Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

I don't think it was all SE&CR locos that suffered weak frames, just the moguls. As I recall, the original K class tank engines had been built with rather thin frames in an effort to keep the weight down. Obviously, they retained those when rebuilt as U class moguls, but when an additional batch of U class were built, they also had the narrow frame plates even though there was no longer any real weight justification, rather than go to the expense of re-drawing the loco with an extra 1/8" each side on the frame plates, which would have required in turn lots of redesign of frame stretchers etc. Many of them got either complete new frames, or front 3/4, in the late 1950s.

As for the tail rods on a K class: you can't see anything moving, so it would be relatively trivial to make dummy ones were it considered important. The Weir pump for water supply is possibly more of a challenge.

Tom

 

Paul, I think most of us are agreed with you that a "K" would be a more useful loco for the Bluebell than an Atlantic, but it was an Atlantic boiler (well, two in fact) which turned up and there isn't much you can recreate around an Atlantic boiler except an Atlantic.

My guess as a non-footplate person is that 32424 will take a bit of getting used to by the crews at first but will still be able to handle a six-coach train without too much difficulty. 32426 managed eight coaches, including a Pullman, on a 1955 special to mark the first closure. The Atlantics also worked 10 coach holiday trains over the West London Line, which has some quite serious gradients too. I therefore think that even with the steepest gradient on the Bluebell now 1 in 55, Beachy Head will prove a useful and popular member of the Bluebell's loco fleet.

 

I agree as to it being a magnificent achievement but that's about as far as it goes for me. Undoubtedly it will be a great gricer puller. However, non-gricers are unlikely to give a tuppenny damn. I gather the only particular steam locomotives which resonate to any degree with the general public are Flying Scotsman and Tornado.

PH

 

It has a 30 square feet firegrate to keep covered.

PH

 

Its a fantastic loco and I, for one, look forward to seeing it.

Ps, Tom, what's the next project plan you mentioned earlier? is there another project under consideration at the Bluebell?

 

Although the comment wasn't intended to be taken as relevant to anything other than the moguls, on re-reading, I have to concur, it could easily been taken to mean all SECR designs, therefore I've amended my post accordingly. Thanks for pointing that out.... I hate making unintentionally ambiguous statements.

Wier pump? Mmmmm..... one for a draughtsperson to get their creative juices flowing! As long as the final result doesn't have too many domes, I'll be happy!
================================
Regarding frame weakness on the Maunsell designed moguls, this sent me to look at the Irish (GSR classes 372/3) locos (bought as kits and always known as "Woolwich" moguls) which suffered from frame problems earlier than their English counterparts. In the Irish case, it was initially put down to use of a single flanged stretcher plate fitted in lieu of the two used on the English version. Obviously, the stretchers for 5ft 3in gauge were longer than for std gauge.

The (max) 17t 4cwt axle load gave them good route availability, and ensured many of the 5ft 6in driver variety (class 372) made it to 1962, being amongst the last steam locos in CIE service. Unfortunately, none made it any further.

 

The LTP says a locomotive from the Craven era, which in practical terms means one of the 2-4-0 tender engines:

(Something like: https://flic.kr/p/9DooBG though there were a number of related classes).

Still working towards a definitive decision though as far as I am aware , which would I assume have to be endorsed by the BRPS membership, via the long term plan. There has been an interesting internal discussion in the pages of AtlanticNews over the last couple of years to look at the possibilities of a number of options, but my sense is that it is likely to become a decision between the Craven loco and a Billinton K - fairly obvious which I prefer, but I am only one amongst many members.

Tom

 

Craven vs "K"? The Craven loco would certainly be an "interesting" choice. I'm a tad surprised a D2 "Lyons" wasn't preferred, given the commonality with the D1..... talk about making a rod for the workshop guys' backs!

No prizes for guessing which this armchair gricer would prefer either!

 

Either would be good. The K for practical purposes, and didn't the Bluebell go after one in 62 but couldn't raise the money in time? so that is putting right a near miss. The Craven 2-4-0 is unusual and interesting, incidentally, two were sold out of service by the LBSCR and went to the West Lancashire railway, which became part of the L & Y.

 

I believe a "K" was actually reserved, with a tenderload of spares, on the scrap line at Hove (Where Gatwick units are now berthed, just 1/2 mile from me as I write). Unfortunately, the fledgling Bluebell was faced with the need to buy their track, so the requisite sum (a paltry sounding amount these days) was beyond them and the loco succumbed to the gas-axe.

At least, on the personal intervention of Richard Beeching, the scrapping of "Fenchurch" was put on hold to enable the Bluebell to raise funds for purchase, so things could have been even worse.

 

Yes, I vaguely remember hearing that an attempt was made to save the original Beachy Head too, it was on the scrapline at Brighton and I think the cutters wanted to see it saved and they kept shifting it to the back of the queue to try and stall cutting it up

 

You underrate greatly the interest "non gricers" take in the loco on the front of their train. Perhaps if you spent more time talking to visitors to heritage railways as opposed to posting on here telling everyone else they've got it wrong, you may learn something.

