New builds - how many will ever really work?

It is definitely not "all new" - it's originally based on the Standard 5MT including, but not limited to, wheel spacing, driver diameter, boiler size and similar.

EDIT: For a clearer picture of the similarities and design ethos, click here.

 

Having been away from this thread for a while owing to computer problems, more than ever I feel like retreating to the lavatory with a wet towel wrapped around my head to mutter "for goodness sake you silly ******* just finish something before you start something else"!

P.H.

 

I think the most successful steam locomotive design that could be made today to achieve maximum popularity, saleability, efficiency and fitness for purpose would be a life-size Thomas the Tank engine...
To me the 5AT is a fanciful design, what benefit does box pox wheels bring ? Why the American style streamlining ?
The market is for old looking steam locomotives, people expect tradition.

Maybe this is a trailblazing new concept, and the rest of us are not visionary enough and need to catch up...

But to me, thinking practically rather than emotionally, it would need to satisfy a few criteria to be taken seriously beyond a one off prototype:

1. Be a cheaper alternative to current technology (Combination of Build and Maintenance)
2. Be more operationally efficient than current technology
3. Be able to implement within the frame work of existing technology
4. Be environmentally friendly in it's design, build and operation.
5. Be safer than alternatives
6. Easier to use than alternatives.


I think a new designed steam locomotive would struggle with 3,4,5 & 6. (though Option 6 lends itself to all kinds of modern technology, but at expense of option1).


As Dyson says... solve the obvious problems first.

To me this is a design searching for demand, rather than demand driving a new design.

If I were to come up with a revolutionary design using steam it would be :
1. one that generates steam without burning a fossil fuel
2. reuses most of it's water
3. is managed by IT.
4. Driven by Computer
5. Is Zero emissions

closest I see to this concept is 400metres from my flat... The DLR (with it's electric supplied from a steam turbine power station somewhere on the grid).

 

www.bdlpg.co.uk/the-group. This is the result of yoofs with a website and no engineering expertise or funding know-how illustrated perfectly. Have a look at the WNXX forum to see how they have infuriated people with the extravagent and spurious claims but continually failed to deliver.... They have been around for years, made claims, done deals with owners and never come up with the loot. Now completely discredited.

This is where a lot of the cloud cuckoo land new build schemes will descend to. Fantastic website - no metal pulling trains.

 

'Fighting for preservation' - great slogan if I remember correctly.

 

I just wonder if the whole ethos behind new builds in general is barking up the wrong tree. If we accept the complexities of many different types of locomotives being built will cause more expenditure in terms of lots of new and varied patterns, fabrications, etc etc, then it stands to reason that organizing amongst groups and railways that want/need "new builds" to incorporate as many common components as possible to be the way to go.

For example, from one type of boiler and specific design of frames, you could have as many as eleven different classes of 4-4-0 from the pre-grouping era, where companies were outsourced by pre-grouping railways (e.g. Sharp Stewart) to build locomotives for them.

Then of course, we know that with the new builds on the horizon, there are parts common to the Peppercorn A1, Gresley P2, and Thompson A2/2, the largest component shared being the boiler, and in the latter two, shared wheelsets, specific valve gear components and between the three, types of tender and similar.

What the GWR afficionados have got right, I feel, is the creation of "new builds" or "rebuilds" using as many standard/shared components as possible. This helps to minimize the cost whilst offering something "new". Whether you think a Saint is different enough to a Star, or a Grange to a Manor, etc etc, or not, they add a new dimension to their respective locomotive fleets whilst also keeping the costs down for pattern making at the same time.

In short, are we looking at the problem of locomotive overhauling and new builds in completely the wrong way - rather than lots of separate groups going their own way, would a united effort to minimize costs across the preservation produce better results instead?

 

In a similar way that there is the hope that a batch of 82xxxs or 77xxxs will get built (which aren't being built presently) I believe the preservation movement is too fragmented and too individual to work in such a grandiose way. Only a certain number of railways/groups would want a 4-4-0 of any kind regardless of the origins of it. Likewise the Standard Class 3 idea is nice but unlikely to happen for similar reasons - not everyone would want one despite what appear to be obvious benefits of lots of railways having one.

Personally I would dislike the idea of batch building new engines for preserved railways. One of the attractions of heritage movement is the diversity of it. You can turn up at the NYMR or the SVR and not see the same engines running - the attraction and individuality of the industry would be lost if we all ran the same engines in the name of economies of scale.

 

But this is exactly the nettle the movement has got to grasp. We are never going to have enough motive power to carry on ad infinitum if we rely on Barry wrecks. The 82045 group rightly identified the need and are proceeding to plug the gap, the shame is that the "movement" can't see the huge advantages of building a batch of these useful locos and their tender versions to lower the unit cost and make replacement steam available for many preserved lines. Tornado is, in many respects, a one-off that is unlikely to be repeated (unless a steam fan won the Euro Millions jackpot, funny how they never seem to!) and whose life is likely to be spent on the main line anyway.

Or is that there are people waiting to see if the Class 3 succeeds before saying, "we'd like one too!" in which case it will be too late to gain the advantage of lower unit costs (apart from the patterns)? Those people pouring money into ex-Barry locos should realise that new builds will take the pressure off their precious locos in the future and should not be scoffed at!

OK, rant over, I'll go and take my medication now.....

Foxy

 

I wouldn't agree with you. What bits of a standard gauge engine cannot be replaced? I fired an engine last week that had a brand new boiler built for it this year (it was narrow gauge albeit). I think what will happen is that certain engines will undergo major engineering work to keep them in traffic - new cylinders, frames, fireboxes while some will continue in rotation with repairs done to what components they currently have but eventually most major parts will be replaced.

