The next newbuild

The odd one / two who by opposing a world of engineering practice, most likely only to get a headline marketing statement, which if not, the world would forget.

 

I don't quite follow your problem. There are frequently gaps in production of railway engines, they are not consumer products like fridges that you carry on making until sales decline and then replace with a new model. This still applies now, for example with the class 66 diesels. The gaps are sometimes of a year or two, sometimes much longer. Nor do railways typically take account of minor changes between batches - although sometimes they do, there is no consistency on that issue. So a loco can obviously be both a new build and a 'late production model'.

 

I understand that the Clan will be roller bearing throughout. I wouldn't countenance anything else on a new-build intended for mainline use. More expensive yes, but you've removed one of the more common sources of main line failure, and an ongoing maintenance problem too. Plus a minor increase in performance due to lower rolling resistance.

 

You can include a substantial range of improvements when building a new locomotive to a vanished design that would not be visible. There are others that only a professional rivet counter would notice, and so on.
It depends on how purist you desire to be. There is also the matter of how much archaic you can put up with when trying to run trains on a daily basis and this would temper the desire to be totally authentic.
You could be absolutely fastidious in your creation of a lost class only to find that it would see little use once the initial novelty value had worn off.
Two schools of new build could be said to exist. Those classes built with mainline running as the priority and those built for preserved line use, filling historical gaps in the preserved ranks. For mainline you have to stir more post 1930s ideas into the mix, for preserved line you might not need to.

 

The world forget Tommy Sopwith? A headline marketing statement? The man whose name is borne by one of the greatest fighter aircraft of all time - the Sopwith Camel. The man who went on to found the Hawker Aircraft Company whose achievements are legend. He's more of an engineer than you, me and countless others are that's for sure. Think you need to broaden your horizons a tad.

 

I've sat and followed this debate with interest and 242A1 has highlighted the point I was just about to make. I think we need to remind ourselves that we represent a very specialist segment of the population in terms the depth of both our interest and our knowledge. however it is likely, barring some national tv programme adopting a newbuild as a 'campaign', that funding for any new project would mainly come from within this specialist group. At present its members are being tugged in various directions to complete existing projects and the number of suggestions arising in this thread show how that source of funds could be further divided.

Frankly, to Mr and Mrs Joe Public and their kids, who might visit a preserved line or travel on a mainline special, their knowledge is likely to be much more limited and too see or be pulled by any shiny steam locomotive is all they ask for and they are unlikely to have a debate about the aesthetics, mechanics or comparative merits of other locomotives. They are also unlikely to contribute to a newbuild project as they are unlikely to be interested or knowledgable enough to have a favourite in mind. Which brings me neatly back to a point Tom made earlier in the discussion - the 'triple test' of is it useful, buildable and fundable. Building some ancient design, or filling a gap, may well please us 'experts' but it is unlikely to earn its keep either on the mainline or on a preserved railway. Working a loco with nothing more than a weatherboard in typical British driving rain is not going to appeal to footplate crew. It may be buildable but if it is going to spend its days either in a museum building or pottering about in a siding or on a demonstration train then it is not going to earn its keep. This is where the P2, Patriot and the Standard 3MT score over other projects as they hit all three items in the triple test. Perhaps it also explains why the Bloomer is still incomplete.

Of course, before I get shouted down, I wholeheartedly accept that those who have the money can build what they like and, even if it is not 'useful', they will get some enjoyment out of the product.

 

I would love to see a Midland locomotive in its late elaborate Victorian/Johnson condition and livery. A Johnson 0-4-4t for example would be an immensely useful engine and resplendent in Crimson Lake, it would be a real draw-card. Regarding LNWR types, I should point out that I belong to a group currently building a Bowen Cooke LNWR George the Fifth Class. We have procured a few parts, fabricated the smokebox door, are currently fabricating the front frames and have fabricated a few other parts that I'm not currently at liberty to discuss. We have also secured a base for the storage of parts. We expect to have an announcement later this month but if you want to know more, check my signature below.

 

Our build would probably fit in the category of externally indistinguishable and specifically in the case of the LNWR George the Fifth class engines, it's looking at the frames and improvements to the Joy valve gear. It's highly likely too that we'll opt for a welded boiler. Certain techniques of metal-forming are immensely costly without the specialised tooling that Crewe would have had at their disposal and so we have to find 'work-arounds' for these, often involving laser-cutting and welding.

