My honest view is that, although I'll defend ... indeed applaud ... Bulleid's attempt to do other than watch steam wither and die (and the Southern's board for giving him the go-ahead), the only reasonable conclusion is that the project ultimately failed. The insurmountable problems, as I see 'em were: (a) unacceptable lateral balance, due to the offset boiler, could only be rectified by abandoning the side corridor linking the cabs (b) firing arragements were unacceptable for a production run, could possibly be addressed with automated firing, but use of (domestic) coal was an imperative (c) sleeve valves, with all evidence suggesting they're unsuitable for any application not involving sustained operation at constant speed Leader's 'successor', CIÉ CC1, employed central crew accomodations and a centrally positioned boiler, hence didn't suffer the lateral balance issues (think 'double Fairle' .... with a square boiler!), and eschewed 6 sleeve valved cylinders in favour of 4 piston actuated ones. With the different fuel (peat, not turf!), there's no realistic comparison to be made with Leader's firing arrangements. Although CC1 did successfully operate a (very) few freight turns, it was never 'handed over' into capital stock. I'd summarise the matter thus: With technological advances over the past seven decades, is a double ended, total adhesion steam loco now a realistic possibility? Probably. Is there any concievable reason to commit the considerable resources neccessary to persue such a possibility? Let's be honest ..... not really.