LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust and proposed new build

Thank you for sharing this relevant issue of The Engineer huochemi. The article makes clear that the differences between a Precursor and a George the Fifth weren't just the piston valves and Schmidt's superheater but extended to the cylinder diameter (19" and 20" respectively) and the heating surface (2009.7 and 1849.6 respectively (no doubt due to the superheating). I'll pass this on to the trustees who no doubt will enjoy pouring over the numbers.

I'm currently reading some of the other articles. Fascinating insight into the times particularly with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Just a thought for you LNWR new build fans.

As you are new to this fundraising / planning / building / engineering etc ... as and credibilty isn't you strongest point right now simply because you haven't been around that long, Would it not be worthwhile assisting Tyseley in the completion of the LNWR Bloomer by raising its profile fundraising publicity etc?

If you can achieve this then credibility and respect will be earned and moving on to building the Precursor would be so much easier than starting so fresh.

Consider it not to be backward step but a stepping stone, and you would still have something new and LNWR to show off.

 

Thanks for the words of advice. I wouldn't say that we're novices in fundraising, planning, building and engineering and where deficient, we have significant connections in the preservation and new-build scene coupled with tremendous goodwill, which is proving immensely benificial. This however, isn't to say that we couldn't do with more assistance in these areas and so of course, volunteers with experience in any of these fields are most welcome to contact us. As to funding, if you read my first posts on this thread and the information provided on our website you'll discover that we have significant backing by a donor who does wish to remain anonymous at this stage. This is not something we boast of lightly. The donor is matching every £10k raised through fundraising with a matched donation up to the amount of £50k. I'm not sure if your assertion that our 'credibility isn't our strongest point' is universally held though I admit that fundraising is very time-consuming and the task of convincing enough people of the merits of our proposal is a slow process yielding only incremental improvements. This is as it should be. We need to demonstrate the merit of our proposal through our efforts, our tenacity as well as the soundness of the proposal and the vision itself. Clealry, we're not going to convince everyone, however we are steadily demonstrating a seriousness of intent and a clarity of proposal and approach, which we feel is beginning to pay dividends in terms of support and levels of interest we're receiving. We'd love to have the funding set now but slow and steady should 'win the race' so to speak.

And just to be clear, we're building a George the Fifth, not a Precursor. But again Just saying, thanks for the words of advice. We won't discount the possibility of co-operating with Tyseley or anyone else in whatever manner mutually appropriate and beneficial.

 

I think of all the very early stage newbuilds out there currently this is the one with the most credibility. I also think if I donated to the building of a George V I wouldn't want it siphoned off into a tinpot little single!

Note: I'm not donating to the George V project, and I don't think Tyseley's bloomer is a tinpot little single - just highlighting the emotive, loco-specific aspect to newbuild support.

 

Thanks Jamie. As ever reason and reasonableness. You raise another importatnt matter. We aren't entirely beholden to our own personal wims but must always consider the implicite and explicits conditions for the backing by our supporters large and small. We'd of course like to see the Bloomer completed however, I'm certain (read I know for a fact) that Tyseley hasn't forgotten about her.

 

It's been some time since I posted on this thread - real life has this rude tendency to intrude. Also the progress on the George the Fifth new build has been largely behind the scenes and thus we've not had anything tangible to report until now. To this end we would rather post here if and when we have something concrete and we believe that in the closing days of 2012 (I've still not gotten used to it being 2012, never mind 2013!) the time was ripe to report on the progress made thus far and to give a small insight into what we're planning into the new year.

Firstly, I should say that on the support-side of things we've been gaining steady momentum and increasing interest over the past few months with expressions of support coming notably from individuals within the preservation movement and happily an increasing number of such expressions of support are translating into financial support through donations and memberships. Of course more support is always welcome. When we are able to close in on 5 figures, the first tranche of support from a generous benefactor will kick in - the £10,000 raised through our fund-raising efforts will be matched by an equal amount, which will certainly go a long way in accelerating the build.

You can find out how to provide financial assistance here: LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust

I'm very happy to announce that after a long and detailed process we've settled on our supplier for the outer smokebox door, which will be the first part of a new George to be fabricated. The supplier is Keyte Smith Ltd of Bingham, Nottingham. The announcement can be found on our news blog here: Steaming Ahead. We'll reveal more of the technical particulars and details early in the new year. This has taken longer than anticipated however, we weren't willing to sign and place good donor's money on the table until we could be confident that we've covered everything and as far as possible future-proofed the build.

