Current and Proposed New-Builds

That is reductio ad absurdum.

PH

 

Two points regarding new builds please.
1. As we don't have access to unlimited funds, which current new build projects are going to see completion?

2. My concern is that the owners of new builds will want at least a small return on their expense and that will best be achieved by main line running.
There are 52 weeks in the year, only a limited number of paths available and only a limited number of prospective customers.
When (not if) the P2, Grange and Patriot are completed and let loose on the main then will Black 5s, Castles and Bulleids become rarities as the new builds take their paths / customers? If owners of locos currently operating main line secure long term contracts for their locos, then the new builds may well spend some years on preserved lines as there's no work for them on the main.

 

Exactly. So now we agree in principle, it's just a question of where to draw the line. Restore "Bradyll" for operation?

Tom

 

I was sorely tempted to ask if we were talking about Stephenson's Stephenson's 'Rocket' or Ford's Stephenson's 'Rocket' !

 

That again is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I had more in mind machinery that has seen service in "preservation" but has been out of service, seemingly with little attention, for a considerable period.

PH

 

In fairness to Tom, strictly speaking the description does apply to 'Bradyll'..... unless, of course, said loco really does turn out to have been 'Nelson' all along!

 

So how about keep restoring the L&M Lion - which was operational as recently as 1980 - until there is no vestige of its original fabric left?

Every case should be considered on its merits, and there is no single right or wrong answer. But that does mean that it is not categorically true that every single existing loco should inevitably be steamed, as if that was the only way they could show their value. And in at least some cases, a new build may well be more cost-effective than a restoration (the proviso being that you have a large up-front cost followed by several cheap overhauls; set against a loco in which, over the same period, successive overhauls are each expensive on account of each one involving major component replacement).

Tom

 

Yet again reductio ad absurdum!

Who knows how much of any given machine is "original". Is maintaining "originality" any more than an excuse for inaction? Hopefully it is.

PH

 

Why? It's a loco that has run in preservation, but not for some considerable time, which was your criteria for suggesting that they should keep operating or be passed on to someone else who would do so.

If you look at the details of the last overhaul of Fenchurch, there was pretty strong evidence that substantial components were still the 1872 original. Possibly less so after the overhaul.

Depends what you mean by inaction - but don't assume that the only possible roles for a loco are running or under overhaul to run. A loco on display does not imply inaction: the difficulty is to work out how to display them in a meaningful and interesting way. Which is why in my original point I said the priority was covered storage.

Tom

 

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. I recall being astounded when the cousins carried out a limited restoration of 1831 Stephenson loco 'John Bull' to working order in the 80's. In India, the 1855 Kitson loco 'Fairy Queen' has been out and about hauling (light!) trains in recent years.

The current rebuild of 'Welsh Pony' probably goes past what some (though not me) would consider desireable. I'm a tad surprised no-one from the FR Heritage group hasn't suggested the discarded frames, cylinders and boiler be cobbled together with the old wheels from 'Palmerston' to recreate a static 'Little Giant'.

The Adams 'radial' is another case in point. It seems a new boiler will be necessary, though how much else will need replacement before this jewel of a loco steams again? As a sole survivior, should the barrier be the same height as for a Black 5 or 9F? Or higher, due to it's significance? Just for the record, my vote would be 'restore it'. I firmly believe a working loco has far better prospects.

 

Since everyone else is taking this far too seriously, I'd just like to comment that I didn't understand your praise for the looks of the Johnson 0-4-4T until I saw this picture. Every other picture I'd seen had the smokebox door with those awful dogs around the rim. It's nice (in a perverse way) to know that feature was retrofitted to ruin the looks of locos on its native system, as well as on the Southern.

 

I greatly fear there are those who would say it should...

 

Right.......Just remember...... You asked for it!

Et voilà.... one Single Fairlie suitable for the Swindon and Cricklade Rly in so many ways.



The image would appear to be property of 'Warwickshire Railways', but has been reproduced umpteen times, so who knows for sure?

 

On the subject of unified vs divided drive people involved in the design and building of locomotives are very much in favour of the former. Though sometimes other factors force the hand, 242A1 being an example.

Roller bearings, selected with an eye to suitability, can improve many a machine. Whether they can be afforded is another matter. The original "Combat" engined Norton Commando suffered crankshaft bearing failure at low mileages. The later modification using what are termed "superblend" roller bearings brought about a great improvement - it was a pity that the Company was so cash strapped that it could not have built the engines to a higher standard in the first place. Cash strapped, happens a lot in UK industry. In railway companies too. And the LNER was the most cash strapped of the Big Four. True it could experiment on a rather modest scale but it had to exist in very difficult circumstances.

GC based V2s exceeded 100,000 miles between major overhauls as I understand it.

The real trial would be to compare like with like, put the A1 on plain bearings and work it to the maximum at every opportunity. Or build a new A4, put it on roller bearings and ditto. They would be roughly comparable but the lower air resistance of the A4 would offer advantages in certain circumstances. If the engineers are right the frames of the A1 would fail first because of having to absorb the stresses of a divided drive system

If the A4 were to have all the improvements available to us fitted it would be vastly superior. No contest, it would not be worth lightning up the A1 for any form of trial or competition. You can improve FGS that much.

Now, you must understand me, this not to denigrate the A1 Trust. LDP saw a very slight chance to persuade the thinking of a group, this particular group. Little to no chance of success, but he tried.

The ability of a locomotive depends on it being capable enough. But that in turn raise the issue of the questions being asked of it. You need power to weight ratio and adhesion. If the A1 were to be capable of matching the established 1930s standard it would be capable of sustaining a cylinder horsepower of a little in excess of 4200.

So our existing engines "are more than capable". Think about that the next time you see a Class 47 pushing for all that it is worth.

Though our engines may be capable on preserved lines ( though this is sometimes questionable) the mainline is another matter. Do you not think that more would would be asked of steam if only our existing specimens were capable of delivering it? No? Best to raise the issue again when poor pathing and unacceptable journey times are raised as an issue.

So I draw a distinct line between preserving steam as a mainline spectacle and the desire to build new engines to fill what are seen as important gaps in the locomotive development story.

There is no "ridiculous" in this. Apart from the fact that the A1 as built, though a very worthy achievement, is not capable of matching a standard set some eighty or so years ago. But you have to start somewhere, the A1 will do, the P2 should be better. One fine day we might just catch up with the rest of the world in this.

If you are wanting to build to fill the gaps as it were, do you really need to. Were the engines obtained all those years ago so very unsuitable and unworthy? No? Didn't think so.

 

I found a reference to this locomotive by Anatole Mallett no less, in the report he wrote on the locomotives shown at the Paris Exhibition of 1878, when doing some research into what is now W11's gold medal winning attendance. If my indifferent French is correct M.Mallett's attitude to this locomotive was "Huh" and he could see no point in the Single Fairlie principle.

Paul H

 

I can only think of one.... they're a bit kinder to the track than a rigid loco, although I'll grant you, it's a very complicated way of going about what can be acheived with a half-way decent ordinary design!

The thing with the SM&AJR example which might just, at a push, if there's about a mill and half to spare and nothing better (discounting every subsequent SM&A and M&GW design) to build , justify recreating this oddity would be the very early application of Walschaert's valve gear, about three decades before it became common in the UK.

 

Well I have ridden on (and driven) Taliesin which rides absolutely superbly but........

Paul H

 

But what?

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

..... I've heard it can be a bit 'interesting' at any sort of speed!