Current and Proposed New-Builds

Its a bit early to say that... There has been a proposal to get the loco operational by doing so (Didcot reportedly has a 'spare' No1 available) while fund raising continues for the construction of a new No7 boiler. There is a precedent as Churchward did exactly the same thing with the first of the class while the No7 boiler was still under development.

However, as far as I know this is still just a proposal and no decision to proceed on that basis has been taken - there are a lot of things still to do before that stage is reached. As always, finance dictates the schedule.

 

Adhesive weight I get, but why are driving wheel dimensions a problem?

Dave

 

With a maximum of 25 m.p.h. permitted, acceleration is more important than speed.

PH

 

That's a fair enough point, but I can say from personal experience that on the GCRN (where 567 will initially be based, although whether that will be before or after the gap is properly bridged and what exactly that looks like remains to be seen) with 3717 City of Truro, which is of similar size, weight, power and dimensions (slightly larger in all cases but that in my opinion isn't a massive difference) and said GWR 4-4-0 was able to cope perfectly with the demands imposed on it. We had no issues with the loco failing to accelerate away from stations, and the loco has been able to cope perfectly well on other railways like the GWSR, GCR, NNR, SVR, DFR etc. You will also find that on most preserved railways the timetables are not so strict so that a loco with slightly slower acceleration is significantly compensated in its ability to keep to time, only on somewhere like the GCR so they expect locos to rapidly accelerate up to line speed at a similar rate to that which would have been done in steam era, and then stay there. So, while I get where your reservation comes from, I do not think the reality is such that the Class 2 will be so unsuitable for preserved railway use that it is not practical to construct and then run it. Besides, in the twilight of their careers many locos of this size and type would have been used on stopping services, so if they could do it then, there is no reason to suggest they couldn't do it now

 

Well, with my thoughts about "big chufferitis" you would not expect me to disagree too much but, myself, I would have favoured some sort of M.S.&L or G.C. 0-6-0.

PH

 

I am sure that trundling 5 or 6 Mark 1s/2s at 25 mph would be well within the capabilities of both 567 and a George V

 

Agreed. It's true that 567 won't have massive tractive effort or adhesive weight, but not much less than the coal tank. A while ago I travelled behind the coal tank on the GCR (where 567 is destined for) and it managed just fine.

The George V should be even better in both respects.

Dave

 

You really need to quote gradients as well as loads - 5/6 Mark 1s behind a class 1/2 is beyond reasonable limits on a line with gradients around 1 in 80 or steeper; absolutely no issue at all if your ruling gradient is about 1 in 250 or less. Somewhere in-between there would be a gradient at which loco power ceases to be the governing issue on train length, and some other factor (for example, platform length, or even just available rolling stock) becomes the defining issue.

Tom

 

I did try to find the gradients on the GCR but couldn't find any details. From memory there are no significant gradients, but happy to be corrected.

Dave

 

So the GCR is perfect for the loco. Hopefully hauling the GCR carriages rather than Mk1s all the time.

The George however is being built to mainline standards as their plan is to haul mainline charters. I don't know much about them tbh but I don't know if it's powerful enough to fulfill the role. I would have thought anything less than a class 5 isn't ideal. How has the class 4 (76084)done on its mainline tours?

 

The George’s were classed as 3 by the LMS, they were considered good haulers and could do more than this suggested, but were hammered a lot in both LNWR and LMS days. Probably capable of comparable work to 76084 I would guess

 

the GCR London extension had a ruling grade of 1 in 176, if i remember correctly. On that basis even my little 0-4-0ST will happily haul 10 mk.1's. Admittedly, not at 25 mph, though!

 

Nascent new group for an Irish NG loco. See Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/562353547490786/

 

Anybody up for a Caledonian Pug? (296 Class 0-4-0ST). Also a home-built tender for it.

 

One of the very similar NBR class survives.
I've got a Hornby example of the Caley ones if you're desperate.

 

Since the Glasgow & South Western Railway is poorly represented, with only one 0-6-0T, why not add on buy building a Manson 266 class 0-4-4T?

 

Could be popular? I can just visualise it painted green, lined red, with a happy face covering the smokebox door.

 

Very popular if like the Hornby Model it's capable of beating Mallards record without streamlining

 

I wonder if things like the g5 and the f5 prove successful once built if we won’t see more projects looking at these kinds of locos. The view is maybe that things like the m7, 439 are a little underpowered but if the g5 and f5 can prove themselves as able to do a job well then this might not be the type of loco of choice in the future.

As I said earlier a successful project breeds successful projects and if the promotors can point to a successful similar design then it might bring funders on board

 

Only if you finish it's overhaul...