Beyond this, we are presently considering the next parts to fabricate and as mentioned in our latest newsletter, we're leaning towards something substantive - that is, the front part of the plates for the frame. The newsletter can be obtained in PDF format here: December Newsletter. Feel free to download and distribute it if you wish.

In early January we will be holding a meeting to establish a road-map for the coming year. Ideally we want the engine to be at least assembled in Crewe, largely for symbolic reasons however we are currently talking to a number of parties concerning a home-base and in the end it is probably that the eventual home of the trust won't be in LNWR territory, or at least a former LNWR line (which would narrow the options considerably). As we move from a symbolic act of fabricating the smokebox door to 'meatier' developments such as the frames, a home will of course become an imperative. This matter is high on our agenda and we hope that by the end of 2013 the LGFSLT will have a permanent home. Beyond this while discussions continue, I can't say too much more.

Thanks again for all the expressions of interest, support and probing questions, which only assist us in personally assessing the soundness of our actions. We of course welcome it all. On behalf of the trust I hope that everyone has had a relaxing and enjoyable Christmas with plenty of good cheer (in spite of the weather) and that the new year will be a happy, prosperous and peaceful one for you and your loved ones.

 

The current (Jan 2013) issue of BackTrack has a very interesting article on the centre bearings used by the LNWR, and in particular who authorised their removal. The conclusion was a bit foggy but pointed to those dark LMS forces at Derby

Dave

 

Thanks Dave. I'll be sure to check the article. We're aware of the removal of the centre-bearings under LMS auspices. We've heard the suggestions that the decision may have come from certain individuals at Derby with a strong anti-LNWR disposition. It would be interesting to see what the article says. In any case our new-build will of course include the centre-bearings.

I should say that the author of the article Ted Talbot is a close associate and friend of some members of the Trust. His expert opinion and advice on technical and historical matters is regularly sought.

 

Are you saying the Georges had 3 bearing axles? I didnt know that, or that any locos had such.

 

It was an LNW thing to reduce bending stresses in the crank axles of inside cylinder locos. The centre bearing only took out fore/aft forces and not vertial loads and was free to float up and down.

 

Well, well! And yet other companys managed without. Even more reason to build one then!

 

Using Joy valvegear meant no eccentrics so more room for the centre bearing, the downside being the connnecting rod needed a hole for the linkage hence a weak point, shouldn't be a problem with modern techniques and material though. This beautiful model shows the idea Home - Andy Webb Engineer

Dave

 

Gorgeous model - and that outside Joy gear looks 'interesting' - it must be quite a sight to see it in motion; a bit like the outside Stephenson link motion on 44767!

Thanks for the link

Mark

 

[h=3]Dampfmaschine der Schönbrunn (1912) / Marine Steam Engine with Joy's Valve Gear[/h]I hope this link works .
Keith

 

It does for me and thanks for posting it.

 

Agreed. Absolutely spectacular model of a Benbow. I am in awe.

Thanks to Steve and daveannjon for providing a response. I've been away for the past few days.

Black Jim - it couldn't be said that the centre-bearing was absolutely critical after all they performed admirably without it in place. However former-LNWR engines were worked very hard in LMS days and the centre-bearing at least lessened the fore/aft shocks on the crank axle. It stands to reason that the centre-bearing wasn't put there for decoration and that its removal may impact the running and longevity of the machine.

 

Thanks for sharing Keith. Wonderful to see.

 

"Using Joy valvegear meant no eccentrics so more room for the centre bearing, the downside being the connnecting rod needed a hole for the linkage hence a weak point, shouldn't be a problem with modern techniques and material though. This beautiful model shows the idea Home - Andy Webb Engineer

Dave"

We are aware of this weak-point in the linkage point on the connecting rods as outlined in our current newsletter and are investigating the relevant solutions, techniques and materials to overcome it. A reminder, our newsletter is here.

 

What I just wrote in comment #178 below was meant to be a reply with quote to your comment Dave.

 

Different companies implementing different solution across the board that other companies managed perfectly well without. And because the LNWR pursued Joy valve gear along with centre-bearings doesn't mean it wasd a failure merely because others didn't adopt it. The Georges were good machines without the centre-bearing and maintenance and were better machines with.