Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Following the successes of Tornado and Lady of Legend, it has got me thinking about new-build replicas. Hopefully, The Unknown Warrior should be steaming by the end of this year. I am, in fact a member of the LMS Patriot Project. After looking up various new-build steam loco websites, I was hoping to join the LNWR George the Fitfh Project as well as the LNWR Bloomer Project. Here are some questions I hope to share with you.

 

  • What is your fave new-build replica steam loco you are looking forward to completion and why?
  • Would you support it?
  • Would you consider making a model of it? If yes, what scale?

 

I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys think!

Link to post
Share on other sites

George the Fifth looks like an exciting prospect.

I have said before a Caledonian 903 Cardean Class would be an ideal new build project. Relatively simple, robust, fast and sure footed and very distinctive and above all Scottish. Maybe get the Scottish Parliament to foot the bill.

 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pennsylvania T1 of course. Not sure which side of the genuis/ insanity line it sits, but I'd love to see such a beast in action.

 

Closer to home, I think the standard 3 tank engine will prove itself to be a really useful creation. I wouldn't be too surprised if several were built in due course.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine, a genuinely knowledgable chap, make as very logical argument that all preserved railways of any length should use a fleet of Standard 4MT tanks and Class 20s, all painted different colours, as the mainstay of their fleets, reserving ‘special’ engines for enthusiast galas. This would allow collective pooling of spares, knowledge, making of replacement parts, a couple of ‘float’ boilers in circulation etc.

 

The same might be said of Standard 3MT.

 

My personal view of other replicas is a bit grumpy, that in a preservation world that needs to cut its suit to match the cloth available in terms of people and money they are syphoning time and effort away from more important things. Which view will attract brickbats!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I found out on the Bluebell Railway that there are plans to build an SECR E Class 4-4-0! Yes, after the building of the H2 Class Beachy Head, they are gonna build on a new class member No. 516!

 

In fact, after hearing about this loco, that's where a song from Look and Read comes to mind...

 

Edited by LNWR18901910
Link to post
Share on other sites

82045. The 3MT. Given the lack of an accurate 7,mm kit that meets modern expectations how about a RTR Bachman? 

Edited by doilum
Text error
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, doilum said:

82005. The 3MT. Given the lack of an accurate 7,mm kit that meets modern expectations how about a RTR Bachman? 

Bachmann should make an exclusive 00 Gauge model to help pay towards the replica being built.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a 2-8-2 new build utilizing best practice across the board. Something "new" new. Designed to run at 125mph, but never any more, haul 18 enthusiast coaches up the shap etc. Designing from scratch you could get pretty imaginative on incorporating the new tech required for the railway, along with really pushing power/weight/efficiency.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Already a contributor to three (I won't say which ones as I don't want to be spokesman and all my viewpoints are my own not anyone else's). I won't even admit to which societies I am currently a member of.

 

To me they have to be viable. The locomotive has to have a use and must be able to earn it's keep and help pay towards it's next overhaul whether it's working on the mainline or running on heritage railways.

 

Whilst "ancient" locomotives are interesting, it's things that were everyday, lasted until nearly the end and should have survived that I have most interest in.

 

Not counting some of the ones which are virtually finished - Betton Grange, Beachy Head, The Unknown Warrior, etc.

 

If I had to pick one it would either be 72010 Hengist or the Fowler 4P 2-6-4T. The first to prove that they were good engines and often unfairly criticised. Loco crews used to love them in the North West. The second because they were ordinary and more LMS 2-6-4Ts should have survived.

 

Another one which should be built is Ben Alder because the original should never have been scrapped in the first place.

 

A curve ball would be the Baby Deltic. I know it says steam. But out of the diesel projects it's the most viable.

 

Would I model any of them? Possibly. But unlikely as I very rarely go for celebrity locomotives, preferring the more mundane. I might pick up a Bachmann 45551 though.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nova Scotian said:

I'd like to see a 2-8-2 new build utilizing best practice across the board. Something "new" new. Designed to run at 125mph, but never any more, haul 18 enthusiast coaches up the shap etc. Designing from scratch you could get pretty imaginative on incorporating the new tech required for the railway, along with really pushing power/weight/efficiency.

Off you go, then.

 

Are you staying with the standard Stephenson formula or going down a different route? It has to be said that those who tried the latter achieved minimal or no success. If you try the former you'll end up banging your head on the UK loading gauge.

 

But we're intrigued to see what you come up with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Sorry for being a pedant, but the number is 82045.

 

http://www.82045.org.uk/

 

 

 

Jason

Thanks I have just spotted it. My old brain was probably thinking about 82004 the ancient Triang offering and my first ever loco.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nova Scotian said:

I'd like to see a 2-8-2 new build utilizing best practice across the board. Something "new" new. Designed to run at 125mph, but never any more, haul 18 enthusiast coaches up the shap etc. Designing from scratch you could get pretty imaginative on incorporating the new tech required for the railway, along with really pushing power/weight/efficiency.

Oh dear! Sorry but you're asking the impossible. You might be able to get such a locomotive to run at 75mph but the front pony truck would, or should, rule out higher speeds because of safety considerations. And 18 coaches up Shap is just a dream.

