Current and Proposed New-Builds

I don't just think its enthusiasts, its those that go and take a slight interest from the public. They might remember the name Gresley, when talking about Scotsman or Mallard, but certainly will if the strap line is "pay for a new build engine, design by Gresley, the man who did Scotsman and Mallard." Its a nice and easy spin to make people buy in.

Quite sure that's the reason for things like V4 - not as many enthusiasts will have heard of it, or V3, but the spin and PR department can sell that idea much easier by attaching Gresleys name.

In any idea, what is needed is the L1, with modifications and not just one.

 

LMS Fowler tanks were better than L1s!

I remember a few years ago, in the Railway Magazine, an article about BR/Big Four locos from industrials. It listed preserved industrial locos which were identical, or nearly so, to ones on the mainline. A few which sprung to mind were some 0-4-0STs the GWR took over from one of the South Wales lines at the grouping. There were others too, quite a few, from memory, were GWR.

Also, the LNER had one or two, they had three 0-6-0 tanks from the Mid Suffolk Light Railway, which they classified J64 and were identical to the Manchester Ship Canal Railway Hudswell Clarke ones. Anyone remember the item?

 

They weren't identical to the MSC tanks, but close.
How about a MR Flat iron....?

 

The flat irons were one of the few unsuccessful designs to come from the Midland. Bad riding and prone to derailment. On the subject how about one of the Baldwin 2-6-0s that the Midland imported?

 

We've still got one NCC 'Jeep'(No.4).... and maybe one more still to come! That's pretty much a pure Fowler design.

Re: GW absorbed locos, I saw reference (on the GWS site) to an 0-4-0PT (yes.... four!) No.795. Does anyone know anything about this interesting sounding beastie?

 

Powlesland & Mason No5 0-4-0 ST BE 301 1903 became 795 at grouping, rebuilt PT by GWR and sold 1929 and scrapped c1962

 

Thanks.... don't suppose there's a photo anywhere? I did a quick search, but couldn't find anything. My search engines are returning more and more bizarre and unrelated results by the day!

 

Yes, I just found one on an RCTS site. Put GWR 795 in on google, and go to images and it was there, obviously taken after it was sold out of service, it has the name Dorothy

 

Thanks for that

Wow.... it looks as odd as it sounded... a bit like a sawn off 1366! What a shame no-one fell in love with it back in '62.

 

If asked what UK locomotive newbuild I would support, a modified A2/2 will have me earning money again.
Thomson got it nearly rigth but not quite.
All three cylinders shall drive front coupled wheelset.
Raven did on A2 so it can propel trains.
The only saving grace of the Gresley arrangement is that crankaxle is not strained trying to track locomotive.
On this account come all the conjugated gear troubles due to space problems.
Lots of more powerfull french locomotives have survived having two throw cranks up front and a single throw crank is more resistant.
This will enable outside conrods to be inside coupling rods.Sounder mechanical and easier relative to loading gauge.
Shall I look for a job?

 

You'll get no arguments from me on conjugated valve gears. Those sort of arrangements are OK with rigid mounting points. The wonder is that the Gresley gear is as reliable as it is... albeit with greater than ideal levels of maintenance. Fine in these days of pampered and much loved icons, but I do get where Thompson was coming from when considering wartime conditions. Whatever the rights and wrongs of ETs thoughts on equalised con rods, it's hard to be enthusiastic about the appearance of final result.

Raven's work I know too little about to comment on. All of his designs certainly had an appearance of rugged competence. Looks wise, the Atlantic always seemed better proportioned to my eye than his pacific, even if both were 'Oh so Edwardian'.

Valve gear wise, the one I'm really looking forward to is 2007. Tradition be damned... the modernised Lentz arrangement intrigues me. The input from across the pond bodes well for future cooperation and it's good to see the P2 folks seem to be in touch with the cousins working to recreate a Pennsy T1. Exciting times!

 

This didn't stand in the way of a new build Peppercorn pacific.

 

No but then the massive selling point was to get A1, A2, A3 and A4 so you need to build a new A1. Once the project went media savvy and put the issue of it being new build front and centre it gained a lot of attention and got a lot of willing donors to the project that looked properly organised. Once that the A1 to A4 line up was done, the next missing big engine was P2, establishing the Gresley connection. Then the A1 trust take the path that they do...

