Current and Proposed New-Builds

Funnily enough, a lot of conventional 0-4-4T designs weren't necessarily very flexible - the bogie throw needed gets quite significant because of the large gap between it and the fixed axles to fit the firebox in. Take Adams' designs for the LSWR - he went from 4-4-2T to 0-4-4T to get more power in for a given length and weight, and yet the Radial tanks famously dominated the Lyme Regis branch because even the O2s couldn't routinely be used without straining the frames and causing leaks in the tanks. In theory, a single Fairlie could have worked quite well for that application. If the SR had done what BR did years later and eased some curves (to allow Ivatt 2MTs when it was eventually done), maybe they wouldn't have had to maintain a niche fleet for a single line, but then we wouldn't have 488 preserved and that would be a great pity.

The obvious justification for a single Fairlie is if you already have a fleet of double Fairlies and want a lighter-duty design which uses a common power bogie. That's a bit of a niche market, mind you.

 

It was almost new when I sampled it but it rode beautifully then. My reason for the "but" in my previous posting is that, as M. Mallett observed, there are no advantages in haulage power to compensate for the added complication.

Paul H

 

...that said, 8126 gives us not merely two further factors for consideration, but an idea of just what kind of line would most benefit from application of Mr Fairlie's patent locomotive... now we've just got to have one to go head to head with 30583!! (Tongue firmly in cheek!)

 

No arguments from me there: but is the number of cylinders a factor potentially? Two cylinder locomotives in almost all circumstances drive onto the same axle, I question if all three cylinder and four cylinder machines do?

Both Tornado and recently outshopped Lyn have roller bearings. This suggests some level of affordability with an eye on the roller bearings increasing overall mileage between renewals.

(On a side note, what a shame this argument is not present whenever a certain chief mechanical engineer is mentioned by the Gresley acolytes...)

I don't know - but I would happily believe it. The V2 was a very good design.

It is interesting that you bring this up. Thompson's A1/1 had A4 frames and A4 type stretchers married to the divided drive and did not suffer the frame cracking that the A2/2s were almost legendary for at the position of the cylinders.

It did however suffer a little in service as a prototype with many components standard to the A4s and many standard with the Thompson Pacifics. One offs always seem to require more attention and this was true of the W1 also. The two one offs of the LNER have a few interesting parallels in their rebuilt forms.

I don't see why it has to be correct to change a group's thinking: the aim was to bring back a much loved locomotive class. If you have incorporated all of Porta's changes, you do not have a Peppercorn A1 but a Porta Pacific and that was not the group's aim. There is absolutely no shame in producing something historically relevant and it is also easier to get certification based on grandfather's rights than a whole new design.

But that is entirely the point. It is not required to match the 1930s standard. It is 2017 now and it was 2008 when Tornado took to the rails. The modern railway has rightly moved on.

In any event - the top LNER expresses of the 1930s - the Silver Jubilee, The Coronation, the West Riding - these were articulated trains which were shorter than other passenger trains of the period and thus their total tonnage was lower.

They were expected to be pulled at a high average speed. The difference in the setup in pre war to post second world war in terms of the ECML expresses was not stark, but it was clear.

How often does Tornado have a 47 on the back in reality? Don't think that's very often if at all.

That is entirely incorrect. The engine itself is better built than the originals and has been tested to death in a number of ways to prove the prototype and help pave the way for future locomotives.

The difference is she's not required to match the originals' performances on a day to day basis. 21st Century steam on the mainline in Britain does not require performances of eighty or so years ago. Why would you push a locomotive and risk heavier wear and tear when you simply don't need to?

I rather think the rest of the world has been watching Tornado in particular and is hoping to catch us up, actually.

 

I see this has dived off into another Tornado discussion. I think the build quality of 80 years ago by those that made them day in day out would be just as good as making an engine with modern techniques. Its one of the paradoxes that Tornado group uses to showcase their engine, but is also an Achilles heel.

