LSWR T1 new build ?

Oh no!! Mr Angry from Purley is back again!! Run!!!

 

I think you are being unfair there, the chap cares about 'the movement' enough to spend his time writing where he thinks things are going wrong. You might not agree, but making fun of it seems a bit daft

 

I agree. If realism was the sole guiding force in the heritage sector - not just railways - then many things would never have been saved, let alone restored to their former glory.

 

Hello, I am new to this site, but I came across it whilst looking for further information for building the Slaters Plastikard Rising Star kit SK03 LSWR Adams class A12/Jubilee, I am a modeller in O gauge and am at present modelling rolling stock of the LSWR. I couldn't help myself but read this forum about the class T1 boiler that has been saved from going to scrap, I have a copy of a book printed by Wild Swan publications, it is D.L. Bradleys LSWR Locomotives The Adams classes, (I also have the other three volumes in this series,) in the back of this publication are General Arrangement Drawings of 1.5 inches to the foot scaled down to 7mm to the foot, ideal for making O gauge models, out of the two classes of locomotives mentioned in this forum the only G.A. in the book is for the A12. I am a member of the South Western Circle, and if any drawings for the T1 still exist, then I would advise asking there for their assistance.

 

LSWR order numbers for locomotives can be a bit confusing, but the class derived from the first order number whilst consecutive order numbers for the same locomotive built did not form a sub class, these fell in line with the original order number. I saw a mention of F6, this was the second order number for 10 T1s numbered between 1-10, the order of T1 was for the first 20 to be built numbered between 61-80, this is taken from the D L Bradley book I have covering LSWR Locomotives the Adams Classes, there were two other orders for the other locomotives of the T1 class that were built, these being S6 and A7, there was a last order placed for 10 but cancelled by Drummond but the order number is not recorded. Order number S6 covered locomotives numbered between 11-20 whilst order number A7 covered locomotives numbers between 358-367, the order that was cancelled would have covered locomotives numbered between 368-377. Another gem of the information covered by D L Bradley is that locomotives built to orders F6 and S6 differed from the original because their steam chests were between the cylinders, they had the Adams one piece cast iron stove pipe chimneys and their side tanks reduced to 1,000 gallons, the originals had side tanks that carried 1,200 gallons, but the loss in the side tanks were made up on the F6 and S6 locomotives by the addition of a well tank under the coal bunker, this resulted in the total weight of coal carried being 2 tons. So here is a question about the saved T1 boiler, where are the steam chests located?
The last order of A7 was built similar to orders F6 and S6 but with certain Drummond alterations, these being, Drummond pattern numberplates, coal rails,coverless safety valves, hinged footplate doors, plain splashers and the hand railing terminating at the smokebox with a seperate handrail on the smokebox front, number 364 was fitted with a Drummond spark arrester and thus had a conical smokebox door, the Drummond spark arrester affected the steaming of this locomotive making it a poor steamer and was removed at its first general overhaul. To add even more interest, numbers 7, 20 and 367 were withdrawn in 1951, number 5 was withdrawn in 1950, numbers 1, 2, 8, 13, 361 were withdrawn in 1949, others that made it into B.R. ownership were withdrawn in various months of 1948 were, 3, 9, 10, 363 and 366, D L Bradley gives a choice for a T1 to be replicated using a real T1 boiler.

 

As far as I have read on the Class T1s they had the same boiler design throughout their lives, but Drummond did build some replacement boilers with his fittings that were fitted to class A12 as and when those boilers needed to be rebuilt that way ,loco's were not out of service for a long period, so they too could have filtered into the T1 class during their lives, the T1 is the tank engine version of the A12 you would know better as the Adams Jubilee class, the T1 class dimensions and stats are,
Cylinders 18" x 26"
Coupled Wheels 5'-7"
Trailing Wheels 3'-0"
Wheelbase 8'-0"+10'-0"+5'-0" = 23'-0"
Boiler Diameter 4'-4"
Boiler Length 11'-0" (twixt tube plates 11'-4")
Firebox Length 6'-0"
Working Pressure 160 lbs
Grate Area 17 sq. ft.
Water Capacity 1,200 gallons
Coal Capacity 2 tons
Weights in working order
Leading Coupled Wheels 17 T - 3 C
Trailing Coupled Wheels 18 T -0 C
Bogie 17 T - 17 C
Total for Locomotive 53 T - 0 C

The first T1s had steam chests below the cylinders as did the A12 class, the coupled wheels of the T1 were the same as the ones on the A12, whereas the bogie wheel of the T1 owe their origin to class 415's trailing radial truck 3'-0" wheelsets.
To be able to use this T1 boiler to make a 395 class 0-6-0 the boiler would need reducing down to 10'-6" in length, who will be messing around with that?

