New-build steam strategy coordination?

@BrightonBaltic, coming back to the original tack, I think the point has been made that these schemes are best when allowed to grow organically from a group who share a common vision and work together - I gave the example of why one such ultimately didn't come off. I think it's also clear that these schemes need to consider the pros and cons of any type; something that needs to go beyond just the engineman's perspective. @8126 has highlighted weaknesses of the Bulleid design, while the link provided by @MellishR highlights the economic factors that are also important.

 

MellishR's link doesn't work so I can't see what it has to say.

Is there anything that this forum could agree on as being a good idea to build, which is not currently the subject of a new-build project?

 

Try here (the third time that this document has been linked in this thread!)

http://www.national-preservation.co...s-it-for-the-better.140130/page-6#post-739726

There are a lot of locomotives not preserved and not subject to a current new-build project that would be useful in a heritage line context: unless you have very heavy trains and/or very steep gradients, more or less any Edwardian 0-6-0 goods engine or 0-4-4T passenger engine would be ideal.

But therein lies the problem: which one? The difficulty is not that such locos wouldn't be either useful or buildable: the difficulty would be getting a sufficient critical mass of people to decide on which one. Even just amongst Southern devotees, what would you choose? An Adams T1? A Billinton D3? A Kirtley R? Not a lot to choose on technical grounds between them, but you would simply be fishing from a small pool of people who would really like to see one of them specifically. Now multiply that up across the country...

Tom

 

I'd suggest that there are several problems of building pre-grouping engines, despite their potential usefulness. First of all is lack of drawings which may or may not apply, but is certainly more likely to than a post-grouping loco. Secondly the fact that there will be virtually no-one alive who has them in living memory, so less likely to gain support. Thirdly, is the fact that there were lots of pre-grouping companies to choose from. there might be enough SR enthusiasts to build the most popular SR designed loco, but within that you'll have LSWR, SECR, SER, LCDR and LBSCR enthusiasts - a lot less people to fund a specific loco.

And of course, there's the possibility you might not be able to paint it in BR black...

 

A run of class 77xxx locos. Useful to many lines - more water/coal capacity than the tank engine variant.

 

Tom, the above link redirects me to the login page, and when I log in through it, it then redirects to the homepage.

Martin/Dragon, there could be an argument for doing so with Stirling or Drummond bits, and some David Jones stuff for the Highland Railway looks very Stroudley-era LBSCR - a Skye Bogie would not look out of place in "Improved Engine Green" at the Bluebell.

In terms of standard parts being adapted to a number of different designs, the Maunsell six-plus-coupled loco family (excluding the Q, LN and Urie-derived types) utilises the following:

1x LBSCR legacy boiler (Z-class)
1x standard Maunsell boiler (all 6-wheel types)
1x standard pair of 19x28in outside cylinders (U, N, K, L2)
1x standard set of three 16x28in cylinders (Z, U1, N1, K1, W)
3x 6ft driving wheelsets (U, U1, K, K1)
3x 5ft 6ins driving wheelsets (N, N1, W, L2)
4x 4ft 8ins driving wheelsets (Z-class)
1x single-axle leading truck (all 6-wheel types)
1x 3ft 1ins leading wheelset (all tender types)
3x 3ft 1ins wheelsets (all 6-wheel tank types)
1x 2-axle bogie (ditto)

Presumably the frames of all the six-wheel types would be largely similar (obviously with rear extension frames for the tanks), with a standardised axlebox design. The U/K, U1/K1, N/L2 and N1/W will obviously use the same valve gear as their tank/tender counterparts, but whether there is any commonality between one type's gear and that of its smaller/bigger-wheeled sibling is another matter.

So, an initial batch of one example of each of the six-wheel types would require the following:
16x 3ft 1ins non-driving wheelsets
12x 6ft driving wheelsets
12x 5ft 6ins driving wheelsets
8x leading truck assembly
8x standard Maunsell boiler
4x trailing bogie assembly4x standard pair of 19x28in outside cylinders
4x standard set of three 16x28in cylinders
Plus standardised frames, axleboxes, valve gear, lubricators, regulator assemblies etc.

