LSWR H16 tanks

Re: L1 new build

And a trailing wheelset and truck, The truck could be frabricated rather than cast, its nothing that hasnt already been done already , compare the possible cost and compare it to what an L1 tank would cost?

 

On th same idea why not convert 31806 back in to a K class tank loco? Surely this would be considerably cheaper to convert and a shorter time span required before the loco would enter service again.

 

Sounds like a great idea to me! And would be cheaper than building from scratch. Makes sense if you got some S15 parts lying around that arent being used. would get my vote if it got the nod!!

 

Wasn't it a K class tank that had a massive accident somewhere ? (Sevenoaks rings a bell), I woulden't want to recreate a class with that reputation, even if the track did play a big factor, plus anyone who wants to butcher a U Boat must be mad, they are one of the best looking loco's the Southern Tramway ever turned out.

I think the main thing in the H16's favour (much as with most of the GWR new builds) is that a lot of the major components already exist and could be made to work without too much fuss, I doubt a H16 would ever be considered if there wasn't a kit of S15's sitting around, plus id rather see the parts running as a H16 then rusting into oblivion waiting for someone who wants another knackered S15.

 

The general assumption is that the Ks were a track sensitive design; e.g. it was a combination of poor track (the Eastern section used a lot of shingle ballast even at that time) and the specifics of the engine (rolling of water in the tanks, springing etc) that caused the Sevenoaks disatser. One of the Ks was taken to the ECML and run at speeds of up to 80mph (with I believe Gresley supervising) without apparent problems, which Maunsell took as vindication of his design. A less charitable person might say a design is only good if it works in its intended environment! Herbert Walker got Maunsell to rebuild them as tender engines (and convert those, such as current Bluebell engine 1618 that had been ordered as tanks), but he also got the chief civil engineer to undergo a major process of track renewal: it was an impressive bit of man mangement to get the problem solved without causing serious disaffection from two of his senior officers. There was an enormously complicated sequence of tender swaps between various Maunsell engines, partly on account of the additional tenders needed for the Rivers; and partly because King Arthurs and S15s based on the central section needed 6 wheel tenders to fit the available turntables; but those on the western section needed some design or other of 8 wheel tender to give extra water and braking capacity.

Incidentally, of the preserved U boats, 1638 is pure U class; 1618 was ordered as a River tank but built as a U boat; 31806 on the MHR was built as a River and converted, AFAIK. The tenders of 1638 on the one hand, and 1618/31806 on the other are different heights at the cab end, which is the happy co-incidence that meant, when 31806's tender was damaged in a fire, 1618 could provide a temporary replacement. Had it been 1618 in service at the Bluebell and 1638 out of service, the swap wouldn't have worked.

I believe at one point a few people at the Bluebell had plans for converting one of theirs to a U1 (the 3 cylinder version) and had worked out what needed to change, where the drawings were etc. Nothing came of it, and I don't know if, on the scale of seriousness, it was ever much more than a lobby conversation - though probably more serious than a "Facebook newbuild" ...

Tom

 

1625 was pure U class when built as well. However in common with all the moguls at the MHR it received new front end frames by BR, AFAIK.

Unlike 1638 which has kept its original front end and in not a "mongrel" mogul!

 

Re: L1 new build

I think that, if you were using 841's frames, it would be a more sensible idea to extend the new rear section all the way to the front buffer beam!

 

Re: L1 new build

Cracked to bits, are they? That's a shame, but understandable as the S15s were flogged a fair bit towards the end. There comes a time when even things built like a battleship need dry-docking!

 

Re: L1 new build

Has anyone else noticed a bit of irony of this discussion? A young and inexperienced lad suggests building an L1 and gets shot down in flames by almost everyone. saying it's a pipe dream and not a hope in hell of it being built. An older and more experienced guy suggests building an H16, in reality another pipe dream and not a hope in hell of it being built yet it gets lots of sensible discussion and, as far as I can see, no condemnation.

I propose that we build a replica of the Kitson-Still loco. That will bring together both the steam and diesel fraternity so it is bound to succeed. Before anyone suggests it, though, I'm too busy to be its chairman and founder.

 

Re: L1 new build

Frame plate drawings are available at the NRM, as are quite a few other H16 drawings.

