Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

Why would anyone want to build a Class 37 diesel? There's enough of those around already.

 

Oh bu¿¿er..... senility kicking in! 36.... you oaf Howard.... 36.... (shambles off muttering to take medication)

 

Whether you're right or wrong, you should get points for quoting Omar Khayyam...!

 

Worth reading, but not quite to be taken as read. He must have been a bit sloppy in his research, and either gets his facts wrong, or simplifies the story to the point of being misleading, for several of his subjects: e.g. Aspinall and particularly Webb.

 

Same applies to a lot of authors back then. Many histories by, for instance, ■.■.■.■■■■ , ■.■-■ and ■.■.■■■■ all read rather subjectively by today's standards. Certain research by these and other gentlemen (as just about all of 'em were!) frankly, very often, doesn't stand too much scrutiny.

 

That is right on the money. When I was down a the Bluebell with the BLS there was a of explaining of the history of the Coal Tank to the public who asked, and a lot did, there was a genuine interest from the non enthusiast public and a lot of questions. 'Why is it called a Coal Tank, how did the National Trust acquire it, what's that thing like a steering wheel for etc' ( it has quite a prominent screw reverser set high up behind the left hand Tank). There was also a lot of comment about its highly polished finish. It is simply not true that the public have no interest beyond the fact that it's a steam loco hauling their train.

 

Agree there are far to many!

 

If your planning on a new build 36000, you don't want just medication, you need locking up for your own, and everyone else's sanity nurse !!

 

Ahem, cough cough, I think DRS and Colas and myself would disagree.

 

A trivial cost easily covered by revenue generated from increased enthusiast* interest if that is what you are implying.

Not to mention the unquantifiable benefits of volunteer pride and satisfaction.


* Or indeed others. If enthusiast is black, and non-enthusiast is white, and all the shades of grey in between encompass people visiting railways - who knows what influences persuade them where and how to spend their recreational tuppence?....heaven forbid that the specifics of what is actually on offer could actually be considered as part of that equation!

 

Dammit man..... the first one was 36001..... call yourself a proper Leader hater?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I know what went wrong (don't say it!!!), so 36007 will be a resounding (not too sure how to finish that sentence)

 

I think a new build Leader would be a great idea. Modern materials and knowhow should ensure success. Not only that but it would hack off the "nothing bigger than a Class 3 brigade."

 

@Cartman there's nothing wrong with a bit of WIBN, it's how 99% of projects in this movement start.

Bullshit Paul, On your beloved IOWSR you have a unique survivor loco wise in W24 that's still with us because a group of enthusiasts thought 'Wouldn't it be nice' I believe amongst others the main contributor was a bloke called David Shepard would you call him 'odd' to his face? Bear in mind it was he who wrote a big cheque because he thought it was nice to ensure its survival. (Not forgetting he thought it'd be nice to save 75029 and 92203) Thank God for people like him, Geoff Dury, Pat Whitehouse, Brian Hollingworth, Bill Harvey, David Rouse Capt Mansity and many more to numerous to mention, because if they hadn't thought 'wouldn't it be nice' we'd be up a certain creek with no paddle.

 

To my mind, the concept of a total adhesion loco running on bogies has many advantages. Ditto bidirectional operation.

The 'Leader', as built, contained many good features, though there's no question that these were overshadowed by the well documented flaws. I'd rate the worst single one as the seriously unbalanced offset boiler, resulting from the desire to provide internal access between the cabs and firing position. That one, I can see no way round whilst keeping the loco to an acceptable weight. Note that Kevan Ayling's impressive (and successful) 5in gauge model has a conventional boiler in a conventional position.

From a construction and maintenance point of view, the dry back firebox made a fair bit of sense, but was totally unacceptable for manual firing. The original intention was apparently to use oil firing, but even a mechanical coal stoker would have improved matters.

