Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I wasn't thinking specifically about steam power, but in general terms.

We were stuck with reciprocating steam because that is what engineers, maintenance & driving crews were familar with.

With road transport, we were until recently stuck with fossil fuels. Only recently has anyone made battery stored electric vehicles a practical alternative.

Maybe somebody will invent a way to transmit power to vehicles? If not, then a better way to store energy than in heavy batteries & cleaner than fossil fuels?

Surely the solution is obvious?

Put a nice big battery in the tender, an electric motor in the boiler and a smoke unit in the smokebox. Repurpose water cranes so that they become charging points. That should be perfectly adequate for most preserved lines. :rolleyes:

Best wishes 

Eric 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

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

There were some very successful ones in Sweden IIRC.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2020 at 07:07, Zomboid said:

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.

I'm pretty sure which side of the genius/insanity line the original sat, and even more sure which side the replica sits, but I suppose it is possible that with modern electronic feedback applied to the drivers to prevent the slipping that the loco was prone to, it's so crazy it might just work...  and I'd love to see the beast in action, at the desired 140mph...

 

As far as a 'standard' for heritage railway use is concerned, a proven design that is powerful for a  compact size, especially length, easily maintained, and fast enough to haul a 5 coach passenger train without too much fuss, I give you the 3MT's predecessor in South Wales, the GW rebuilt Taff Vale A Class.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

There were some very successful ones in Sweden IIRC.

The problem (one of them) for turbines, steam or gas, in UK applications is the stop-start nature of operation.  Unlike a conventional steam loco which can be run up/run down without effort (and a diesel much the same), a turbine has to spool up from zero revs to a much higher operating speed.  It only works as a prime mover if you can keep it within its most efficient working range - which is narrow - for long periods.  Meanwhile locomotives often have to go from idle to full power and back again every ten to fifteen minutes.

While GTs are used on warships for "sprinting", its not necessarily for long periods, although a short period at sea might still be an hour or two and when they are doing that, fuel economy isn't high on the ship captain's priority list.  Likewise steam turbines in power stations run at near constant speed for days at a time.

So turbines would introduce complexity to rail applications without bringing their inherent benefits. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very well. But shouldn't most of this be in one of the many fantasy locomotive threads?

 

I don't think hardly anyone has actually answered the OP....


 

Quote

 

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!

 

 

I take that to mean actual projects rather than hypothetical ideas.

 

Here is the list of them.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotives_of_the_21st_century

 

 

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

All very well. But shouldn't most of this be in one of the many fantasy locomotive threads?

I don't think hardly anyone has actually answered the OP....

 

I quite agree.

I will declare membership of the 82045 Trust.  It's the future and if I won the lottery I'd build 82046 and 82047.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

The problem (one of them) for turbines, steam or gas, in UK applications is the stop-start nature of operation.  Unlike a conventional steam loco which can be run up/run down without effort (and a diesel much the same), a turbine has to spool up from zero revs to a much higher operating speed.  It only works as a prime mover if you can keep it within its most efficient working range - which is narrow - for long periods.  Meanwhile locomotives often have to go from idle to full power and back again every ten to fifteen minutes.

While GTs are used on warships for "sprinting", its not necessarily for long periods, although a short period at sea might still be an hour or two and when they are doing that, fuel economy isn't high on the ship captain's priority list.  Likewise steam turbines in power stations run at near constant speed for days at a time.

So turbines would introduce complexity to rail applications without bringing their inherent benefits. 

Quite right!

The Americans found that coal fired turbines were not as good as regular steam locos, I understand that on the Chesapeake and Ohio, their steam turbine had a very similar boiler/firebox to their famed 'Allegheny' yet it was quite poor when fitted in the turbine (shades of our Duke of Gloucester, perhaps?).

Over on the Union Pacific, they used gas turbines quite successfully for a number of years but even then, they were still found to be chronic fuel guzzlers and in the land of Uncle Sam, in the 1960's, that is saying something!

I think enough serious attempts have been made at gas turbine propulsion to rule it out for rail transport as it's simply not economical enough.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

All very well. But shouldn't most of this be in one of the many fantasy locomotive threads?

 

I don't think hardly anyone has actually answered the OP....


 

 

I take that to mean actual projects rather than hypothetical ideas.

 

Good point - I'm supporting the LMS Patriot Project.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To return to the OP,  as an alternative to Cardean (or to keep it company):  North British Atlantic,  anyone?

 

auldreekie

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall a while back there was a proposal for a J50, which is one I could definitely go for and I think would be a good choice for heritage railways. As for ones that are definitely going ahead, the one I'm probably most excited by is the Night Owl. I wasn't even particularly aware of them before the project was announced (I'm not much of a GWR guy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

You mean in terms of none preserved?

 

Is wheel arrangement enough in itself to justify preservation / new-build? I have doubts. But if it were to be done, the Met Rly 4-4-4T would be my choice on the grounds that the Met is under-represented in preservation.

The Metropolitan Railway 4-4-4T is my choice too,  4 driving wheels less trouble than 6, and should be free running too, good for sharp curves, The MR loco was good for 250 ton trains, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HonestTom said:

I recall a while back there was a proposal for a J50, which is one I could definitely go for and I think would be a good choice for heritage railways. As for ones that are definitely going ahead, the one I'm probably most excited by is the Night Owl. I wasn't even particularly aware of them before the project was announced (I'm not much of a GWR guy).

