82045 The way ahead?

Getting back on topic. Preparatory work for a site where the frames for 82045 will be erected has begun at Bridgnorth.

 

Once 34027 is finally back together and strutting her stuff on the SVR, 82045 should move into that space. 43106 is on the jacks at the moment, hopefully she wont be to long until shes out in full service, then it should be 2857.

Having a quick look around 34027, the new cab is taking shape quite nicely, but other than that its small jobs that are the main stay of work.

But thats only what ive seen, I'm sure Mr Swallow has a more detailed update?

 

I thought the plan was to bring the standard four in from the side of Bridgnorth shed so it can finally undergo a overhaul once Taw Valley is out of the way.

 

80079 is now in the Engine House at Highley.

 

I think he means 75069,
there is that plan as well. Once 43106s boiler is back in the frames, I THINK from memory that 75069 will be the next one through the works.

 

That's the one. I think there is also a plan to bring the 28 chassis up from Bewdley since the 28 guys are making such great progress on the boiler or at least that's what i heard. I will be glad to see the standard four in the shed and out from under that tarp it's been under. Although i do wonder what engine after the standard four is in the overhaul queue.

 

im hoping it's Hagley Hall!

 

Progress with the patterns for the driving wheels of 82045 courtesy of the Bridgnorth Pattern Shop.

See http://www.gw-svr-a.org.uk/bridgnorth_p ... _2008.html

The frames are away in the Black Country for drilling.

Concrete pad being laid at Bridgnorth to allow the frames to be set-up on return.

A project quietly moving foreward.

46118

 

There is no right or wrong in this issue. If a group of people want to get together and build a steam locomotive then their 'dream' should be applauded? We all have personal preferences, but that does not give us the right to be critical about other groups, or complain about competition for funding. Tornado has proved that anything can be done given the right approach and circumstances. Long may this kind of initiative continue. I admire you all for your determination =D>

 

Concrete pad is laid and was finished off this weekend with sum chain fencing. The pad was part a mini project that included moving the skips to next the concrete pad.

 

For my money, New build should also not exclude new design. Why not take advantage of as many developments as possible to reduce cost, improve reliability, ease preparation and disposal and use less fuel and water? Has anyone asked heritage operators what their needs are? Perhaps:

Low axle load- track friendly
Short wheelbase with pony trucks
Rocking grate
Hopper ashpan
Self cleaning smokebox
Roller and ball bearings where possible
Accessible motion - pit time is usually at a premium.
Large cab - Good for drive a loco courses.
Loud "bark" sound like a locomotive should
Lowest possible cost
Use components where patterns exist for castings - eg, boiler fittings, injectors etc.
Proportioned to work efficiently on typical heritage use of a low speed stopping train. Is superheating worthwhile?
If a boiler were to be identical to a numerous loco type in preservation then further economies of scale could be realised.
Ability to burn different fuels: coal, waste oil, burnable household waste, wood.

 

Makes perfect sense to me

 

Sheddist

If you care to read http://www.82045.org.uk/82045_project-history.html you will appreciate the rationale for building the next ordered (albeit cancelled) BR Std Cl3 tank. The design satisfies many many of the criteria you cite for use on a heritage line, but following a tried and tested design.

The advantage of not developing a brand new design is quite simple from the perspective of insurance approvals etc.

To simplify the approvals process we intend to construct this machine as closely as possible to drawing. http://www.gw-svr-a.org.uk/bridgnorth_p ... _2008.html . Some very very minor alterations will be needed to accomodate available materials e.g. metric steel plate instead of imperial. (But we're talking micrometer differences here).

As an individual I am not against anyone taking on the development of a brand new design. However, I prefer the far lower risk approach that the 82045 group is following that will still (IMHO) lead to the movement having a "really useful engine".

Let us all celebrate the commencement of the build of the first of that cancelled batch of engines.

Brian

 

It is interesting to note that some people assume the fitting of roller bearings improves locomotive performance. E.S. Cox, in his book Standard Steam Locomotives, states that there was no discernable difference in the performance of locos fitted with white-metal bearings and those fitted with roller bearings. From a maintainence point of view it could be advantageous to use roller bearings. Any thoughts anyone.

 

The main advantages of roller bearings are that they have lower static friction and are more tolerant to contamination as they do not rely solely on a film of oil to work. Axlebox roller bearings are housed in split casings, with a modicum of sealing to keep dust and water out and oil in. That helps to avoid the problem of water contamination.

With respect to new design, there is an opportunity to apply modern design and analysis techniques to better understand the stresses and strains and ensure that these are minimised without resorting to the addition of thicker plates, reinforcements etc. etc. I seem to remember that with the A1, a lesson learned that certain castings should have been replaced with fabrications but were not due to "grandfather" concerns.

 

I've pondered whether a simple "modern" inside cylindered 0-6-0 rolling chassis and boiler could be produced. (Inside cylinders aren't ideal but they give more options for the next part)

The rolling chassis would be built in bulk and unfinshed and could then be finished by the purchaser in a style suitable for them.

e.g Western style Pannier Tank
Jinty Style
J50 Style etc.
"Dean Goods", 2F/3F.


Now I hear teeth grinding at this, but it does allow batch production of the expensive bits and then allows it to appear as something "in-character" for a line.

 

IMHO an oxymoron.

 

The acid test for this and any new build project is how the boiler will be financed. Once this serious obstacle has been cleared then any project can start to gain credibility. It seems easy to assemble a collection of bits but until that big pressure vessel is ordered and paid for one will always doubt the sincerity of any new build.

 

There are good reasons for leaving the boiler until near the chassis' completion: it is a major piece and the expense would take all the Fund's resources as they came in. Nothing other than the boiler would then be produced, leading to accusations of inactivity, going nowhere, etc. until the boiler one day appears. Any such project needs to be able to show that it is making material headway in collecting parts to justify, in peoples' minds, a reason to donate the funds to allow further aquisitions which, eventually, will include the boiler.

A second issue is that all other parts are mileage critical and, while the loco isn't in use, do not deteriorate assuming adequate protection is afforded. The boiler is time critical, so the Fund has two choices if it has the boiler completed early on: have it fully tested and approved, then watch the boiler ticket flitter away while the chassis is completed; or have the boiler completed but not pressure tested until the chassis work is done, then hope like hell that there are no problems when it is tested five or, more likely, many more years later, by which time the builders are unlikely to be interested in making good the defects.

No, the boiler comes later.

 

That Triang 0-6-0 chassis was used a lot to motorise a scratchbuilt / kit-bashed body !