scots region Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Not sure were this goes so I've made a rough guess. Hello all, those of you who have read my last topic on a possible 'what if' will know I'm a bit of a fantasist, if you haven't and are a purist Look Away. Anyway like many enthusiasts I was a close follower of the 'Tornado Story' amazed, that the impossible had been achieved and whilst I am a big enthusiast of 'Tornado' and wish all glory to the boys at Darlington if the P2 goes ahead, one aspect of their claim does stick in my head, that Tornado is a brand new express passenger locomotive. Yes... and no. Tornado is essentially a post war design which has been tweaked to bring it up to 21st century standards, strip away the modifications and it is no different to the A1s that preceded her. Basically, New build, yes, New design, no. The point of that is I've often wondered, since we are capable of bring long scrapped designs 'back form the dead', why not go all the way and build a Locomotive that never got off the drawing board. Now the problems with this idea are obvious; 1. No drawings or the drawing were destroyed, this will require entirely new technical drawings to be made up, at a great expense. But remember they didn't have CAD in the 1940s so design is an issue but modern designers have an advantage. plus CAD allows them to expose possible flaws and deal with them before the metal is cut. 2. Support. from what I can see some enthusiasts wouldn't see the point of donating good money for something that never steamed in the first place, well many of the younger enthusiasts donated handsomely to the A1 Trust despite having never travel behind an A1, so why not support a new project? Finally. Legislation, feel free to whip me for dragging politics into this Andy, I saw mentioned on a previous topic 'Grandfathers Rights' what I can conclude from this is that, since Tornado is new build of the A1 class, a class that passed its mainline tests, Tornado therefore is permitted to run on the mainline. surely after rigorous testing the 'Never were' could prove itself(am I wrong on all this, let me know). so what do you think and what 'Never Were would you build? Incidentally here are my choices: The 1913 proposal by McIntosh for a Caledonian 4-6-2 Hawksworth Pacific Gresleys 4-8-2 Staniers 4-8-4 Bullied's 4-6-4T BRs 2-8-2 (thank you Redgate) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted October 31, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2010 5AT in a word. Well, not really a word, but you get my drift. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Grandfather rights are a red herring. Just because something has run before it won't necessarily be able to run again without having to go through the full safety process. For example it would be very difficult to run a 9F on the main line today, as modern pointwork is incompatible with flangless drivers. And either restored or new build steam locos on the main line have to carry AWS, TPWS, and event recorders. However as Tornado proved, it is possible to introduce a new steam loco onto the main line provided it either meets relevant standards or demonstrates that safety is assured by alternative means. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Doesnt this just duplicate this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 A working Bulleid Leader, using a diesel engine. There, I said it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 A Collett 2-10-2T, driving that Welsh coal traffic, this would have been an impressive beastie ... dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted October 31, 2010 Author Share Posted October 31, 2010 Doesnt this just duplicate this? No because that topic is about modelling locomotives that never were, this is about building them in the 12in to 1ft scale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Ah right, no crossover there then. How silly of me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted October 31, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 31, 2010 A working Bulleid Leader No crossover there, either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted October 31, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 31, 2010 A Leader with either oil firing or automatic stoker with the fireman in the fron cab like they were supposed to be originally and even driven in multiple by one crew. The other one I would love to see is the Fowler 4-6-0 compound that never left the drawing board at Derby. I've seen a model in 7mm of the frames and valve gear, all working but no bodywork. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