Tornado, though an excellent build is still a 1948 design built more recently. It has all the same hallmarks of a steam engine. Cylinders, outside motion, boiler cycles, boiler pressure, etc. Just because Tornado was built where mm was used for tolerances rather than imperial measures makes no difference. The skill and ability of a locomotive works with a highly trained and experienced workforce 80 years ago would still have been able to manufacture a locomotive with tolerances just as tight, otherwise engines would shake themselves to bits and the 100,000 miles between overhauls would have been impossible. They knew their trade and profession and would iron out problems with engines. Engines duties 80 years ago would see them need to be pressed into traffic and cope with many duties. Whether it be fast fright, express passenger, mail - whatever. Todays engines also are hard pressed to accelerate quickly, keep time and perform when needed - so in terms of graft, both are pretty tough.

It would be unfair to try one-upmanship between engines back then and now as both have their merits and duties, yet Tornado still tries to do this, by professing itself to be better because it is newer. I think the crew of Union could point to reliability over decades that Tornado would eventually hope to match, and Clan Line still usurps Tornado when the engine is available as the preferred choice for the VSOE. Fact is that Tornado is just as capable and other engines are out there that although older are just as good at performing today than the new build machine. But this is an argument that Tornado fans dismiss, with no good reason. Yes 90 mph might be wanted, but if other engines and operators chose to there are engines today that could match that achievement. Bittern already has and in many ways laid the foundations in reasoning for Tornado to then do it later.

And while Tornado group and fans are quick to point out that older engines are worn and need some TLC, Tornados also an engine shaking off teething trouble still as the group understands the workings of the leviathan they have created. Her boiler (a change from the original specs) had to be returned 2 and a half years in, it then had an intermediate 2 and half years later, before a full overhaul about the same time afterwards. I would think that is all just bedding in and working out best practice as it falls in line with whats expected but its a bit rich for them to profess excellence and deny their lessons learned too.

Tornado is a fantastic achievement and is the pioneer new build locomotive that spurred others to start to rebuild and imagine what can be done. The world might be watching, Tornado in particular, but just as new build might want to catch up with Tornado, so the A1 Trust has a lot to learn from established groups and they too from how Tornados modern operation is a successful model for the future.

 

So in an effort to kick this back towards new builds - Id like to draw on a few issues and suggest other areas for thought.

Firstly, people have mentioned gaps. These being gaps in locomotives or groups that show the progression of regions, development etc. While those historical gaps might be interesting and academic, to enthusiasts they are not the gaps that matter. The future will be a case of preserved steam existing on certain railways that provide a tourist attraction. More people will be travelling on preserved steam than mainline, even though the future of this is not in any danger as the industry moves to incorporate safer running and modern practice.

So, what's needed is to find where the gaps are in preservation and then select an engine needed to fill such gaps and give a long term option that helps modern day preservation and gives the public the attraction they would like for decades and generations to come.

Its true that some engines will get worn and that owning groups might take longer with overhauls as memberships shrink and some have more resources than others. Its therefore likely that a few lines with regular incomes will all be looking for a medium powered engine that can be used reliably alongside their regular working fleet. An engine that doesn't try to be centre stage, just fits in and gets on with the regular seasonal work, and masquerades as a traditional engine. Most railways don't have turntables at either end, and operational issues mean that such a design needs a good route availability - so whats needed is a medium sized tank engine.

My suggestion would be the L4. This would be an adaptation of the Thompson L1. The wheel arrangement gives it good performance for both forward and backward running. The tank size and coal would give adequate consumption for a roster on most preserved railways. Its also powerful enough, but I would in turn modify the design to copy that of K1. The two classes are similar in terms of wheel size used, but the K1 has been a reliable and powerful performer. While the two classes are nearly identical on paper in terms of most engineering stats, K1 has proved such a layout works. I would also fit the engine with roller baring's to help eliminate axel box wear, and have options for air brakes, and TPWS installation.

The other area Id look at is why build one? If you build more than one you can cut the costs of the tooling for an engine. Tornado does show that parts can be used to engineer another engine, and they plan something similar hence the announcement for the V4 and V1/3 tank. But building more than one engine and then having it available for purchase of built to make a pool of them then gives more value for money. Should this element of the project work, then your looking at a rolling programme of them being made and then overhauled. Start up costs pay for the first two, these then pay for no. 3, then 2 and 3 pay for the overhaul of no. 1. All the time covernentors can still contribute to the project.

While its all academic, and an interesting hypothesis, I think it would do more for the future of steam than building engines that are older designs and in some cases wouldn't have the range or power to match some preserved lines needs and that it would be more use than another engine that just remains mainline.

