82045 The way ahead?

I'm not suggesting ways to complete the engine, that is the choice of the building group and I would agree that the way they (and others) are progressing is the best way, however my point is still valid that a collection pieces without a boiler is meaningless. I am interested to see how other projects will tackle chestnut as not many have compared to the number of new-build projects on the go.

 

A very naive comment considering there was no "difficult to access" valve gear on the Triang 0-6-0 chassis.

 

Very well said LMS 2968. =D> =D>

 

i think the moors valley have a good template, the marsh tank has been developed from a simple design into something very flexible. with or without a cab; side tanks or tender,footplate or wraparound smokebox. surely the best design for this would be based on the boiler and frames of something like a jinty or an austerity. It could be adapted to be side, saddle, or pannier tank, or even have a small tender. this design would have an axle loading light enough for most railways, frames short enough for most run-around loops, with a few porta adjustments to optimise its efficiency.

to be honest, a lot of adjustments could be made to already existing engines, but owners aren't interested to introduce. think how much longer boilers would last and less overhauls would cost if porta water treatment was used more, if more engines had kylchap chimneys or hollow stays. but a loss of authenticity puts many original owners off

 

Is a modern inside cylinder 0-6-0 any more of an oxy-moron than a modern stephenson outliune steam loco?

Yes inside motion compromises day to day maintainence, however the most common steam locomotive class in use today is inside cylindered. And if we want convience then I'm sure a new build of diesel/battery powered railcars built on light railway principles would be even cheaper.

The idea would beto give us a modern austerity but with the option of some mainline style dressing, yes it's as bit disney, butit maybe the future.

 

Inside cylinders? No thank you. Crank axles are a pain to build and all the inside motion is almost impossible to clean and difficult to oil. The crank axle also has a higher unsprung weight.

Minimal pit prep time means outside cylinders and motion are preferred. Also any design without pony trucks or bogies is going to be harder on track, especially curved, jointed track.

 

Sheddist. We concur.
Pmorgan_cym. I'm sorry my friend but we don't.

 

Agreed, for sheer convienience in this modern world we live in, its got to be outside cyls. for ease of maint. & manufacture, however much we may hanker after the old days, nowadays in our modern climate its like that unfotunately.
I'm looking forward to seeing ALL the new builds,& maybe firing some of them, good luck to the visionary people involved, but wouldnt it be interesting to build a new engine that has all theknowledge & advances of tech. incorporated over the last50 yrs. & see how it compares? I'm thinking of the 'Red Devil' here ,but hav'nt heard of that for yrs.

 

Maybe the 82045 group are going to model themselves on 80097? Is that a signal gantry that needs building?

 

Depends. How many spokes does the signal gantry have in its driving wheels? And what thickness are its main frames? Are its buffer beam gussets cast or fabricated?

 

Strangely, perhaps, I do have a bit of signal kit to finish off some time.



But not a whole gantry.

 

Indeed a man of many spokes....sorry, talents, Brian.

Was the correct answer 16 or 17 in the end? :-k

46118

 

For reasons for which I only have a theory, no hard evidence, the Standard 3s had 17; whereas the Standard Class 4 2-6-0s had 16. ](*,) Go figure.

 

Brian, the answer is Swindon. They have always got to be different. We are lucky the 77XXXs and 82XXXs never had safety valve bonnets!!!!!!

 

Here is a link to an update on the "Brighton Atlantic" project from the Bluebell website.

Interesting to see that they are now starting to look at fabricating the cylinders and valve chests.

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/blueb ... atest.html

46118

 

I'm not too sure it was Swindon actually being different. I'm more of the opinion (theory) they applied GW spoke spacing to an Ivatt/Stanier style wheel.

It will be interesting to see how than method works out in practice. For a one-off they may have compared a poly-pattern against a fabrication.

Since 82045 may be the first of the next batch of standard 3s permanent patterns will probably be the order of the day.

 

I'm sure that it will be a permanent pattern if you have anything to do with it.

 

Maybe someone can tell me. Did all the 82xxx class tanks have push pull fitted to them and is 82045 going to have push pull fitted too it?


Thanks

 

73129, none of the 82XXXs were push-pull fitted. Are you thinking of the 84XXXs, all of which were fitted with push-pull.

 

An interesting thread, and an admirable aim, but is it the most effective use of the preservation movements stretched resources?

The project's website quotes an estimate cost of £1.25 - 1.5 million. Yet every preserved railway has a row of DEMICS that are out of ticket, but essentially complete. A worst case scenario would be WD 3672 at the NYMR, which seriously worked for its living during its one ten year ticket. A figure of about £700k was flying around as an estimate to repair. On many lines that would be less, as the engines are not working hard, and are doing nothing like the mileage during their boiler ticket. Therefore, would the resource be better directed into breathing life back into at least two existing engines? It's a long time since I heard a figure for "doing" a Barry hulk, but even that's got to be cheaper than starting from scratch. There's still plenty of South Wales tanks to be rebuilt, and they'd be a reasnobly economical engine for any preserved line.

I have my doubts about the various GWR 460 projects using bits of other locos. What you will end up with is a mock up that will look like a whatever type, not a County, etc.