90211 Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Would someone care to explain how the flangeless wheels on a 9F are incompatible with modern pointwork? I have seen this statement many times but never with an explanation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted November 2, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 2, 2010 As I understand it some modern pointwork has raised checkrails either side of the crossing nose. These are not rails as traditionally used but are platework with reinforcing ribs on the face away from the wheels. I'm not sure of the exact height above the running rail but it looks to be about an inch. The flangeless drivers on the 9F are designed to move slightly either side of the rail and instead of just going over the top of a traditional checkrail will actually hit the raised checkrails and cause problems. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted November 2, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 2, 2010 BRs 2-8-2 (thank you Redgate) I've not really got anything to add have I? ok, what about the Standard 5 Crosti with Caprotti valve gear? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 How about either of the BR Standard class 8F 2-8-0s? The small drivers would be no bar to high speeds as proved by the 9Fs. JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 How about either of the BR Standard class 8F 2-8-0s? The small drivers would be no bar to high speeds as proved by the 9Fs. JE well, there are spare ST4 boilers and 8F frames and I'm told the 9F wheels are ten-a-penny, pardon the pun, so possiblity. feel free to whack up some photos if anyone has one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 well, there are spare ST4 boilers and 8F frames and I'm told the 9F wheels are ten-a-penny, pardon the pun, so possiblity. feel free to whack up some photos if anyone has one One of them had a Std 5 boiler and t'other a shortened 9F type boiler. Personally I'd go with the 5 boiler proposal . . . JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Baron Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Surely to be practical and thus viable this would need to be a "steam by wire" auto coaling / computer controlled double cabbed modern looking loco... at which point it would it end up with the steam driving a turbine that then powered the electric traction motors? which of course would then be more viable if it was a nuke rather than a coal boiler that powered the turbine... as which point we have a loco with limitless range perfect for london to new york via the trans siberian... I would like to build that. It would at least take us forwards on so many levels - mind you it would be a proper bitch to preserve in 100 years time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 One of them had a Std 5 boiler and t'other a shortened 9F type boiler. Personally I'd go with the 5 boiler proposal . . . JE mi mistook, I agree the standard 5 boiler proposal is far prettier... although the shortened 9F proposal has a rugged charm around it. It just goes to show the aesthetic difference that can be achieved by removing smoke defecters from a Loco that would otherwise carry them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 Surely to be practical and thus viable this would need to be a "steam by wire" auto coaling / computer controlled double cabbed modern looking loco... at which point it would it end up with the steam driving a turbine that then powered the electric traction motors? which of course would then be more viable if it was a nuke rather than a coal boiler that powered the turbine... as which point we have a loco with limitless range perfect for london to new york via the trans siberian... I would like to build that. It would at least take us forwards on so many levels - mind you it would be a proper bitch to preserve in 100 years time. Indeed, I actually think it might be a step back, as how do we overcome the 'chernobyl - on - wheels' probelm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJ Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 Indeed, I actually think it might be a step back, as how do we overcome the 'chernobyl - on - wheels' probelm. A daft "mess room" conversation went along the route of putting nuclear fuel rods down the tubes of an existing loco to heat the water but that was just a jokey Saturday lunch chat. Seriously a Nuclear generator similar to those on the submarines might be feasible and would be as safe as subs. Working under the wires any excess juice could be fed into the system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 I think I'd rather have the reactor somewhere out of the way under the care of skilled technicians on site, and use the wires to take the power to the train in the conventional way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardz Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Hi all - all this talk about "never weres" and Redgate's impressive 2-8-2 (damn - you beat me to it - I've been wanting one for years) prompted me to dig out my copy of "Locomotives that Never Were" by Robin Barnes of 5AT fame. I don't see any mention of it in this forum - maybe I haven't looked hard enough. Mr Barnes has illustrated many of the designs mentioned including a view of 91077 hauling a passenger train in the Scottish Highlands. At one time I think he had it on his website but it seems to have gone. There's also a lovely painting of a 1920s Swiss Overhead Electric loco in LMS maroon hauling some LNWR carriages out of Euston If anyone wants to track down a copy of the book it was published by Janes in 1985 - ISBN 0 7106 0326 6. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted November 23, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 23, 2010 Redgate's impressive 2-8-2 (damn - you beat me to it - I've been wanting one for years) Not yet I havn't, can't see me getting any time to work on it until the new year now, so get going now, you might beat me yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.