Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by steam_mad, May 21, 2015.
Or 42424 with 46464?
There will be lots of time to discuss the details in the months/years ahead, but is it likely that the loco will be a complete facsimile of the originals or will there be any later enhancements added that would improve operational convenience, safety or efficiency ?
I know that the loco will be designed with a few enhancements along the way. But what those are... depends on the team building her and what they decide is the best way forward. People wishing to be part of this team please contact us. We are always open to ideas and help. And here is a big offer! To all those people out there who "start a newbuild facebook group" here is a chance to join up to a project that you know has guarenteed support and will get built, and you can learn the skills and how hard the job really is along the way. The offer is out there. Just come along, sign up and be a part of it!
From a purely personal point of view, this would be the only new build of a locomotive I actually saw back in the day, which I find interesting. So for that reason alone it would definitely get my support if it goes ahead, and that's before taking into account how worthwhile the proposal is.
My wish has come true. Very pleased to hear that the Patriot Group are to build a Fowler 2-6-4 tank.
An interesting and very practical choice for the Patriot group's second loco. The excellent 82045 group has already shown that a new-build loco that is not particularly glamorous in ths same sense as Tornado or Beachy Head can attract significant support. Therefore, given the popularity of the 80xxx tanks on so many heritage lines, I am sure that a Fowler 2-6-4T will not find itself at a loose end when completed. Best wishes with the project.
Great news, such a deserving locomotive for a project.
But why the Stanier cab version!? Surely the original Fowler version is more historically important, being the beginning of the link through Fowler, Stanier, Fairburn and Riddles 2-6-4 tanks.
I'm inclined to agree with 17B. Moreover, the limousine cabs were unpopular with enginemen as too hot. They were also considered dangerous when exchanging single line tokens on the move, something to be considered when the target users are preserved lines.
Fair points indeed 17B and LMS2968. There would also be the opportunity to name it "The Prince" during one of it's work cycles; potential for some Royal patronage perhaps, as exploited by P2 Steam Locomotive Company.
As well as the wikipedia article, see also http://www.steamtrainsireland.com/FFT/FFT28.pdf (article near the end of that issue).
It's a very interesting project and I suspect more new build tank locomotives will be announced - and built - in the next ten years. Their usefulness to preservation cannot be overstated: the 3MT and the G5 being such locomotives filling gaps and also providing traction suited to the demands of a heritage railway (3MT by far the most useful at present).
It's a pity that the Thompson L1 design was caught up in the Facebook farces of past. That is one very handsome design for which all the kinks were (if my research is correct) already ironed out during service (the main cause being the axle boxes and leaking tanks). The 2-6-4T arrangement as shown by the 4MTs of Riddles and Fairburn in preservation being extremely useful and versatile.
Edit: under, over, wombling free.
I would back the 42424 Fowler project, it's a great idea, it should of been made years ago. This Would be ideal for heritage line use. My next question would be would we ever see small batch builds?
My gut feeling is no, because it is always easier to raise money for something new than something that is similar to something already existing (which is one, though not the only, reason why there are new builds making significant progress while there are still unrestored original locos in classes that have numerous members already running). So once Loco X is running in service, it will be much harder for the same or another railway to raise money to build another Loco X, even though it might be a useful design.
That said, there are opportunities to share significant pattern making and design costs across non-identical designs that share components. An example is the interchange between the 82045 and 84030 groups - result will be two different locos, but with money saved by both projects (over and above what it would cost to "go it alone") by virtue of joint procurement of certain common components: the example that springs to mind is commonality between the pony trucks.
I think you mean overstated.
Yes you're quite right. I blame iPhone autocorrect.
But a Deeley 4P "999" with beefed-up boiler pressure would be very useful.
This project is great news and has cheered me up no end after the all bad publicity surrounding our hobby generated by the West Coast debacle. Class 4 locos are ideal for preserved lines so an extra one is most welcome.
I still live in hope that the planned restoration of the NRM's LMS Stanier 2-6-4T 2500 postponed due to the overspend on a certain Gresley Pacific will go ahead one day, but I'm not holding my breath. With an optimistic hat on though, perhaps we should start planning for a Fowler, Stanier, Fairburn and Riddles 2-6-4T gala!
Maunsell 'River' Class anyone?
Yes please! Restricted to 25mph there would be no problem, though I suspect the reputation more than any inherent technical complexity would ultimately scupper any such project.
Separate names with a comma.