New builds - how many will ever really work?

This is quite an interesting point. If we are to build new engines for preserved railways should we build ones that are truly faithful to original designs (as far as possible) or should we build something generic that can, as Simon suggests, be altered to suit whatever railway company its owners wish to represent?

I would fall in the former camp that if we are to recreate history then we should do it properly and as accurately as possible.

 

That is another fair question Neil. However,

So am I, but we can have our cake and eat it, particularly if we want something pre-grouping which did exist in grouping and nationalization eras, if we research the classes carefully. I mean - look at 32424. It is already in some respects doing exactly that, utilizing components which were common to both the Marsh and Ivatt Atlantics.

RE the 4-4-0s - many of them across companies had shared lineages and pretty much did that I am suggesting doing in the modern age in any event.

 

Please no, I want to sleep undisturbed tonight....................

An L1 or a D1 on a modern built, (ie steel and safe to run), 1960 style 4 coach train racing along between Tonbridge and Ashford at 75 mph.

Oh well, maybe I'll just have a lovely night dreaming......................

 

.... or an E1?

 

I'd contribute to a Turbomotive newbuild fund like a shot. Can't agree with Sheff about the turbine issue really, after all the original main turbine (and gearbox) lasted 11 years in heavy service with wartime levels of maintenance, i.e. a lot less than your average preserved loco receives today.
Modernising the turbine could only mean optimising the physics and the materials, but not at the expense of complexity, and therefore lack of robustness. After all, the loco only achieved the LMS availability requirements because Stanier decided on the crude but effective individually controlled steam valves instead of a fancy continuously variable throttle.

Now If I ran the fund, I'd need 20 million quid. 8 to reproduce 6202 with said marginal upgrades to turbines, plus 12 to develop and build a 4-8-2 or 4-8-4 version, possibly using Stanier 8F driver dimensions, though four 9F drivers do fit neatly into the wheelbase of three Lizzie-size ones and RPM isn't an issue as there's no reciprocating motion. Gearbox would be less of a headache too thanks to the higher wheel rotation.

Imagine a beast of well, well over 40000 lbs of tractive effort and that extra axle to put it on the rails with. No, not a P2, because this one would have no hammer blow to irritate the network operator and a fire that gives an even, almost spark-free burn (also attractive to network operators, I believe).

Photters, of course, would need an exceptionally fast setting to catch the rods as anything other than a blur. Never mind the lack of chuff, hear the whistle closing in on you from Tebay as you shiver on the slopes of Shap.

So Pete Waterman, if you're reading...you get first refusal on building it at Crewe. )

 

ITS STEAM JIM BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT. Could you put a streamline case on it then and make it look a bit less like a steam loco please...

 

Great stuff. Count me in. Just don't forget to buy that lottery ticket!

 

Something which came up earlier this week, when I was finishing the building of my attic conversion, was a copy of Steam Railway, Issue no.191, March 1996.

In the "Mailbag" section, is a letter from David Champion, one of the original A1 pioneers, which I think pretty much sums up preservation in general, but can be applied to any project that appears on face value "impossible". It is titled "Of course it can be done, mate!"

I think that sums up a philosophy that has been proven to be both credible and a template to follow for all those "impossible" projects that come thereafter.

 

Very pertinent..... David Champion and his colleagues showed "it could be done" and the project had to endure the roller-coaster of an economy busting and booming which any long term construction is likely to encounter. There are advantages in both stages of the cycle, during the "bust" firms are likely to take on work at reduced rates just to keep going and their staff employed but cash will be hard to come by, in the "boom" period prices of everything (especially metal) will rise but raising capital will be easier - you just need very determined people at the helm!

Foxy

 

Whilst we're on the subject of new builds and how many of them will ever really work, I wonder how things are going with that lovely little 2-6-0 "Galloping Alice", based at the Swindon and Cricklade? The large, impressive model on display there looks wonderful. Perhaps that was the idea for the end product!

 

The one 'new-build' which I suscribe to, namely 6880, appears to be slowing down alarmingly. It is next to the 'Patriot' in the works & will be behind this in terms of progress by the end of the year. .It won't be long before the 47xx overtakes it & that hasn't even started yet. The policy of depending on a mega-sized gala every 2 or 3 years isn't good enough.What is needed is fresh leadership, preferably with engineering knowledge, & a slicker marketing effort along the lines of similar much more successful projects.

Bob.

 

I thought that the 6880 Group was doing very well compared with some others, but that's just my opinion. At least the Grange has a boiler waiting for it whereas the Patriot (which I do subscribe to finanacially) doesn't yet. Whilst I'm looking forward to seeing the Patriot in all its glory, the Grange will be a wonderful addition to a GWR collection as the type was always referred to as the "Enginemen's Engine" due to its free steaming and general ability to cope with most loads. Clearly it "looks like a Hall" but its much more than that. I do hope 6880 doesn't founder, its got a lot going for it.

 

Don't forget the mini-stands that attend model rly shows monthly!

 

Update on the Brighton Atlantic project, quietly making progress tucked away in Sussex. The latest update page has some nice pictures, including the reverser mechanism fabricated and in-situ; cast valve heads and the patterns for the crossheads.

See http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/locos/atlantic/latest.html

Tom

 

Thanks for the update on the Brighton Atlantic. What a wonderful locomotive this is going to be! I guess the chassis will be rewheeled fairly soon?

 

Not so much rewheeled as wheeled for the first time!

But seriously - not sure there is an immediate hurry to put her on her wheels. I suspect the accessibility for putting on the many components bolted to the frames is better without the wheels in place - they only really need to go on once the team are ready to assemble the motion.

Also - for those unfamiliar with the environment at SP - the shed and the rails she stands on are entirely disconnected from the rest of the layout; indeed they are at 90 degrees to the rest of the yard; so there is no advantage gained for moving her round the yard just yet by putting her on her wheels.

Tom

 

It's all about the law of the jungle. The analogy can easily be made with the ex Barry scrapyard loco restorations-they will probably all happen. If time is no problem and people keep working at it-then the money will eventually just appear one way or the other. Persistence = Dreams come true.
It works every time.

 

Hear, hear. Did the Marsh Atlantics have the same arrangement as the Ivatts where the coupling rod throw was less than the connecting rod with a stepped crankpin? (due to Ivatt's concerns about coupling rods bending)

Dave

 

As far as I can tell yes (though I haven't seen a drawing).

DL Bradley in "Locomotives of the LBSCR" writes about the first series H1 Atlantics:

And then writing about the H2, which was essentially a superheated version of the H1 with only detail differences, these had the same 26in stroke pistons, and in listing the differences between the classes, he doesn't mention anything about the coupling rod throw.

So it is not direct evidence, but I suspect that you are right.

Tom