Current and Proposed New-Builds

Thank you!

 

...Anyway, to get back on topic, why not bring back a preserved locomotive that was scrapped due to the war effort: the NBR H Class 4-4-2:

 

I could of sworn there was a green Austerity in service a few years ago that from my little ride out appeared to manage with the train of mark one's with little fuss, and a few years before that was it a Jinty (a stretched J94 ish) that used to pass our offices on the outskirts of Bury again well in command of its train?

 

In fairness an unrestored tender for one of these still exists.

 

I guess my idea was to create a more 'period' looking inside-cylinder class/family. 82045 and the whole Ivatt/Standard family look just don't do it for me...

I reckon some small-wheeled turn-of-the-century 4-6-0s would be great for preserved lines. HR Jones Goods and Drummond Castle (as also used in large numbers by the CdF de l'État) would be ideal. For Southern types like me, the former would suit LBSCR livery, the latter LSWR... both types were noted successes too, unlike some of that era.

 

They were utterly magnificent, and it's a crying shame that Midlothian didn't survive the war. That said, I imagine if it had it would now be a static exhibit, like the GNR Atlantics.
An Atlantic isn't the most useful class for preservation (I'm sure if the boiler hadn't survived the Bluebell wouldn't have chosen the Marsh one first).

 

See my comment on Bluebell thread - I don't think the Jones Goods did really carry Stroudley livery.

 

Doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't carry it anyway, it's not like it wouldn't suit it. The Drummond Castle has a very familiar family look (complete with 8-wheel watercart tender) that would make it perfect for Swanage...

 

Having checked through the build logs for Tornado on the A1 Trust site, I find they mention having to put the bearings on the axles before pressing on the wheels. Suggests they aren't split bearings, doesnt it?

I volunteer on the MHR. The MHR needs more than a J94. Several of the more extensive lines need more as well. I agree the IOW doesn't.

Inside cylinders, inside valve gear - won't somebody think of the poor fitters?

Even putting just the valve gear inside would be a massive improvement over the "period" inside everything, straight running plate, Victorian/Edwardian loco.


Edit - you may not like the standards, but the 77xxx class would be the ideal mid range loco - greater coal and water capacity and still designed for running both directions. Pity it's such and ugly design. I wonder if the running plate oculd be lowered, even if it meant fixing it to the frames instead of the boiler, but the high running plate is so useful for working on the boiler fittings without a ladder....

 

I will leave you to fight it out with @fergusmacg. Just as a matter of information the maximum gradient on the IOWSR is 1 in 68 so it is not exactly the Waterlevel Route although the climbs are not particularly long. As with the MHR, platform lengths limit the number of vehicles in the train.

PH

 

On the Bluebell, I'd go with a Drummond K10 Class 4-4-0:

 

Platform lengths don't necessarily limit train lengths, we've had one coach off the platform at Toddington for years now, soon to be two. It's passing loops that limit length, and on an ex double track secondary mainline, the world's your lobster!

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Oh bu¿¿er it! .... everyone's thinking it.... some are dreading it, so I'll just go ahead and say it....

Let's go for the jugular, and recreate the LNER U1. Full on GPS, Lempor front end and all the mainline kit. Even that 1:19 bank at Foxfield would look like Brunel's Billlard Table. Send it on holiday to Haven Street with a reinforced cab, chimney and buffer beams and pretty soon, all those irritating IoW loading gauge issues will be history.

What?.......!!!!

 

Hmm! How do you get away with it? Passenger safety.

PH

 

You get in one coach, and walk through, simples! SVR and NYMR seem to have managed at their intermediate stations for much longer than we have as well working on a very similar principle...

 

Still underwhelmed.

 

Selective door controls.... "OY!.... You!!.... There's no bl●●dy platform there..... use the other damned door, you idiot!!".... simples!

(OK.... perhaps I've had a few this evening!)

 

If you're going to build a Drummond 4-4-0, the prettiest were probably the Small Bens on the Highland (Peter, not Dugald).
If you want Drummondesque, build a Dunalastair!

 

Is this another thing to add to the list of "how not to run a heritage railway according to Paul Hitch"? Ah well, at least it might reduce the frequency of all the others things coming up on NatPres if we've got another to thrash out before we get back to the beginning again...

So, what do you suggest we do? We can't extend the platforms by much as there's a bridge at one and and a siding at the other. You can say big chufferitis (you'll be pleased to know that particular phrase has made TS way into my autocorrect) 'till you're blue in the face but I promise you that we *need* 7 and sometimes even 8 coaches. The only other solution is to turn away custom and that way madness lies. We and many other railways with corridor coaches manage perfectly well with shorter platforms than trains, although obviously no good for you or bluebell etc. and that's fine cos we're all different.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Indeed, it's the length of climb more than the gradient itself.