These also offer a range of livery options - SECR WW1 black, Southern olive green, WW2 black, postwar Malachite, BR black (EEUURRRHHHH!!!!!) and, in the case of the L2, Metropolitan maroon and LNER black... of course, the L2 is Southern enough that it could pass for a Southern loco and be painted any of the other liveries mentioned... and you know what, sod the authenticity, if you want to paint one Midland crimson that's fine by me, even if some might view it as heresy...

Is the Maunsell boiler used in the Q-class the same as that in the Z-class, or for that matter the L1 4-4-0?

I've long thought it a shame that Maunsell didn't rebuild the Fowler 7Fs used on the S&D. A modernised version thereof with a bigger version of the U-class boiler and proper axleboxes could have been quite something. Derby could have learned a thing or two from Maunsell, as he had from them, including building a Mogul version of the 4P tank (modernised with proper axleboxes, taper boiler etc) instead of that bloody awful Lanky Clanky Crab thing...! ;-)

 

Do a forum search for the thread called "Bulleid rebuilds - Was it for the better?"; look on page 6, post 105 for the post from The Crimson Pirate.

(It's a couple of posts above one of yours - I'm almost tempted to think you are deliberately avoiding reading it!)

Tom

 

Yes, Tom, I went there, clicked on the PDF link, it sent me to the login page, which sent me to the homepage. I'd love to read it, but I can't.

 

Not quite, according to Holcroft. The ARLE wasn't making fast progress on its 2-6-0 design, so the N class was produced instead as being basically similar..

 

Well I did try several pages back but I think the absence of comment probably tends to the lack of enthusiasm for the subject matter

Purely on economics and ease of building as opposed desire for one. Although I would very much like to see one.

Arguably a lot of new Thompson Pacifics already exist thanks in no small part to LBSC's delightful Hielan Lassie design.

 

I believe that there was a plan at one time to use the remains of 76077 plus a Swindon boiler from another ex Barry wreck to create a 77xxx, but eventually it was decided to restore 76077 in her original form. The 76xxx and 77xxx share the same chassis, of course

 

To be honest, I guess I'd like to see a Thompson pacific too. I don't find any of them particularly pleasing to look at, though I like the A2/2 for some reason, and I have no engineering expertise but it'd be nice to have one, even if just so we've got at least one from each CME. In fact, for a while, I couldn't actually spot the difference between 60163 and 60532 , so I was a bit confused at first as to why they'd done another Peppercorn and not a Thompson! Later, I joined this site and realised the loco would probably still be a number plate and a wheel pattern if they'd proposed a Thompson, given how controversial the man was.

 

I've never really been a fan of Thompson Pacifics, finding the different classifications confusing and not really warming to their looks. Maybe I just didn't like the demise of the P2s.
However your consistent passioned arguments for the work of Thompson have begun to bite. While ET is still my 4th favourite designer of LNER Pacifics, I appreciate his designs so much more. I've even begun to like them.
So, which class are we going for.....A1/1 or A2/3?

 

Oh no they don't.

 

thats the strange thing about the standards, they are not quite as standard as you may think , std 4 mogol has very little in common with the 4-6-0 or the tank, std 3 again very little that is interchangeable between the classes,
Given the ammount of new builds that dont get off the drawing board, or are nothing more than a cab or smokebox, should there be an informal co ordination body to ensure they are not just dreamers who could be better off being pushed towards other groups who may be a better use of their skills

 

Heart says A1/1, the head states A2/3. Tooling already available, if you hired the A1 Trust to build it they have a perfectly good set of CADs for about 70% of the parts already set up (and much work done to an almost identical chassis from the second driving wheels of the Mikado backwards).

So an A2/3 for me. It is the Pacific which sums up Edward Thompson's Pacifics the best I feel. Equal length connecting rods, full size smoke deflectors, preference for the flat fronted cab and the stovepipe double chimney together with straightforward (but ultimately not as satisfactory) small round dome.



This'll do in the perfect livery. Who's with me?

 

I'd never been aware of the flat-fronted cab, which seems a retrograde step. Any idea of the reason?