Current and Proposed New-Builds

Fair enough, from my conversations with the people who actually have to worry about these sorts of things, I never got the impression of "Oh well, at least that's the ORR off our backs for 5 or 10 years". That may just be being conscientious though of course.

 

I believe in recent years ORR policy has been to concentrate on where the greatest risk is. That means a 200,000 passengers/year railway is more likely to be visited than a 20,000 one. I also understand that those that report riddors and spads are seen as better managed than those that never report any as all railways will have incidents.

 

I've not started trying to cost one properly yet (I'm halfway through sketching out the design, but have been done over by the lockdown as I need to measure up a load of wagon components and look at some existing modified coach chassis), but I'd an idea in my head of £10-15k for a "Ready to Run" braked chassis, you to provide the requisite wagon spares. Could be a long way out on that either way once I've actually costed what's involved, but I'd hope not, particularly if a few groups got together for a batch build.

 

ISTR one of the reasons for using NPCS chassis such as from GUV's CCT's etc was that they had 3'7" dia wheels and long van springs with shock absorbers. Most wagon components will have 3'1" dia wheels and short stiff springs which would give a very 'hard' ride for a passenger carrying vehicle. Didn't someone recently suggest using wheels/springs from redundant BR1 bogies? Just a thought.
Ray.

 

Even the springing of NPCCS is not always appropriate. I can recall one rebuilt 4w coach body in particular mounted on a cut down PMV underframe, when first commissioned there were reports of a harsh uncomfortable ride, it was found necessary to have the springs modified (not sure whether this was re-tempering or a complete re-design) to give a softer ride.

Edit: I believe that a PMV was rated to carry a payload of about 10 tons, which would equate to about 150 passengers. The reduction of the underframes would presumably also reduce the tare weight. A simple 4w Victorian style coach would be unlikely to carry more than half that load most of the time.
The same problem arises with some road vehicles. I recall driving an ex-demonstrator Dennis Lance single decker, which was based on a Dennis Arrow double decker chassis. The Arrow had I think about 72 seats, the Lance had 39 seats. Resulted in a very harsh ride, especially when empty or lightly loaded.

 

That someone was me, casting round for some drawings in the hope of carrying on during lockdown!

My current draft design uses 3' 6" BR1 wheelsets, as that is what has been purchased for the initial vehicle - but I'm not sure to what extent these are readily available. They are a bit of a compromise, it would be nice to have spokes rather than disks, but there aren't many spoked 3' 6" or 3' 7" diameter wheelsets available.

I'll probably draw up options for both diameter wheelsets - the major frame components won't change significantly, although it will probably alter the brakegear quite a lot.

One of the bits of design analysis I need to do is work out the correct vehicle sprung weight, and specify suitable springing - it will probably be possible to have the spring rates of wagon springs adjusted down to suit, and in my experience this isn't particularly expensive. This is relatively easy to do as the CAD package I use calculates component weights with reasonable accuracy (although assessing the weight of an existing wooden body may prove more difficult). I'd expect getting the springing correct (and demonstrating this) will be an important part of the vehicle acceptance process needed for new build chassis.

 

Retempering steel does not significantly change the modulus of elasticity of the material. To make a spring more flexible the leads need to be thinner, narrower, longer or some must be removed. The last is probably the cheapest option. Whatever change is made the maximum stress in the leaves must be kept within the allowable limit.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

You could try calculating the volume of the framework and planking, Ignore panelling, carpet/upholstry/glass etc. then allow 1 cwt per cubic foot. Seems to come out about right for craning and stuff

 

Would the Bluebell (or other chicken shed restoring railway) have any weights recorded from when they've craned restored bodies onto underframes? @Jamessquared

Keith

 

We tend to reckon about 11 or 12 tons tare for a whole coach, but that is with a van under frame - don't know what the body alone weighs. I'll see if anyone knows - no promises.

Tom

 

Don't forget

(a) A lot of places are on furlough at present.

(b) The frames designed for the IOWSR to carry Oldbury Nos. 10 and 21. These are made from Glulam laminated oak with steel re-enforcing added as a result of the design calculations. The long springing is bespoke as well.

This is about as far as I can assist but if you can access the surprisingly good Channel 4 programme on this project it may be of some help.

 

In addition, the house magazine's account of the reconstruction of I.W.R. Oldbury No. 10 has been studied. Apparently no details could be found as to whether the original wheels were spoked, solid or wood centred. They were known to be 3Ft. diameter so wheelsets of standard B.R, type of this size were selected as appropriate after passing ultrasonic test.

 

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/great-rail-restorations-with-peter-snow/on-demand/65794-002

 

For the purpose of choosing the springs, it's the total weight that matters. Wouldn't estwdjhn's proposed new-build chassis plus a restored "chicken-shed" body probably come out much the same, give or take a ton?

 

Metropolitan Jubilee coach 353 had its restored body put on a PMV chassis. I remember a talk about it where much calculation had been done to establish the spring rate, but I think in the event some of the leaves were removed to achieve the desired result - I've done this myself - but on a Triumph Spitfire

Dave

 

It will be interesting to see how much "behind the scenes" work has been done on the various "New build" steam engines, once the "lockdown" is eased and the various shed doors are opened again.

 

Good progress on the Clan, as CTL Seal are in work. P2 also progressing.

 

Good old Sir Rod!

Sir Rod Stewart CBE to become patron of the B17 Steam Locomotive Trust

It is with great pleasure that the Trust is able to announce that legendary singer, songwriter and entertainer, Sir Roderick D. Stewart CBE (known as Sir Rod), has very kindly accepted an invitation to become our Patron.

Sir Rod has a long history of being a railway enthusiast and has actively been creating his own model railway layouts for many years. To have the support of a high-profile personality like Sir Rod is a great boost at this time!

It is possible that he may have some personal memories of the B17s, as he spent his early years in London. For many years he has lived in Essex and it is therefore great to have a local personality supporting a local engine!!

A number of the B17 Class were named after football clubs and were known as 'Footballers'. Sir Rod is also a fan of the game and so his interest in these locomotives is even more appropriate. He lived three miles away from Highbury Stadium and was an Arsenal supporter in his early days, when playing for London Schoolboys. He is now a passionate Glasgow Celtic Fan. Their football ground is within four miles of the North British Locomotive Company (NBL) Works in Glasgow, where the B17 design was completed, and the first ten locomotives were built in 1928.

The B17 Steam Locomotive Trust is delighted to welcome Sir Rod as our Patron and we look forward to meeting him in the future to share a common interest in railways as we progress with Spirit of Sandringham.

 

^This is the real one, not the wooden one right ?

 

Yes!
I am pleased to see this is still making good progress and I live in hope that, eventually, they also use it with an A4 front and casing, to make the B17/5 version.