Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

This is all interesting information.

However 32424 will have straight air only, the air brake pipes being non functional to keep the correct appearance.

 

Meanwhile - a photo on the “what’s new” page showing the tender tank in-situ on the tender frames. Note, incidentally, that this is the inner part of the tender and the exterior still needs to be constructed.

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/whats_new.html for 23 August.

Tom

 

Are you sure about that? The photos in the Brighton Atlantic progress report in February show a lot of air pipework built into the tender chassis.

 

As I understand it, 'Beachy Head' as a loco, will be braked exactly the same as E4 'Birchgrove', and Terrier 'Fenchurch'. The E4 'Birchgrove' came to the Isle of Wight and it's Westinghouse pump eventually managed to operate the brakes on the IOWSR coaching stock, after a few adjustments done at Havenstreet.

H2 Atlantic 'Beachy Head' ought to do the same with the air braked stock of the IOWSR carriage fleet, though obviously this in the realms of fantasy.

Terrier 'Stepney' had it's Westinghouse brake pump removed in the 1930s and has a vacuum brake cylinder and lower brake shaft compared to 'Fenchurch'.

Cheers,
Julian

 

So let's clear up a few things... The Atlantic is being built absolutely as per the original, with air braking on the loco/air-assisted reverser with air clutch. The LBSCR was an Air braked railway, and its locos used air both for loco and train brake. Later they had vac added for the train brake after the SR standardised on Vac., and the new Atlantic follows that SR modification, so it can operate trains on the Bluebell.
Not being able to work modern air-braked stock is nothing to do with single/dual pipe systems. It is because it has an old-fashioned, original type air pump, which results in oil particles being suspended in the air. Modern air braked stock (and their owners) will not appreciate this, so whilst the loco brake design could have been adapted to provide dry air, it was decided some years ago that there would be no requirement for the Atlantic to haul modern stock, so the correct authentic "wet (oily) air" equipment has been installed.
Regards,
Richard

 

Idiot question: why does the tender need two skins?

 

Essentially because in Stroudley’s day, locos had condensing / feed water heating and the tenders therefore were double skinned so that anyone touching the tender side wasn’t burnt against the hot metal (the water in the tender would get to near boiling point). By the time the Atlantic was built, feedwater heating was no longer installed on new locos, but the works carried on building double-skinned tenders I guess just because that was how things had always been done. (The tanks on LBSCR tank engines, including on Birch Grove, are also double skinned).

Tom

 

Interesting, never knew that.

 

Another stupid question. Why build it with the double skin and not full width to give a slightly larger water capacity?

 

Because the intention is to build, as far as possible, a replica of the original? Water capacity for tender engines is never an issue on the Bluebell.

Tom

 

Now for me that's taking authenticity too far. It's additional cost for something that no one will ever see (except for those like me who might notice the lack of a condensation line in humid weather ). I await my flogging by the guy whose name I can't remember! Edit - Paul Hitch?

 

On the other hand, as I believe has been said, it means you can have a welded tank with less leak potential without compromising the external appearance...

 

Appreciating Richard Salmon's correction on the air brakes, it would have been possible to give it a straight air brake as I understand the B12 now has, ie keeping the pump and reservoir but removing the triple valve and making it act essentially like an on/off steam brake for the loco only and not the train.

Glad to hear it is being done as per the original. Just need some carriages or a trip over the Solent

 

Don't disagree in the slightest. My problem is with building the thing for 25mph branchline use in the first place.

 

But at least we will have the satisfaction of knowing that, when archaeologists dig up 32424 in a thousand years from now, she will give them an accurate understanding of how LBSCR locos were constructed.

No? Just me?

 

Well at least it makes a refreshing change from arguing about the livery I s'pose.

I, for one, am quite happy to go with the general principal that this is the sort of matter entirely up to the good folks who've shelled out their time and money to make this wonderful project a reality.

Now, about that Brighton bogie ......

 

Should have guessed your issue would be the engine's very existence! Still that's fair enough, your entitled to your own opinion at the end of the day, and honestly if you said anything more positive and supportive in nature about this project... I would have been concerned you were unwell or something!

Seriously though, I can respect a man at least for sticking to guns in what he thinks on certain topics, even if that makes him look somewhat like the killjoy of the forum... But no less wrong in their perspective on these matters I'd say.

 

There ought to be a be a bit more than W.I.B.N. in a new build project. The 3MT, G5 and P2 are fine in relation to their projected uses.

 

While I do understand what you say, and you do make some very good points, especially where cost is concerned, but isn't preservation in its entirety W.I.B.N. ?? And if by your point that the 3mt is good because it's a useful engine, actually a bit against your own views as you could build an 0-6-0 for cheaper that would do just as good a job? So even that surely is big chufferitis? Lol

 

Well, of course it is. If the intention was to run a cost effective public transport system you certainly wouldn't use steam at all.