BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

Which could open a whole new debate on the respective advantages of two or three cylinders. A place I'm not going.

 

Many thanks, I'll have a close look at some photos. I guess the 84xxx would have been built in greater numbers had steam survived for longer, rather like the Clans - to bring it back on thread.

 

Basically, the Standard 2-6-2 tanks and the Ivatt tanks 41290-329 are dimensionally similar and the same weight. The difference between the earlier Ivatts and the ones listed is the cylinders. The cylinders of 41290-329 were slightly larger castings with 16-1/2" dia bores. The earlier Ivatts had cylinders of 16" dia bore. As Gwenllian 2001 states, all the other differences were visual, with the Standard 2MTs fitted with all the various Standard type boiler mountings and injectors.

 

Your first picture shows a 82xxx tank, I think it should be one of the 84xxx series.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/84013_1959_at_Crewe.jpg

 

Doh! Posting late at night is never a good idea!

 

Sorry but i cant let this pass unchallenged.
Point 1 You are clearly lacking a bit in the homework department as you're assessment of the Project is at least two years out of date.
Indeed most of the people running the project now would find you're comments irritating ( as you've arrived at some of the same conclusions several years after they themselves did) and offensive ( as they are clearly the wrong people and arent running the Project Properly)
As for Mainline Motive power there at least a half dozen class 6 or below Loco's currently employed on this, Several of which aren't permitted above 60MPH. and what pwer class do the County , Saint and Patriot fall into...?
And as for not being able to do the job properly ... Duke of Gloucester mean anything to you ?
Yes a few more class 8's would be great... but as you point out these are 'difficult' to build - a lot more difficult than a clan. Its likely that in another ten years a few more locos will join the Ranks of Blue Peter, Green Arrow, and perhaps Lord Nelson, Royal Scot .. (and as should have been Flying Scotsman)as locos where the cost of one or two overhauls exceeds the cost of a newbuild

Clearly as you arent a fan of the Clan you we'rent going to arrive like Bonnie Prince Charlie with an Army of scots sympathisers at the Barrow hill EGM and rescue the Project but there is mileage in the Scots connection and this is being looked at - Indeed if a few hundred Scots joined up dug deep into their pockets and made their votes count the clan could be theirs... But that hasnt happened yet.
Unfortunately the backroom work reorganising this project doesnt make for an exciting read which is percieved as lack of progress , but thanks to the many contributing members and a Dedicated and hardworking (and currently free from Scots) sales team the projects funds are in excess of its luck with sourcing suppliers for some of its trickier components ...

 

This project has seen major progress since the change in management. While it may not be the public facing 'sexy' part of putting a loco together all the current work is none the less vital. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was Tornado (19 years). If you really want to know what goes into a loco build buy the Haynes guide to Tornado.

People seem to like comparing projects to the A1 as though it's some form of competition, news flash, there is no competition! Those working at the coal face for any loco (built or not) will know this and we all help each other hence groups like BRSLOG (BR Standard Locomotive Owners Group). I support other builds and running locos as do many of the team behind the Clan.

TonyMay, some of your ideas are good ones, with what authority do you speak in terms of new builds and mainline steam operation? Your comments regarding the Clan being 'only' Class 6 and therefore no use on the mainline is utter drivel though. If that were the case maybe all Black 5 owners should take their locos off the mainline immediately, not to mention Standard 4s, GWR Halls, the B1 and the Panniers!! As for preserved line use Class 6 is perfect for the GCR (including high speed demonstrations), SVR or the NYMR. Some of us get dug in and do what we can either just to build a representative of a lost class or (like myself) who will carry on once complete to support the loco in its operations off (and hopefully) on the footplate. I, for one, do find your post insulting to the hard work that all the team are putting into the build.

