New Build P2

And an A8 & B17, proper locos! And maybe a P1

 

It is indeed an LNER boiler, built in June 1941. It was probably fitted to loco 3287 in August 1943. This loco was scrapped in October 1945; thereafter the boiler was refurbished by the LNER and then sold off as a stationary boiler, though it seems possible it was never actually steamed in this role.

See http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/locos/atlantic/latest_dec05.html

Tom

 

#Oi you lot, wheres me v4 !

(its all in my head, its a virtual new build and its called 'Phantom Cock.')

Someone said 8F somewhere, stop it at once, thats an O6 on this page....

 

The latter, obviously. The P2 original was a swing-link type as per thoses that gave trouble on the V2's.

 

what happened to the LNER pacific boiler that was at Carnforth in the 80's, read a line about it in one of the magazines? is this the one currently going onto flying scotsman?

 

Yes,

the Boiler that was on Scotsman was sold for a reported £27k in the mags to the owner of Bittern and is now at LNWR crewe for overhaul.

 

The A1 Trust should be a great deal braver. Let the Doncaster group build a P2 and the two groups could share the benefits of co-operation but for the A1 Trust the next project should be a Pacific. A Porta version of an LNER Pacific. They were sent a specification, instead of sitting on it they ought to use it. It would not be easy but if the group could deliver they would have the best locomotive ever to run on British metals, possibly the best to be seen in Europe if judged on the basis of sustained ihp per ton of locomotive weight.

 

All this talk of big limited use engines. How about building a V3 (or even an L1 if your fussy) that can earn constant year round revenue to keep the big main line primadonna going (as well as itself). You can main line register it for short trips if necessary and legitimately hang a Westinghouse pump on the smokebox for air brakes (though this may ensure you don't get many seruious photographers photing it)

Having said that I do like the A1 now she is with us.

 

Im afraid its unlikely the sums will ever add up to design, build and then fully test a new design, even if a VAB was happy to take it on. Most railtour passengers wouldnt care whether the loco up front is relatively more powerful or efficient than a more traditional loco, but those that did would probably prefer something older, if only in design. Besides, what is the extra performance needed for? Apart from Shap, Devon Banks etc its really not needed.

Chris

 

I think the best "PR" way to get external funding for such a project is attracting private interest by suggesting implementing "Carbon Capture" technology in a steam locomotive... world press would be all over this and an interesting way to get sponsorship.

 

And the Pacific isnt the best vehicle for this anyhow. A lot of the Pacifics we have now can produce more power at the boiler than the cylinders can use and more from the cylinders than they can put on the rail in anything less than ideal conditions.
Gresley Bulleid and, belatedly the BR Stds triumvirate all came to the conclusion that more power needed an 8 - coupled wheel base (4-8-2 or 2-8-2)
A BR standrd 2-8-2 might be a good starter for such a project with a modified clan boiler to introduce some basic 'gas producer' combustion - But lets see what happens with '5at'.
Sadly (?) the desire for real '21st century steam' isnt there, otherwise that Converted 'SuperAusterity' would be Roaring around somewhere and not rusting - and how many contemporary European steamers have taken on any of the Porta developments exactly ?

 

Nice idea but not possible - its proving difficult enough to make it workable at power-station size.

Chris

 

Pacifics can have adhesion issues not helped by poor positioning of lubrication pipework, bad tyre profiles, poor sanding arrangements, bad chassis design, occasional weight distribution errors, ill thought out positionong of cylinder drains - must be more but that will do for now. All of the previous matters are dealt with under Porta's proposals so that not only do you obtain more power but you have the chance of using it under a wider range of conditions. Acceleration is very important, power is not just for climbing the heavier gradients, but allows you to obtain maximum speed quicker. Steam powered trains are historically lacking in the acceleration offered by other forms of traction which is not good for maintaining a place on the mainline. As for contemporary, todays contemporary is tomorrow's out of date and the day after's history.

 

All things being equal more driving wheels = better adhesion, Smaller driving wheels = quicker acceleration, better alignment and lubrication enables higher piston wheel speeds to be maintained. and that is as far as we got in this country e.g the 9F.

The nettle of compensated drivers never grasped in this country - because the permanent way was never bad enough to need it ? i guess

Nothing said here is at all wrong, but there is clearly a lack of desire by many to see steam as anything other than what it was... in many ways likeable as much for its failings as its virtues, and its finest acheivements admired the more for being done in spite of these failings

 

But realistically - no stand-alone steam locomotive conceivable is going to to get even close in efficiency to centralising all the steam raising (and mess, and servicing) at a power station, and piping the energy to where its needed - aka overhead electric.

So on that basis, a steam locomotive is never going to be anything other than an anachronism. Beautiful to behold, but realistically life has moved on - so in this country, the usage of steam engines is never going to be more than for leisure purposes. In which case, give me something with historical provenance any day: if I was interested in efficient (rather than romantic) transport, I'm never going to choose even the most radically modern steam engine over a simple 25kv electric. Sad but true...

Tom

 

I agree. Having seen and heard the ultra efficient new build steam locos on the Swiss rack railways, IMHO they neither look right, sound right nor smell right. No romance about them at all.

 

AIUI the compensation came off the Churchward classes at the same time that Collett/Swindon were doing a lot of work improving springing and axleboxes in the mid to late 20s. There's a bit about it in Cook's "Swindon Steam". I would hazard a totally uninformed guess that the improvements worked to the extent that the compensation was seen as an unnecessary complication: I don't know if any locos retained it. The Tyseley page about their Hall identification challenge http://www.shakespeareexpress.com/tlw/4965_story.htm states that thefirst batch of Halls had compensation and implies it was later removed.

 

Adhesive weight and coefficient of adhesion matter. Not the number of driving wheels. The greater the number of axles the greater the difficulties in providing a satisfactory chassis design. Acceleration is down to being able to produce the maximum drawbar pull that the adhesion will allow throughout the duration of the process, wheel diameter has little to do with it - Chapelon compound Pacifics are credited with having remarkable capacity for acceleration and they do not have particularly small driving wheels. Calculating the efficiency of any device is very complicated and factors are frequently included or excluded depending on who is making the case and why.