Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

They haven't done what you suggest. The railway has Governance processes for ratifying the decision.

Tom

 

If I may pre-empt Tom, I think that the reasons for going for an E rather than a K will probably be the same as why it has been preferred to a C2X - LB&SCR engines are more complicated than those of the SE&CR and there are a good few spare parts to kick-start the project. The only advantage that a C2X would have over a K (or an I3 for that matter) is that it wasn't superheated. On the minus side, and again, I think this is a point Tom has made, it would be another 0-6-0 and the Bluebell already has three of these (Although going for a double domed variant would offer something a bit different!)

The decision needs to be ratified, as Tom mentioned above but while the choice of an E may have surprised some of us, a lot of careful consideration clearly has been made before opting for this class. Who knows, maybe the Bluebell New Build group may follow in the footsteps of the A1 team and announce their third and fourth projects well in advance which may include the greater challenge of building a missing "Brighton" class? Sadly, I reckon if new build No. 3 does turn out to be the more complex K Class, I'll have to live to at least 90 to see it and even a relative youngster like Tom will probably be drawing his pension by the time it steams.

 

Owned by a Bluebell employee.......

However it's not really a viable suggestion to advise reverse engineer a 1/6th scale model to recreate a full size replica.

 

Am I correct in thinking that a few I3s were built that were unsuperheated when new?

 

Yes. In as much as an I3 was considered (reading between the lines, I get the sense it was favoured by at least one of the current leading lights behind Beachy Head), it would probably have emerged unsuperheated, since the additional six figure expense and ongoing maintenance overhead of an otherwise similar superheated vs unsuperheated boiler can never be recovered in coal saving from our duty cycles.

Tom

 

In practically any other instance, I'd not so much as mention the possibility, but in this one case, I'd hesitate before ruling it out completely. Look who built it, the drawings known to have been used and that it's always been described as a very high quality and accurate model.

Probably worth mentioning too, that the list of "what's not viable" isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as many of us thought .... and not so very long ago!

 

Right clearly, despite what I thought for a number of years, us who hoped for the K were misguided and in fact a minority.

I think it best we stop this conversation about the K cause, as I getting the impression from the others that we look like retarded fantasists.

 

Don't be so daft. Nobody on here has suggested anything of the sort.

 

I doubt it. Part of the rationale for the E is that the team building it consider that they could do it before they are all too old to enjoy the fruits of their labours; the K class is reckoned (on account of the extra complexity and the lack of the head start afforded to a Chatham design by the stock of suitable components) to be about twice the likely cost of the K class, and presumably about twice as long to build.

Whether anyone else takes up the mantle I don't know. The most obvious group are those rebuilding No. 27, who are mostly somewhat younger. Worth considering that by time that is finished, it will have new frames, drag box, buffer planks, buffers, cylinders, an all-but-new boiler, many small components and most of the cab / tanks superstructure: rather closer to a new build than 84030...

I don’t believe drawings is the significant factor for the K class, it’s just the sheer complexity that causes the project to stretch out in time and funding. For example, consider a Stirling reverser (two small cylinders, with a flat steam valve and a rotary hydraulic valve, with the pistons linked in a common shaft). Now consider the Brighton reverser, which on Beachy Head has a quadruple-start threaded reversing rod and the requisite nut; as well as the compressed air drive and clutch. Think of the manufacturing complexity and machining just in that one component ... Then add the need for air and vac brakes, Westinghouse pump, Weir Pump, then take a look at Beachy Head between the frames and consider fitting the same pipe runs (air / vac / steam heat / lubrication) into a much smaller and restricted space. Ultimately, in the trilogy of useful - fundable - buildable, the judgement seems to be that either loco would be similarly useful, but the E class wins hands down on buildability while needing lower levels of funding.

Tom

 

What is so complicated with the bogie?

 

Possibly the fact that it doesn't have one as it is a 2-6-0. The truck must be complicated if it is more complex than the ones under 84030/82045.

 

Four start threads are not difficult if the machining is set up correctly, although they seemed to be making a pig's ear of it on the Patriot project by hoping to cut it with a tap which would need the output of an aircraft carrier's gearbox to turn it. They are sometimes used in the regulators of 5" gauge locos rather than rely on face to face contacts of ports.

 

Having financially supported the Brighton Atlantic team, I have been incredibly impressed by their knowledge, skills and expertise in many areas. Not just in engineering but in fundraising and overall project management. I would personally give significant weight to their thoughts, guidance and advice, and I am sure the BRPS will draw heavily on this as well as provide a robust challenge to their thinking before signing anything off.

However, there is also the human factor. These are skilled and experienced volunteers who will put in many hundreds of hours delivering whatever project is ultimately chosen in addition to what they have already done on the H2. They don't have to do this and we must respect this; without these skills we wouldn't have Beachy Head and we might not have any further new Bluebell new build.

 

I now have a vision of a crazy scientist in Sheffield Park works on a moonlit night, laughing maniacally as he throws a gaint switch which, with suitably dramatic sparks and sound effects, fires up the patented "enlarging ray" which he has aimed at Mr. Billinton's model...

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

 

Really? I have nightmares of bulleids leader.. ressurected from the grave

 

Last time I saw it, it was resolutely still 1/6 full size:



Tom

 

Just regarding the reverser; if they've built one for Beachy Head, doesn't that make a second one a lot easier?

 

Not really as I see it, because the cost is in the manufacturing and machining. Essentially the one for Beachy Head was a one-off and a new one would be another one-off. There’s no real economy of scale in manufacturing.

Tom

 

Now that I have looked back at my last posts and seen my frustration and disappointment just resulted in me looking like a c##k, I am taking a crumb of comfort in the newly found knowledge of the 'baby' K, especially considering its historical connections. I realise the engine is privately owned do events occur which allow a normal visitor like myself to inspect the engine once and awhile? As I will try and see about coming to have a good look and take a photo at least.

 

The photo Tom posted is only the second I've seen of this model, the other being of Lawson Billinton standing next to it, reproduced in his biography.

Do please (actually, pretty please ..... with lots of honey on) post said photos, if you get the opportunity to see this little beauty. Even were I fortunate enough to see it for myself, my photograpic efforts are invariably complete rubbish!