 

I do have fantasies of a 4-8-4 which should be able to run  up hill and down dale on the French model at 75mph with a 12 coach train but I should ever be able to have the dosh to commission such a design! The leading bogie will give stability, the eight coupled wheels (probably around 5'-8" diameter) will give the traction effort and the trailing four wheel delta truck to support a 70sqft firebox and associated combustion chamber fired by oil or hydrogen. I forgot the poppet valve gear for superior steam distribution and the biggest boiler that will fit into Network Rail's loading gauge, all steel, welded and a round-top firebox.

 

I think I might fancy that such a locomotive will top Shap at 60 and probably 70, but it's all a dream, a nice dream.

 

Cheers

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nova Scotian said:

I'd like to see a 2-8-2 new build utilizing best practice across the board. 

 

It's a good thought, and is basically what the P2 project is doing. That is not - as I understand it - a direct copy of an old design, rather an improved update which aims to fix some original problems, account for modern manufacturing techniques, and includes the necessary aspects for modern mainline operation from the start. 

 

Beyond that though, you'll run into the limits of steam technology. I also doubt we know any more about building fast steam engines now than we did in the 1930-1950s.  The 'incorporating new tech' bit would quickly result in 'best build electric locos' - just like it did in the 30s-50s! 

 

I think the P2 group have got the new/old mixture just right. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Are you staying with the standard Stephenson formula or going down a different route? It has to be said that those who tried the latter achieved minimal or no success

Some of those were last rolls of the dice for steam though, when it was already clear that electric or diesel traction were the way forward. Which is not to say that they would have ultimately been successful, but there wasn't much reason to put the development time and money in to find out.

 

Though I imagine by "steam locomotive" the Stephenson pattern machine is what's meant. A steam turbine-electric like the C&O M1 would possibly (with development effort) be able to deliver the 125mph with a long train, but they're unlikely to be what Nova Scotian had in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can probably tell, I'm not an engineer :)

 

I was also a little flippant...

 

Breaking down some of the limitations of later steam, and what could be done to alleviate, mitigate or avoid.

- Hammerblow. I'm sure modern design, engineering and metallurgy (and maybe even a hydraulic or electric control solution) could create a functioning valvegear similar to Bulleid's pacifics. Combine this with new metallurgy for lightweighting of parts, and you can probably significantly reduce hammerblow. The valve gear, if electronically controlled, wouldn't need a hard link to the cab, could have infinitely variable steps + cut-offs etc.

- Disc brakes. Total redesign could see inboard disc brakes to meet braking performance requirements for high-speed running

- Computational fluid dynamics etc on steam passages, exhausts, etc; optimize thermal efficiency and minimize power losses

- Four cylinder, two in, two out, for power and loading gauge - again modern metallurgy and design may allow you to minimize various issues from inclined cylinders, "big ends" etc

- Simulation/modelling of the dynamic envelope, as they have done on the P2 build, could allow you look at suspension design etc 

- I have no idea re. pony truck issue - assuming it's about weight transfer into a bend that creates a force through an equalising beam on the drivers? With some imagination, and without going the full bogie route, surely there's a way to either increase the transferred force from a pony truck, or allow the drivers slightly greater movement? (eg. EMD HTCR / Adam's Radial, within a fine tolerance, on the drivers)

 

Anyway, this is tangential to the OP - sorry.

 

The P2 is my favourite currently underway. It just *looks* right, conveys power, and I will pay good money to be hauled by it once it's in service. And when I say good money, that includes a transatlantic flight...

 

Special release of the P2, or re-release, in OO would generate a sale from me. I'm also going to suggest something... everyone would find awful...because when I grew up I LOVED the Wrenns that were beyond financial reach. I'd love to see a P2 in express blue.

 

If I win the lottery (because not an engineer, as already made clear), a 7 1/2" gauge live steam of the P2 is in my future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem not being an engineer and coming up with ideas, but don't be surprised when the engineer, how can I put it this, points out a few issues. Imagine this situation. The managing Director arrives at his office and sends a memo to the Chief Engineer: "I believe there would be a market for an aircraft capable of flying five hundred passengers non-stop between Britain and New Zealand in an hour and a half. Could you please let me have your initial designs by tomorrow evening?"

 

Alright, a bit far fetched but you get the point. So looking at your specifications:

 

Hammerblow: Bulleid, as I understand it, balanced the couple (the sum of the total out-of-of-balance forces across the loco rather than individually each side). But the Pacifics were three cylinder, which is largely self balancing anyway.

 

Disc Brakes: You can increase the brake force quite easily with the standard systems but you'll reach the point where the wheels lock, resulting in wheel flats and extended stopping distances. You need an effective anti-slide system, which won't work if you have the wheels coupled. You'll also need to figure out where to mount the discs as placing them on the wheel won't work if there are coupling rods flying around, and there might be space problems on the axle between the frames.

 

Reverser: I can't follow the reasoning of electronic control, unless you take the cut-off setting out of the driver's control. It offers no advantages; the normal screw reverser offers infinitely variable settings between zero (mid gear) and full cut off, usually between 75% to 80%.