The exGWR 47 class was a severely route restricted class of locomotives. One way most preserved locos are funded for future overhauls is hiring out to heritage lines other than their 'home' line. When I mentioned this to one of those involved in the new build of 4709, he admitted it is a problem which they accept, and are trying to find a way round it, good luck to them. I've always liked the class, and can remember seeing most of them at Old Oak many years ago, but they were the civil engineers worst nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bike2steam said:

The exGWR 47 class was a severely route restricted class of locomotives. One way most preserved locos are funded for future overhauls is hiring out to heritage lines other than their 'home' line. When I mentioned this to one of those involved in the new build of 4709, he admitted it is a problem which they accept, and are trying to find a way round it, good luck to them. I've always liked the class, and can remember seeing most of them at Old Oak many years ago, but they were the civil engineers worst nightmare.

Unlikely to be too much of an issue.  I'm sure the Severn Valley Railway in BR days didn't routinely operate Kings, Duchesses, Bulleid or Gresley Pacifics, but all have run on it in the preservation era, on numerous occasions.  The main line has moved on too; Kings used to be very route restricted but can operate almost anywhere on the GWR network now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4-4-4T? How about the NER Class D/LNER H1? Could be built in parallel with an example of what they were rebuilt into - the A8 :)

 

Both would suit any of the extant preserved ex-NER lines - NYMR, Wensleydale, Weardale...

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're taking 4-coupled locos (other than the T1, of course) it'll be good to see the new Holden F5 running between Epping and Ongar.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2020 at 20:07, Northmoor said:

.The main line has moved on too; Kings used to be very route restricted but can operate almost anywhere on the GWR network now.

 

Perhaps from an axle loading point of view (I'm not sure?) - but not from a gauging point of view. The main line now is a smaller than it used to -- hence why 6024 has new (narrower) cylinders, and a big part of why 6023 never got approved for mainline. 

 

Gauging is a concern for most GWR outside cylinder engines I believe - I wonder if the Nightowl project has done anything to mitigate this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it, or that it would be possible. The reconstructed loco is being put together from standard Churchwardian parts, which means that the width across the cylinders will be the same as the original 47xx and the locos that donated the frames. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supporter of the GCR567 project here.  Building a replica of an original Great Central locomotive, primarily to run over the preserved section of the Great Central mainline, and to haul restored original Great Central carriages.  It's the overall project- locomotive, rolling stock and route- that I choose to support, not just the Big Green Hot Loud Thing element. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/03/2020 at 08:48, Kelly said:

How about a new build Leader :D

 

With modern technologies and oil firing it ... might work...

The Leader class basically was a disaster. Nothing like this has ever been built before. Numbered 36001-36005, it had been designed by Oliver Bulleid (who made the Q1 0-6-0 and the WC, B of B and MN 4-6-2 classes) it weighed 130 1\2 tons rather than the proposed 110 t ons. The driver and fireman were separated from each other in cabs at each end of the locomotive.

The fireman's compartment was where temperatures 50 degrees Celsius were recorded. Consequently, trial runs had the No.2 end leading because the cab was not too hot. Also, the 0-6-6-0T was too high for the water column which led to a copper chute and a leather bag having to be carried on the locomotive so it could use them.

 

When the project was scrapped, 36002 was only days away from steaming, 36003 was largely complete and 36004 and 36005 were basically frames and a boiler temporarily mounted on a rolling chassis. These were all scrapped.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

The driver and fireman were separated from each other in cabs at each end of the locomotive.

The fireman's compartment was where temperatures 50 degrees Celsius were recorded.

 

Actually the fireman worked in the middle of the locomotive with only a small door each side to provide any air.  This is why in most photos you see of Leader, the middle doors are open, so that the fireman could actually work without passing out.

Bulleid was a brilliantly inventive engineer, but you sometimes wonder if he'd ever met other humans before.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Actually the fireman worked in the middle of the locomotive with only a small door each side to provide any air.  This is why in most photos you see of Leader, the middle doors are open, so that the fireman could actually work without passing out.

Bulleid was a brilliantly inventive engineer, but you sometimes wonder if he'd ever met other humans before.

Forgot to mention that bit. Bulleid was brilliant and there are a few of his locomotive classes that he designed preserved today.

Edited by 6990WitherslackHall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

The Leader class basically was a disaster. Nothing like this has ever been built before. Numbered 36001-36005, it had been designed by Oliver Bulleid (who made the Q1 0-6-0 and the WC, B of B and MN 4-6-2 classes) it weighed 130 1\2 tons rather than the proposed 110 t ons. The driver and fireman were separated from each other in cabs at each end of the locomotive.

The fireman's compartment was where temperatures 50 degrees Celsius were recorded. Consequently, trial runs had the No.2 end leading because the cab was not too hot. Also, the 0-6-6-0T was too high for the water column which led to a copper chute and a leather bag having to be carried on the locomotive so it could use them.

 

When the project was scrapped, 36002 was only days away from steaming, 36003 was largely complete and 36004 and 36005 were basically frames and a boiler temporarily mounted on a rolling chassis. These were all scrapped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forget to mention that, despite that huge weight, it offered little more by way of performance than an 0-6-0T.

10 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Forgot to mention that bit. Bulleid was brilliant and there are a few of his locomotive classes that he designed preserved today.

But only after considerable modification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

But only after considerable modification.

True. I'm not exactly too sure on it's top speed but I know that it ran on lines permitted to Merchant Navys. And it was limited to run at 50mph.

Share this post


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.