Current and Proposed New-Builds

indeed, just looking for how a turned thing could end up not concentric

 

As I read it the problem is actually the quality of the welding when the keyway was moved nine years ago, not the wheel being out of true.

Dave

 

Was that done before or after the turning?

 

Sorry that's not clear.

Dave

 

As I understand it, if I remember correctly, the driving wheels were cast and turned, then the keyways were machined. It was subsequently found that the keyways had been machined incorrectly, and remedial work involved welding up the keyways, and re-machining them. It's the paperwork for the welding up and re-machining which is currently being sought. I am sure Gavin Shell will know much more than I do regarding the issue, but I'll consult my copies of The Warrior, and will also have a look through the many Engineering Reports on the Unknown Warrior website, and see if I can find more out.
According to the latest Warrior, as I read it, the pressing-off of 3 wheels will only be an issue if the relevant certification paperwork can't be located, and the Patriot Project team are confident that it will be located...

Richard.

 

I very much like some of the small 4-6-0 types from the Pre-Grouping era, which are of a suitable size for some of the larger heritage railways of today. The NER Class S (LNER B13) was among the most attractive and would certainly be on my personal short-list of fantasy new-build projects.

https://www.lner.info/locos/B/b13.php

But unfortunately, many of these early 4-6-0 designs had defective grate/ash-pan layouts which seriously impacted on performance. The Tuplin book "North Eastern Steam" includes a diagram (see attachment) of the layouts on some NER types. The R-class 4-4-0 (LNER D20) had grate between the axles with air-entry front and back, and a reputation for being able to steam hard and run fast over long distances. The S-class 4-6-0 had rear axle under the grate, with no rear air intake. The ashpan was closely under the grate for about the rear third of its length, which meant that area could become clogged with ash on a long run.

I must leave the engineers and footplate experts to assess whether such a design fault could be tolerated on a heritage railway with only short journeys. It may be that the design could be modified to ease the problem, but any easy modification would have been made back in NER days. Questions of historical authenticity also come into play if designs are altered. I suspect that if a heritage railway loco superintendent were offered a new-build S/B13, the reply would be on the lines of "Umm. If you've got some money, our very useful BR Standard 4MT needs an overhaul."

 

How about a GSWR superheated 4-6-0? Not hugely powerful, but nothing wrong with them and Scotland is seriously under-represented?

 

Manson's 4-6-0s were very handsome, and well-liked. Unfortunately swept away swiftly by the LMS when Stanier machines ousted the Midland 2Ps from their first-line duties. (Not that there's anything wrong with Stanier machines of course!)

Richard.

 

I certainly agree that the G&SWR Manson 4-6-0s were handsome machines.

https://railway-photography.smugmug...son/Manson-GSWR-128-381-Class-4-6-0/i-qzKQbXB

The engines had the rear axle set under the back of the firebox - similar arrangement to that seen in the Highland Railway Castle and River classes, and later in the LNER Sandringhams and (Thompson) B1s. So would not have suffered the ash-clogging that could afflict the NER S (B13)-class. They are said to have been capable of good performance, with speeds up to 85 mph recorded. There do seem to have been issues with frame weakness and joints working loose at the front end. Later builds had strengthened frames.

The final pair in 1911 had superheaters and cylinders upped to 21-in, which required the cylinder block to be raised and inclined to clear platform edges. According to CP Atkins "Scottish 4-6-0 Classes", these engines set a British record for standard-gauge width over cylinders at 9ft 0¾in. Some LSWR and GCR types were wider over platforms and side-tanks. So if anyone is thinking of a new-build Manson, think carefully about the route availability!

 

How come no-one has a 4 cylinder Drummond 4-6-0 on their fantasy new build list?

Tom

 

We were all politely waiting for you to nominate one, Tom!

 

It ought to remain a fantasy. According to S.C. Townroe, on the one occasion I met him, it was utterly impossible to set the valves accurately and his general opinion was "Huh!"

 

What about a nice G16?

 

There's fantasy, and then there's . . . . . . . .
Pat

 

Oh. How about an E10, then?

Tom (ducks and runs for cover ...)

 

GWR types might prefer a Kruger. Or, if you want something with a bit of "get up and go", one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BER_2002_Exeter.jpg

 

Now that brings a whole new meaning to the phrase, 'gauging issues'.

 

Webb compound or Austin 7 anyone?

 

Do You take credit cards?
I have been phantazizing E10 and derivatives for years.
Original with two Joy and two Stephenson.
Full size model with one outside Walcharts,one outside Caprotti or Cossart and a Joy and a Stephenson for the insiders.
Still uncoupled.
Mr Urie considered to take one in and modify it but war and life got in the way.Let us finish the job.
The 11 feet driver distance was seen as a barrier to coupling rods at high speed.
Blue Peter video was sound analyzed and it did 160 mph/12 rev per second before things went out of shape.
Our coupled E10 will do 7 rev per second at 100 mph.Our E10 modified coupling rods are 11 feet and Blue Peter 6feet 6.
Urie could have made two outside cylinders but educational/entertaining value equal to zero.
He could have made a three cylinder compound but one still exist.
A Two cylinder inside /outside compound with two different valve gears
What valve gear will be most fun to explain to spoiled children?
By the way Beyer et al made 10 feet five long coupling rods for some Irish 4-4-0.

 

Mr Dean of the GWR could offer you a pair of 2-4-0 locos built in 1886 (one for broad-gauge, one for standard gauge), which were tandem compounds with four inside cylinders but only two connecting rods - low-pressure cylinders placed in front of the high-pressure cylinders. They did not work well.

There was only one other tandem compound in Britain - on the North British Railway around the same time, rebuilt from the engine that had fallen into the river during the Tay Bridge collapse. Worked for a bit longer than Dean's engines, but converted back to simple after a few years. Another case of four inside cylinders - Britain never had any compounds with four outside cylinders.