If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Current and Proposed New-Builds

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by aron33, Aug 15, 2017.

  1. Kinghambranch

    Kinghambranch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    White Rose County
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Yes indeed, but there are some aspects of paragraph 2 of BrightonBaltic's post that I can appreciate to an extent. I've not visited the GWS for some years but it may well now be a victim of the growth of heritage lines in the UK. Recent reports from visitors seem to underline this view. Certainly I think there would be more merit in a Castle and a Saint running between Cheltenham Race Course and Broadway. (I remember the former locos running on the line but not the latter!) Regarding the 47xx, I was one of the unbelievers who thought that such a loco would never be built and posted so on Nat. Pres. some time ago. It would seem that I was wrong (again!). There's no evidence I've seen that a 47xx ever traversed what is now the GWSR but it wouldn't look out of place. Our 2807 can do the job well enough though (once we can get back to overhauling it). I can't comment on the West Somerset Railway (probably the only person on Planet Earth who can't or doesn't by the look of this website!) as I've yet to visit but it could well end up as BrightonBaltic suggests. I hope not. Regarding his view of that thing on pallets at Mizens pretending to be a B17, well, yes, that's what it seems to be! There's one at Llangollen that is progressing well enough anyway. I can see the merit in using a Pacer or two on some heritage lines as they would be relatively cheap and a good way to bimble along a scenic heritage line, as long as all loose items were safely stowed! As regards people, well, I freely admit to being very sad to see loved ones dying without their families but pleased in seeing Mother Nature reminding us that this Earth isn't ours actually.
     
  2. MellishR

    MellishR Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,975
    Likes Received:
    3,658
    I agree with some of that and disagree with some of it but I applaud you for not mincing your words.
     
  3. marshall5

    marshall5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    2,331
    Location:
    i.o.m
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Weren't the recent ones donated? Can't understand why anyone would want one, or willingly ride in one, myself but hey-ho!
    Ray.
     
  4. MattA

    MattA Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    304
    Location:
    82F
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Well if they were donated, that merely improves the case in favour of these places recieving the Pacers, and also debunks someone's suggestion on the previous page that the railways were "wasting their donations" on them!
     
  5. hyboy

    hyboy New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bristol
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
     
  6. hyboy

    hyboy New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bristol
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Sometimes it's best to leave a rant unanswered but just to set the record straight can l quote from the projects own December newsletter comparing the cost of restoring their existing No.1 boiler with constructing a new No.7 " ..we could follow the same path with 4709 and use the boiler from 2861 which would potentially be a cheaper solution by perhaps as much as £500,000." !
     
    ghost likes this.
  7. BrightonBaltic

    BrightonBaltic Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    242
    A, it won't be half a mil cheaper.
    B, the new No7 won't need further radical surgery after a single decade's use, so any additional expense now will be fully offset over twenty years' operation, but then I daresay you won't be alive then and Didcot will probably have closed!
    C, it won't give the loco enough steam to work properly over any half decent distance
    D, it'd be another sham like the Hawksworth County that bears no relationship under the sheet metal to the real thing.
     
  8. ghost

    ghost Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    3,093
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Ireland
    A. Are you a boilersmith?
    B. Are you a boilersmith?
    C. Are you a boiler/steam loco designer? Incidentally, if it only works heritage lines, it will only be working relative short journeys.
    D. Sham is rather a strong word. The County has reduced boiler pressure, but again, if it only runs on preserved lines this is not likely to be an issue.

    Keith
     
  9. MattA

    MattA Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    304
    Location:
    82F
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Am I right in thinking that the No. 1 boiler is the same type used on the 28xx/2884s? That type of boiler seems to have given these 150+ engines plenty of steam to work fair distances from their brand new days, right through to the end of BR and in preservation. Therefore the boiler type itself is capable. Is the old No. 1 mooted for 4709 so bad that, even when restored, it steams significantly worse than those poorly-maintained engines working in the 1960s?
     
    ross and ghost like this.
  10. ghost

    ghost Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    3,093
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Ireland
    That is correct Matt - it's the boiler from 2861. The prototype 4700 worked with a No1 boiler for 2 years so I can't see why it would cause a problem for a loco operating on a heritage line. There seems to be some ambiguity about whether the GWS wishes to take this particular loco on the mainline, however, it was previously discussed on this thread the possibility that NR may restrict the loco to 50 mph on the mainline which may well kill off any hope of taking it mainline anyway.

    Keith
     
  11. GW 5972

    GW 5972 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Also Halls and Granges and they did OK!!
     
    MattA and ghost like this.
  12. MellishR

    MellishR Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,975
    Likes Received:
    3,658
    Further to Ghost's* D: the bottom half of the County will be pretty accurate: it's only the boiler that will be significantly different, as I and others have muttered about before. 4709 will have a proper brand new no. 7 boiler rather than a refurbished no. 1, whereas the County will have a mostly brand new boiler with a few refurbished bits of an 8F boiler, requiring a much reduced working pressure for a marginal saving of money. On preserved lines at 25 mph it may not matter much either way, but the contrast between the choices for these two locos is striking.

