L1 new build

@ Chris A
I wish you luck with it and be assured that despite the scepticism, people are watching with keen interest; they want you to succeed; they want the wrong of a Claud not making it into preservation, righted, and if you're able to demonstrate seriousness of intent matching your passion; a sound, cogent plan and small steps (like securing the surviving parts) then they'll more readily get behind you with financial support, membership and other assistance (labour etc). Trust me, I think it'd be a fairly churlish individual who didn't want you to succeed. Speaking for myself, I very much want to see a Claud resplendent in GER loco blue charging through the Anglian countryside!

 

I feel a nameplate on its way...

 

Now that would be telling. There will be more news on this soon.

On the subject of the L1, how do you plan to tackle the design faults with it?

 

Its a nameplate then...

THE most logical place to start a new engine build!

 

It just has to be ..................... "Thompson the Tank Engine" :drum:

 

Seems logical to begin with the nameplate. Serves as a 'rallying cry' for the members - a compelling motivation to build the rest of the thing. I mean short of hanging it on a wall, what other uses are their engine nameplates?

 

Sorry Tony, whilst most of your post is depressingly sensible i have to take a little issue with
- wont be very useful - Lots of railtours behind Black fives suggest that this wouldnt be the case, lots of Bullied Light pacifics (with 3 cylinders) on preserved lines suggest the same. A Clan has advantages over both of them
- Nobody wants it ? not the most desireable loco. in many peoples eyes would have completely died by now if this was the case and in recent times the momentum and belief is building ...
Without knocking it i dont see the atraction in a Patriot, its just a jubilee with an antiquated boiler on it... but hey ho i will enjoy seeing it when its built...

 

Antiquated it might be (the LNER and SR broadly persisted with straight boilers and I would hardly regard their engines as antiquated relative to the work of the LMS or GWR) but I find the nose of the Patriot class more imposing to that of a Jubilee or any of Stanier's or Collett's large engines. I've always found tapered boilers to look a bit feeble myself and much preferred the look of a massive straight boiler on a high running plate. I find it more pleasing aesthetically. In terms of post-grouping 4-6-0's I personally find Maunsell's Lord Nelson to be one of the most visually pleasing engines of the period (the Malachite green notwithstanding). I think a tapered boiler would look wrong on the class and I don't think anyone could say that they class were antiquated in comparison to it's contemporaries.

I always thought the Patriot to be more of rebuilt Claughton myself. Then again, perhaps little of the Claughtons were kept in the initial batch of Patriots but they were clearly an amalgam of Crewe and Derby practice.

 

Build a V3 instead

 

What's the tipping point where people start to believe a new build will happen...?

With Tornado, there seemed to have belief from an early point...
As does the Patriot, which is one of the newer build schemes and is making massive progress.
Few will believe a Grange, County or Saint are not going to happen... This seems to be built around credibility.

What about the oldest of them all... Credible builders, mostly complete with boiler.. Yet so near so far... Tyseleys Bloomer looks like its forgotten...

Having a nameplate gets you nothing.
Having a set of frames doesn't carry much weight with some.
Having a cab, frames, tanks ??? Maybe credible.. Or what about frames, smoke box and all kinds of unglamourous expensive bits (like copper, or brass work ?)

Maybe if you have a boiler first.... After all Beachy head is a rebuild centred around a boiler (had that scheme started today it would most likely been a new boiler too).

So.. What point do you reach credibility with a new build that people believe in you ?

 

It more or less is a new boiler. It only had about five years use.

 

The problem with building the boiler first is that the proverbial clock will start ticking. Unless you can get all agreed, epecially the contractor, to part build one (i.e. leave out the guts) and keep it in secure storage until just before it is required, it is a non-starter of an idea. Common sense says it really needs to be the last item on the agenda.
Beachy Head is a different proposition. They have an existing boiler. I don't think they've repaired it yet, have they?

 

A boiler, a boiler.... my kingdom for a boiler !

 

That is to say I really like Malachite Green. Not sure if that was clear.

@ADB968008.
Bit of a chicken or the egg dilemma it seems. A critical mass of people believe in it if the project is credible and has had some serious thought put into it. An L1 for me, and it appears for others, doesn't tick that box. What obviously detracts from some of thes new build startups is the age of the participants, however if they secure some individuals with mature engineering experience, then perhaps this reservation can be blunted. Certainly their age works for them in other respects. What is clear is that a website and youthful enthusiasm (which might well dissipate with the onset of careers and the fairer sex) isn't in itself sufficient to get punters believing in the viability of the project. This is not to dismiss their sincerity. I suppose the key is to convince enough people so that sufficient progress is made to convince more people, and so it goes until you reach a critical mass.

 

One of the problems I see here is the person who started this thread seems to have left the J39 group very quickly, will he do the same here? Also I ntovce he posted this on Friday PM but has yet to answer the critics/those who question his decision. Looking at his posts in the J39 group he thanked the praisers but sometimes ignored the critics. If he wants any project to reach completion I think he needs to answer the negatives as well - if they can come on side they may well get either loco running.

I commend youngsters for wanting to do this but I will not be parting with any hard earned cash (especially in these hard times) untill I feel the project has a management team in place who can drive the project forward.

 

Not only that but the choice of engine smacks of someone simply browsing the Hornby catalogue as someone has said. They weren't good engines by all accounts and while in an ideal world it'd be wonderful to have a representative of every class ever produced and be able to sustain them all, the fact is most of us can think of engines that would be far more worthy of resurrection than Thompson's L1 - the J39 and Clauds both being examples. That people feel this way will hardly inspire them to get behind this project. So no only is there a credibility issue but one of general enthusiasm for the merits of the project itself. Most people aren't excited by a new-build L1 even in the hands of an experienced team.

I'm happy to eventually financially support the Claud (adopting a wait-and-see approach at the moment although my heart says yes), and perhaps even the J39, but not an L1 I'm afraid.

 

Is it not possible to leave a boiler in dry storage drained of all water and with washout plugs and mudhole doors removed to allow air to keep it dry and ensure minimum amount of damage done to it? The boiler could then be re-certified when the engine is ready to be assembled and put into traffic.

 

Not so far as I know. The cert can only start from a full internal inspection, tubes and flues out.

 

Ah, fair point. The other problem with building a boiler first is the cost of it. Building the chassis first means that affordable parts can be constructed first that show signs of progress. Waiting to save up for a boiler would take years.

 

The Thompson L1's were terrible locos that were withdrawn with maximum haste, being outlived by the considerably older V3's. Any saving in maintenance they made in one less cylinder was more than made up for by the rapidity they knocked themselves to bits. They were overcylindered and underbraked and known to the men who had to work them as 'concrete mixers'. That was not intended as a compliment.

They do look quite nice.

While the large Gresley engines had big end problems no-one has said these apply to the much less powerful V3's, which seem to have generally gone about their business quite happily. There never was any actual problem with the conjugated valve gear itself, that was a piece of Thompson propaganda. Even when Stanier was brought in by Thompson to investigate it he did no more than say he wouldn't use it himself.

A days' basic research would have discovered these facts.

So, if you must build a replica LNER tank then a V3 is a far better bet, and far more likely to appeal to potential funders.