 

If new cylinders were made for the T1 with the steam chests under the cylinders then this will be fine for an A12 as well as the first twenty of the T1 class, however, if the cylinders were made with the steam chests in between then it will only cover the second twenty of the T1 class, thus not suitable for an A12 (Jubilee)

 

What ever happens it is going to be about the boiler where are the steam chests located? what is cheaper a tank engine or tender locomotive? Are there enough designs to build any of these locomotive? With that question I suppose some of the T1s design would have gone into the O2 and M7 as they look remarkably similar. At the end of the day it could be the flip of a coin to decide which locomotive to go for a T1 or A12. Personally I would want a T1 to complement the M7 at Swanage, but the A12 can carry more coal and water, and is more distinguishable from an M7 or O2 and will be a unique selling point. I would like Swanage to take on the build but they have there hands full with Us and Ns. Whatever happens it will need to be soon or the boilers days are numbered, it's been sitting there in the open for at least 5 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I have a copy of the Wild Swan publication LSWR Locomotives the Adams Classes by D L Bradley, there are some useful G.A.'s in the back of this publication but unhappily none of the Class T1. I think you will find that there are a lot of differences between the T1 and O2 classes, the O2 was smaller dimensionally, the locomotive that shares the most with the O2 is the G6, from the G.A.'s the G6 has the same dimensions as the O2 0-4-4t but built as an 0-6-0t. However, in the same publication amongst the G.A.'s is the G.A. for the A12 class.

 

I suppose if there are no designs for a T1 but designs for an A12, it's a no brainer to which you would pick. There's no point building a locomotive if there are no designs at all and all you are using is pictures.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I believe that a design for a T1 could be drawn using the A12 G.A. for the boiler and coupled wheels up to the cab, then adding on a larger version of the O2/G6 cab, bunker and side tanks, I do believe the rear bogie of the O2 would be the same for the T1 but using the correct wheelsets for the T1 as per the stats I have posted above. Now, is there any good draughts person out there willing to take on the drawings?

 

Today I was able to purchase on ebay some drawings at 1/4" to 1 foot of LSWR Class A12, LSWR class O2 and LSWR class T1, these drawings were made by the Southern Railway between 1928 and 1930, so far as I have seen they are G.A.s of the external elevations giving such data.

 

"Purley?" Do you mind! I hail from Tunbridge Wells originally which is a good birthplace to come from for someone frequently "disgusted" by some of the thought processes in the heritage railway world

PH (who has just seen this posting)

 

Gaw blimey Paul!! Took your time with that reply , please keep up with proceedings, this is a serious subject!!

ciao,

Alan

 

Computer problems were the reason.

Incidentally, it now occurs to me that this would be one of the "pseudo Drummond" boilers fitted to several Adams classes in S.R. days which did not have a wonderful reputation for steam production. Before building a machine around an existing boiler it would not be a bad idea to consider such things regardless of the condition of the item.

Estimates of condition need caution as well. Not only blind optimism but also bleak pessimism can be at play. For example I can recall a steam fire pump whose boiler was asserted to be "worn out". It was actually in splendid order.

The T.1 is, however, the right size. I used to think few tourist railways needed anything larger than a 4MT 2-6-4T. However since my computer gremlins I have ridden behind an Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2T and now think that ought to be the benchmark. Pity more of H.G. Ivatt's creations did not survive as opposed to those of his brother in law. There is a picture of one of the 2-6-2Ts leaving Horsted Keynes for East Grinstead in B.R. days with six bogies, three of which were corridors.

PH

 

I have to agree with P H about his assumption about the boiler being one of Dugald Drummonds replacements/spares, for the William Adams classes that carried the same boiler, if you study pictures of the T1s and A12s from the right hand side, which is the drivers side as all of the Adams locomotives were right hand drive, you will notice that the valve to the side and lower down from where the Ramsbottom safety valve seating would be is missing, so is the seating for the Ramsbottom safety valve, Drummond used dome mounted lock down safety valves, the missing valve location was used as the injector feed from atop of the firebox steam space. Well spotted P H. These Drummond replacement/spare boilers were reported as being poor steamers, could this have been a case of rushing to get them built and they might not have been built correctly as per the case of 71000 Duke of Gloucester, is there now a chance of rebuilding this boiler correctly so that it does steam properly and hopefully turn it into a proper Adams boiler or into the correct performing boiler it should have been from the outset?

 

I used the expression "quasi Drummond" deliberately as I understand that the design originated post Grouping by which time he had been dead for ten years. It seems a bit pointless to hack around an elderly boiler in this way without the slightest guarantee that the hacking around will work.

PH

 

Ah, welcome back Paul, you've missed a lot. The West Country thread has been locked and re-opened about three times since you've been away

On the matter at hand: I'd agree about Drummond (or Drummond-pattern) boilers being generally poor. Drummond always strikes me as someone who has a reputation for locomotive design far better than he deserves (*), and boilers seem to be at the heart of the issue. Almost universally, when he reboilered Adams' locos, the results were not reckoned to be an improvement; and the locomotives of his own design on which is reputation as a designer stands - particularly the T9, 700 and D15 - only really came into their own when they in turn were reboilered by Urie, removing the cross-water tubes and adding superheaters.

(*) To his credit, he was excellent at what would today be called Programme Management, and the relocation of the LSWR loco works from Nine Elms to Eastleigh, which he oversaw, serves as an outstanding monument to his organisational abilities.

Tom

 

PH you are right about the Drummond designed boilers, they were in fact built by the Southern Railway between 1926-28 at Brighton works, the boilers were numbered from the first locomotive they went on according to DL BRADLEY, in fact, the first boiler was numbered 63 and it went onto T1 class number 63.