 

That's just PH!
I have been a keen supporter and shareholder in GWR 2807 since the loco was purchased from Barry in 1980. Therefore I follow this loco's operation and maintenance very keenly. What surprises me though is the number of so called ordinary visitors who express more than just a passing interest in 2807 when she's hauling trains at the GWSR or anywhere else for that matter. The fact that it is the oldest privately preserved GWR standard gauge steam loco might help but that's not obvious and there are several 28xxs and 2884s in existence. Regarding Beachy Head, I understand that this was the loco that the nascent Bluebell Line always wanted. I'm delighted that they will have this very handsome loco on their books very soon and their patience (and some luck) is being rewarded. I will certainly travel from North Yorkshire to East Grinstead to see it in steam!

 

Now you mention it, bells are ringing....dimly.

The worst case I heard of was a pair of 3ft gauge Bagnall 2-4-0t locos named "Concord" and "Unity" (same general pattern as Groudle "Polar Bear" and "Sea Lion") at a London gasworks. Withdrawn in 1955, the owners held the pair back for years, trying in vain to give them both to a good home, but nobody was interested and they were cut up in the early 60s.

 

Jumping ahead, onto the Bluebell LTP, the Craven loco would be an interesting gap filler in the 1850-1870 period where there is virtually nothing from and it is on the right railway, as it will have pretty much appropriate coaches to work with. It would look a little odd hauling blue/grey Mark1s/2s after all!

It will, presumably, be in improved engine green, as I expect none of them remained when the umber brown was introduced? Interestingly, the last 2-4-0s of this era to remain in traffic were on the LMS, the Midland one which is preserved only just missed BR, being withdrawn in 1947. I remember seeing a great photo of one of them, taken in about 1943, where its black and grimy and shunting an ammunition train loaded with USAF bombs. Three of the slightly later inside framed ones actually were allocated BR 58020-2, whereas on the Southern, all had gone long before the grouping. The SER and LCDR also had similar ones

 

I think the Craven era livery was bottle green with lashings of red. The regrettably moribund 5and9 models used to specialise in early LBSC stock. Luckily, the website is still up.
http://www.5and9models.co.uk/locos.html

 

I think from memory there are 9 standard gauge locos that survive from the 1850s/1860s:

- Hetton Colliery Locomotive
- Wantage Tramway "Jane" / "Shannon"
- OW&W 252, now reduced to frames, motion and two axles only
- Two Furness Railway 0-4-0s, one substantively back-converted to original form; the other as rebuilt in service to an 0-4-0ST
- LNWR 0-4-0T "Ramsbottom"
- Midland Railway 158A, now substantially as rebuilt in the 1890s
- NER "Aerolite", rebuilt so many times as to be unrecognisable from her 1860s origins
- Metropolitan Railway A class 4-4-0T

Of those, really only the last is still representative of a mainline, front-rank passenger engine in substantially the visual form it would have had when built.

Hence the logic of a loco from that era, rather than (say), a Stroudley D2 class which comes from an era much better represented in preservation. In short, if you are going to build an old loco, one from the 1850s/1860s is considerably more educational and interesting than one from the 1870s or 1880s.

There are also Craven era carriage bodies on the railway which, while they are probably un-restorable in themselves, would allow viable replicas to be made. Of course, Craven's engines didn't all cease to exist in 1872, so a replica could easily look "right" with our Stroudley-era carriages. If the project gets off the ground, I would hope that it is seen as a "Craven train", not a "Craven locomotive" project.

As a practical proposition, the feeling is that it is a lot more "buildable" (i.e. less complexity, which translates to less money and time) than a Billinton K. It would probably pull about 100 tons on our gradients, which puts it somewhere between a P and the H class in terms of load limit. That would allow 8 or even 9 four wheelers and given the high capacity of such vehicles, could probably translate to nearly 300 seats of nominal capacity, perhaps 250 more comfortably.

(Say two brake 3rds @ 20 seats each; four five-compartment thirds @ nominal 50 each; a four compartment 1st @ 24 seats; and a wheelchair-accessible saloon @ say 20 seats and 4 - 6 wheelchairs)

Tom

 

But where would the fun be in this forum if we didn't have Paul telling us we were wrong every five minutes?

I really dislike the anti-public view that a lot of so called railway enthusiasts and volunteers take. The general public are not as informed as us: I accept. To say they have no interest is wrong.

To treat them poorly or think less of them because they don't have the knowledge we have is dangerous for our movement.

We need to open up and encourage interest in our railways and their locomotives; not spurn them.

 

Well perhaps you are.

 

Quite. And our job as preservationists is to educate and inform those whose knowledge is not as great as ours.