Current and Proposed New-Builds

Perhaps the bores need to be honed and the valves lapped. This is well developed technology. My Father taught me how to do this on miniature locos, often using home made equipment. When I honed the valve bores on my BR Class 2 I used a Delapena hone that I borrowed from work. It was also used to hone out the choke on one of the engineer's shot gun.

 

No need for honing and lapping as such. Porta's recommendations were mostly concerning correct ring design and material grades for the liners, rings and rubbing surfaces. The Red Devil had pearlitic grey iron liners and rings with tin bronze bearing surfaces on the valves. All the ring gaps aligned at the bottom, with the valve sitting on the bearing surface at that point to provide a seal. Very slim section rings, with most of the sealing force provided by steam pressure. I believe some of the later proposals were for iron bearing surfaces on the valves with the outer rings in bronze, to get round the difficulty of getting a good bronze bearing surface on a large, lightweight valve. Certainly in the case of the Red Devil the valves were very successful, I think the mileages were such that if you got them on a preserved loco you wouldn't need to touch the valves between major overhauls.

 

If that's the potential case, then surely that would mean an enormous saving in cash and work hours, volunteer or otherwise?

 

Indeed, the Hengist group have done just that (middle of the page).

Noel

 

Indeed as it's probably the Achilles heel of the standards and this "ineficient"Pacific being no different (though not bad as Pacific s go). Would like to think the boiler might go another 10 psi without a boiler redesign but if the improved drafting delivers more steam output as expected then another 1/4inch on the cylinders (which are good for 20") will deliver the little extra grunt the design is short of. It's a bit on the small size for mainline a bit on the large for heritage but potentially useful for bothon

 

and then the main drivers move on their axles.

 

L&YR is sooo under represented. But I'd prefer a Highflyer to the Baltic myself, in all honesty. In my fantasy, I want to see if one can really do 114 mph!

I did lean in favour of the Furness beastie. It would be able to cope with most preserved lines. Very simple design, only knock against it is that it is inside cylinder, but that really is not too much problem on a loco intended for the leisure industry.

 

The L&Ys best loco bar none was the Radial Tank. We have the first example, but it's unlikely ever to run, and they evolved. I would suggest one of the later Belpaire examples.
Of course I'd love to see a Dreadnaught or a Highflyer, but they'd be all useless for either the mainline or heritage railway use.

 

While we are on the Subject of L&Y, what about the Class 31, there aren’t many 0-8-0s in preservation and it’s a chunky beast, could be good for the heritage scene.

 

But not so good for the heritage PWay . . . . .

 

For each action etc ... Lots of factors at play here, wonder what is available in terms of roller -bearing axleboxes these days as i am anti the canon box type. A rod for backs has been made in terms of size as the horn guides are already welded in but that does not necessarily proclude an axle greater than the original 9 inch.
Hoping the project look a bit further than 'as drawing'/ BR Timken here but the form book suggests otherwise.

 

Can I ask why? I think both Tornado and the P2 use this type.

 

They do, on some but not all of the axles. I can only see the negatives - strikes me that it increases the rigidity of the arrangement and adds unnecessary unsprung weight.
Im sure there are advantages also which am happy to be made aware of...
Would like to get to the bottom of the differences between the Timkens used on the first batch of caprotti black 5's ( which had wheel shifting problems) and the last two or three ? which used bearings from Skefco.
Clearly its not just the bearings at fault as the A1's had the canon box type and ran quite happily with them, but cant help feel that there is more to it for the Brits and caprotti black 5's than deficiencies in wheel fixing....

 

It was not just the roller bearing fitted caprotti Black 5s that had problems. Wheel movement occurred on some of the roller bearing fitted walschaerts Black 5s, as well. (Langridge Vol 2)
Incidentially, ten Standard 5 4-6-0s, 73090-99, were fitted with Skefco roller bearings.

 

Thank - you Std tank.
Presumably there is a different set of drawings for these amongst 26070 - 73 ?

 

No, they are Doncaster drawings SL/DN/U-727, 8 & 9

 

I think in some cases, for example an 0-6-0T, the duty cycle may be more arduous on a heritage railway than seen back in the day, wnen a locomotive could have had just occassional shunting movements and the chance to rebuild boiler pressure in between. .

 

Except of course not all 0-6-0t's were purely used on shunting alone "back in the day" - I hear for example that the Gas Works Railway used their Pannier Tank locos extensively even to the extent of displacing larger locomotives in certain non shunting duties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Sorry, can't agree. Both the LNER and LMS used 0-6-0T's on intensive suburban services out of London and elsewhere. With heavy trains, short stops and hard acceleration the work was very arduous. On the GWR panniers were used for some quite long distance trains, Wrexham to Bala and Barmouth for instance.
Ray.

 

I had heard that there were difficulties with Austerities, but there have been others.