Still, as much as I might like it and dream. Its just an idea...

 

One wonders , under present day circumstances, what the difference is in cost between buying a suitable roller bearing (off the shelf ? and matching journals and hornfaces to it) and making a traditional white metal lined axle box is.
If I recall correctly Patriot is using 'Normals' ... did they look into roller bearings ?

 

It is interesting that BR never came down firmly in favour of roller bearings on steam locos, many of the Standard classes having plain bearings I think, and even the Britannias being a mixture of locos with plain bearings and locos with roller bearings. As Cox notes in his 1944 paper to the ILE, a roller bearing only addresses the journal bearing, not the wear in the hornfaces, and the final standard axleboxes of the Big Four were pretty good in freedom from running hot. Roller bearings may need less lubricant and less care in maintenance (and are less prone to lubrication pipes etc being disturbed), which may be why they found favour in the USA where the cost and additional weight was of less consequence, but most preserved locos lead a fairly pampered life and costs of lubricant are not a major factor. Were the increased mileages due to the roller bearing per se or to other changes like increase in journal size, general reduction in tolerances, or fitting of manganese steel liners or other improvements in the box/horn interface? I guess 82045 (rather than Catch Me Who Can ) would have been an obvious candidate for roller bearings, but presumably that was considered and rejected?

 

I dunno. Compare the build quality of a 1948 car with a modern car. Bearing in mind all the advances that have been made in precision engineering since then it would be disappointing if a best practice new locomotive were not assembled with more precision than even the best factories could manage in 1948. And there is some evidence that even then not all were equal. Whether, bearing in mind all the problems of finance and access to state of the art equipment, every new build is assembled to best practice is perhaps another matter.

 

Nowhere have I said at any point that Tornado is better than any other engine on the mainline. It is absolutely factual to say it is better built than the original A1s, and it is also better equipped than the originals too.

Stating that does not denigrate any other locomotive groups. I don't understand where this comes from, but it is untrue that the A1 Trust play on this and in doing so denigrate other locomotive owners.

I do not understand your choice of language at all.

Usurp?

Tornado filled in. Clan Line was unavailable and Tornado was made available. You have twisted that spectacularly around.

And again, nobody from the Trust has claimed other locomotives are incapable or not as capable at Tornado. That's a nonsense and I would like you to point to where anyone has said that.

Yes, they could choose to. They haven't, the A1 Trust has. So what? Bittern did it first, great achievement. Why does it matter?

There seems to be a hell of a lot of bitterness being aimed at Tornado and her trust here. I've only ever been ever commenting on the engineering up to this point.

1) I've never professed that older engines are worn and need TLC, neither has any trust member or covenanter that I have heard
2) Tornado's boiler issues are well known and the fixes created for her at the time have resulted in a very good period of service without troubles - nearly five years now
3) The Trust does have exacting levels of excellence and their response to the issues encountered with their boiler shows their organisational skills are something other groups could learn from.

It is not a one way street and I don't believe I stated that it was - and neither has the A1 Trust either.

How did this suddenly become a character assassination of the A1 Trust's character and working practices?

 

A re-design of the frames to start with. Roller bearing axle boxes are wider than conventional axle boxes. Then you have the old chestnut of the wheel to axle interface.

 

Say that again? Rest of the world?

Fact is that A1 trusts belief is that they think they are special and should be given special permission because they are newer. They even put out in press releases that they aimed for and wanted 90 mph just because of that fact. Every time someone raises an issue, discusses Tornado your the leading defendant for their cause - its as easy as sticking into a post on Stanier/Collett/Gresley that they were better than Thompson and you'd charge into that too.

That's fine, I admire your passion for your interests, but equally so everyone defending an issue glosses over the areas that detract from your cause - as anyone wishing to win a debate would do. I am again merely being someone more akin to devils advocate and pointing out that the reasons Tornado give for them being special and newer don't matter as the design is still based on tech from 1948 with all the same properties of an engine 80 years old.

 

Would there be a greater difference between the two if the speed of engines was likely to be around 25mph. I think the difference would be negligible. It might matter if the engine was to be based on a line that saw regular sustained use and a heavy workload, like the NYMR, and then over successive seasons. There I think the difference would be worth investigating.

