Jump to content
 

Porta and Pannier?


thx712517
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading an interesting website piece about Porta and his theories being applied to a few Hunslet Austerity tank engines. Has anyone applied a Lempor exhaust system, a GPCS firebox or other advanced modifications to other locomotives like the GWR pannier tank engines?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, no. Porta's modifications have been tried in a few cases in a number of countries (Brazil, Switzerland, Cuba, South Africa, as well as his native Argentina), but only in a very limited way in the U.K., in the example you give. For many years there was a "new build" project on the drawing board - the infamous 5AT - that would have incorporated many of Porta's principles into a design envelope externally similar to a BR class 5, but internally far more advanced and powerful. The project was cancelled due to lack of significant financial backing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard about and read about the 5AT for a good long while. I was disappointed at its failure to proceed to construction but not surprised. It seems like most heritage railways choose to make use of locomotives near and dear to the region rather than acquire a new build. I admired the 5AT concept mechanically, but aesthetically... 

 

I noticed the group had reformed as a sort of steam consultant group offering various design improvements and upgrades to existing locomotives which made me wonder if any heritage lines had thought about incorporating new elements to their existing stock. I know Porta had written to the A1 Tornado group with a variety of suggestions but I haven't been able to find what changes, if any, they incorporated into Tornado. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I thought (and still think) that the 5AT was a better new build idea than building replicas of old designs. I am under no illusions that integrating all of the available efficiency and performance improving technologies advocated by engineers like Porta and Wardale would go anywhere near making the conventional steam locomotive competitive with diesel locomotives but it would be interesting to see just what could be achieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of preserved locomotives have been modified, I can think of several industrials and quite a few narrow gauge locos that have had re-draughting carried out on them. The Welshpool has modified its whole fleet with help from Nigel Day http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/nday/wllr/wllr-locos.html and the Peckett 'Annie' at the Embsay and Bolton Abbey railway http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/nday/ndaypecketts.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. I was dimly aware industrial and narrow gauge had been more open to modification and improvement. I wonder why that is, considering that, for example, narrow gauge steam would be more rare than pannier tanks or some other standard gauge loco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Is it just the cost of adaptation that puts people off? Or do heritage railways attempt preservation as designed for historical purposes rather than performance?

Given the constraints on most heritage line running, low speeds, short lengths, optimum steam loco performance isn't really an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

modifications may require more maintenance, more complexity, more initial investment or may end up working very tired frames/boilers/components harder than they were designed to do.

 

Look at the festiniog - they have removed some improvements from Linda/blanche. I suspect part of the reason is key members of staff who'd installed them having left, but there must be other arguments to remove them.

Porta's 2-10-2s on the RFIRT were also demodified after he'd left - possibly keeping modernised locos working requires higher/different training/knowledge than is always available, whereas an unmodified loco is much simpler to maintain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Wardale's book, it seems like a large part of demodification came about due to the one-off nature of the design. There was only one Red Devil, so a rotating pool of drivers and firemen would never really get to know the engine and its quirks. Repairs would be to the prevailing (and at that time declining) standard for the steam fleet.

 

And yes, I think some of it is due to the finicky nature of the modifications. Wardale may have been better served by mass producing Lempor exhausts for the entire fleet and making that the new standard at overhaul. A few other low-hanging fruits as well and while it wouldn't be as cutting edge as the Red Devil, there could have been wider adoption and improvement of the remaining steam fleet.

 

As for modern narrow gauge lines modifying and demodifying, I can't say. Maybe lack of specific knowledge, a new cost/benefit ratio, or people didn't like the look of the new stuff cluttering up the lines of the locomotives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Wardale describes is that his modifications came after the SAR management had decided there was no future for steam in their country (despite prevailing economic conditions at that time) and that he also made a mistake in selecting the most cherished locomotive type - the 25NC - as the basis for his modifications. There was therefore a lot of resistance to the changes he made, as well as those trying to prove that his improvements were relatively modest for the cost and maintenance overheads incurred. The shed and footplate staff did not appreciate the amount of tinkering needed nor being told the right way to drive a locomotive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...