Regarding motive power: think of how many engines are sitting in the SVR's engine house at Highley - hardly a crisis of motive power there to demand a batch of new engines to replace them.

 

I don't disagree with either you Neil, or Foxhunter, but I think the point that needs to be made is that you can diversify if you use the same components differently. Let's say you have patterns for a standard 4MT tender engine - these could be used to make another Ivatt 4MT, or vice versa, a locomotive which has that 4F power rating which is considered perfect for most preserved lines in Britain (to the extent that the tank engine variant has 15 examples preserved and most have been run in preservation).

The 4-4-0 was simply an example: but how many 0-6-0s share wheelbases? Then there's the opportunity to make two locomotive classes by utilizing common parts - J17 and D14 have the same boiler/smokebox arrangement but have different wheelbases.

I must challenge the notion that a 4-4-0 wouldn't be wanted by a preserved railway - how many 4-4-0s survived into the BR era? If you can make different classes from the same base components which look very different (a small Ben from T9 components?) then you don't necessarily see the same 4-4-0 at every preserved railway. If under the skin, they are all the same, but present completely different looks, is that not the best compromise?

Or we are making a mountain out of a molehill? Are new builds really needed in large enough numbers to justify the expense?

*apologies for playing devil's advocate somewhat!

 

Errr.... it depends on how you define preservation, doesn't it!

Foxy

 

I have always thought that if an organisation was set up to do new builds for preserved lines you could do little better than the GER designs of Worsdell and J. Holden. With one boiler you could have 2-2-2, large wheeled 2-4-0, small wheeled 2-4-0 with or without side window cab, 2-4-2T, and two types of 0-6-0, all except the last 0-6-0 (the J15) having the same cylinders, and all sharing many components. There would be enough power for all but the very longest preserved line trains, but not so much that the work was effortless. You could make substantial internal changes such as roller bearings and kylpor blast pipe without affecting the external appearance. There are two existing locos to take measurements off, but no need to exactly copy either. They also represent the Victorian era which is relatively neglected in terms of operating engines, as well as some unusual or at least under-represented wheel arrangements.

The fact that a couple of the tender engines could have side window cabs and tender cabs while maintaining a degree of outward authenticity would be useful too, decent cabs and backward running protection being useful on the average preserved line. You also have a legitimate choice of air, vacuum or dual fitted, and could even have oil burners. No doubt you could, if successful, design a 'Thomas-a-like' using the 0-6-0 chassis.

 

Other than a pony truck and crosshead, what have an Ivatt 4 2-6-0, Std 4 2-6-0 and a Std 4 2-6-4T got in common?
The 2-6-4T is a completely different beast than the other two. It was based on the Fairburn 2-6-4T.

 

Don't the Ivatt 4MT and Standard 4MT share boiler dimensions? I was using the 4MT tank as an example of the usefulness of the power class 4 generally...

 

Well, how is a new build 'preserved'?

 

Firstly, you are twisting my words. Secondly, you stated " tank engine variant". This is an incorrect statement.
With regards to the Ivatt and Std 4 2-6-0s having the same boiler dimensions, in theory this could be correct, but I cannot say for definate until someone puts the drawing for the Ivatt's boiler in front of me.

 

By 'eck you guys have time on your hands, I'm 'retired' but don't have the time to keep up with all this!

So going back a couple of pages, the Turbomotive - interesting one that. Definitely interesting technically, and a couple of sisters to act as templates for the chassis and boiler etc. However, having worked in power stations, turbines are a precision peice of kit, not at all cheap, they like a nice clean environment and are rather fussy about steam quality too. IIRC all the turbine maintenance was carried out by the supplier Metropolitan Vickers, as they don't respond well to the big hammer approach. Also a gearbox to handle 2400 hp ain't going to be cheap either. Then there'd be the public perception - a steam loco that doesn't chuff - what's that all about? So personally I'd vote that one a miss.

 

I'm not sure you could build a generic 4-4-0 (not an ideal design - many designs had very big wheels which aren't ideal for 25mph lines - a 2-6-0 with 5ft driving wheels (or thereabouts - I'm not sure what the Standard 4 2-6-0s have) would be a better preserved railway engine) and mock it up to look like whatever and still find a market it to sell to.

What railway would a Small Ben appeal to - the Strathspey apart?

Most railways like to cultivate specific images - Southern (and pre-decessors) at the Bluebell, Great Western at the SVR, the NYMR always seem to have a good mix of LMS engines and BR Standards, Southern at the Mid-Hants and Swanage, the GCR seem to prefer anything BR for example.

How could you batch build one type of engine and then make it look like an appropriate design for any of these railways?

 

Fair point, however...

That's kind of the point Neil. You could easily have a small Ben for a scottish line but have one dressed up as a southern region locomotive (T9) as well as a distinct possibility of several different stirling 4-4-0s in pre-grouping liveries.

By working out what potentially could be used between several variants of what is essentially the same basic design. Boiler, frames, cylinders, wheels, blastpipe and tender frames/wheels, say. The rest are aesthetic and easily built to one's own spec. I am sure if it was researched further you could do exactly that. A basic kit of parts which builds up to a working 4-4-0 which could then be customized to your own specific requirements.

As said previously - could also be done with 0-6-0s or similar.

I said 4-4-0s because there is a plethora of 4-4-0s out there with nigh on identical wheel spacings and total wheelbase between railways - mainly because they were either designed by the same CME for different companies or built by a company like Sharp Stewart or Beyer Peacock to a base design and customized to a specific railway's needs.

Another example - the one Stirling 4-4-0 on the SECR, you can build another 4 variants which are all basically identical mechanically but different aesthetically and geographically.

I'm not saying "go out and build 4-4-0s" but I am saying the potential is there.