45699 and 46115 have set a tone

A powerfull tank would perhaps be the ideal ( N7 ?a standard 4? a hawksworth pannier?) but again would they be in gauge... and they would have to be carted there by road. All the more reason to rebuild Bantam Cock...

 

Way off topic but aside from the K1/K4 probably either Horwich or Stanier crab would suit. Wildcards GW 56xx tank though coal and water might be a problem, S15 or S160 could be strong candidates as ideal.

 

We had rather hoped to take 2968 to Fort William but it couldn't happen: it would have meant that she would be unavailable during the SVR's peak summer season.

As to the other lines in the north of Scotland, I'm not sure what the axle load limits are, but a Stanier Crab has over twenty tons on the driving axle.

 

Didnt know that any crabs had been Stanierised ( is that a word ?) or is that just a nickname for the Stanier Moguls. Maybe see a Clan up there one of these days...

 

I've often seen mention of the Stanier moguls as Stanier Crabs.

 

Assuming the wheelbase wasn't a barrier, I'd suggest a 52XX over a 56XX.

 

Probably the cylinders would be an issue too, not to mention weight.

 

In the finest traditions of Nat Pres this has gone way of topic ( as much through my fault as anyones)
Would one of our learned contributors care to start a new thread perhaps stating what the actual RA Restrictions/ gradients and Typical loadings on this line are...?

 

Quite possibly, but both as red route restricted on the GWR, I'd suggest the weight is a similar problem for both types, the 52XX being heavier but having an extra axle.

That said woulden't something a lot bigger to Fort William than was traditional be possible these days, the clas 67 that takes the sleeper daily now, has an axleload almost on a par with a King.

 

Thinking specifically about the Mallaig extension, the curves take their toll with six coupled locos and although the 8F has been used I believe it suffered even worse. An S160 has a shorter fixed wheelbase though and a bogie tender to lead it better running backwards. Ditto for an SR bogie tender coupled to an S15. The latter may be too wide over cylinders perhaps? Although a Hall has regularly used the line so maybe not. In which case perhaps a Manor or Grange could prove useful too.
All conjecture and wholly inappropriate to the actual thread!

 

Funny story about the 67's to Fort William...

Going by the Sectional Appendix and Rules of the Route, Class 67's are still banned from the West Highland Line, but it is also mentioned in there that 67's running on sleeper trains are an exception. It's why the timetable for the sleeper takes 4 minutes longer than previously with 37's, certain bridges now require crawling over from my knowledge.

 

Working the West Highland is an expensive business. If you were to design a locomotive for service on this line you would have to include chassis refinements. Controlled lateral movement for some of the driven axles would be at the top of the list. If the RA for the line has been updated then it would allow for some extra creativity in design. The LNE 2-8-0 design could be looked into. Though an updated K4 could prove tempting. Particularly if the axle loading could be increased. You could use A4 cylinders, increase the WP to a degree, use a water-tube firebox. The leading couples axle would have lateral control and the swing link bogie truck would be replaced, the tender chassis would also benefit from some attention. The valve gear could be revised to give an enlarged maximum cut-off and variable lead could be included.
Though this thread is supposed to be concerned with 46115 and 45699 it it temping to go so far as to say that the existing K4 has proved to be of more value over the last couple of years than the LM duo put together.

 

The West Highland, and the Extension to Mallaig, would appear to be the ideal lines for an articulated design. Anyone for a 2-4-4-2 Mallet or 2-4-0+0-4-2 Garratt, perhaps? Should be able to cope with the tightest curves, provide 8 driven wheels, yet still fit on a UK-size turntable (not normally required, except to even-out flange wear). Now that would be a worthwhile new-build project! ;-)

 

Bantam Cock is on the radar as a follow up to 2007, according to Heritage Railway, with a V3 or K3 also being considered. The K3 is thought to be the favourite at this stage though. Personally I'd love to see the V4 chosen.

 

It certainly would. How about giving the job to Boston Lodge? They certainly know all about Garratts, and they coped with restoring a standard gauge coach, so they could probably just about fit in a standard gauge loco, and in due course send it out either via Minffordd or via Porthmadog and road.

 

Garratts are fine machines and ideal in all but one Aspect - they are ugly as sin , and dont look like most peoples idea of a Choo-choo which has to be a major factor on a line famed for its 'Picturesque'...
An apple green V4 will sell you far more Postcards, Calenders, boxes of clotted cream fudge etc and if what Howlin Wolf says is right the V4 gets my vote/ pennies over a K3 even though the K3 would be a much more straightforward build... and while we are in fantasy land can't European community funds be appropriated for line improvements and a link through to Kyle of Lochalsh...or failing that across rannoch moor, to get a nice highlands scenic circular....