L1 new build

Blimey, we're taking this seriously fellahs? In that case I'm with JTX as far as the best tool for the job is concerned. As for Pete2hogs, clearly needs to go to Specsavers, but he's right about Kylchaps. Better make sure you stick one in that L1.

 

Steve,

Not taking issue with you here, but wondering why you say that? I know you have extensive experience; my own with 3-cylinder machines, (5690 quite a bit, 61994 a lot and 60009 one very interesting double trip) led me to conclude they were less likely to "stick" on the dead centre, as, wherever you stopped, one of the bu88ers should be taking steam. 61994, in particular, would start up a cliff, towing a block of flats, although that may be due to the power rather than the number of cylinders.

 

There are the two Fairburn 2-6-4Ts and the 3cyl Stanier 2-6-4T in the NRM. Not to mention one of the U Boats on the Mid Hants that started as a K class 2-6-4T (and one of the U Boats at the Bluebell that was ordered as a K class but built as a tender engine).

Coming back to the substantive point: there's nothing wrong with 2-6-4Ts of any form, even an L1 (though I suspect if it came down purely to cost and convenience you'd probably choose a BR standard). There is everything wrong with a new build that seems to consist of nothing much more than a FaceBook page and a leading light who seems more interested in starting up new fantasy projects than seeing one of them through even to the point of a worthwhile plan.

Tom

 

Doh! How could I forget those... Anyhow I am completely with you on the V3 idea,as they want to build a 'powerful tank locomotive' which in my opinion a V3 is the best option as it has lower maintanance costs (at least when in BR use compared to the L1's) and it would be more suited new build. Furthermore because there are already 2-6-4T's out there currently that have already survived into preservation, which are solid engines so why the need for another ?

 

I suppose at least they're not looking to build any of the Baltic tanks. :dance: Imposing as those machines would have been, was there a class of Baltic tank that was even remotely successful? Well perhaps the LBSCR L-class tanks but the rest were dogs.

I know it's not eastern but come to think of it since they're considering a 4-6-2t with 2 cylinders, why not a LBSCR 'J' class? www.semgonline.com/steam/jclass.html

 

The original L1 (GCR) were reclassified L3 when the new class were introduced from 1945, this L1 is a tank version of the K1 and also has some parts commonality with B1, the intention being to introduce relatively cheap easier maintenance locos in the difficult post war period. These engines were worked extremely hard during a time when maintenance standards were stretched due to labour shortages in the eastern area and more attractive jobs on offer, a new build should avoid such problems and would seem a better option than a pre grouping compound atlantic no matter how attractive such a machine looks.

I visited Dorrigo some years ago, access was difficult but many of the locos looked to have suffered from their exposed storage, it is a bizarre sight seeing lines of almost unique antiques but it seems the plans have always been far too optimistic, any speculation should be tempered by the reality that they are all staying there, condition can be see here : A long line of Loco's - YouTube .

 

An LBSC J would be delightful, but back in reality the Furness 4-6-4Ts were apparently rather good, but doomed in an LMS dedicated first to small engines and then to standardisation.

 

As I said earlier, I also think the V3 is the way to go if they're serious. Or for something less ambitious but notheless interesting and suitable for preservation rail: www.lner.info/locos/C/c14.shtml (just to put it out there)

 

Impressive looking engines those Furness Baltics!. ASs to the LBSC J, I'm merely throwing it out there, trying to show that there are many engines more worthy than an L1 if these lads are serious. The V3 is the logical choice really.

 

I wish them every success with their new-build (we need more youngsters like them), but I would urge them to reconsider the choice of locomotive, if they are to succeed with their project & for the sake of their project.

 

If we're having a vote then it'd be a V3 for me too. With the use of modern bearings on the conjugated gear, add a rocking grate too, and it would be relatively easy machine to live with.

 

You see the 2 RODs there in the 'rotten row'. I understand that all the engines are liberally smeared with grease and there are plans to cover the collection. Notice the Beyer 2-6-0 at 19 seconds in. A NSWGR railways z24 class (www.australiansteam.com/nsw/2408.jpg) and almost identical to 'Galloping Alice' of the Midland & South Watern Junction Rly. Coincidentally, I recall reading about a proposal to build a new-build of Galloping Alice.

 

That would be ideal for a heritage railway, nice comfortable easy to use loco and easier to dispose at the end of the day.

 

I assume that when discussing an L1 we're only talking heritage lines, though a V3 might be OK for the NYMR into Whitby and the Esk Valley trips too?

 

There is always that additional option depending on what the group decide but yes that would also be a good idea for them to consider.

 

Can't wait until March, I can start my newbuild leader locomotive group. Its going to cost £2.123 million and take 3 years to build for my home built standard gauge railway.

 

I thought that that comment wouldn't escape notice! I was careful in my choice of words - starting a heavy train.
Tractive effort is not constant throughout a wheel revolution, varying quite a bit. If you plot out the torque curves for a two cylinder loco and an equivalent three cylinder loco, you will find quite a difference in peak torque. The exact figures depend on the dimensions of the loco but the variation in torque of a two cylinder loco is about 34% and a three cylinder is about 16%. If you take the nominal tractive effort as the mean figure (which it isn't in reality but will serve for an illustration), you will see that the peak tractive effort of a two cylinder loco is a lot higher than a three cylinder loco. As an example, for a nominal TE of 24000lb a two cylinder loco will have a peak TE of about 28,000lb whereas a three cylinder loco will have a peak TE of about 26,000lb. When it comes to starting heavy trains, this can be significant, even more so because, with one cylinder at the point of max torque, the second cylinder is way beyond 75% stroke and getting no steam whilst the third cylinder is producing half of its maximum torque. Add it all together and you will see that the total torque is quite low compared with what you'll get with two cylinders. There is a substantial difference between the maximum starting torque of three cylinder loco and a two cylinder loco. A Black 5 and a Schools class have almost the same nominal TE but there is a huge differenc in peak TE at starting. A three cylinder loco doesn't really start to perform until it is getting steam to all three cylinders which can never do at the point of starting. Lead steam is also quite possibly producing some opposing torque and there's more opportunity for this on a three cylinder loco!.

Certainly, in my experience, sticking on centres with the NYMR's three cylinder locos (60007, 34101 & 30926) is just as likely as with a two cylinder loco and harder to start heavy trains; that is an opinion shared by other drivers. It was the subject of discussion at a recent MIC. I think that you really have to draw out the torque curves to fully understand and appreciate it.

 

I left the J39 group due to the fact that their project manager was on about leaving his post for 2 - 3 years due to personal things and then the next day he said he could still do his role but would not be able to talk as much as before and half the team didnt know what they were ament to do half the time due to the fact that they had to get in contact with the project manager first.

i will try and answer your questions as much as possible .

 

quite alot of people use facebook thats why we made a facebook page and it would make people aware of the intensions of the group and keep them upto date.

 

thats what we plan to do steve , redesign the axle boxes and the fact that the L1 will be running at low speeds due to the fact that its only going to be running on preserved lines.