 

Will it have roller bearings, quadruple Lempor and underfeed stoker?

 

The engineering calls aren't mine to make but to answer you query to the best of my ability - under consideration afaik, no, and no. As to a single Lempor instead of a blastpipe it may well be considered but I've not been privy to any discussions and it's still some way down the track. There are long and detailed debates about what modern concession to make while remain substantially true the the original design, what concessions have to be made and what someone like Bowen Cooke would have conceivably done had he modern CAD and fabrication technologies at his disposal - a strangely counterfactual historical position admittedly. While some alterations are clearly 'no-brainers' (improving known deficiencies with the Valve gear for example) others, while admittedly improving performance would leave us with something substantially different to a George the Fifth and while the line is at times, difficult to determine, Quadruple Lempors would certainly fall into this category.

 

One of the most characteristic features of steam locomotives is the sound of the exhaust when they are working. For this particular new build, the improvement in efficiency resulting from more modern drafting would be unimportant and the changed sound would spoil the whole thing.

 

Anyone alive who can remember the sound of an original? Unlikely since the last withdrawal was in 1948. We are more than 100 years on from the construction of the original. Fuel quality is not what it was. The prime rule is do not skimp on the exhaust design. A little development may well be most welcome.

 

We've been having similar debates within the trust and that is certainly one view held by some. We do however have some association with members of the 5AT group and so we pay heed to their expertise and advice, as you would naturally expect. It would be foolish for us not to consider improvements that are 'under the skin' so-to-speak and that improve the performance, efficiency and reduce operational costs during its running life. However, it must be said that the 'bark' of a hard-working engine is no only a critical part of the engine's character but something that appeals to spectators, be they conversant in steam technology or the average punter and while the 'bark' is a sign of its inefficiency we wouldn't want to loose it altogether.

We have an original LNWR whistle which will provide that authentic pitch even though few would know what an authentic LNWR whistle sounds like or could discern it from another engine whistle. Similarly even if we go down the Lempor route (which is very possible), we do want to ensure that the sound and look of the exhaust is at least broadly what you'd expect from the class. Radically altering the sound and look of the exhaust would be akin to fitting an air horn in place of the LNWR whistle.

Finding the balance is key.

 

Whilst there must be precious few people, if any, around who can remember what a George V sounded like, if the new build has modified exhaust arrangements that make sit sound different to the original then it's not really a George V that's being recreated. It would be like putting silencers on a Spitfire IMO.

 

I suppose that is the conundrum with a new-build or replica. When does a new build cease to be a representative of the class? Does using modern steels constitute sufficient difference to render it a different beast? Does using metric steel gauges as imperial are hard to come by? Do roller bearings constitute sufficient change? Does employing predominantly welding over rivetting where rivets aren't visible constitute sufficient difference? You get my drift. My personal position is that it would be foolish not to entertain improvements that are:

a) beneath the surface and indiscernible externally
b) overcome known and recorded deficiencies
c) improve performance and efficiency - reducing running costs and downtime in service

Some changes are inescapable. Modern steels and forming technologies are what we have. We simply don't have the steels and all the tooling that they would have had at hand in Crewe. Moreover, we are building a one-off whereas Crewe fabricated potentially hundreds of the same component given the level of standardisation across classes and would have have dedicated tooling and patterns to achieve this. This will necessarily inform the decisions taken but east assured that the end result will look externally indiscernible from the originals.

Regarding the exhaust - it's likely that improvements slated for the Joy valve gear (we have an expert looking at this) would slightly alter the sound of the exhaust were it compared to an original but though I'm not personally entirely across the particulars of this matter unlike others in the Trust, it would be foolish of us to simply replicate those deficiencies knowing they exist. Equally it would be foolish to opt for an entirely different valve gear solution such as Walchaerts - the result would clearly not be a George! I guess the question is, what ultimately constitutes fixing a deficiency and what constitutes an 'augmentation' of the original not in keeping with it? Where is the line?

From a technical point-of-view, Lempors overcome the deficiencies of a conventional blast-pipe arrangement. Had Lempors been developed in Bowen Cooke's time, I have little doubt that as an engineer, he would have implemented it just as he implemented superheating. But what might constitute a deficiency to an engineer probably constitutes something entirely different to the modern steam buff. The thermal inefficiency of a steam engine gives it its 'soul' and character - lose that even if you improve the engine's performance and efficiency and you loose the essence of what appeals to us but may not have appealed to the like of Bowen Cooke and other CME's of the time.