Personally I think the V4 is medium size and to go with the V1 tank as they can share parts. Thats why those two are chosen. I do think however, that a pool of L1s, modified to an improved arrangement would have been a better option and more use for preservation.

 

The only other Gresley design I'd like to see is a K3, but with the proposal of one being built only to attempt a speed record, it really doesn't sound too good.

 

I can't really see the enthusiast community funding a pool of any one particular class. If there is interest in large tanks, you're more likely to get an L1, Fowler, Robinson, Raven and V3.

 

OK, I do know that when it comes to new builds it is all sentiment and no logic, but will have a go anyway.
We do not need any:
1) More mainline locos, there is no shortage.
2) More Gresley or LNER locos: yes, they aren't as well represented as GWR, but the best locos by far were the Pacifics, and we have all the main classes.
3) Pre-grouping 4-6-0s of types which were basically disappointing. In fact only about three lineages of 4-6-0 were successful: a) Churchward's two-cylinder type and their cadet branch the four cylinder (or non-compound de Glenn) - we have many of both; b) Urie type, we have several; c) Highland two-cylinder (we have one, although I wouldn't say no to a River or a Clan)
4) Any big express locos to run slowly tender first on "heritage" lines.
5) Every last example of BR STD, even the fairly indifferent and/or largely indistinguishable ones.

What would be useful is modest sized tank locos (class 2 to 4) from companies which are poorly represented. So how about:
1: Anything from the Barry, Rhymney, Cambrian, M&GN, etc.
2: Midland or LNWR tank, e.g. Johnson 0-4-4T or Webb 2-4-2T
3: GCR tank: 4-4-2T or 4-6-2T
4: Another loco from the NBR, GSWR, Furness, or other line with few or only very old locos surviving.....

 

A Midland 1252-Class 0-4-4T would be an excellent choice for a newbuild.

 

Get your CAD package in action or, if you prefer, set up your drawing board. Try and work out an acceptable general arrangement.
There are many saving graces of the Gresley arrangement. Have a look at L.D.Porta's proposal for the A1 Trust. Essentially it is an A3, modified yes, but as the author of the paper admits still essentially a Gresley Pacific.
Quite recently 60163 gave concern on an excursion because the eccentric responsible for driving the inside valve gear was running hotter than was desired. Fortunately, some attention, a thinner oil, and some follow up checking saw the tour completed. Having travelled for thousands of miles behind various Gresley engines not once did the conjugated valve gear give any concern. Obtain a copy of the RCTS book covering the various LNER Pacific designs, you want Part 2a of this highly regarded series. From this you will be able to learn something of the design history of this gear, particularly with respect to the lubrication arrangements and the changes in bearings precipitated by wartime conditions.
Now I have posted this before, probably more than once and will no doubt need to again. The conjugated gear was, and remains, grease lubricated. The grease cups preferred by the LNER were such that the charge of grease was pressured by means of a spring so that delivery of the necessary lubricant was dependable. The task of filling the grease cups was a job for the shed staff. I keep an eye on some machinery that relies on grease cups and it is surprising how little attention they need. Oiled bearings are a different matter, and I have to give these far more regular attention.
So, back to the conjugated gear in question. The preparation by the crew would have been thorough enough. But the greasing of the conjugated gear, how frequently was it actually done in the pre war years? Did the shed staff come to realise that the grease cups in question only needed occasional attention? During the war years attention to these grease cups became very lacking. A failure at management level? Who can say. One thing that we can be certain of is that the operating of a machine, a mechanism if you prefer, without adequate lubriation is a recipe for disaster.
The conjugated gear minimises the oiling points that need to be accessed from under the engine, between the frames, on a three cylinder locomotive which is now viewed as optimal in the high power, non articulated, steam locomotive stakes, particularly if you are needing in excess of 4400 continuous ihp. You might need the power but that in itself is no good reason to make the work of those engaged in using the machine unduly burdensome.

 

Rather a dainty little loco and it's not as if there isn't some suitable contemporary Midland stock kicking around in need of resotration which would particularly fine with it in full Midland colours. The NER G5 project has cleared the way for engineering a crank axle to today's standards and there really shouldn't be anything else too hairy on the design front..... unlike the cash front, unfortunately.

I've already nominated my "Euromillions" dream loco.... a Brighton 'K' (single dome boiler, of course). Any Midland fans feeling lucky out there?

 

I'm a fan of all pre-grouping, grouping, and nationalization era steam. Of course, I'd go for a Brighton K, and anything Midland.