The next newbuild

The Leader could be capable of further development. In original form it was lacking in nominal T.E. The boiler was worth further taking a stage further and abandoning refractory and moving onwards to a water tube, membrane wall firebox. Drive the working pressure to the advancement of T.E. and then apply a modern version of the N & W automatic boiler management system. Fireman has no problem simply because one is not required. Move the boiler, rebalance the engine. Now for the power bogies.............

 

Basically, scrap the idea of having a corridor running between both cabs. The loss of that can't be fatal, just get out and walk when you're running round at each end of the line. That eliminates the issue of having the boiler, firehole, coal bunker, etc offset which eliminates the need to pile the corridor floor full of scrap (reducing the excessive overall weight). Apply 242A1's recommendations to the boiler, make the valve gear out of stronger chains that are available today, give the firing cab a door on each side (for obvious safety reasons) and it could be a good design. Or oil/gas fire it and dispense with the need to permanently man the middle cab?

The loco had 2 cabs, partly to obviate the need for turntables, but it virtually only ever operated bunker first, as the front cab was too hot being right next to the smokebox. With modern insulation materials and ventilation techniques, could this be easily corrected?

 

Considering that the most visible feature of the Leader was being a double-ended tin box, if bidirectional running wasn't actually practicable with the original design, and radical design changes would be needed for a new build, we're not talking about a replica or a late production model but about a completely new design, with not much in common with the original.

If we want a new design for bidirectional running, what's wrong with a conventional tank engine layout? Maybe with a few controls replicated to allow the driver to sit facing the bunker. And with whatever other concessions to modernity you fancy, such as automatic boiler management. 4-6-4 tank-engine version of the 5AT, anybody?

 

The Webb compounds weren't great engines I'm afraid. The master struggled with engines designed for the heavier loads that were becoming apparent towards the end of his career. It was left to Whale and Bowen Cooke to provide the motive power that the LNWR so desperately needed. Someone mentioned a DX Goods - one of, if not the most numerous class of locomotive in Britain ever. That would be a worthwhile build.

My suggestions would be something of Midland practice - a S.W.Johnson locomotive with the original smokebox and livery - one of the 0-4-4t would be immensely practical and given that there were over 250 built, its a shame that none survived and arguably, Mr Johnson designed some of the most graceful engines to ever grace the rails - even his tank and goods engines were works of art. Slightly less practical but desirable would be one of his unrebuilt 4-4-0's or even a 2-4-0 given so few exist today.

A GSWR Manson 381 class 4-6-0 would be fine build http://www.semaphoresandsteam.com/p320978303/h129B1E2C#h129b1e2c as would a NBR Reid Atlantic, a GCR Robinson Atlantic (Jersey Lilly) or a Caledonain Railway 'Cardean' 4-6-0. Admittedly most of these are Edwardian rather than Victorian but some of the other suggestions are very good.

Early Victorian - double framed locos of which there were many variations, would also make for an interesting and unique build

 

It's interesting to speculate what modifications Bulleid would have made to the design after 33001's test runs had nationalisation not supervened.

A thought occurs: what if Bulleid, and not Riddles, had got the job at the Railway Executive? The Standards would have been an interesting bunch, for starters.

 

What I meant is keep both cabs, just get rid of the interconnecting corridor because it involves placing so much of the weight over one side, requiring counterbalancing which made it excessively heavy. And enquiring as to whether or not modern insulation materials and ventilation equipment could sort the issues of the forward cab, enabling bidirectional running by making it less unbearably hot, which was why it would usually run bunker first

 

Leader really only makes sense if you oil/gas fire it I reckon.

 

Complete ends of the spectrum in the space of a couple of posts... A leader, the steam loco that attempted to solve some of the failings of steam locos and ended up looking like something you wouldn't pay to ride behind on one hand, and The finest expressions of Edwardian elegant ferro-equinology on the other which most people would... but they couldn't haul a train big enough for the demand. - Still at least they'd get some Film work...

 

Look at what was achieved with N & W No. 1100. Think about how long ago this exercise in automated systems was carried out.
A modern version of the Leader could have all the advantages of being double ended and single manned. And it would burn coal.
Given the choice I would prefer to develop a Garratt. Two three cylinder compound bogies/engine units, water tube boiler, 30 bar working pressure and so on.

 

While the Webb passenger compounds were problematic (though partly for reasons which critical people forget, such as the very restrictive clearance permitted on the LNWR for outside cylinders) , I think you'll find the 3cyl 0-8-0 were reasonably effective being coupled engines and only expected to travel slowly. I recall one LNWR driver writing in the early 1950's defending their reputation , which is why it would be an interesting piece of 'experimental archaeology' to find out what one could do. Since the feature of interest is in the steam cycle, it wouldn't matter if the boiler and bearings were to modern standards. One would be fine at preserved line 25 mph, I think.

+1 the Manson 4-6-0 - or any Edwardian 'Express Passenger' 4-6-0 - none have survived. (Unless you count the GW Saint/Star, which, technically, ushered in the next era and don't really offer the visual difference from the modern post-grouping locomotives) .

I'd add a Victorian (just!) L&YR 'Atlantic' - one of which apparently reached a quite ludicrous speed without the benefit of a Rous-Martin.

I was thinking in the main of smaller engines though. I've come up with a couple of others - HR Skye Bogie, LTSR original Tilbury Tank.

 

I'd second that.

 

Now there's an interesting proposition. Great if you are going to turn Freightliner container trains over to steam, but a little over-powered for even the NYMR, I'd think! What would you get if you scaled it down by 30-40%?

 

This is a interesting new build and all the work of one man.


www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-01/amazing-backyard-build/5642732?section=sa

 

Somebody give that man a medal!

 

If I had a hat on Id doff it. More power to you sir!

 

Utterly bonkers, but, give him credit!!

 

That's a proper man cave - I want one!

 

I'd love to see a Baltic tank. It would stand out from the crowd (unique) but probably quite sensible in the power and route availability stakes?
Just a fantasy while Euromillions sort their act out :-(

 

I think I 'd pay for a Fowler tank or a Caprotti black 5 and I feel a new thread coming on...

 

Why was there so much concern that a replica Victorian locomotive should have a cab? For seasonal service trundling along at 25 mph on preserved lines being in the open would be quite welcomed by many crews, the main downside being that for the full effect they may be required to dress more authentically.

The greater problem is that an 1850s 2-4-0, say, with open cab would look a bit ridiculous pulling BR mark 1s. Such a project would really need to be for a complete train!