Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

...that would have defeated of the significance of the class's history a bit...

 

I think this is a better thread for some of the things discussed above
Replica builds for heritage lines. | National Preservation (national-preservation.com)

The current and proposed new builds thread is a bit more serious.

 

I don't think that irony was lost on those suggesting it as a prototype. However, for our conditions, an unsuperheated loco is both considerably cheaper to construct, and has lower ongoing operational costs in maintenance.

But you can imagine the conversation: "Ah, you want to build an I3, the loco that famously demonstrated the benefits of superheating. What - you want to build an unsuperheated version?" which probably rather illustrates the degree to which funding such a project would have been a challenge.

Tom

 

Not forgetting the slight issues of finishing the H2, the 2MT, designing and building the E, resuscitating Blackmoor Vale, the 9F, NLR tank, Adams Radial, both Terriers, the Dukedog, the 4MT and the U-boat*, funding all that lot, keeping the in-ticket stuff running, fending off attempts by the NRM to offload the D (one can but dream!), surely an I1x would be a more appropriate choice for the Bluebell? After all, even if it's every bit as classy, the (superb) Wealden Belle isn't nearly so demanding a turn as the old Southern Belle!

*is that the lot, or is there an S15 or P to add to the list?

 

I wonder if coal had much to do with it? The GNR had lots of good coal to chose from, the LBSC, not so much (did they get much Kent coal?). If you are forced to import, quality and consistency will suffer, which makes it harder to design and harder to operate any given engine

 

I seem to recall coal was a significant traffic inbound from Willesden Jc., but whether or not that was steam coal, sorry, no clue.

 

Oh should have guessed as much GWR's man wouldn't turn up, ever so uppity in their superiority complex... Though that being said one could argue there was no point to Collett coming, seeing as he didn't really design all that much of his own true original and unique design/style, rather just took Churchward's work and just kept tweaking it. All the others may have done that to a certain extent too, but they also genuinely created for themselves their own distinct designs, and in doing so established their own principles and identity in the world of steam locomotive designs. Collett never really seemed to do that. Hawksworth attempted to, but the those upon the top of the ivory tower that is GWR management didn't approve that all too much it seems to me...

 

The issue of superheating doesn't exactly encourage me that other lost Southern Region designs are going be recreated. I gone along with the idea now the K class is rubbish, but I thought other lost designs like the LSWR 700, H16, SR N1, etc might had a chance too possibly. Guess not.

 

As someone who thinks new builds should be useful, i.e. generally medium powered tank locos, I would be a big fan of this project, if you promised to bring it out in Brighton umber .
As to the superheating, surely the approach would be simply not go mention it....
Or say you're building it saturated at first, but if people want to find superheating later, they can (same approach as some of the new builds re mainline running).

RPSI, FfRS, TRPS, RERPS, RHDRA, WLLRPC

 

I think the chance of anyone on the Bluebell recreating either a Black Motor of an H16 is vanishingly small. Other railways are available, of course.

There was I believe talk years ago, before 1638 was restored, of converting it to a U1 - I don't know exactly how serious that proposal was, it was well before my time.

Other people may have a different view of superheating. But for a new build, you have the header to cast, plus the costs of the flues and superheater elements. For Beachy Head, all of that came well into six figures, and you don't get it back in reduced operating costs on a loco that spends most of its time idling. (Even on the Bluebell, which is reasonably hilly, the longest the regulator is open continuously is about 7 minutes). Moreover, the flues and superheater elements then typically need replacing at every ten year overhaul. For our conditions, superheated locos just end up having a higher total operating cost. Other railways may have a different perception, of course.

Tom

 

I gather it's not that easy to 'bolt on' mainline running later, though; the things one needs for mainline running of new-build construction (even if to an old design) are not just things like TPWS, etc gear, which can be added, but also things like parts provider paperwork, which both i) add expense, and ii) are almost impossible to round up later. That's why new-build projects have to make the mainline-capable/not-mainline fairly early on, as a fundamental decision. Yes, there is a middle path (which is to build to a mainline standard. but leave the TPMS/etc gear to later - don't recall offhand a loco project that has done that), but I' not sure there is an equivalent for superheating.

Noel

 

Mr. Maunsell famously eschewed superheating on his Z class, actually for reasons not a million miles away from those Tom mentions with regard to the nature of Bluebell operations.

While I doubt any heritage line's loads or gradients would come close to defeating them, with their distinctly prominent fore and aft overhang though, quite how they'd ride at 25mph is another matter entirely. One there for the computer modellers, well before anyone suggests cutting metal, methinks ..... and they only ever came in the one colour!

 

I hadn't meant the Bluebell building the above mentioned classes. I had hoped the 700 at least being something maybe Swanage could do once a proper workshop was found. As it is they struggling to finish the N class at the moment.

I should have stuck being a Westernite. At least we getting a Grange and a Night Owl...

 

Just for the record, nor was I. In this case, my post was more of a musing on Tom's comments re: superheating and TBH, I should probably have just left right there.

 

The recreation of the Brighton Atlantic found that they could use the superheater header of a West Country .

Now I'm not sure this is straightforward but it suggests that when the boiler for the Bulleid Pacifics was designed in the late 1930s
after C S Cocks was taken on for the task under Bulleid somebody copied the enormous superheater that grew on the Great Northern
Atlanics under Gresley. Not an unlikely thing to have in mind and well known to be very successful.

PS I'm quite sure you are right about the inspiration for the Merchant Navies coming from Cock of the North but that is another story,
as is thst the Q1s did not give much trouble with the driving axle boxes as a number of big 0-6-0s did - the LNER J39s among them.
What Bulleid had known well........

 

It's not that simple as to say 'just fit superheating later'. New firebox and smokebox tubeplates with all the attendant costs of fitting them for starters; almost certainly a complete re-vamp of the smokebox pipework, assuming that the smokebox has the room, plus the cost of the header, flues, tubes and elements. £350K or more?

 

It wasn't a serious suggestion, what I was actually suggesting was that the saturated I3 proponents could pretend it would be fitted later!

RPSI, FfRS, TRPS, RERPS, RHDRA, WLLRPC

 

I still reckon an I1x more appropriate to the Bluebell and better suited to heritage use generally. Check the dimensions (especially the drivers) to see what I'm wittering on about.

 

Do you reckon at lineside you could actually tell if superheated or not (assuming anything external things like snifter valves were fitted) for an engine pottering at 25 mph?

I think a newbuild Q1 would be the way forward, there's a Q knocking around you could saw up... <fx: runs away>

 

I would chain myself up to the Q if any attempt to break it was made...