L1 new build

Successful passenger tank design driving wheel sizes :

LMS Fowler/Stanier/Fairburn 5ft 9in
GWR Prarie 5ft 8in
LNER V1/V3 5ft 8in
BR Std 4 5ft 8in

Unsucessful passenger tank design driving wheel sizes :

LNER L1 - 5ft 2in.
SR K/K1 - 6ft 0in

So either learn the lessons of history or make plenty of spare axleboxes I suggest.

 

If I were advocating a new-build of this ilk which I am not, it would be for a V3 not an L1. Personally I think the V3s were much better proportioned locos too.

Like others on here at first I was quite excited at the thought of a Maunsell L1!

 

It would be possible to seal up a boiler with desiccant in it to virtually eliminate corrosion but no inspector/insurance co is going to go back to a boiler perhaps 10 years later and simply say that everything will be OK so we needn't have a good look inside at all the nooks and crannies that we can't see simply by looking through plug holes. Would you?
The silly thing is, though, if it were a gas fired industrial boiler with decent water treatment, they probably wouldn't want the tubes out after a period of storage, even if it had seen some use. I've known hospital boilers go 30 years between re-tubes. Having tubes out, etc, is a throwback to BR practice that HMRI introduced in their original guidance on loco boilers as there were no laws covering boilers on railways then. Enshrined in tablets of stone, now.
As an aside ('cos I don't know), what is the situation with traction engine boilers? They don't come under HMRI so their guidance doesn't apply. Do inspectors now insist on all tubes out, etc at 10 years? They didn't use to.

 

Regarding boilers and their tickets - you could have one made and the ticket would not start untill it passed its steam test. In theory you could make the barrell, firebox and tubeplates but leave the tubes out. Then if anyone did want to check it after a few years they could with relative ease.

 

Perhaps this is Vote for your Eastern region Loco of choice so i can start a Group to new build it exercise...
On this basis the V3 Seems to be going quite well.... Not as good as a V4 though, a tank engine version of that would be excellent....

 

Like I said, if you can get a contractor to part build a boiler, store it for, say, 10 years then complete it and warrant it, you could go down that route. Bet you can't though.

 

Anyone know of any wide firebox tanks?

 

SR Leader class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other than that no!

 

The decapod?

 

V.G! Perhaps I should have said SIDE tank locos

 

the Decapods the only one i can think of too
think it would have to go 2-6-4 and a shallow '9f style firebox...
Any budding young draughtsmen out there willing to have a go ?

 

Hmmm - Decapod also conspicuous for its lack of side tanks, and that V4 middle big end's gonna make a mess of your well tank I reckon, so where's the wet stuff going to live? (Of course the Decapod was a 3 cyl too, so where did it hide its 1300 gal?)

 

Couldn't it tow a water carrier, and possibly have it carry extra coal for added range? ;-)

 

Why not - you could call it the Lickey Banker?

 

Side tanks are fairly impractical with a wide firebox. It would have to be a saddletank or one of those pannier thingies to get a sensible water capacity although with outside cylinders and valve gear some sort of well tank could be an option, if a bit complex. I think that the Decapod was a combination of end and well tank but water capacity wasn't really a problem in the concept of the design.

 

One could have side tanks forward of the firebox - no necessity for them to reach the cab front.

 

Whilst I'm all for new build steam etc.etc., and being relatively young myself and being born and bred in East Anglia, you really need to question your choice of locomotive. As others have said if you want to do an LNER tank then a V3 would be a better option. However why a tank loco ? You have the 82045 currently being built and that is progressing at a fairly rapid rate. You have time on your side to choose your loco, and to draw up a business plan and set yourselves clear goals and targets by certain dates of where you want to be. I hope this advice helps you.

 

A small amount of work has been done, mostly I believe repairing modifications that had been made when it was a stationary boiler, but nothing major enough that it would start any kind of insurance ticket running. (That said, I'm sure the changes that have been made have been done in consultation with the insurer).

Incidentally, there is some feeling is that the boiler may never had had a fire lit in it, but may have served as a steam reservoir fed from another source of steam.

Finally (for those not aware of the set up at SP) the boiler is stored inside a shed so is not exposed to the elements.

(OT, I know, for discussion of an L1)

Tom (who might contribute to this project, were it a Maunsell L1...)

 

Judging by the amount of thought that has gone into this project, maybe next week they'll change tack and make it a Maunsell L1. Or perhaps the group will split with a breakaway faction starting the Maunsell L1 FaceBook page; and hard core of diehards keeping the true Thompson flame alive with the Thompson L1 FaceBook page.

Tom (somewhat cynical I'm afraid)

 

Why not a tank loco? A tender loco is going to add significantly to the costs and tank locos are far more suited to operations on heritage railways. They've got that decision right. And two cylinders is a better route than three, as well. All that needs doing is an axlebox re-design for the L1.