Current and Proposed New-Builds

and then a J39... and then W1 in hush-hush form

But then there is always the tension between 'practical' and 'historically significant' (ie an 0-6-0 freight loco was the dominant engine type for the majority steam on British railways and yet very few have survived through to preservation - and they are slightly underpowered for many lines)

 

the Hush Hush version of the W1 is really in the realms of fantasy

 

Winky face clearly indicates that the suggestion was not serious.

 

Sorry I missed that. There was once a serious suggestion on another thread.

 

What, and take away support from the U1 project!!?

 

I think we are agreeing - I just elided all the detail into "getting it built".

Absolutely agree there is a heck of a lot of "back office" stuff and know-how needed. And that trumps any logic.

IMO, if, eg the a new group or a group that hadn't got one launched decided to build a 3MT, and the A1SLT said they were going to build a P1, I know which I back to get built first.

 

Surely the reason for putting a smaller boiler on a (more or less) Britannia chassis was to reduce the weight and so improve the route availability, while keeping the wide firebox to cope with poor coal (as originally intended even down to Class 5). That was a perfectly valid design objective. If greater numbers had been built, any teething troubles had been resolved, and operating departments had sorted out the duties that they were most suitable for, they would probably have been as successful as any other standard class.

 

and their regular crews liked them - it was the ones who kept trying to use them as Class 7s that got frustrated.

In terms of the project, I'm a member, I really want to see one, they're my all-time favourite locomotive, but I do veer wildly in my head rather than my heart as to whether it will happen or not. In the meantime, I'll keep handing over what I can, and crossing my fingers. FWIW I think the project is currently on one of its periodic upswings/more hopeful passages.

 

Point of order: Every new build, without exception, is pure fantasy, right up to the point it isn't.

AIUI, the biggest single issue with the original W1 was the inability to render the water tube boiler casing airtight. If that's not a juicy bone to dangle in front of those who would, given half a chance, follow in Sir Nigel's footsteps, I don't know what is ...... though it has to be conceded the modern loading gauge might throw up more challenges than for most designs and AFAIK, no-one's yet been crazy enough sufficiently emboldened to produce a 5" gauge edition of the Yarrow boiler.

And no, that doesn't constitute a proposal, serious or otherwise!

 

Out of interest the original water tube boiler off 10,000 hush hush, outlasted the rest of the locomotive, which was AIUI withdrawn about 1960 by a few years. As when the loco was rebuilt with the more conventional boiler the original was sent/ended up at North Road Works [Darlington] as a stationary boiler supplying steam/hot water to the works, until it closed in 1965-6. Whilst the water tube boiler worked fine as a stationary or ships boiler,they weren't so good on a railway locomotive.No doubt due to the way railway locos twisted, bounced and jolted about as they ran.

 

And very welcome I find that approach; the 'experiment' of building a 'tweaked' P2 (which is surely what it is, as well as just 'jolly good fun') will provide useful new, empirical data to those who are interested in the question of the P2's problems, and find the existing historical records insufficiently rich to answer some questions as to cause, etc.

Noel

 

If you read the test reports, once the issue of inadequate steam supply to the auxiliary fittings had been addressed, the biggest issue was that no one actually drove the engine in the correct manner.

The steam supply issue was a peculiar oversight and it plagued the testing and development of the engine for far too long. How do you conduct testing on a locomotive when you cannot obtain either a sufficient or reliable feed of water into the boiler? You don't; you have to solve the water feed issue first. It was a report produced by J. N. Gresham on 12th February 1931 which pointed out the issue as G. & C identified it and they advised that a 1.5" steam pipe be used for a Number 9 injector and a 1.25" for a combination Ejector. And further allowance had to be made for other auxiliaries. It would be April 1932 before attention could be given to the model of the flue working, associated baffles and the flue casing. The engine had gone through more than a year of serious abuse and gone through an estimated 10 years of thermal cycling due to the failure of the auxiliary steam supply. The boiler behaved rather well and continued to be used until 1965 at Stooperdale. The company were well aware that the "casing" design needed to be developed further but they just didn't have the time and other locomotive developments were taking place rather quickly.

If the LNER had been able to build more than one prototype the development work would have been conducted at a far greater pace, this was something that Gresley learned at Crewe under Webb but the LNER could not indulge Gresley in the same way that the LNWR could afford to with FWW.

 

I don't believe that any steam locomotive was subjected to the movement of a Tribal class destroyer working at full power on the highest of seas.

 

While that is undoubtedly true as to the distance moved, it would have been far less pronounced and involved lower acceleration rates than that of a locomotive running at speed on jointed track.

 

Which is the point I was driving at. The "motion" of a railway locomotive on the move is totally different to that of a ship sailing in heavy weather.

 

Without wishing to turn this into a long debate on the W1 - but William Brown's book on the W1, being what I consider the "authority" on the loco - the boiler wasn't an issue particularly. Its ability to boil water sufficiently and reliably has never been in doubt. The ancillaries across the boiler were the biggest issue: the W1 as built and when fitted with the double kylchap by Bulleid and Thompson was a very potent machine.

The whole approach of the locomotive's design was about producing an A1 comparable locomotive that was economically and more thermally efficient; it succeeded in this at the end of its life, but arguably too late compared to the A4s which were by then on the scene. Its rebuilding to A4 like standard produced a highly capable and more "standard" locomotive. Losing the original was a real shame however. I personally think it was one of Gresley experiment's that was so, so very close to being there. The question asked of it though - which was better - a much refined A1 (as an A4) that was simpler to build, or the more complicated W1 design?

 

I have to confess a grievous sin.

A few years back, when there was another outbreak of U1 fever, I couldn’t resist setting up a ‘fan group’ on FB, with the stated aim of recreating the beast

Well they were queuing around the block, but after a couple of days I took pity and closed it down, before it got too far out of hand


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Only one way to find out An evidence based approach using real world data. We've got one half of the test built, just need the other half.

 

Of course the A1SLT could build a W1 as per the original today and in a few years time rebuild it with a conventional boiler and use the original water tube boiler in their proposed "New" Darlington works!

 

If the P2 doesn't work, it can always be rebuilt as a Pacific anyway........