Current and Proposed New-Builds

I'm certainly having difficulty making sense of this reply, what distinction that never historically existed am I trying to make? and what grey scale am I trying to draw a line through? As I said some time back, what the railway companies did, is what they did, no more no less. It just seems so strange to me that there are people who seem unable to accept that CONVERTING something that exists into a facsimile of something that no longer exists ISN'T building a new one.

 

The grey scale is, at one end, you have a totally new built engine, like tornado. At the other, you have braunton becoming lord Dowding (technically a change in class ) nearer the tornado end you have things like the patriot which is largely new but has some stuff off other engines that existed. Nearer the braunton end you have things like the Saint, which has quite a few bits from other engines and less totally new bits. So somewhere in between that is your line you've drawn as to what constitutes a new build and what constitutes a rebuild. What % of reused parts can you have before you call it a rebuild? And do you do that % by number of components, weight etc.?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

If BP had supplied something similar to the LMS I imagine that the Midland line would have been littered with coal wagons that had been pulled in half. My Granddad told me that this happened at Shepherdswell, probably
with only an N class on the front.

 

There was a lot of good engineering in the Bulleid pacifics, such as the frames on the horn centre lines and the welded boiler but let down by some very poor features. It would be interesting to know what the performance of a rebuild would be with the original boiler pressure. The rebuilds are often compared unfavourably with the original for power output; reducing the boiler pressure must have had a significant effect.

 

..... and does it really matter what we call it?
Ray.

 

It doesn't to me, nor many other people except clinker seemingly.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

So fitting a different set of name/numberplates is as complex a task as building Tornado? check back on my earlier postings and you may get an idea of how I feel these projects should be regarded.

 

There is some international agreement (based on an Australian text) that the definitions are: conservation-restauration-reconstruction-replica.
Each with a larger % of new parts and of course overlapping, who is really helped with a sharp definition?
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

One the fun aspects of this thread is you can come up with your own rules. So I have given myself a maximum of 6 new builds...to fill what I consider are important gaps in locomotives classes or companies. So here is my list of 6:

1) Something big in Scotland given how much effort, of mixed results, the pre-grouping companies put into trying to do 4-6-0s. The River fits the bill; a success, elegant, a really interesting story and the opportunity to be in several liveries including both Caledonian and Highland
2) A GSWR Manson 4-4-0, a successful design to fill a large company with so little left preserved
3) A Baltic! A notable omission in wheel arrangement. I have gone for the L&Y Hughes version to fill again a gap in large engine design from this big company but the Furness version was very close, again company with v. limited representation
4) Cambrian Railway 4-4-0, again a company with no preserved locos and addressing gap in Welsh tender engines
5) GWR 517 class - early and elegant tank with many livery styles
6) Beyer Peycock 2-4-0 tank for the Isle of Wight, to address what should have happened with "Ryde" and because it will tick another box on one of our best preserved railway.

What was interesting is that I couldn't justify some of my favourite loco designs, time for a bigger list!

 

Well, I like your choices, and there is some justification for them... But sadly most of them can't wear BR liveries so won't be built....

 

Would completely agree with you, but dreaming is part of our hobby. However, I think I would put money on 6) on my list (or maybe donate..) within the next 10 year now the Isle of Wight has its two Ivatt tanks. Maybe the 517 as well, but the rest are nice pipe dreams.

 

Sez who?

 

The original trust proposal was the next engine to be built to the Peppercorn A1 design, and this was achieved. Some modifications were inevitable but little of what LDP proposed was included. This was inevitable all things being considered.

So back to the proposal. Have a look at the general arrangement. That inside cylinder has been moved. The engine now has unified drive, this is seen as important. For Porta the A1 cylinder layout was a retrograde step and had to be reversed.

More drawings required. Dig out the G.A. for both the Peppercorn A1 and the Gresley A1/A3.' Have a look at a Merchant Navy too.

The A1 project proved that a new locomotive could be funded and built. It has been an extremely worthy achievement. No doubt about it.

Is it an outstanding locomotive? Well that depends on how you see things.

What was the power output that Porta wanted to achieve? The benchmark for a really good FGS steam locomotive is, yes, you've remembered, (well I've gone on about it often enough) 40ihp sustained per ton of locomotive weight. This has been achieved elsewhere in the world but never in the country that gave the steam locomotive in its long established, successful form to the world in general. The proposed Pacific was to have a peak ihp of 5000.

Those 24" cylinders would present an issue because of the ever present gauging problems. But the design would deliver as or better than projected.

Is the locomotive as built outstanding? I will let you make your own mind up on that one.

Please read the abbreviated form of the proposal. As you do so please also note that Porta's first language was Spanish.

 

The GWR 517 class could just about get away with it. Didn't a handful survive until 1949?

 

I wasn't sure but thought perhaps they did. Hence "most"! All the rest were long gone.

 

Last one was 1159 which was withdrawn in 1947.

 

Sorry, confused them with something similar, not a GWR expert

 

One or two of the slightly larger 3571 class lasted until 1949, but Ian Allan's lists referred to them as 517s.

Actually I think a Metro 2-4-0T would be a better choice as more different from the surviving 48xx.

 

I have all of these - your point I presume is that the Gresley A3 has unified drive, Merchant Navy does too. Pray tell, which of these achieved 100,000 miles between classified repairs?

That level of high reliability was only found on the Peppercorn A1 design whilst in service in this country. Fact.

A locomotive with divided drive.

How bad can the arrangement be if the class as a whole shows such reliability and high levels of performance?

Absolutely. I think it is an outstanding locomotive for the modern day. It does the job required of it and has achieved a few things which others haven't in railway preservation. It is currently the fastest operational steam locomotive in Britain, no small feat given what's required.

That's funny, I thought it was the steam locomotive's ability to do the job asked of it. I must remember to tell the A1 Trust that they've failed in life because they haven't achieved 40ihp sustained per ton of locomotive weight.

In short, I find that statement to be ridiculous. If that is the only measure of whether a steam locomotive is good or not, then I rather think you've missed the point. Its ability to pull trains is not entirely based around its IHP. That is but one measure of many.

In all other respects I am confident Tornado (and other mainline locomotives in Britain) show they are more than capable and potent machines.

 

The thing about the 517s is that they were so much changed and rebuilt over their lives that I don't suppose that any group of enthusiasts would agree on a specification to build one to. By the end of their lives the most fully updated looked very much like 14/4800s, but the earliest ones, as built, were utterly different. For whatever my opinion is worth I would have thought an outside framed pannier tank would be more interesting. None of these reached BR as operational locomotives either, although one survived until 1953 as a stationary boiler..