Current and Proposed New-Builds

So what you're saying is that a tank engine the size of a Fowler 2-6-4t is about right! It doesn't need redesigning as they were already great, possibly Fowlers best, loco. Plus for the normals they can be painted pretty Crimson lake! You can send a cheque to the LMS Patriot project! Haha

 

Wow! This thread has actually got back to Proposed New Builds!!!!
I know I am a fine one to talk when it comes to hobby horses (clip clip, pre-grouping, clip-clop) but discussion of whether Tornado is or is not the fancy bits of your chosen animal ("bees knees" for preference) is not really Proposed New Builds - it's been built!

 

Ok, to start another line of debate:
What are the reasons people want to new build particular types?
Obviously "my favourite loco class isn't preserved" but there is more too it than that, i.e.:
1. "Missing link" or "Missing important part of the story": clearly this is part of it, with some projects more convincing on this score than others. Tornado managed to grab some people's attention with the A1 to A4 idea (can't see what the fuss is myself, it's Blue Peter with big wheels, but never mind). More persuasively the Saint project is important to some as the progenitor of an important and influential lineage. Perhaps the Patriot as representing the pre-Stanier LMS (if we count Jinty and 4F as really Midland designs)? George V as representing West Cost express traction?
2. "We've got half of it already": Lots of GW projects (!), also the Brighton Atlantic and GC 4-4-0.
3. "it'd be jolly useful": an important driver for e.g. the Standard 3 tank, the NER G5,....

Any others?

 

I'm not sure which is greater, my sadness or my anger when I come across repeated attempts to denigrate A1SLT and Tornado. This is not due to any tribalism on my part; the two projects to which I give financial support are Tornado/P2 and the Patriot; my most memorable trips this year have been behind Clan Line and the Earl. In the decade or more that I've been a covenantor for A1SLT, received their newsletters, visited the works at Hopetown Lane, attended their annual conferences, I can't remember once hearing or reading anything derogatory about any other locomotive group or any claim that Tornado is superior to other classes, either due to its newness or otherwise.

The trust decided to build Tornado because the A1 was a successful express type, remembered by many, of which no original had survived the cutter's torch. If St Mungo had survived instead of Blue Peter, they would probably have built an A2. Having made their decision, they wanted the loco to be as good as it could be in order to hold its own on the mainline in modern conditions. They have achieved their aims in superb fashion and recorded a speed on test of 101+mph, which is, incidentally, almost identical to the highest speed ever recorded by a V2. What is there not to like? No-one from A1SLT has intimated that Clan Line, Duchess of Sutherland, Duke of Gloucester, or others could not do the same if the funding and will was there. Of course, any of the surviving A4s could do it with steam to spare, judging by the 94+mph dash that I enjoyed behind Bittern in 2013.

If circumstances had been different and, for example, the duchesses had all been cut up, maybe a group similar to A1SLT would have been formed to build a new one. I expect this would have been to Ivatt+ specification and built to the precision which modern engineering principles make possible, thereby better than the originals.

I wish we could all celebrate what has been left to us, whatever our personal locomotive preferences, and rejoice that there exist people with the skill and passion to recreate for us that which was lost.

 

There's been a lot of talk about Garratts, but no mention of the daddy of them all... the NSWGR AD60 class. Nearly the same tractive effort as two 8Fs despite running at only 200psi.

Equivalent of 16 on (easily 500 tons), up what I understand is a 1-in-33... and I don't get the impression the diesels on the back are doing much more than idling...

 

Erm, please, please can we leave Tornado bashing or defence to another thread and talk about proposed new builds.....?

 

Nice try!

Wonderful thing about new builds is that you can really do what you want. My idea for the L4 really is something I've thought about for a while, as the topic of new builds and the future of preservation keeps showing up.

So in model form my new NER has managed to complete the project and given that most will be hauling passenger workings in preservation I moved away from them all being black as the original L4 and then with this one done, set about another three to have different liveries. These being Express Blue, NER Darlington Green and Brunswick Green, all lined out with BR Late Crest, air brakes, Darlington/LNE style smokebox and TPWS/OTMR.









Shame its just in 00 gauge...

 

A thought I've had is this... take what already exists in large numbers, is a known quantity, and adapt.

