Potential New Builds

Hi
This is a thread for locomotives that could be made as potential new builds if there was a will for it. Personally I think of these two, the much lamented Claud Hamilton or the L1 tank locos. Both of these would be highly suited for work on heriatage lines and the Claud Hamilton perhaps even the mainline?

 

The L1 would indeed make an admirable locomotive for most preserved lines, as the main issue it had in service - knocking itself to pieces at high speed - would not surface at 25mph. Are you suggesting founding an L1 new-build project? I'd join.

But there are an awful lot of locomotives that would make interesting and/or useful new-build projects - a Fowler or Stanier 2cyl 2-6-4T would be as useful as an L1. I for one would like to see an Aberdare Mogul. I think, in the main, we will generally see new-build projects because people would like to see the finished product, with the usefulness of the locomotive being of secondary importance, although a good selling point.

Regarding the Claud Hamilton - whilst of reasonable use on a preserved line (possibly a little light-footed, and certainly higher maintenance than an L1), I do not think that it would be a economical mainline locomotive - it would not be able to pull the number of coaches required to carry enough passengers to break even. Or at least, it could, but without power in hand to get itself out of a situation with an HST up its tail on a wet rail.

 

Clauds had 7ft. driving wheels which does not seem particularly practical for 25m.p.h. heritage railways. The L1 had a reputation for shaking itself to pieces in a very short time. If an L.N.E.R. prototype is a pre-requisite then perhaps a V1/V3 2-6-2 tank would serve better. However, to my mind, the steam railway scene is overdue for some attempt at rationalising and cost cutting by batch production of sensibly sized machines.

Of all the new build projects in hand at the moment, the 3MT 2-6-2 tank seems the most practical. It is big enough to be useful but small enough to be relatively cheap to build and run. (I hasten to add that, as a narrow gauge man, I have no tribal loyalties either pre or post nationalisation!)

P.H.

 

I'd quite like to see some LBSCR locos like a Billington K Class Mogul or Marsh C2X. Maybe a Billington L Class tank. I'm not to bigger a fan of Thompson but I quite like the L1 tanks

 

How about a Caledonian Railway Cardean class 4-6-0? These look to be magnificent locomotives in that beautiful caledonian blue. We have very few Edwardian express engines.

Tim

 

A few years ago a few people from most of the major railways in Scotland sat around a table in Perth debating whether a new-build project for a Scottish engine was worthwhile. A Cardean, Dunalastair, Highland Railway Castle and NB Atlantic were all considered and discussed.

 

Do you know what the outcome was?
(I'd have put forward a Whitelegg baltic tank )

 

How about a Blenkinsop/Murray engine. There have been many replicas/new builds of early engines, but the missing link must be these locomotive. 200 years since their introduction next year too..

 

Unfortunately so very, very true. Whatever it is, it must be big, painted BR green, and carry nameplates. If it's the slightest bit of use, that is a bonus.

 

The P2 won't be BR Green - but it fits the other criteria. Personally, I have serious misgivings about the usefulness of such a loco. This is not a criticism of the A1 Trust.

Perhaps a NB Atlantic now that a tender frame has been found?

 

Yes, nothing happened as no-one could decide on what to build, how to finance it, where to base it and whether, probably most crucially of all, whether it would deprive the already bare Scottish preservation scene of scarce resources (ie money and manpower).

 

That doesn't surprise me in anyway. The HR Castle would be an interesting one though I would have liked to see a Small Ben. (magine that heading up Granish with the LMS and Caley coaches on the drawbar :love:.

Theres a fineline between not having enough involved and too many egos on board (I don't mean "egos" as in the loud mouthed, agenda pushers. I mean too many different ideas going about).

I had an idea to convert a Barclay 0-4-0 tank into one of the early IAJR 2-4-0s (I may have had a few at the time). A Small Ben with some internal modifications to get a bit more power out of may be plausible.

 

Following on from Hengist, which ticks so many of those prerequisite boxes ( BR, Green, Named, Big) you have all the patterns to batch produce as many of these or Brittannias as you like, or with a bit of jiggery pokery with some other 'Standard' bits a 2-8-2 Brittania or two... (infact by sticking on a few bits from a 9f that will never run again its almost a 'restoration')
That happens to be my personal 'agenda' but personal taste aside i cant see any other new build alternative thats as practical both from an ease of build or 'usefulness' point of view...

