Liveries!

Everything on that loco was cussedly involved! Joggled frames, air-operated reversing gear, combined air and vac brake, crank pins that have a different throw to the coupling rods; double-skinned tender ... you name it, somewhere there was some bit of Brighton “wizardry” lurking.

Tom

 

I believe rhe double throw crak pins were copied from the GNR locos.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

The "joggled" frames were also copied from GNR. The first Ivatt Atlantic No 990 (Henry Oakley) had frames in two sections bolted together ahead of the leading coupled axle, with the front extension section on the inside so that the frame spacing reduced by 2 inches. Subsequent locos had one-piece frames, but with a 1-inch front inset each side. Presumably, Doncaster Works had in the meantime become able to manufacture longer frames.

On the LBSC H2 Atlantics, that inset or "joggle" does help to keep the 21-inch cylinders within the LBSC loading gauge. Similar feature on all the LSWR Urie 4-6-0s.

I suspect that Tom @Jamessquared would really have preferred that Mr Wainwright's Atlantic design had gone ahead.

 

I'm very happy with the Brighton Atlantic and indeed am one of the supporters. But I think there is sometimes a tendency to think all locos are the same when it comes to new builds, and miss the subtleties - and there have been a lot of subtleties on Beachy Head! I remember the frame joggle caused a lot of difficulty in finding anyone who could press it to the dimensions required; and the relationship of crankpin, wheel and axle was another significant challenge. Then the reverser with a complex four-start screw thread. Not all locos are alike when it comes to complexity of construction, hence the decision making process around doing a WainwrightE rather than a Brighton K as the next project!

Incidentally, just as a lighthearted counter argument to @Sheff on another thread: the design brief for the Atlantic stated the livery; and so does the design brief for the E class. There is a valid reason for doing so, in that specifying the livery is also a shorthand for the condition the loco will be in in other details where changes have been made through time. For example, saying that the intention was to build "32424 in BR livery" meant with all the later Maunsell changes to cab, boiler fittings, tender, lack of bogie brakes etc. as implicit in that decision. Which isn't to say the livery won't change, but it meant that whenever in the project there is a design decision about one or another particular modification, there is an unambiguous answer: do it as it was in the 1950s. Similarly, the E class is to be built in "full SE&CR livery" which gives the same thought process: if there is a decision to be made about some detail, the default answer is "do it as it was when first built". It saves later angst over those decisions, and also means that anyone supporting knows what it is they are supporting.

Tom

 

One (alleged?) LBSCR proposal I'd love to know more about, from the early 20th century, was to rebuild the B1 "Gladstones" as inside cylindered atlantics. Assuming this was actually under serious consideration at some point (other than closing time at some hostelry near the works), could anyone please shed any light on this seemingly bizarre idea?

Edit: If the answer is a definitive "this idea was disproved years ago", there shouldn't be any undue resultant thread drift!

 

I've not heard that one. There is a persistent rumour that Stroudley had a 2-4-2 tender engine on the drawing board, but I am not convinced for a lot of reasons; I think it was a later myth, possibly put around by Stroudley's defenders (of which he had many in the early years of the 20th century) to try to demonstrate that he hadn't backed the LBSCR into an evolutionary dead end with its front line motive power.

Tom

 

Compared to some of the reconstructions that Swindon Works put into service it sounds almost straightforward. I think to understand these things properly one really needs to know how much each component of the locomotive cost. If you figure they could probably reuse the wheels and motion - and I think forging and machining the motion was a very big item on the books then a set of frames, a boiler, a bogie and a pair of cylinders would do the job, which would be an awful lot less than a new locomotive. Swap the wheels round so that the crank axle is on the leading pair, put a bigger higher pressure boiler on and Robert is your relative.

 

Duplicate

 

I've only ever seen it mentioned once (briefly) in Klaus Marx's biography of Marsh (or was it that of Billinton Snr? ..... damn this lockdown!).

 

It’s none of my business, and good luck to the project, but why not original condition and original livery? Especially as there is only one LBSC tender loco in existence and that’s in the NRM so not likely to ever be seen running. Are you saying that the original cab wouldn’t fit the Bluebell’s loading gauge?

Also, according to Wikipedia, there are 45 BR standard locos preserved plus 3 new builds in process. OK some of those might be in green rather than black, but you get my point about variety.

 

Not in the least ..... as it most certainly would. My point was merely that the umber livery could only authentically be worn by the loco in 'as built' condition, and all other liveries carried during the life of the class represented by the loco in the condition in which it's been so painstakingly .... and magnificently .... recreated.

 

I'm sure if you write a cheque it could happen...

 

Back in the 1950s, the original loco came close to being preserved but ultimately went for scrap. For several of those instrumental in starting the rebuild project, that fact has prompted a desire to recreate what they just missed doing fifty years earlier. It’s why, unlike many new builds, the desire is to “recreate Beachy Head”, not “build the next H2 in the series”.

I’m sure in years to come the livery will change - Bulleid and Maunsell liveries would both be appropriate - and who knows, maybe one day the cab and boiler mountings could change. But the initial appearance will what those who started the project wish to do: recreate 32424 as it was in the 1950s.

For the next project, it is “build Wainwright E class No. 516 in full SE&CR livery” so the full monty Wainwright bling, brass dome cover and all.

Tom

 

A most applicable and worthy addition to the Bluebell's stud, which will doutless look superb at the head of any vintage carriage set. Hope I'll still be alive to see it!

A propos nothing whatsoever .... honest* .... I note the cylinder size on Mr Wainwright's E class is the same as on the preceeding D class. Question: Is the crank axle common to both of these classic 4-4-0 designs?

*[caveat] the word is used in the sense applicable to politicians and second-hand car salesmen, as the question has nothing to do with the reported condition of anything ensconced within the NRM .... no siree .... not for a single minute did so much as the ghost of any notion, or anything resembling any thought along those lines, even vagely, begin crossing my mind .... nope ..... nothing whatsoever.

 

I haven’t seen a drawing, but I strongly suspect they are identical. The cylinders and motion are I believe shared between the two classes, and dimensionally, the two classes are identical from the front buffers to the leading axle: there is then an extra six inches of coupled wheelbase on an E to accommodate the larger boiler (and three inches less behind the rear axle, so that in overall length the E is only three inches longer; that was a restriction placed by the standard SECR 55 ft turntable).

When the two classes were later rebuilt with superheated Belpaire boilers, they became all but indistinguishable in photos.

Tom

 

That is a good reason for the choices of cab, livery, etc. But there is also (to my mind) a strong argument for umber livery at some future date: that the inauthenticity of that livery in combination with some of the physical details would be
a) un-noticed by most visitors,
b) outweighed by the mere presence of a Brighton-designed loco in that otherwise rare livery, and
c) no worse than the inauthenticity of running locos of classes that never worked the line before preservation.

 

For so long as there's no question of one of those b****y TTTE faces on it .... Hey! .... I could live with that. Authentic or not, in umber it would certainly look the part at the head of the 'Wealden Rambler' .... as indeed t'would in any other livery once worn by the class.

 

Coupling rods are the easiest way to tell I believe? The D's being plain, the others fluted.

 

First I've heard of one, is there a picture / outline anywhere?

 

There is a weight diagram in the RCTS Locomotive History of the SECR. There are also 3 4-6-0s, an 0-8-0, a 4-4-0 an 0-6-2T.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk