New-build steam strategy coordination?

Understood... well, would anybody be interested in starting a study group for possible future Southern new-builds? Clearly, any such project(s) would have to be meticulously researched before a public launch (let's say 10 years away) - and, rather than start with an unknown quantity, it might be a better idea to start off with something like a U1, where only the cylinders and valve gear differ from an otherwise proven type.

 

Much as I am admirer of all things Southern, that railway didn't do too badly out of preservation of original locos, especially pre-grouping. Maybe that explains why there are fewer new builds: there are fewer obvious glaring gaps? Whereas the LNER did (comparatively) badly first time round. The large number of GWR new builds is probably explained in part by the ability to do conversions using significant parts donors rather than genuine new-builds - coupled with the fact that there is a very strongly-supported Great Western Society that doesn't really have an equivalent for the other three railways.

Beachy Head is occurring because it is a significant gap and because a critical mass of people want to see her run again. I am not sure that there is another Southern type not already represented in preservation that has the same cachet and significance. Realistically, who is going to build, for example, an H15 when an S15 and N15 already exist? Likewise the Adams T1 0-4-4T that is sometimes discussed (a boiler exists) - it would be nice, but is it "nice enough" to generate funds when you can already see an O2 and M7 in preservation?

Tom

 

Getting "Leader" right would be a thing worth trying...

 

Because its there ? not going to argue but I cant say I agree...

 

Although I agree with most of the negative comments above, I do think it might be helpful to distill the extensive experience that has been gained so far into a sort of code of practice that any new scheme could use to gain credibility -- or not.

It would cover such questions as:
For which parts do you have drawings (for the relevant class of loco or a close relative) or know where to find them?
For the parts for which you cannot find drawings, how do you intend to generate them (e.g. by measuring parts of an existing related loco or from first principles)?
What professional expertise do you have in your core team (engineering, legal, finance, fund-raising, etc)?
What proportion of the work do you expect to be done by volunteers and what proportion do you expect to pay for?
What links do you have with existing new-build or preservation projects?
What links do you have with possible engineering bases?
etc

This would point anyone who is considering starting a new project to start trying to tick those boxes. If they can't tick them and yet persist with a pie-in-the-sky project, the rest of the world can draw the obvious conclusion.

 

There are the obvious three first principles:
1) Is it buildable? Well, given the engineering capability we have, I think that simply goes to the ability to find or produce drawings, as Mr Mellish points out.
2) Is it fundable? Do you either have the funds or major backers to do it, or will the public see fit to back it?
3) Is it useful? Will it fit into the modern preserved or main line railway and do a job of work, or will it be a 'steam for one ticket then quietly forget' loco?

Tom, the LMS didn't do too badly out of preservation either, yet there is one major LMS-related project with a second job lined up... and it's not just about what's particularly glamorous but what's going to be useful on a day-in week-out basis. A Maunsell L2, with its smallish driving wheels and two big outside cylinder simplicity, for example, would be immensely useful in the 4MT tank mould - and as it's just a 2-6-4T version of a 2-6-0 tender loco of which one example is preserved, it wouldn't be too hard to build. Maybe it's just my Southern delusion kicking in, but I think the Z-class 0-8-0T has enormous appeal too... oh, and what state is that Adams T1 boiler in? Where is it, who owns it?

Bramblewick, it's an interesting idea, but I fear perhaps doomed to failure. It's been discussed here before, and Tom pointed out the problems of using sleeve valves in such an application. You'd also need to make it oil-fired or fit a mechanical stoker, and do away with the side corridor... whether it could ever be brought down to a sensible weight or made reliable, I have my doubts - and then, it looks like a diesel...

 

Not so much because it's there as because it wasn't given a fighting chance to prove itself.

 

The firing arrangements are the obvious sticking point, but my understanding is that CC1's reliability problems were mainly down to the odd and unexplained decision of the Brighton Works manager, while supervising the static test of one of the power bogies, to order it thrown into reverse while at full speed.

 

The "Leader" class never entered traffic so you might have just a few problems getting type approval. I wonder if there are any engineers today who would be prepared to pronounce an opinion on the design as fit for traffic.
The new build projects will sort out just as much co-ordination as they consider desirable as they go along and there is not much use theorising friom the sidelines.
From my armchair, personally I would stick to the simplest design capable of doing the job in hand. One notable gap is the Midland 3F tender engine, once over one thousand strong I believe. But, if anyone ever wants to make one they will get organised, regardless of what anyone says here.

