Current and Proposed New-Builds

The shouting capital letters say it all I am afraid.

 

What is the difference between its original condition & W2 Yarmouth?

 

During its life in industrial use it received many modifications and non standard replacement parts, I believe that not even the wheelsets are the LBSCR originals. Very little of the Loco is LBSCR, the condition of the bequest are that it is restored as W2 Yarmouth which will replace many of the industrial components including a new boiler.

 

110 carried a Stroudley pattern boiler until it was sold into industry and fitted with a boiler made by Bagnall. W2 Yarmouth was fitted with a Marsh pattern boiler and it is this pattern of boiler the IOW plan to fit.

 

So its alright for you to have your opinions then?

 

One of the C&N singles would be lovely to gaze upon at Haven Street, as would Craven single No.34 on the Bluebell, but in both cases, unlikely to be first choice for service trains by either operating department!

For a fairer comparison of expensive and functionally next-to-useless decorations, might I commend you the first steam railmotors of both the IWCR & LBSCR?

 

Shouting on the Internet i.e. typing words in capitals is regarded as bad manners.

 

I'd add to Gary's list that the IWSR is an entirely class appropriate home for an E1 with not only a plan, but the funding to carry it through.

How many locos failed to make it into the National Collection due to modifications received during their working life?

One other mod unique to the IoW quartet after making the crossing was rebalancing the wheels to render them smoother riding for regular use on passenger services.

 

Now that's an interesting one. I don't know whether she still has the Stroudley pattern of phased cranks which was supposed to lead to passengers getting a good shaking. Whether it did is a moot point for it seems the Terriers also had phased cranks and they show no tendency to do this. Possibly the drawing office simply got the sums wrong for the E1s.

Paul H

 

The Rail Vehicle accessibility Regulations will probably be the biggest hurdle. No grandfather rights so you can't really build what you want to build.

 

My understanding is that the E1's original balancing was judged sufficient for plodding along with freight services on the mainland, but rebalancing was undertaken at Ryde within their first couple of years due to them being preferred motive power for "The Tourist". As locomotive modifications go, I wouldn't have thought rebalancing was one of the more expensive or difficult ones, but I've seen no mention of similar measures being applied to the mainland fleet, which seems odd in view of the fact that several survived to carry BR numbers. If that was the case, presumably the IoW represented their only regular passenger diagrams by the middle years of grouping.

 

Way behind on this thread, but you know the answer Alex! Longer platforms are inauthentic, so you just pack the passengers in like sardine to 'authentic' length trains and then tell any you can't be squeezed in that they are violating the authenticity of the line and send them away!

Oddly, trains longer than platforms appear from photographic records to be very authentic around here!

Steven

 

Some apparently not all, got so treated after rebuilding as 0-6-2Ts. Drawing offices sometimes got their calculations very wrong indeed. One class of Cambrian Rys. 0-6-0s had to be re-balanced by the G.W.R. as they tended to derail.

Paul H

 

This has got zilch to do with newbuilds of locomotives or carriages. There is another separate point I would like to make but will do so privately.

PH

 

Nah! Replace all the Mk1 corridors (particularly those wasteful CK's & RMB's) with Mk1 non - corridor stock stock - pack 'em in 108 pax/carriage - sorted! Authentic too.
Ray.
p.s. only joking.
p.s.s. sorry Paul for going even further "off topic".

 

The E1/R is a design I'm pretty unfailiar with, beyond noting that aesthetics clearly weren't at the top of Mr Maunsell's list. I've seen better looking conversions on some of Col.Stephens' lines!

Your post rang a bell and sent me to Colin Maggs' "The Barnastaple and Ilfracombe Railway" (OP111/1978) where I rembered seeing a photo of a 3 car Sunday local working at Braunton The loco is identified as E1/R No.B697 and the date given is August 1929. The book mentions that one of their regular stamping grounds, at that time, was the Torrington branch.

I'd imagine the addition of trailing wheels would have reduced shuddering somewhat, but evidently didn't cure it completely and having just checked, I see the rebalancing wasn't carried out until after Bulleid took the reigns, specifically to suit them for their mainline work away from banking duties

Regarding the straight E1's, wasn't the last of the IoW quartet, by then long out of use, examined by the Bluebell and judged fit only for scrap? Shades of ex-NWNG/WHR "Moel Tryfan" a decade earlier. How times have changed!

 

Unless you utilize a existing underframe and build a add a prototypical body to more or less original specifications (exceptions such as imperial to metric dimensions I understand are agreeable and/or additional or enhanced non-original safety features)

Naturally this wouldn't be acceptable on the National Network (assuming its wood framed vehicle) but for example if you wanted to build a Maunsell restaurant car and you acquired say the former underframe of S7400S from the K&ESR and you built the body up to the original drawings then this would be largely acceptable to my understanding.

I tend to think that as British Railways Mk1 carriages become uneconomic to continue to be restored by some heritage lines the opposite will become true for some more historic designs. You only have to look at the Bulleid Third Open (S1456S) on the Mid Hants to see that both sides and ends are entirely new material and with the roof now being worked on this will replaced with only the roof sticks being retained. Thus the MHR really have built a replica SR coach body on a refurbished underframe (with some existing parts from the original such as gangway equipment etc) so as lines contemplate a similar exercise on a Mark 1 they will, in my estimation at least, find it easier to fund a remake of a 'heritage style body' than a re-bodying of 'just another' Mk1.

Any line/organization that funds the practice of canny acquisition of appropriate underframes and bogies etc now will be in a good position in a few years time.

Additionally I can see a time in the not to distant future where (using the Manusell Restaurant car as a example) where small scale production of say 2 or 3 bodies could take place (MHR and Bluebell for example) where bulk ordering or manufacturing of parts could be cost advantageous.

 

If you want to see a Maunsell Restaurant car, there is a genuine one for which restoration is likely to start in the medium term, and for which fundraising is well under way - I'm sure the group would welcome further donations!

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/7864.html

I kind of agree with this, except that I don't think it will be because older vehicles become magically cheaper, just that Mark 1s will continue to rise in price until more comparable with restoring a wooden bodied vehicle. That rise in price of restoring Mark 1s may well start to cause a few railways to wince. Railways are going to have to fund well-equipped workshops for carriages unless they want to incur the costs of periodic overhauls by outside contractors.

Tom

 

Haha! I just got a wonderful brain fart image of a Japanese heritage railway in 50 years time offering an authentic travel experience complete with people shovers!