Churchward County Project

Were there shortcomings other than somewhat rough riding due to the combination of large outside cylinders and short wheelbase? That particular aspect shouldn't be a problem on a 25 mph line, and taking this loco on the main line seems unlikely. In principle it could be used as a pilot loco or there might be some situation where a short train is viable, but those uses are unlikely to be frequent enough to justify the considerable expense of fitting out and approval for the main line.

 

What shortcomings do you suppose could be addressed? Unless the locomotive is completely redesigned from top to bottom - or at least front to back - there's nothing much that could be done about the riding, which will be an irrelevance at preserved line speeds anyway. OK arguably the standard 4 grate/firebox was a bit on the small side, but that will be if anything a virtue at 25mph. Cook says the rough riding and the amount of reciprocal balance needed in just 4 wheels tended to make them wear the l/h rear axlebox, and that they tended to need works attention after only 40,000 miles, (which was very low for a Churchward locomotive), but will any of this be relevant at 25mph on heritage line duties?

 

The short wheelbase being a problem I can quite understand. But a lot has been said about the balancing the reciprocating masses of 30" stroke cylinders over just 2 axles and yet I have never heard that the Scott atlantics had any riding problems and were freer running than the comparative 4-6-0s.

Hopefully at some time in the future a comparison with 191 "Churchward" will be possible.

 

A link to the "County" Website is here in case anyone's missed it. I enjoyed reading it and found it very interesting and well-presented. Perhaps I'm just easily impressed by anything GWR! That said, these 4-4-0s do look a bit out of proportion to me.
www.churchwardcounty.org.uk/

 

To me, the very big driving wheels ,boggi in front ,and inside valve gear give them a look that reminds me of the very typichal old american 2-2-0 engines. These you can see in many cartoon movies


picture from wikipedia commons

Knut

 

4-4-0 in USA Knut, but great locomotives which enabled the conquest of the prairies and beyond - east to west, north and south and vice versa. These locos helped build America.

 

Wasn’t there a suggestion a few years ago that the NRM were going to borrow an American 4-4-0 for a time?

(Hands up who would like to see one lug 6 mark 1s up the S & C?!)

 

Thanks for correcting me sir.

 

As the design of the County's coincided with the period that Churchward was being heavily influenced by American ideas, I suspect there many be some manner of ancestral relationship?

There is a very interesting piece in the GWS Echo this quarter regarding the County's plus introducing the project.

 

Good luck to them I say. They do appear to have quite a few components, the boiler being a huge start, also the wheel patterns for the Saint, plus some other bits and a tender frame. Power class C according to the spec on the website so reasonably powerful for its size. Personally, I prefer the later curved front framing

 

Knut having had a great interest in the SNCF and building an HO model railway based on SNCF practice I got used to the UIC notation for loco wheels. It took a while to get into the more familiar, in the UK, Whyte version.

 

Looks exciting and more importantly organised as a project..

 

You will be pleased then as that's how they are building her!

 

I am also a big fan of French steam so i guess that explain my 2-2-0 "mistake".

 

Really? - where are the resources coming from to build this locomotive?

If its a 100% paid job then why would it go to Toddington rather than one of the few contractors who could take the job on?

If its a GWS attempt to tap into other folks resources because their own can't cope with the projects they have already then surely in this case that will be to the detriment of the home GWSR fleet?

Will it generate a whole army of new volunteers? - possible yes but that really doesn't look very likely if past form is anything to go by.

Personally I don't get it - sorry.

 

AIUI its basically a new project. They'll form their own team and fund raising I presume, but if they manage to get far enough then again AIUI the GWS will pass on the various items they've put together for a County.

 

I'm not a volunteer at Toddington so may be seeing it wrong but I don't think it'll impact on current loco department activities. Bearing in mind most locos have their own teams anyway as they're all privately owned by groups they're unlikely to drift away. Resources like our machine shop being used won't affect the rest of the department's activities, and the undercover space issue is being dealt with as mentioned right at the beginning of the thread, by them putting some money towards an already planned shed extension.

 

There’s certainly enough to keep us busy, the shed extension will be welcome. The 4 road shed houses both the working engines and the restoration/overhaul activities.
2807 is out at the end of 2019, 76077 has been started with 3850’s overhaul on going.
It’s thankful that the board are investing in the dept by building a brand new facilities block to cater for the growing numbers in the dept. Currently Seating at Lunch time on a Wednesday or Saturday is a lottery !

 

I look forward to seeing progress although I think it was a mistake to display 5227, they should have dismantled it straight away. As you can tell I'm not altogether comfortable with dismembering locos to make others.

 

You may be seeing it wrong. All I can say is that our 2807 group would find things like winter maintenance more difficult if it weren't for other members of the GWSR loco Dept's assistance. The GWSR Loco Blog gives some good examples of this.