 

Thanks Standard, but my question was one of cost. Admittedly the in-depth consideration of a wider hornspace is not without cost or may not be feasible without a re think of the frames for some designs- but that consideration aside; when railway workshops we're turning out and furnishing hundreds of plain bearing axleboxes a year the cost of these would no doubt have been much less than buying in roller bearings. The situation now is different ?

 

But the A1 is different.

First, It comes with verifiable material spec sheets for one, ever gram of material on that machine that is safety critical, came from a verifiable supplier with traceable history. That gives any assuring body confidence in the machine.

Second, its been build in broad daylight, using modern verifiable methods, in plain sight of the assuring bodies, primarily because it happened in 2008, and not 1948. Design is immaterial, its made to modern standards.

Devils advocate or not, Tornado is special, and I have no prejudice towards any loco. If I was the one granting permission for 90, I know which one id initially feel better about, especially if my knowledge of steam locos was amateur at best.

Are you a practicing engineer? The benefits of roller bearings are well proven, and if you are building a new loco from the ground up, its in this Engineers opinion, a no brainer, on maintenance grounds alone, let alone tolerances and fitment.

 

No I'm not a practicing engineer, and would agree that if I was designing an engine that Id also go for roller bearings for the exact same reasons you describe. Yet for historical reasons some might want to rebuild a class to the exact design spec, ignoring the benefits that you and I would rather see included.

My question is that if the operation of the engine was on a line that did not operate as much or did not have the length in mileage, heavy loads then would the difference that noticeable. Obviously, if I was building an L1/L4 tank to operate regular services on something like the NYMR, SVR, PDSR, on a daily basis throughout most of the summer season, then roller bearings and whatever else that would be beneficial for maintenance and operation would be included.

Again I don't disagree. Tornado's build quality overall has been very impressive and I think that now the engine has a proven track record. However, other machines designed years ago had skilled engineers and years of experience. They also have a much longer and better proven track record of operation. My first choice for 90 mph would have been Union of South Africa, but Tornado is equal to the task for its construction and importantly how its been operated, and not better just because its newer.

 

Context is key I'm afraid. I was responding to the assertion made that GB in particular somehow falls behind the rest of the world.

Tornado is but one example in which we have led the way in railway preservation. It is the one I know the most about and therefore the one I feel most qualified to retort with.

That you interpreted my words as somehow denigrating the rest of the UKs loco fleet is on you, not me. No one else has!

Oh give over. They didn't do that at all. You're literally making that up. Go read the trusts archives, go read SR, HR, TRM and what was printed and get that chip off your shoulder.

Ridiculous.

I don't think anyone has claimed she is anything but.

I rather think you've confused the context of my previous posts in a way that somehow in a warped way means I consider all other engines irrelevant because Tornado exists.

Far from the truth and you can look at my broader interests on my website, twitter, my posts in here and my support of railway heritage in this country in general.

 

Well.... not 'just' at any rate. These considerations take us straight to the realms of assured non-destructive testing. Much of what is available now was simply inconceivable to the best of engineers 'back in the day'. Even the last of the greats worked at a time when MTBF was naval shorthand for Motor Torpedo Boat Not Working. I've never been convinced by the Bulleid dictum 'if it never fails, it was over-engineered', but modern construction methodology gives confidence that a given percentage of "whatever it happens to be" can be expected to have a useful life of 'x' years, or be good for 'y' number of miles with far more certainty than half a century ago.

Of course, there's (usually) no reason why any chunk of metal to an 80 year old design can't be tested using modern methods, it's just that, in most cases, no-one has got round to it yet. Theoretically, were someone to drag 'Gladstone' from the NRM (or the display line at HK if you're reading this next year), then, as part of an overhaul to mainline operating standard, was to perform adequate testing on each critical component, the only thing preventing mainline operation at over 75mph would be the lack of compliant lights.

Now, there's a thought!

 

On the subject of proposed new build steam locos, one from the USA seems to have made some progress recently. The project has been helped in no small measure by the acquisition of an existing tender of the correct type. It's massive!
https://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/

 

It's bigger than my flat! This fascinating project has it's own NP thread and it's great to see it's getting more attention this side of the pond.

http://national-preservation.com/threads/pennsylvania-rr-duplex-4-4-4-4-replica-build.973026/