New built replicas.

Typical. 77014 comes in on a railtour and never left. Makes you think whether anyone asked for it back! Was it actually recorded on the Southern Region's books at the end of steam? I also seem to recall reading about a B1 that was once stranded on the Southern Region following a railtour, possibly due to failure.

 

I haven't got reference books to hand so I might be wrong, but as far as I remember, the boilers, cylinders, motion and driving wheels were shared between M7, Black Motor and K10, along no doubt with many small fittings. In late South Western / early Southern Days, the boilers on the black motors were superheated which accounts for the smokebox extension. A similar modification was tried on one M7, but it wasn't a success, making it front heavy and not really being necessary for the duties performed. So the M7s remained with original boilers and smokeboxes.

As for the name - I don't know the derivation. I've never heard "motor tanks" for M7s but would suspect that, if so called, it probably refers to their use on "motor trains", which was the southern name for push/pull trains. Which doesn't explain why the 700 goods became "black motors" as they would never be used on such trains.

Tom

 

I can't remember the circumstances or the No. but I think a B1 was "stuck" at Redhill shed for a while in 1964.

 

As fer as the 5MT is concerned, although I know as much as most average enthusiasts, I would say you've got to think like Bullied!
By that I mean whoever is designing a 21st c loco has got to think boldly & not be afraid to incorporate the most new tech. & thinking they can . Why not, go for it!

 

I think unrebuilding a Merchant Navy has a good chance of capturing the enthuiasts wallet

Especially if turned out as built liekeChannel Packet just be carefull of the Horseshoe on the smokebox

 

I can't but think that, although the concept of a 125mph cruise steam powered train is OK, the 5AT is too small to be able to do that and haul a paying load, ie at least 10 Mk3/4 air-conditioned carriages and a back-up diesel. And does it also have to be the ugliest duckling around?

Why does it have to a diseasel on the back? Do modern locos pull a brick around just in case? Why not rely on normal rescue services like the TOCs do.

If we are talking a one off, then to get over 100mph would be a great objective. I think the subplot of the 5AT is that this design could go into larger production for everyday use. In that case it is about right in size for its planned use.

 

a modern steam engine built to cope with todays railway would be nothing like a traditional steam engine it would have to in effect be a steam powered generator, with double ended cabs and oil fired or have a removable coal bunker that uses pulverised coal a traditional outline engine just would not have the facilities it needed to keep it in use no TOC could accept the down time for servicing so it would have to have the steam plant as the means to power electric motors either that or encased drives with direct drive from a gearbox to axles it would almost certainly be mechanically fired

 

A 3MT gets my vote!

 

77014 didn't some down for a railtour. It was a delibrate relocation by the Southern who wanted something to fill the hole left by the last of the U and N class 'moguls' and the Q1s. She was meant to come down with another 3MT but that got withdrawn instead and now more were moved, but 77014 stayed. It was the only transfer as other Standards were moved to the Southern (although they 'more of the same' as others in the same class had started there orignally), and other ideas included moving 'Princess Corinations'/'Duchess' to supplement the Bullieds and Standard 2MTs to replace the LSWR O2s on the Isle of Wight. Back to 77014, I think her chimmny is with the 82045 people. There was an article about her in 'Steam Railway's' July 2007 issue about 77014 which tells her story.

Did people know she hauled the last steam hauled revune earning train on the Southenr on July the 9th, as to get her from Bournmouth (were she worked a train to the day before) to the Weymouth 'Dump', she pulled a van train long after Bullied 35030 had arrived at Nine Elms (not highlighted in the Steam Railway article). And as you proberley relised now I have a strong pashion for 77014 so I must be weird...

 

I'm sure KentYeti has a few stories to tell about 35030 (Elder Dempster Lines)??

 

I think 77014 features at 7:20 on this great video compilation http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbba54_british-railways-southern-region-in_auto great soundtrack too.

Dave

 

77014`s chimney is indeed with the 82045 Fund. Sadly it is cracked so will not be used. It does, however, make an excellent collection box and is located next to the 82045 frame assembly at Bridgnorth. The notice attached reads " Funnel your donations in here" . It seems to work!

 

see my post 'think like Bullied' !

 

Lets be realy silly and heat the 5At boiler with a giant imersion heater using power from the third rail or overhead supply. No firebox or boiler tubes required. no nasty corosive fumes and the tender only has to
contain water, no coal or oil, thus increasing its range as more water can be carried. the cab could be up front and the firebox area used to contain the electrical control gear. of course it could only be used on electrified lines, but are we not told electrified lines are the railways future. With no fire on board they may even let it through the channel tunnel...... now turning silly mode off

Pete

 

Can we do the same thing with a nuclear power?

How about a pebble bed reactor, like those they're developing in China.
Use a closed loop helium system where helium drives a turbine.
The turbine would drive a generator charging a battery set, and drive would be by thyristor to an AC traction motor.
Refuel every ten years. No tender, working fluids topped up at weekly inspections. Lubricated during inspection.

That's my recommendation!

 

I like the nuclear power idea, they do it on submarines quite successfully
Not shure about the axle loadings with all that lead shielding round the reactor

Pete

 

in the UK all nuclear fuel is owned by the MoD (for submarines). they give out the licences to use nuclear material, based on the purpose and how secure it will be once it leaves their hands. submarines never tie up anywhere that isn't secure (they have a reputation in the navy for a lack of runs ashore in glamarous places for this reason) and stick to UK or US naval bases. power stations and bases have fences and men with guns. a locomotive would be interesting, but you'd have to repeat all those tests with flasks that there's a thread on atm for. the locomotive would look like a tank, to prevent people getting into it, and to stop it spilling if it crashed.

then there's the issue of gauging. I'm not convinced you could fit a whole reactor and turbine unit on the chassis and within the body of a 66, so it would either have to be built up or on a pair of chassis (I had thought of something similar to a tyne and wear metro, with 3 bogies and 2 chassis), one half would house the reactor, the other would house the turbines, turbogenerators and control point, with motors on the bogies. the design would probably require a corridor to get from one end to the other, which would involve shielding within the locomotive. this would add to its width. at some point within it, you would need a reactor control point, where it could be monitored and scramed if needs be. this couldn't be done by the driver, so it would need an operator qualified to operate it, but more likely 2.

then there's shedding them. the only places in the UK that could ever build them would be BAE Systems in Barrow or Babcock marine in Devonport (who are the only people who could maintain them). the driver would require extra training, the operators would have to be qualified to operate a reactor on their own, which no-one really is. shedding them would require nuclear sites, each with their own security. of course they wouldn't need fuelling so often, but if you've ever seen how many 'operational' submarines are parked in devonport or faslane you'll realise that just nuclear machinery brings its own set of maintainence issues.

I like the idea, in case you hadn't guessed i've thought about it before. the main issues are crewing, security, design, and public acceptance. 3 of those can be overcome on paper. It could work, best in places with miles of track, mile long freight trains, and toleration of nuclear trains. i had russia, china southern africa and the USA in mind. it would probably look like a pair of leaders sharing a bogie when it was finished though. miniaturised reactors are a big area of development, but think cruise ships will get them before trains do.