Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

Given you have the Standard 2 group as well as the Villas Group working on 27, could it be used to house one of them until such time the Atlantic group begins construction of the next loco.

 

Am I the only one who suspects that, given a few of his recent posts, our Tom (@Jamessquared) might be developing an attachment to the Marsh I1? I s'pose the well recorded shortcomings of the class before Maunsell got at 'em (a tad steam-shy on the mainline) shouldn't be too much of an issue at 25mph and a close look-see at the front end might go no small part of the way to rectifying some of their worst habits. I can just see the "Fireman's Choice" headboard on it's first proving run! Any takers for a first appearance in early BR crest and fully lined MT Black?

 

Were the frames of the I1 derived from G.N.R. practice, or from that of the elder Billinton? If the latter, it is well to remember the proneness of the his designs to frame cracking even when new. In contrast Stroudley's machines, despite frames of wrought iron, suffered very much less. W11 for instance, still has her original 1878 set which can be identified by the holes for the bolts to hold the speed indicator. She was the only one of her type so equipped.

Paul H

 

Surely an I3 would be a better bet. A design that showed the way - particularly to the LNWR - what a combination of well designed piston valve cylinders and a superheater could do.

 

They certainly did have frames derived from the Billinton B4s and likewise had frame problems.

PH

 

No, you are misreading. I’m simply pointing out that for running moderate distances at 25mph, a slide valve non-superheated engine would be cheaper to construct and maintain than an otherwise broadly similar superheated loco of equivalent size, while suffering minimal performance penalty. Either way, I suspect the likelihood of being able to fundraise for either an I1 or an I3 is essentially zero, so it is an essentially academic point anyway.

Tom

 

The I3's were undoubtedly far and away the better performers in their day, but if we're going down the newbuild route, the I1 design has 5'-6" drivers (against the 6'-9" of the I3). My own personal choice still remains the Maunsell I1x rebuild, but I'll reluctantly concede points raised about the markedly superior superheated version costing more to repair do carry a certain weight for 25mph operation.

Perhaps the original moniker of the I1 class could be sufficiently designed out with some judicious mods indicated by modern computer modelling techniques ahead of cutting any metal. From all accounts, their original boiler simply didn't produce steam in the required quantity for successful mainline operation, but as that's a very different proposition from lugging 5 or 6 bogies up 1:72 at 25mph max, a close look at boiler, firebox grate and front end design could produce a loco perfectly well suited to Bluebell operating conditions, so I'd reckon it's a question worth asking ..... along with how exactly it might be funded!

There's also a bonus in that 'The Atlantic House' wouldn't need renaming for another decade or so!

Is there any indication of the root cause of the frame problem? With some LBSC designs, I harbour a suspicion that the emphasis on electrification and the hiatus at Brighton Works meant the Brighton steam stud wasn't as well cared for after the early 1930's as might have otherwise been the case. A hell of a lot (B4, B4x, D1*, D3, I1x, I3) certainly became completely clapped out around the same time during and after WWII, when contemporary ex-LSWR & SECR designs soldiered on for another 10-15 years.

* Admittedly, the D1's were, by any measure, ancient by the time the last few went.

But am I? ..... or has your secret master plan just been rumbled?

OK, so there's slight issues around getting 32424 finished and bedded in, 84030 to be completed, 30064, 31618, 75027 and 92240 loafing about in the sheds, 30583 in sore need of a decision on it's longer term usefulness, 30928, 31027, 34023, 34059 and 80151 to be brought back to life, 9017, 30062, 30096 and 58850 pending a slot the works schedule, Terriers 32636 and 32655, lying cold with questions about the condition of their boilers and cylinders to be resolved, as well as 80100 lurking in the long grass. Oh aye .... and ongoing mutterings concerning reconstruction of a Craven era loco. Discounting that amazing MW survivor "Sharpthorne" as too small and fragile to be useful, have I fogotten any?

Isn't the early Bluebell tradition of just putting a 'new' loco into service ahead of 'stored unserviceable' kit still being observed? Or is that the real reason poor old 80100 repeatedly gets bumped off the overhaul list?

Edit: Corrected the fallout from earlier brainstorm. The missing 'Nelson' has reverted to an Adams Radial and the Yank now has it's correct number. Terribly sorry for any inadvertent confusion caused folks.

 

Howard,

The frame problems encountered by Billington and Billingtonesque locomotives has been ascribed to the design of the hornstays although whether this is correct or not who knows.

Paul H

 

Cheers Paul.

IIRC, wasn't the state of the frames on Robert Billinton's "Grasshopper" B2 class among the reasons they were withdrawn rather than being uprated by Maunsell?

H

 

30062? I presume you mean 30064 - it now looks like something that's been hauled out of Barry...

30853 was a Lord Nelson... not sure what you're referring to here?

I think you've also forgotten 80064, which is in cosmetically good condition despite well over 20 years' disuse.

 

Is that a typo, or am I confused? 30853 "Sir Richard Grenville" is no longer with us?

Noel

PS: Previous post wasn't there when I started mine!

 

30583 perhaps?

 

Err... I don't really compute BR numbers for pre-BR stuff terribly well, what was/is 30583? Not a number I've ever seen on SP shed...

 

Google is your friend.

Noel

 

Adams radial

 

I meant to type 30583 .... damn these Android keypads, but there's NO excuse for me cocking up the Yankee's number!

I'll just boogie back to the post and amend accordingly. Sorry 'bout that!

 

Atlantic News came the other day. A lot of the restoration update was covered in the website update, but two little snippets. One is that some components for the tender have started to arrive, notably the stainless steel plates from which a perforated drum for the water feed filter can be made.

The other point clarifies some earlier questions about what boiler pressure the loco will run at (the quick recap being that when built, the H2 Atlantics were 170psi, but later ran at 200psi when boilers started to be swapped between H1 and H2 locos). Anyway, based on the planned hydraulic test pressure, it appears that the working pressure for Beachy Head will be 170psi.

Tom

 

Was the GN-pattern boiler built for only 170 psi or is it just that a higher pressure would offer minimal benefit for running on the Bluebell?

 

I don't know for certain, but I suspect the former. Were it to be available, a higher pressure would be beneficial in operations, not for the extra TE it would confer, but because it would give a bigger window between "blowing off" and "brakes coming on", which is always useful at the East Grinstead end of the line. Essentially, if you need, say, 140psi to get over the hill at Imberhorne Summit, but don't want to blow off while standing in EG station with a fire that has really livened up after all the climbing in the uphill direction, then that requires a bit more skill if the red line is at 170psi than if it is at 200psi - the window you have to operate in becomes a bit wider.

Tom

 

According to wiki, the GNR large atlantics had 170psi boilers if saturated, 150psi if superheated, and there were a couple with 200psi.