Current and Proposed New-Builds

I reckon you could go full Chapeolonist and just bolt various bits and bobs on to improve them. Better pistons, Lempor exhaust system, roller bearings etc. There's already been a little bit of that with an S160 being fitted with a lempor not that long ago.

 

There's a few austerities with improved draughting kicking about too I think?
No.19 at the B&KR seems to stick in my mind as one.
Chris

 

I think this has been discussed before from time to time. The economics of hauling an additional coach may justify modifications. Range between water stops can be a problem, and I'm sure the coal consumption of, say, a Bulleid could be improved by re-draughting.
If anyone has a locomotive or a new-build project to use as a suitable guinea pig, there are people around who would be able to help.

 

Sounds like the same approach adopted on Porta's first foray (when an ex-FC Central Córdoba 'pacific' was rebuilt during FCGB days as 4-8-0 "Argentina").
http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/argentina/arg.htm

I wonder ..... Do we have any unrestored pacifics sitting around (*cough* ..... "Shaw Savill","Blue Star","Holland America", or if NRM feel the need for another 'educational' retail outlet .... "Ellerman Lines")?

If that's too old hat, how about doing what the 5AT project couldn't get the funds to do? The design for DeCaso's jolly splendid SNCF 232U1 could form the basis for a UK loading gauge version (Wotyermean 'impossible? Everything's 'impossible' .... till someone does it!). Give it Gresley-esque styling, et voilà .... class W2 is born.

..... and let's please get away from increasingly tedious (and face it folks ..... downright unimaginative) 'royal' monikers, let's return to the LNER 'racehorse' tradition for inspiration. How does "Secret Gesture" grab you?

What?

 

Depends on the modifications made, I would hazard a guess. We can probably get away with even cheaper ways of making locomotives last with water treatment and such in the short term. That's going to make boilers last a lot longer.

Another would be to look at areas you're losing steam (which means wasting money in coal+water).

I mean if you could get a smaller loco to haul more though, while also saving money it might allow you to throw on smaller steam locos on your trains in the quieter weekdays.

 

I think the royal names are related to funding by a certain well known person.

 

One of the most obvious ways is by reducing back pressure on the pistons by using a more efficient exhaust.

 

The problem with the racehorse names is that they did nothing but confuse passengers over the generations. Salmon Trout and Sandwich sound like things you can buy in the buffet car and Call Boy and Gay Crusader, well you just wouldn't use those now. Bachelors Button must have puzzled many. If a new build loco is to capture the public imagination it has to have some appeal while retaining some link to the original class is is replicating, The Unknown Warrior is great and although Price of Wales is not very original it's probably the best for to be chosen for a P2.

 

Surely "Duke Of Rothesay" would have the same degree of appeal but be more suitable for a P2?

 

I don't think there is much to be gained by increasing the efficiency of steam locos on heritage lines, because the coal bill is only a small part of the annual costs, so a few percent saving is nowhere near enough to cover the costs of modifications. I'm pretty certain that on the vast majority of heritage lines, given the intermittent nature of the work, even superheating ends up costing you money, since any money saved through better thermal efficiency isn't sufficient to recoup the costs of replacing the elements and flues at overhaul.

You would make far more gain by better rostering, i.e. bigger daily mileage, so that more coal is burnt hauling trains and less just in lighting up. But that requires the presence of traffic to justify the extra mileage (no point running miles pulling empty carriages).

Reliability is a more interesting question, where I think there is money to be saved. The problem there though is that two of the big factors - better track, and longer working cycles keeping the loco hot - have an impact on loco reliability, but aren't primarily solved by modifying engines. (For example, running a loco seven days per week will tend to give fewer firebox problems and therefore reduce per mile repair costs than running it just for one or two - but not a cost saving if doing so means hauling empty trains with paid staff because you can't get the volunteers or don't have any passengers). As always, the economics are complicated and heavily interlinked on other factors, so hard to disentangle how much is attributable to the loco and how much to other factors.

I suspect for many lines, the optimum loco would be an unsuperheated class 2 tank engine with a leading and trailing truck. Marsh I1 anyone? Good luck with the fund raising... Having an intense season for a few months and then absolute downtime is also probably more cost effective than running a modest service all year, though the latter may make it easier to maintain volunteer competence and interest. That would be an interesting point to explore.

Tom

 

For one steam railway, I was told that the coal bill is less than the electricity bill.

 

Doesn't the GCR now market the fact it runs every weekend of the year? They only run five trains a day during January. Do we have anyone lurking that could comment on how that's been working out for them?

 

I have booked but may not be able to travel now.

 

Not if you want republicans to cough up towards it, it isn't!

You've probably gathered that my earlier post [#2156] wasn't my most serious suggestion to date. When it comes to naming locos, there's much to be said for Dugald Drummond's stance.

Let's just say, when the names were announced for newbuilds "Prince of Wales" and "Prince George", my reaction wasn't one which would please any royalist ..... but as they habitually don't seem to give a stuff how anyone else feels, to quote Bob Dobbs (actually, probably best not!).....

Remind me, who's sorting 46201's repair bill out?

 

Sorry Tom, but I'm still not buying 'the saturated' argument'. Now if you'd said 'I1x'........

 

Do the maths. You’d be surprised.

The real key to heritage line loco efficiency is high daily mileage and large numbers of consecutive days in service (to minimise the impact of coal used lighting up as a proportion of the whole) and high mileage between overhauls (to reduce the effective per mile repair cost). I think the latter is the most significant. But with both of those, the traffic has to be available to justify the mileage.

Tom

 

Even if I accepted superheating isn't a worthwhile maintenance overhead (which I still don't for turns over a couple of miles), there would remain the ever so slight issue that, if an I1 (sans 'x') were to reappear, the volunteers on it's home line (wherever that may be) would inevitably find themselves having to explain the traditional enginemen's nickname for the class* to wide eyed sproggits and outraged parents!

*which was way too rude for our genteel forum - as Tom is doubtless well aware!

 

I believe that's what it will be called when it is working in Scotland