 

Improvements to the steam circuit, etc. have been ongoing since Chapelon, and possibly earlier. There is a limit to how much greater efficiency and power output you can get. Likewise, modern lightweight materials can go only so far; you still need each component to have sufficient structural strength in all directions.

 

The main issue you haven't looked at is fuel. Coal has no real future and oil and gas not much longer. However powerful, fast and efficient your new loco might be, I'd suggest that the starting point in any new design is the type of fuel.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

No problem not being an engineer and coming up with ideas, but don't be surprised when the engineer, how can I put it this, points out a few issues. Imagine this situation. The managing Director arrives at his office and sends a memo to the Chief Engineer: "I believe there would be a market for an aircraft capable of flying five hundred passengers non-stop between Britain and New Zealand in an hour and a half. Could you please let me have your initial designs by tomorrow evening?"

 

 

The main issue you haven't looked at is fuel. Coal has no real future and oil and gas not much longer. However powerful, fast and efficient your new loco might be, I'd suggest that the starting point in any new design is the type of fuel.

I thought everyone's work was like this? "We've got money to do this thing, but it needs to be spent by Friday. I need to approve it by 4pm Friday, so I need it 4pm on Thursday. Your manager should see it 4pm Wednesday, and see your first draft 4pm on Tuesday. It is now 2pm on Tuesday. Let me reiterate how critical this project is..."

 

I had assumed "coal" was part of it - for me part of the preserved railway experience is the smell. Moving to any fuel that's not coal would remove a significant part of the experience. There's still the look, the power, plus the smell of the oil on the moving parts, I guess.

 

Can the preserved/heritage and steam railtours "industry" sustain the number of new builds under development? I guess with some regulars like Union of SA dropping out of use there's room for them?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Nova Scotian said:

I thought everyone's work was like this? "We've got money to do this thing, but it needs to be spent by Friday. I need to approve it by 4pm Friday, so I need it 4pm on Thursday. Your manager should see it 4pm Wednesday, and see your first draft 4pm on Tuesday. It is now 2pm on Tuesday. Let me reiterate how critical this project is..."

 

I had assumed "coal" was part of it - for me part of the preserved railway experience is the smell. Moving to any fuel that's not coal would remove a significant part of the experience. There's still the look, the power, plus the smell of the oil on the moving parts, I guess.

 

Can the preserved/heritage and steam railtours "industry" sustain the number of new builds under development? I guess with some regulars like Union of SA dropping out of use there's room for them?

Yes we've all worked for someone like that.  You missed out their last statement, the "I'll leave you to it while I get my lunch", ignoring the sandwich you're holding in your hand which indicates you were probably taking a break to eat yours....

 

Agree about the smell of coal but oil firing is probably the future.  As for the industry sustaining the new builds, it has to.  Continuously rebuilding 100 year-old locos can't go on for ever.  Remember that the last locos built for British Railways are now 60 years old; OK many of those spent more than half that time out of use, but that's just the newest locos. I can see locos like A4s increasingly being retired as it gets harder to write off £500-750K overhauls every ten years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Turbomotive? By all accounts it was a successful locomotive. It was based on an existing class (and IIRC rebuilt to one of them in the end), what could it have done if designed from scratch?

 

(not making a serious suggestion that a new Turbomotive would make sense, just an idle ponder).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reorte said:

How about Turbomotive? By all accounts it was a successful locomotive. It was based on an existing class (and IIRC rebuilt to one of them in the end), what could it have done if designed from scratch?

 

(not making a serious suggestion that a new Turbomotive would make sense, just an idle ponder).

The technical performance of the Turbomotive was better than the Princesses on which it was based. This was quite impressive considering it was a concept design competing against something which had been refined over many years.

 

Spares for reciprocating locos were numerous. Being a 1-off was one of the Turbomotive's biggest weaknesses, because these had to be specially made.

The same is not true now; Spares for any steam loco are no longer available. They need to be manufactured just like they would for a new-build steam turbine.

Another of its weaknesses were that staff were familiar with reciprocating locos, requiring specialists to maintain & drive the Turbomotive. Staff for maintaining & driving steam locos can now be considered specialists too.

 

Technology for reciprocating motion was a well-developed technology back then, but it will have progressed since.

Turbines are another matter. Development of turbines was accelerated by the jet engine, which was desigined during the 1930s.

 

It may therefore make a lot more sense to build a steam turbine locomotive now than it did when the LMS built the Turbomotive.

 

It would be interesting to free ourselves of the bias of following 'what we know' & design something from the ground up.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The technical performance of the Turbomotive was better than the Princesses on which it was based. This was quite impressive considering it was a concept design competing against something which had been refined over many years.

 

I also find it interesting because from what I can gather most other attempts at a steam turbine locomotive were distinctly unsuccessful.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reorte said:

 

I also find it interesting because from what I can gather most other attempts at a steam turbine locomotive were distinctly unsuccessful.

All the others I have heard about were earlier.

Maybe the technology of the time was not advanced enough to make the others successful?

  • Informative/Useful 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.