The Mid-Hants led the way with their 0-6-0 tender conversion of an Austerity. The one thing that looked a bit odd about it was the long front overhang - like it could have used a front pony truck... would have made a more authentic 'James' than 31874 at any rate! The Austerity's one limitation is range, which is why the MHR went for that conversion... but, both in terms of ride quality and ability to run in reverse, wouldn't a 2-6-2T be more appropriate? The front and rear trucks could perhaps be adapted from existing designs (e.g. BR 2MT). Heck, you could even swap the six small driving wheels for four larger ones, using e.g. Peppercorn A1 6'8" drivers (thinking of what patterns already exist for...) and put in a bogie (BR 4MT?) at the front, turn it into a 4-4-0 or 4-4-2T.

All these would be possible to adapt from the Austerity boiler, cylinder block/valve gear (OK, maybe some changes needed for the proposed 4-driver versions!), frames (for all six-wheeled variants, anyway), and other available components (tender based on GWR 3000 gallon type, for argument's sake?)... giving you a range of utterly simple period-outline steam locos that'll pull a trainload of normals who couldn't care less about authenticity, with more or less predictable results, and excellent spares availability.

If you wanted something period-correct, the Maunsell U, U1, N, N1, K, K1, W, Met L2 and even the Z-tank share a lot of components. Same boiler for all but the Z. Same cylinders on all the 2-cylinder types? Ditto for the 3-cylinder types (albeit they've got a bit of a case of GWR platform-bashing width). Z apart, the other eight classes all use the same leading truck, the tanks the same trailing bogie, and there are only two sizes of driving wheel (N/L2 and N1/W being the smaller, U/U1 and K/K1 being the bigger). The tanks' top-heaviness could be solved much as was done with the Billinton 'L', well tank between the frames (more difficult with the 3-cylinder types, obviously...) and some kind of internal height restriction in the side tanks... and again, the fact that pretty much all of it is well proven in preservation would help! Might I suggest ordering a batch of half a dozen 'U' type boilers as a start? ;-)

 

This retired engineer begs to differ. On starting there is a difference, at speed well greased metals and rollers make little difference. I would like to suggest that in a heritage environment inside roller bearings could be a financial problem in that they are not easily replaced. With a fleet it would be different as spare wheelsets
could be used. Anyway with this in mind I specified for my (unbuilt) redesigns rollers for outside bearings and bronzes for the inside ones.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Trouble is its not that great a starting point is it? Adequate at low speed shunting sure, but not the greatest traffic locomotive.

 

They're pretty decent for preserved railway work... granted, the big-wheeled 4-4-0/4-4-2T might need a rethink, but a small-wheeled six-coupled type trundling around at <25mph...

 

The thing with J94s is though the short wheelbase and framing looks distinct to this loco so it would obviously be J94 based and would look a bit naff

 

A thoughtful post and very valid consideration. Easy replacement though susceptible to undesireable particulate ingress and requiring consistent lubrication vs low maintenance at the expense of complex and costly replacement.

It strikes me that bearings are one component which could use a design revisit from first principles. With nearly two centuries of experience, new materials and computer modelling, something approaching the best of both worlds should be acheivable. Now there's an engineering challenge!

 

Do you really think normals will give a stuff about something being J94 based? It certainly did no harm to the MHR tender conversion. Adding leading/trailing trucks would also mitigate the short wheelbase.

 

Are rollers more difficult to replace? We are talking split rollers here, so its the usual, wheel drop, box out situation that we have with White Metal? Or do you mean the cost of new roller bearings is a greater financial burden for a heritage line?

From a running perspective, at 25mph there is little difference, but my general argument is that rollers will, if well executed, give more miles of trouble free running and you might as well do it for a new build. That said, I do agree with what you are saying.

 

It would be the railway equivalent of one of those kit cars which are meant to look like a Ferrari but are VW Beetle based

 

I am not sure about the quality of split roller bearing in a steam locomotive environment. I have to say that I was thinking about standard roller bearing for which the wheel has to be taken off. As for my arguments, I seem to recall that Tornado had bearing trouble. But if split roller bearings are the way to go, why not!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

And would have the same sort of performance comparison. I don't think the J94 is really good enough for more than a couple of coaches on a short line. Fine shunters but not train engines.

Have split rollers ever been used in a steam locomotive? It would be interesting to try to modify some axle boxes to take the various bits of a pair of split bearings together with the necessary split dirt and lubricant seals and any lubricant reservoir necessary, together with machining the axle journals to the precision necessary for the bearing inners to fit accurately. Until that's done and the split roller proved under the conditions beneath a steam loco I would suggest they shouldn't be proposed for a new build.

 

Given the way a J94 goes up Tenterden Bank with considerably more than a couple of coaches on...

 

I spy "big chufferitis" raising its expensive little head! They are far more capable than this

PH