    Edit: a further thought. A new 280 psi boiler for the County would have allowed smaller cylinders, removing one of the obstacles to main line running. Keeping the Hall's wheels, with their smaller diameter barely noticeable behind the splasher, would have saved more cash and allowed even smaller cylinders.

    *Further edit: Sorry, that was the wrong reference. I was responding to BrightonBaltic's D, to which Ghost's was a reply.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2020
    BrightonBaltic likes this.
  13. BrightonBaltic

    BrightonBaltic Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    242
    That's what I meant re the County. Last Doncaster O6 scrapped to provide the wrong firebox for the wrong boiler for a horribly compromised new build?

    Anyone who knows anything about knackered 100-year-old boilers that spent 50+ years working then a couple of decades or (in this case) rather more on a Godforsaken rain-soaked island on the north side of the Bristol Channel knows that putting 2861's boiler back into working order will be a ruinously expensive proposition... and for what? Either you have it as per the prototype, in which case the loco loses its looks and a lot of its individual appeal, or you wrap it up to look like a Standard 7 but with the wrong smoke box saddle (how buggered is that old casting btw?) and you end up with a deception on wheels. In other words, a sham.

    As one excellent South London builder once said to me, "there's two ways of doing things. Properly, or not at all!".
     
  14. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    9,746
    Likes Received:
    15,747
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
     
    andrewshimmin and jnc like this.
  15. marshall5

    marshall5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    2,331
    Location:
    i.o.m
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The cylinders on a 47xx are 1/2" larger in the bore than a 28xx and the loco is designed for fast freight - both of which require a boiler capable of producing steam at a much higher rate. Presumably Swindon decided that the steaming rate of the No1 was inadequate otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the expense of designing, building and maintaining a special boiler for such a small class.
    As regards both the 47xx and County I still believe that the time and money that the GWS and its members/donors have spent on these 'new builds' would have been better spent on the existing collection.
    Ray.
     
    MattA and ghost like this.
  16. MattA

    MattA Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    304
    Location:
    82F
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Didcot does indeed seem to have a lot - quite possibly too much - on their hands, I can't disagree with that....
     
    BrightonBaltic and jnc like this.
  17. std tank

    std tank Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,588
    Likes Received:
    736
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Liverpool
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Please get your facts right. 48518 was not an O6. It was built at Doncaster to an R.E.C. order and initially loaned to the LNER. The O6 Class were built for the LNER and consisted of 68 locos built at Brighton, Darlington and Doncaster Works. All the O6 Class locos were loaned to the LMS in 1947 and given the LMS Nos 8705 to 8772, subsequentialy BR Nos 48705 to 48772.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2020
    Bluenosejohn, andrewshimmin and MattA like this.
  18. Major Midget

    Major Midget New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2019
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    One of the Sondes
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    If I remember correctly, the 4700s were designed with the No.7 specifically in mind (and probably more if Churchward had his way), but Swindon was unable to build them for some time. Hence 4700 receiving a stopgap No.1, which wasn't as suitable for the needs of the overnight fast freights. Considering Halls and their No.1 boilers were not successful on those duties when tried, the stand-in for a 4700 on those duties was a Castle.

    I don't think doubts should be had about the performance of the No.1 for heritage use, but it would seem clear that 4709 is intended to be mainline capable, though I suspect it would be limited between 60 and 70mph. A fresh No.7 is the obvious choice for that, with the benefits that brings. I'm not too fond of the idea of the No.1 on 4709 personally. It detracts from the character of the 4700s and what they were, and if I was to be harsh, it would make 4709 look/feel a lot more like an overgrown 2800.


    (And with that, I go back to lurking. Conversation isn't exactly my thing...)
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2020
    BrightonBaltic and MattA like this.
  19. Monkey Magic

    Monkey Magic Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    6,453
    Location:
    Here, there, everywhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    While I understand the need to make compromises to meet modern day requirements and I understand the desire to fix known design flaws, it seems to me that a new build using existing parts forces unnecessary compromises that do not produce much design or economic benefit. Hence you have engines with ‘different’ boilers, wheels, cylinders etc which then force further design compromises driving the design further away from the original or force it into a corner which limits its usefulness.

    My suspicion is that these compromises will give you flawed locomotives and what savings may have been made will be lost in fixing the flaws created by the compromises.
     
    BrightonBaltic and clinker like this.
  20. City of truro fan

    City of truro fan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2015
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    81
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Honiton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I’ve decided the best new build looking at it would be lion as it’s simple to build. There is not much metal in the frames so that would be cheaper and the tender is just a box shape
     

Share This Page