Replica builds for heritage lines.

LNER J70 (dons tin hat and finds cover).

 

But Joe Enthusiast, who will be asked to fund the capital cost and provide the labour to build it, is usually very fussy about what he will support - and rightly so.

 

Nail hit very firmly on the head.

 

I accept it is my view. It is also shared by a large number of engineers past and present. However I think it would be fair, right and balanced to concede a number of points.

There is no doubt that the Gresley-Holcroft conjugated valve gear in preservation could be improved significantly and a new version of it might not have the issues experienced during the second world war.

Further, maintenance of the valve gear and the top levels of maintenance at that in particular is possible today and was not always possible on the LNER during and immediately post war. So again, the disadvantages for a new build using such valve gear do fall away some what.

When I said "flaw" - and forgive me for not putting it in context particularly well - it was in (and again in my opinion, but shared by others more reputable than me) Gresley's choice to keep the valve gear for small and medium locomotives, which as evidenced elsewhere before and after his passing was unnecessary. Two cylinders being more than adequate.

That is a good choice and I'd like to see that - or one of Raven's Pacific tanks A8 (as rebuilt by Gresley from the 4-4-4Ts).

 

The A8 has been suggested by another poster and that would be another useful loco one would imagine.
Also what has the Gresley derived motion in wartime and your and other views of Gresley's character got to do with the subject of this thread?
Back to the original subject matter, an Ivatt C12 would be nice for lines with easier grades.

 

I was simply clarifying my thoughts if I had not been clear previously.

 

Having done a study of GWR classes I ought to be able to come up with suggestions from the GW stable, but the trouble is I keep mentally coming up against the question: "But why wouldn't the heritage line be better off with a Large or Small Prairie or a pannier tank" and failing to come up with a good answer. There was all sorts of 6 wheeled Victorian exotica, 2-4-0s and the like, but when you come right down to it a 5700 has pretty much the same capabilities. There were the 4-4-2Ts, but the Prairies were better. I suppose the Dean Goods pedecessor, the armstrong Standard Goods might be useful, but go back that far and the engineering isn't so great and maintenance goes up.

 

On the basis that money is no object (and if that isn't the case we're not building anything) (and indeed extending this, naturally, to the coal bill) I'll have Big Bertha, both types of Beyer-Garratt, a GCR class 8H ('Wath Daisy') and the GER 'Decapod' please.

 

Oh, you've been clear enough alright.
One of these would look good on some Victorian stock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archi...an_Tank_Engine_Great_Northern_Railway_246.jpg

 

I hope I haven't offended. No intention to do so was there, assuredly.

I would prefer the Sturrock 2-2-2 pictured on the same page. That is a gloriously elegant and straightforward looking design. Now that would make a rather epic new build.

 

Or a J25 for lines with no so nice and easier grades....

Personally, Id love to see something along the lines of an NER-esque Q9. 0-8-0 heavy engine with full modern sanding gear, superheated boiler, roller bearings, outside cylinders and valve gear, yet with NER style boiler, cab and tender.

Otherwise its a B16/3 as a gorgeous rebuild project.

 

Interesting that you would choose Edward Thompson's rebuild of the Raven machine. May I ask why - genuinely curious as I am always told the original Raven machine is by far the most handsome of the three variants of the B16 design.

 

Very nice. Though the problem is, I could point you to equally nice looking and similar locos from south of the Thames (the LCDR in particular had a competent stud unrepresented in preservation). Which I think is why there will always be a struggle to produce any mid-Victorian loco: there is probably (just about) a critical mass of people interested in principle who might make a project viable, but not a critical mass who would coalesce around one specific design as against any number of broadly similar locos from other parts of the country. (The GWS Firefly being the exception to prove the rule, coming from a railway and a large society with a very singular focus).

Tom

 

I guess I prefer the look of the updated machine. The original B16 does look great. Purposeful, elegant, powerful. However, the frames over the wheels and the cylinders looking small do make it look aged. In the end theres little wrong with that, the original design worked superbly over all and indeed many lasted to the end in original condition, a testament yet again that Raven's designs were often brilliant and did exactly what was needed.

The updates B16, does look more powerful, with the motion outside increased and the wheels fully visible. I like the fact that it makes it look more in tune with other designs, such as B1, K1, etc. and gives the look of a more uniform fleet - an aspect I love of Western region stuff. However, Id go for the B16/3 with it being standardised by the use of the same motion and a removal of yet another complicated update. It was the design as far as you could probably take it and yet it still has the North Eastern Heritage look and feel to it. Personally, I like seeing progress as much as some originality and a B16/3 does that.

 

If simply looking at motive power to operate short distance trains at up to 25 mph then, in the interest of standardisation, maintenance and buildability , you would logically be looking at new building 57xx. How much support would that get!

If looking at newly built locos what's the problem with a standard goods, the War Department were happy enough with them apart from their age. It is said that the double framed 0-6-0s were particularly free running, hence the popularity of Buffalos (the tank version) for passenger work over the newer inside framed Dean designs.

 

None taken whatsoever.

 

The problem is that ask 100 people what replica engine would suit their railway, you will get 100 different answers,
for me the deciding factors are, it has to be capable of hauling what ever that lines heaviest train is, and have a heritage outline so a modern 0-6-0 tender engine , that can also be built in tank form the final outline isn’t important , as it can be changed region to region but something along the lines of a Q class, or 700 would fit my ideal Southern engine, and the wheels, frames cylinders would also form the base of any generic 0-6-0 you may envisage.

 

The original question was what new build we'd love to see, and also granted us all the money we needed. On that basis, who cares about practicality, maintenance requirements or any obligation to restore what already exists? It's a pure flight of fantasy. For me the answer's simple: A Dean bogie single please.

 

Duplicate post removed.