Tim

 

Absolutely, and whereas the Leader is my money-no-object dream new build, my common sense basic dream new build would be a replica of the Bishop's Castle Railway's "Carlisle", which for my money was one of the most beautiful engines ever built in Britain. Somewhere between those two poles would be a brace of V4s for the NYMR.

 

"Carlisle" - pretty, but how useful would a roughly-1F inside-cylinder 0-6-0 tender engine that crews will hate working tender-first in bad weather be?

The Midland 3F - isn't that just a Jinty with a tender? Aren't there still quite a few unrestored Jinties around? Hmm... even if it were to be all-new, the commonality of parts would likely make life a lot easier. Perhaps that should be the Patriot group's third project?

I realise that the latter type is also subject to most of the same criticisms as "Carlisle".

Of course, the successful 82045 project is resurrecting the last in a line of several similar classes stretching back to Stanier and Fowler - although I've an idea I read neither LMS 3P tank was much of a success.

 

Wasn't the unbalanced nature of the forces on each driving axle, due to the asymmetrical chain drive to the coupled axles, also a fundamental flaw in the design? I'm really not sure, given gauging constraints, what could be done about that one bar a radical bogie redesign.

 

That's probably a must have. Be interesting to see what could be done with Lentz/Franklin poppet gear

 

Limited water capacity was also a problem. Thing is that the damage done to one of CC1's bogies at Brighton, and the fact that CC2 though nearly completed never steamed and that consequently there was no 'control group', means that we'll never know for sure whether those fundamental flaws would have been decisive. What we do know is that once the weight distribution problems had been 'cured' by the addition of a lot of scrap metal on the lighter side CC1 proved to be a very powerful and free steaming machine. By then of course the hostility of the press, the government, and Riddles had done for the project anyhow. It was a little like the APT in that respect. A good idea, way ahead of its time, polished off by officialdom and the media just as it was beginning to work.

 

Or should that be CC101? I forget.

 

I get quite confused with the Midland stuff. Isnt the 3F and 2F the same bottom end but just different boilers? And isnt there 1 G6 boiler in preservation from the Johnson 2Fs/M&GN 4-4-0?

Im not sure weather we could ever build a 3rd engine to be honest. It all depends on money at the end of the day. Im only 29 and ill be honest even in a project the size of the LMS Patriot project with over a thousand members we struggle to get many young people to help out, i can name them all on one hand, so it does make me wonder where the money will come from for a third newbuild. Lets say 3 more years until a fowler tank gets started ish, then 10 years building unless masses of money comes quickly, that puts a lot of our 60s age members in their mid to late 70s even early 80s or possibly not even around any more. So unless we get people leaving things in their wills i do think it will become very hard for new groups to start projects. Well unless people who are now in their 40s step into the void??

Now if i win the euros its a different matter! An original Royal Scot and Fowler 2P will be getting built and ill be looking for the LMS coaches no one can afford to make a rake to rival the Severn Valleys. And these engines and locos will be heading to the Churnet Valley! But i dont think this would actually ever happen! I try to live somewhere between fantasy and reality!

 

Question is, was it better than an M7?

One wonders what would have happened if the drawing office had persevered with the duplicate-controlled Q1 that could be driven from either side of the cab - potentially a much lower risk way of achieving the same end - or indeed made a real effort to work up the 2-6-4T based on the Q1 boiler.

Tom

 

Like replacing the M7 with Leader, the Q1 was a wonderful example of Bulleid's contrariness: it was meant to be the perfect cheap go anywhere engine, and yet it was almost impossible for crews to see where they were going when running tender first.

 

At least the Q1 was thoroughly conventional in every respect except appearance, and it surpassed the GER J20 as the most powerful 0-6-0 in the country. Can't help but think that outside cylinders and Walschaerts valve gear (or the mini-Walschaerts-in-an-oil-bath of the Pacifics) would have been a better idea...

 

One obvious point is that these days there isn't much of an opportunity for preserved lines to make use of a small loco so many of the Southern constituent company loco's eg the T1 are not as an attractive proposition as the 3MT