 

Re: L1 new build

I think as stated it's more sensible on paper because a reasonable amount of parts for a H16 exist, an L1 as far as im aware would have to be 100% new, with all the costs and manufacturing issues that come with it, A loco that could be put together for say £900,000 will always stand a better chance than one than would cost £2.5 million.

 

Re: L1 new build

The thing is, he didn't just suggest building an L1 - there was a website, a facebook page, an appeal for members, encouragement to raise money via search/online shopping schemes, even the livery had been chosen!!! He then tried to backtrack and say that they were still researching the idea and no decisions had been made!! When I suggested removing the website/facebook pages temporarily until the group was sure it had adequate support and could raise finance, they still remained. It would seem that these schemes (L1, J39, Claud, V3, Southern L1 etc) are just someone looking through the Hornby catalogue and picking out a loco that they like the look of. No consideration given to usefulness on heritage railways, reputation when they were around, costs, existing parts/ease of build, support (financial/physical) from both the heritage sector and Mr & Mrs Joe Public. The people involved in all these schemes seem to get more excited about getting x number of Facebook 'likes' than actually sorting out a base and cutting steel.

Now on the other hand, this discussion has been purely an 'on paper' exercise - discussing how useful an H16 would be, what parts could be used from existing stocks and options for boilers. This is the kind of discussion that Mr Reeder should have had before setting up his website or launching his project, if he had done this, he might have reconsidered his original proposal and got support for a new project (whatever that project might have ended up being). As it stands, any project involving Mr Reeder is very unlikely to garner support because of the J39/L1/Southern L1/V3 debacle.


Keith

 

Re: L1 new build

It'll probably cost more than £900K if you go down this route. Of the frames, I thnk you'll only end up using the cylinders and wheels. I can't remember if there is a full set of rods/motion. Don't forget 825 was a Barry wreck and the majority of ancillaries came of 841 so all these would have to be found, as well. The spare boiler is repairable, as all boilers are, but was considered beyond it when 30499 was being restored, which is why 825 lost its boiler. A cost that is rarely factored in is that of stripping all the old bits off. Drilling out stays and rivets doesn't come cheaply. Probably a cheaper option to build a new one and that can be said for the whole loco.

 

Yes, this is purely a paper H16. I wouldn't say die if someone reputable suggested building one, though.

 

Re: L1 new build

I think that was 30506 which had 30825's boiler when first restored.

 

Re: L1 new build

Hmm you learn something new every day, the costs i quoted were examples, i have no idea what the cost of either idea would actually be, it just seemed common sense that overhauling/modfying existing parts, even if few if numbers, would be cheaper than building new.

 

Re: L1 new build

Agreed (although I disagree on your lumping of the Claud lads in with the others Keith) and the other thing is, while people might be a tad more skeptical of young lads over old codgers with grandiose plans I think you'd find that the young lads behind the Claud Hamilton group have managed to win a lot of people over here and elsewhere. While many might remain skeptical of the likelihood of them succeeding they have nonetheless been convinced many here of their seriousness of intent and the lads have demonstrated considerable maturity, a willingness to take on and respond to feedback. I don't think people are per se 'kiboshing' the hopes and dreams of young fellows nor are they at this stage considering a H16 to be a realistic possibility.

And I for one will continue to throw out the suggestions of a GCR 'Jersey Lilley' or Reid NBR Atlantic, a Caley 'Cardean' or Dunalistair, G&SWR Manson 4-6-0, a Midland Johnson 0-4-4t or small-boilerd 4-4-0 for instance. Not because I have a serious expectation that any of them would see the light of day but that it makes for enjoyable wishful thinking (and who knows, perhaps someday with the capacity to run with it will?).

 

Just to add a note about S15 boilers. All three boilers belonging to Urie group are now at the MHR. The boiler to be used on 30499 arrived from Portland a few weeks ago.

 

So just to play this paper H16 through, could someone compile a list of what S15 bits actually exist and what the "spares" are please?

Cheers,

Tobbes

 

Indeed it did, although i dont think any decision has yet been made as to this boiler definately going on 499.

Also worth noting that this is AFAIK, the boiler that was once deemed uneconomic to repair.

I believe that it had patches fitted by BR and was thus deemed poor.

With the scale of work that is undertaken nowadays in repairing boilers between overhauls it is now seen in a new light as being not too bad to consider.

Certainly the work associated with it must be comparable to that required on the former 825 boiler that replaced it, as there is to be an evaluation as to which boiler is the best option for 499.