Current and Proposed New-Builds

One of the NCC 2-4-2 tanks was rebuilt as a 2-4-4T with a larger boiler but it was not a sucess

 

Not familiar with the Wirral example, but there are bits here and there online about the MSWJ locos (there's a 4mm kit out there somewhere, in original and GW incarnations).

The Co.Antrim 3'-0" gauge system was indeed home to about the fugliest monstrosity ever to pound the NG in these islands. Quite who thought of bunging a boiler from a 5'-3" gauge loco on (and thereby ruining) a rather attractive and successful design, or which muppet let them do so remain mysteries to this day.

In this instance, a boiler from a withdrawn BG class G 2-4-0, an almost Beattie-esque antique inherited from the BNCR, was inflicted on a lengthened chassis to produce a loco looking about as right as you'd expect it to. The exercise was not repeated.

Here (courtesy of Mike Morant's 'smugmug' website) is the worst case of locomotive mutilation until Mr.Bulleid did unspeakable things to CIÉ 'Class 355' loco No.356 in conjunction with research into peat firing in 1952 ..... and this is the most flattering shot I've seen:

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trai...-railways/Irish-railway-archive-2/i-Vw3tCD6/A

 

Wirral Railway 4-4-4T

 

Or how about a Wainwright one:



They were the first Ashford locos to have Belpaire fireboxes, piston valves and superheating. They are never considered one of his great designs, but when all is said and done, each loco in the class achieved 1,000,000 + miles in working lives of 36 - 38 years, so they can't have been all bad <cough> Dugald Drummond </cough>.

Via: http://www.semgonline.com/steam/j(se)_class.html

Tom

 

Thanks a lot for this photo Tom, a very greatlooking engine!
And if a newbuild ever should be considered, it might be that the original weaknesses and eventually faults can be corrected. Just a thought.

Knut

 

For a class of only 5 locos, they evidently lasted well. Looking at bunker capacity, would this perhaps be "the footplate crew's choice"? Having just had a shuftie through the SeMG page on these beasties I suspect (like Wainwright's 'P' class) they'd find more favour now on heritage lines than they received 'back in the day'.

 

Indeed. I don’t suppose we’ll ever see one, but had one survived I suspect it would be well regarded on whichever line had it. Would certainly make an interesting comparison with the E4. If only they’d had ten years more life ...

Tom

 

This does beg an interesting question, which steam loco designs are there which are (or would be) much more popular among crews and operating departments on 21st century preserved railways than they were in 'big railway' employment?

 

I suspect that freed from the requirement to run at high speed, a Maunsell K 2-6-4T would be popular today. From the known behaviour of a Maunsell U class, you know you've got a fundamentally excellent loco in the boiler and cylinders department; but with the tank engine you get better weather protection when running backwards and a truck at each end to guide you through curves. At 25mph, the riding / unsteadiness at speed wouldn't be an issue, and with a lower overall weight, you are probably about 1/2 coach to the good on steep gradients.

Tom

 

Possibly a Stanier/Fowler 2-6-2 tank for the same reasons

 

If ever there was a loco that says 'Tank version of a tender engine' its that one..................

 

I think it looks like an enlarged and extended H class

 

For Bob's sake man .... Shhhh! .... Or do you want to be torn apart by rampaging mobs of Bluebell members??

 

TBH I think its quite good looking.

Love the trackwork in that picture.

 

Unlikely, as they absolutely wouldn't steam in either version - nor were they much better when Stanier fitted bigger boilers to a few of his. Hard to say what was wrong with them - Fowler version had too small a boiler, bad valve events and constipated front end; Stanier version, despite rectifying all these was still fairly rotten.
Preserved line running would forgive locos like the Southern K class which struggled at speed, but not a loco like the 3P which wouldn't steam properly!

 

Looks wise, both classes score pretty well in my books. It would be most enlightening to see just what computer modelling could do for performance, given that either flavour would be just about ideal, in terms of size, for many heritage lines. Perhaps, once 82045 gets loose on the Severn Valley, those skilled in the dark arts might cast their eye towards solving the mystery of precisely why the Fowler and Stanier designs were so uncharacteristically far from the mark.

 

Another gap in the preservation scene is one of the NCC W Class Moguls. I always thought they were a very aesthetically balanced design and by all accounts the crews rated them too. Have to be a new build as I can't see anyone being allowed to rebuild the preserved WT "jeep"

 

The RPSI has a the driving wheels, and is building a spare boiler. This could evolve into a WT or W new build. Latter would be more interesting but less useful, I suppose.

 

Here is one interesting proposed tank engine. I have never heard about this before.
https://photos.smugmug.com/Rail/Steam/Glasgow/i-2gJncPR/0/157889ba/O/GSWR Whitelegg 4-4-4T.jpg

Cheers

Knut

 

Or... Just build a Fowler 2-6-4t.... Which is actually more useful for all the preserved lines. The SVR had an article in one of the latest magazines talking about how it needs class 4 and above locos for the Santa specials. Out of interest what would the new class 3 do over the Xmas period?