen to prefer the unaltered look too.

You can roll a new barrel or cast new cylinders for anything, but it's still a big and expensive job. I would presume you could not weld them back up using the bits cut out, if they survive, or by putting in new metal! Ellerman wouldn't have been scrapped, Dai Woodham wasn't going to cut her up...

Why so? I would have thought that any such replica's acceptance would be conditional upon its accuracy, fulfilling exactly the same purpose as 35029 does now. However, the NRM really doesn't work as an educational facility anyway, it's a sterile shed full of cold locos and bored kids...

Well, not quite. Although there is a 77xxx group, the last I heard they'd only got a smokebox door built, so I wouldn't necessarily expect to see that finished any time soon...

 

I think this is the problem. You want everything, but disregard the harsh reality that everything is not possible. I am a shareholder (v small scale) in Southern Locomotives because I was enthused by the proposals to un-rebuild (that was the term in the ad) 35022. Bluntly, there were neither the cash nor the volunteers, hence 35022 being sold.

35029 does a good job of showing what a steam loco actually is. Despite being a Bulleid fan, as more than 1/3 of the class survived the scrapman, I really can't get worked up about one member of the class, especially when it is serving a useful purpose.

Funny, when I've been I've noticed a lot of very interested kids of all ages.

Anyway, I suggest that if @BrightonBaltic wants to be seen as more than a dreamer, he get involved in one of the schemes that does have locos that are hot and damp to the touch.