All I can say is if we opt for a single Lempor and there are sound reasons to implementing it, we expect that it will be possible to tweak the speed at which the exhaust gases are emitted to ensure that we get something very close to what we'd expect a George to sound like even if this comes at the cost of some efficiency and performance. A balance can surely be found and we are very congniscent of finding the balance. For my part, I'd like us to fabricate both if money permits so that we can potentially experiment with 'tuning' the Lempor and compare performances.

Anyway, there will be under-the-skin differences to an original George - some unavoidable, some sensible given known deficiencies, and some open to consideration like the Lempor. But in the end, just as the A1 is an improved member of the class, so too will the George be. There'll be no mistaking it!

 

Let us not assume that all Victorian locos would be useless. There are plenty with cabs, many that can legitimately have dual brakes, and most of them are much simpler to work on than any 20th century class, simply because of relative size of components. I doubt there are many that would be suitable for main line work, but as locos for preserved line use there are many possible designs. Don't forget their potential for the media as well.

Possibilities - (apart from the Stirling 0-4-2 mentioned earlier) Met 4-4-0T (with cab, detachable?), GSWR Wee Bogie, GER E4, LNWR 3cyl compound 0-8-0, LBSC 0-4-2T, - just off the top of my head

Some of those may seem a bit silly, but laudable though the 3MT project is, we don't want our preserved lines in 50 years time to be entirely dependent on LMS/GWR/BR standard designs, do we? Some variety will surely be an attraction as many of our older and more precious genuine locos inevitably get retired.

 

Absolutely. It's a shame that a lot of serious steam buffs can't be convinced of the merits of Victorian and Edwardian engines because it's 'before their time'. They hold to the engines that they remember from childhood, which is understandable. But there's a generation who have grown up without ever remembering steam in service for whom the Victorian age is as remote as the 1960's. Victorian tank, goods and even express engines are eminently suitable to heritage line running and given their Victorian flourishes and liveries, are immensely popular with the crowds. An engine built for heritage line running needn't have all the modern changes and concessions required for mainline running such as roller-bearings, overhead clearances and the like.

 

Indeed. I've often thought a Stroudley D tank 0-4-2T would be an ideal loco for the Bluebell. Firstly, with well over 100 originally constructed, they were the archetypal LBSCR engine, initially as suburban tank engines and then branch line engines. Secondly, being a bit bigger than a Terrier, they would give a little bit in hand now the line is both longer and steeper, especially with regard water and coal capacity, which might be a bit marginal on a Terrier if we ever achieve the stated objective of a full set of Stroudley coaches.

Tom

 

I think it depends on where you are along the spectrum from "experimental archaeology" to "mainline workhorse". For a loco built primarily as experimental archaeology, the further you deviate from the original, the less valuable the loco becomes against its original raison d'etre. Whereas for a mainline thoroughbread, some rejigging of e.g. coal and water capacity, roller bearings, fitting air brakes etc would clearly make the loco more useful and thus more likely to get built. Balance is the key, though my own sympathies - which tend more towards older locos, and preserved line running - tend towards making the fewest possible variations from the original. Adding a cab to a mid-Victorian loco might make it better form the crew point of view, but would also destroy the essence of the loco!

Incidentally, on your point about coal: are you sure that fuel quality is not what it was? I've seen plenty of photos from, say, pre-grouping and Southern Railway days in which the coal is clearly visible, and it seems to show it was pretty ropey stuff - a mixture of large lumps that would need breaking and dust. Coal quality is often mentioned in contemporary reports about on-the-road testing where it was thought to have had a significant impact on steaming ability.

Maybe the coal quality in the south of England - remote from coalfields and with all coal having made long journies with a lot of intermediate handling - was worse than up north, but I'd say that the relatively well graded coal we get on at least our heritage railway is rather better than that which the SR seemed to manage on.

Tom

 

What about a 'Leader'?

Although I'm only half joking. It would be nice to give the concept a fair go, as the only one which ever ran had been badly damaged before it ever left Brighton Works. I doubt whether you'd persuade anybody to fire it though.