Current ongoing work :

• Cataloguing all the material and weld certs for the existing components, assignment of competent person to act as our agent with the ORR. Essential for mainline approval.
• Liaising with Rileys regarding assembling the frames (as you can imagine Ian and the team have been rather busy of late)
• Arranging for the casting of the combined frame stretcher / spring hangar brackets
• Forming a thorough and detailed build and quality plans
• Reaching an agreement for a 'Home for Hengist' (and no it's not my place to reveal where so please no more PM's asking me)

Our next goal is assembling the frames and accommodation bogies so we can move the 'loco' to it's new home. We are lucky in some respects that once the frames are erected we have the smokebox, chimney, smokebox door and cab all ready to bolt on along with a major chunk of the controls and fittings.

As for Scotland... I'm sure if one of the Scottish Clans came up with a large enough pot of cash we would name it Clan Stewart, Clan Buchanan or anything else they liked and in their choice of livery (Clan in Porterbrook Purple anyone?). Otherwise why build a loco in Scotland when most of the parts will come from the likes of Sheffield forges and foundries, Bridgenorth, SDR to name but a few places, transport costs would be horrendous to Scotland. As it is the loco will be located central to our membership and in easy reach for the engineering team and at a location that has the knowledge and equipment to assist building and supporting a mainline loco. Besides, if you want to be historically correct 72010 was allegedly destined to work around southern England rather than the highlands which is why it isn't named after a Scottish Clan. Hengist was the name picked by BR after all!

As stated in my signature below, these are entirely my own views.

 

100% correct; apart from the "e" that crept into Bridgnorth.

 

Best of luck to the Hengist team. Sounds like after some setback at an organisational level the project is back on track (no pun intended).

 

Just got the latest SR, says once the frames are constructed at Riley's, the loco will based at the GCR at Loughborough.

 

The news is out, Hengist has a home!
Further preparatory work was also completed on the frames last weekend at Rileys.
Dave

 

Nice to finally know. Where she will be going. Is there enough space in the shed. Or Is it a case of when the frames are ready waiting for space?
Cheers Gavin

 

It is not often that I am moved to be starkly critical, but unless there is far more than meets the eye I think it pretty shoddy of the GCR to kick Brocklebank Line and her group out, seemingly because they were in the way, only to allow X years later another Pacific in which, even the most optimisitic of people will admit, is many years from completion.

 

So thats many years till she starts to get in the way then ?

 

I don't think Jamie is being critical to hengist. More that it's unfair on brocklebankllines. I don't know anything about the merchant navy group but I do know that the hengist group are very active in fundraising and have a plan on how to raise funds. Maybe they didn't have a plan as such to raise the money so we're booted off. Of course I know nothing about them so I could be wrong.
Gav

 

Thanks Gav, indeed I have no gripe with Hengist whatsoever. As I say, unless there is more to this than meets the eye it seems that double standards are at work here. To boot out one pacific because it is many years from completion and therefore in the way, only to invite another that is many years from completion and therefore 'in the way' (if you care to look at it like that) does not seem fair. class8mikado, with Hengist's frames erected it will be a significant lump to work around - not much less, I would guess, than Brocklebank.

 

A good railway to locate it on, and it will mean that it will be seen in close company with 70013, and expertise can be shared between the groups. It was a shame about 35025's ejection; I'm not in a position to comment authoritatively, but my gut feeling is that it probably was something to do with the lack of financial means to progress the project in a manner that satisfied the GCR's requirements at the time. The situation wasn't helped by the fact that expensive components were stolen, so it would have seemed that the owning group were being kicked why they were down. I'm sure 35025's day will come, though...

 

Good luck to all its a great location and as i assume that bridging the gap is not happening anytime soon the space issue might not be quite as important. I do think that the SVR missed out here as the loco would be very well suited to there requirements and from the sound of it be running before the standard 4 tender does.

 

Bluntly, I don't. Not wanting to denigrate Hengist but it is many, many years away, probably behind 75069. We have a LOT of steam locomotives on the SVR, do we need another? We even have a newbuild already, 82045. And we're strapped for space as it is. We currently have a bit of a steam shortage, yes, but within the next couple of years the number in steam will be up toward 10. We have a lot of locos well suited to SVR requirements in the 4/5 range, with a bit of superpower and 2s/3s as well. I really don't see what Hengist would bring to the SVR.

 

Well, the GCR aren't exactly short of kettles.....