 

Useful in what way? They are too big for all but a handfu of presered lines and the mainline steam market is pretty much packed out. Whats needed is something the size of the 3MT like say a Reid C15: http://www.lner.info/locos/C/c15.shtml and N14/ 15: http://www.lner.info/locos/N/n14n15.shtml. We could always rebuild the E4 into one of these: http://www.lner.info/locos/D/d13.shtml (first site I went to).

Someone mentioned the tender frame from a NB Atlantic. Whats the back story?

 

In terms of usefulness and operational ease (and of cost, maintenance and fuel costs) the 3MT project is probably the best of the choices out there. There's no other machine I have read up on that seems to have been able to do everything and more that the original 3MTs could do. Arguably it is the larger 4MT which has proved to some extent to be preservation's "maid of all work", so with a smaller, more fuel efficient 3MT on the horizon, I'd hazard a guess we'd see more of that class appear in the future.

After all - fuel efficiency and ease of maintenance are more and more going to be top of everyone's priorities as the money belts are tightened ever more.

If it was a personal choice - and ignoring all that I have said above - one of the Thompson Pacifics for me, specifically the A1/1, to be outshopped in the NE prussian blue, with full deflectors and standard LNER cab (and not as built). Fills an important gap in the history of the ECML - without the original and rebuilt 4470, latterly 60113, we'd not have had the A4s or the Peppercorn A1s which followed (whatever you might think of Thompson and his Pacifics).

 

The tender in question became a sludge tank in LNER days (as many did) and in BR days was rebuilt into a tanker, specifically I believe in use at the fuelling depot at Cambridge. When that fell out of use in the 80s/90s it just sat there in a siding gathering rust, until someone noticed it. It literally passed under the eyes of us preservationists until very recently.

I believe that it is now in the hands of the SRPS.

 

Just looked it up. Came from 879 "Abbotsford" which makes it one of these beasts: http://www.lner.info/locos/C/c10c11.shtml

Martin if the 3MT has to work harder than the 4MT, doesn't that make it less efficient (someone on the footplate may be able to clear it up). Personally, given their nature, I can see the difference in coal usage betweeen them being neglible, perhaps the same could be said for locos in the same range.

 

I am basing this on what I have read of both engines while they were in BR service, and looking at the practical work available to them in the future. Do you need to be quite so vociferous in your response? Assuming the 3MT is built to a decent spec (and there is absolutely no reason to think it won't be), it should be as good as the originals, which were quite acclaimed machines from that I have read.

But traditionally, big freight engines in preservation ARE more fuel efficient than the larger pacifics - does not being designed for pulling heavier loads at slower speeds originally, make the vast majority of the 9Fs, Stanier 8Fs and the GWR eight coupled varieties and similar, more desirable for use?

I don't think its any coincidence that engine types like the 9Fs and Stanier 8Fs, with the Churchward 28xx and 38xx classes have been successful in preservation. Lower line speeds for the most part on our preserved lines, and decent train lengths of BR Mk1s or similar, which these engines can take with ease on a regular basis.

That is not to say preservation's future lies in a single class of steam locomotive: only that the people at the top will be keener to put out an engine for a regular service that burns less coal and uses less water than one which burns more coal, uses more water, and does the same job. Costs of running steam locomotives are going to be under the microscope more and more in the future, and I feel regular timetabled services for preserved lines are going to go more and more the way of fuel efficiency for the job required.

 

Show me some technical evidence (coal consumption per llb per mile for example) that a 3MT is going to be more efficient than a 4MT standard and I'll believe you but making baseless statements like your previous comment doesn't reflect well on you.

I'd love to see a comparision between a 9F and a West Country/Battle of Britain.

Take 9Fs for example, how many have actually been restored by a preseved railway putting its own money (ie ticket revenue) into the overhaul? 92203, 92212 and 92214 have all steamed through the efforts of owning groups or individuals (I'm willing to be corrected on this if anyone knows differently).

After (nearly) 60 years of railway preservation do you think that this might have happened by now?