Current and Proposed New-Builds

It works just fine .... though looking at the photo, I'm now wondering how close to the Leader concept the GW ever came!

 

A few different things going on there. The boiler the Claughton had when it entered service was not the one with which it was designed; the Chief Civil Engineer declined to accept the design on the basis of static axle load and weight had to be lost, mostly be designing and fitting a smaller boiler. Whether or not the later larger boiler was the one originally intended is not known, but not very likely; things had moved on in the meantime.

To answer the questions: yes, their performance on the road did improve with the bigger boiler, which also moved the pressure up from 175 to 200 p.s.i. The rebuilt engines' power class moved from 5P to 5XP as a result. Availability wasn't a strongpoint as there were many weaknesses in the initial design which was too lightly built, so there were issue of cabs and splashers working loose, brake plumbing failing, sanders needing constant attention, all work for the sheds. There were more fundamental problems and they were mechanically weak, especially so around the trailing coupled axleboxes where the oil supply was badly thought out but, due to space constraints, proved very difficult to find a solution (this was a major reason for their rebuild as Baby Scots). All this affected their time in works and their running costs generally, which were very high even after the coal consumption was brought down to a reasonable level, which it was. Could they do the work required? Yes, when new and in good nick, but age brought inconsistency and, worse, heavier trains and tighter timetables, hence the need for the Royal Scots: the Claughtons had been outpaced by the traffic.

There was little connection between the Claughtons and Baby Scots beyond the (larger) boiler and some details, and fewer of these as construction continued. The fact that only eighteen of the latter were rebuilt with taper boilers does not suggest satisfaction with the Baby Scots as such, as by the end of the war this was on the wane. They had started really impressively but didn't age well. But there are two theories as to why no more were rebuilt (i) the LMS identified a need for 91 Class 6 (Class 7 from 1951) engines (the Committee Minute recording this has survived and is available); there were 71 Scots and two rebuilt Jubilees, giving a requirement to rebuild only eighteen Baby Scots; and (ii) any further upgrades to Class 7 was vetoed by Robin Riddles as it would interfere with the building of his Standard classes.

The Claughtons were not bad engines, but they weren't especially good ones either. But they tend to be unfairly remembered more for their problems rather than their successes.

 

Not very, but I am sure the GWS have a plan sketched out on a beer mat to achieve it....

 

there was a fairly half hearted attempt at starting a project to build one a few years ago, but it never got off the ground. There is a thread somewhere on here about it

 

Some railway companies seemed to pay considerable attention to the aesthetics of their locos. But my referring to the appearance of the Claughtons with large boilers was in the context of a hypothetical new build, where I would expect the original, better looking, version to have more appeal - not that either version seems to have enough appeal for anyone to have seriously proposed a new build.

(Not much to add to post #4702 but) many (most?) locomotive designs were based partly on earlier designs, but it seems to me that very little of the Claughton design went into the Patriots. Wheelsets, yes, but only on the first two(?), with different frames, cylinders and crank axles; boilers, yes, but the larger ones that the LMS had tried on the Claughtons, not those the LNWR built them with.

 

I wonder if Bowen Cooke and Smith (Highland) ever met? I'd imagine they'd have had a bit to talk about!

The thing I've always heard about the Claughtons isn't they were bad as all, but that they missed being outstanding by a whisker.

 

Do you really have no faith in 5551 being a "cert"??

Replacement wheels already cast, tyres arrived, one replacement axle now sourced for them to be re assembled. £300,000 sitting in the bank account, with an income of over £250,000 a year coming in.

 

The Patriot is too far advanced to be abandoned, so, yes, agree with last post.

 

Very solid numbers, @Gav106. Are you sure you don't want to do a 2-6-4T after 5551 is ready? If sustainable, that sort of funding base makes it a realistic possibility. (This is why I think the V4 ("Bantam Chick"?) will be fine - A1SLT have the pedigree, the new workshop and the fundraising pool to deliver her.)

 

Lol. As i have said before, i would love to do a tank, however my head says we already cant sustain what we have and money should be spent on the undercover accommodation for things. It might be boring but sometimes we have to be more practical. That being said i would love to do a deal with the NRM and get the midland compound running

 

That's a very interesting concept and one I hadn't considered before - hypothetically, what national collection locos would work as a next project for new build groups once their new build loco is complete and running? (Of course, this is in a world where money and politics are no issue!)

 

Well if money ane politics are no issue then for my personal interest i would be steaming Thundersley because why not, lms crab 13000 to mainline, and keeping it red to run on the jacobite, im sure the visitors would love a red engine, obviously the compound and the L&Y 2-4-2 tank which i think would be stunning mixed in with all the other l&ys at ELR.

 

Not sure about the fundraising pool. They are continually appealing for funds and launching new "clubs" for this, that or the other component, and the current state of the economy will be making things worse.

 

That is very similar to the current thinking of the Beachy Head lads who have swallowed a dose of realism and refocused on the Adams as their next project.

 

Agree on underlying climate, but are those "clubs" a sign of difficulty fundraising, or of the need to be constantly creative over how fundraising is promoted?

 

What makes you think the people who chose to fund an A1 and/or a P2 will put their hands in their pocket to fund a V4, though? I certainly won't be doing so; in a couple of years' time I retire and all my pension will be counted towards my living costs - I'll certainly be looking very hard at what I fund and what I am a member of from that point onwards.

 

But maybe that's part of their success? Having the different clubs and relatively regular new appeals keeps the loco(s) in the spotlight and therefore the donations coming in. Just a thought...

 

Keep up, your lagging behind! In this fast changing world the Adams has already been side-lined. The groups next focus will be 3217 to ensure the railway has enough working locos to avoid a shortage.

 

Thanks Avonside ( l am a Fishponds product too ), l must ! . Yes realism, it does seem as if the ''proposed new build'' era is now over , at least l hope it is. Perhaps we can concentrate on getting deserving existing projects across the line.

 

I think you're right, but their need for the series of new initiatives indicates that the supposed fundraising pool would otherwise soon run dry. Their success has clearly been due to their establishing a team from the outset with a full range of expertise; engineering, financial, regulatory, etc. But even they have to keep running.

Agreed in principle, but opinions will differ as to which "existing" projects are "deserving" and which of them actually have a decent chance of being completed.