Sleeve valves have, to my knowledge, only ever proved reliable when running at reasonably constant speeds. For numerous reasons, keeping a steam tight seal under railway operating conditions would be challenging today. The figure-of-eight rocking gear (improving distribution of lubricant) itself worked well enough, in spite of the added complication. The principle fault here in 'Leader' lay in the metallurgy of the day resulting in repeated fractures of the sleeve extension lugs connecting to the rocking drive. The rocking mechanism was abandoned during the loco's test running. Again, Kevan's 'Leader' utilises 2 cylinders per bogie, with piston valves acutated by Walschaert's valve gear...... don't blame him!!

It is worth noting that, on test, the engine units ran on a breath of compressed air and it's a matter of record that some idiot did slam the bogie on test into reverse whilst it was running at speed. Whether stupidity or sabotage, even repaired, it was never quite right again.

The adoption of far smaller drivers on the later "Turf Burner" (3ft 7in against 'Leader's' 5ft 1in) suggests criticism of overly large driving wheels was accepted by OVSB. Use of piston valves on the Irish loco, dictated by pressures to get the loco working forced cylinders to be reduced to two per bogie, nullifying the inherent advantage 'Leader' possesed of a fully balanced drive.

I've never seen any reference to the possibility of using poppet gear, perhaps OVSB's experience with Lentz gear on the LNER ruled it out (recent work on P2 2007 makes it clear that the materials of 70 years ago weren't really up to the job).

Could something like 'Leader' be successful today? The most recent (rack) locos from SLM are single manned, featuring automated oil firing. That's one down. Reducing driving wheel diameter to the same size as the 'Turf Burner" would still permit the same 70mph of the Irish loco and shaft driven poppet gear would bypass all the issues with the sleeve valves. Two down. Better insulation would render the smokebox (No.1) end cab habitable, though the smokebox would be no more accessible than the original. Say, two and a half down. The offset boiler is still a no-no, so goodbye internal corridor. Strike one! One feature which wouldn't now be beyond the realms of possibility is MU control. One bonus point.

So, yes, you could probably design a successful advanced Kitson-Meyer, but it couldn't be described as a 'Leader', although quite what the rationale for doing so would be is another matter. If it just has to be a 'Leader', pop down to Worthing and see Kevan's fantastic model:
https://www.worthingmodelengineers.co.uk/locomotives-seen-at-our-track/

 

Wouldn't it be nice if I could 'like' this post more than once!

Well said Matt

 

Then was then and it has gone to excess. Far too lococentric and an excess of projects on at the same time.

PH

 

The sleeve principle needed precision (and hence expense) of manufacture which tended to confine its use to high end private cars and to aero engines. Even then oil consumption was excessive leading to very smoky exhausts. As with the Leader, a party piece was the fracture of sleeve driving lugs. usually during the warm up period which had to be managed carefully. This was especially so in cold weather and pre-war lubricating oil technology cannot have helped.

All of the was well known by 1939 and hardly compatible with the rough and tumble of a running shed but then it is impossible to tell a WIBNite anything.

PH

 

What about the GER 2-4-0 (LNER E4)? Made it well into BR days, one survives.

Re the Leader: a new-build minus corridor, with the boiler on the centre-line, mechanically or liquid-fuelled, would be interesting. Daimler and Bristol seemed to make sleeve valves work just fine...

...and the Bluebell would be daft to consider one of Craven's locos as the next project. There's a good reason Stroudley got rid of them all in short order... not to mention the Bluebell itself wasn't built until well into the Stroudley era! The 'K' Mogul and a Stroudley 'C' or 'C1' 0-6-0 would be my next priorities.

Oh, and wouldn't a Highland Railway Jones Goods, as per no.103, look perfect? It has a strong LBSCR family resemblance, and it strikes me as the ideal preserved-line locomotive.

 

Not so! The Bristol aero engines had oil consumption that was about half that of contemporary poppet valve engines of similar performance.
"12. Oil Consumption
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of sleeve-valve engine
performance to rationalize is the oil consumption claims.
Published information in the post WWII era give oil con-
sumption figures on a weight per horsepower-hour basis at
about half for the Bristol sleeve-valve engines than compa-
rable American poppet-valve engines (P&W and Wright).
The specific oil consumption at cruise conditions for the
Bristol Hercules and Centaurus was given as 0.008
lb/HP/hr versus 0.015 for the P&W R-2800[34]."

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/Sleeve.pdf