567 Victorian 4-4-0 New Build

Will running at 160psi have other knock on effects?

I'm aware that the elevated boiler pressure and being worked hard was cited as a significant contributing factor foe why 4472 was in such heavily worn condition when the NRM took over.

Will it be necessary to look at changing other components to allow for this?

Chris

 

If they're reusing cylinders and motion components from an industrial which ran at 160psi there doesn't seem any obvious reason why they shouldn't continue to do so.

 

The possible use of other parts to help in the manufacture of this engine is in part explained on the 567 website...

..."In researching the new-build No.567 further confirmation as to the Kitson origin of the design has emerged. Kitson & Co, builders of the first of the class, went into receivership in 1937 and in 1938 the patterns, drawings and goodwill of the company were acquired by Robert Stephenson and Hawthorns (RSH). This company is well known for the production of a large number of 0-6-0 industrial locomotives two of which, No.56 of 1950 and No.63 “Corby” of 1954, are based at Ruddington. Close examination of these locomotives has determined that the cylinder block, pistons, connecting rods and coupling rods are amongst the components that are identical or very similar to those on No.567. This gives confirmation that the original design of the GCR Class 2 was very much a Kitson design."

 

Is there any other confirmation that the design is a Kitson design? Based on the above comment it could be said that the design was by the GCR, who then supplied drawings to Kitsons so that Kitsons could build one for the GCR. Afterwards Kitsons used the designs for their own purposes. Not a Kitson design, but a GCR design used by Kitsons?

 

I doubt it's a simple as a "GCR design" or a "Kitson" design. One thing that stuck out from when it was more active was that the bogie wheels are (AIUI) identical to the O4's pony wheels, and was a widely-used Kitson wheel pattern.

I suspect the overall arrangement is GCR, but the details are Kitson's - ie one wheel of a generic sort is as good as another, so specify diameter and let Kitson's fill in the size, ditto with the cylinder block, specify bore and stroke and let Kitsons fill in lubrication details, casting details etc.

One of the GCR CMEs (Pollitt(?)) was in tenure for a few years, married money and was off like a shot. I don't get the feeling he was a details guy

 

If there is a concern I'd have thought it is probably more related to the addition stress imposed on various bearings in the drive, all the way down to the axleboxes, but as the GCR is hardly an arduous line to work, and it's likely to do a lot of work elsewhere in comparison, I wouldn't have thought it is likely to prove to be a big issue.

 

Volume 2 of Dow's Great Central trilogy relates the genesis of the Class 2s. The first of the class, no.561, was ordered by the MSLR from Kitsons for the Jubilee exhibition in Manchester in 1887. Both companies wanted to display locomotives but because of lack of accommodation the only way to satisfy both parties was for Kitson's to design and build a loco for the MSLR.

After the Exhibition, no.561 was taken to the MSLR's Gorton Works and pulled apart to enable a set of construction drawings to be produced. She remained the only member of the class from November 1887 to April 1890, when the first of a batch of 6 built at Gorton appeared.

 

Some interesting observations above. Perhaps I may add that the dome on the Austerity boiler is further back than that on the GCR 4-4-0, something which has a significant impact on appearance.

The diagram from the 567 web-site shows a 3-ring boiler, with telescopic ring diameters (front to back) of 4ft 2in/4ft 3in/4ft 4in, with steam collector and dome centrally positioned on the middle ring. This 3-ring arrangement was retained on all subsequent GCR 4-4-0 designs up until the final D11 "Directors". But I cannot think of any post-1923 British design with the same arrangement. Most companies had switched to 2-ring boiler construction in the Pre-Grouping period, usually (but not always) with steam-collector dome on the rear ring.

I am unsure from the 567 web-site why the project chose this particular loco type (which became LNER Class D7) rather than the slightly later type (LNER D6) that was built for the 1899 opening of the GCR London Extension. Possibly the project sponsors preferred the earlier type because of its slide valves and/or the round-topped firebox originally fitted. It looks as if the plan is to use a round-topped firebox rather than the Belpaire type carried by the original engine after 1918. Alternatively, it may be that the project sponsors are attracted by the bright green MS&LR livery shown in one of the web-site pictures - very different from the dark green Robinson-era GCR livery.

https://www.lner.info/locos/D/d7.php
https://www.lner.info/locos/D/d6.php

Small 4-4-0s may not be the ideal locos for heritage railways, but I imagine that they will cope with several coaches on a flattish line such as the present-day GCR.

 

The expensive bit of a boiler is the back end. If the firebox (inner and outer) of an existing Austerity can be made to fit, making a new barrel and front tubeplate of any length, number of stages, dome positions etc you like isn't going to break the bank.

Even if you're going completely new build, the fact that Austerity pressings are fairly readily available will keep the cost down compared to going for bespoke tooling.

It also keeps future costs down - if in 30 years time the boiler is due a new firebox and a backhead, you've savings again from the likely availability of standard components - I wouldn't bet the farm on being able to locate bespoke flanging blocks 30 years on!

 

I hope you’re still able to locate those bespoke Manning Wardle class L flanging blocks after 23 years, John.

 

Apart from the appearance, Belpaire fireboxes were both more expensive to build - they could put about £1,000 on the the price of a competitive tender c1950 - and by modern analysis radial stays between a round topped outer firebox and the flat crown sheet below it do reduce local high stresses in the plates at the ends of them - see the animated stress diagrams from finite stress analysis under “New Boiler Project” at www.consuta.org.uk

 

The key takeaways from today's AGM;

- Ruddington as an operational centre is moving away from ground-up heavy locomotive engineering and more toward light engineering and locomotive commissioning; by which I mean workshop space is available for rent but more for projects at a more advanced state of completion with a more definite end date. Think more 'we want to hire this space for six months whilst our project completes' than 'we want to hire this space for - we don't know how long - whilst undertaking our project completely from scratch'.

- 567 Group wants to keep Ruddington as it's main operational base however is looking at alternative locations where work can be progressed more quickly. Potentially this might mean some components are manufactured at Ruddington, whilst others are made elsewhere. It might also mean that when the time comes to set and rivet the frames, they are moved elsewhere for that activity. Locations in Wakefield and Sheffield were mentioned at the AGM as secondary bases where work is also being progressed.

- Work is progressing on completing the bogie and driving wheel hornblocks.

- The intention is to press on and complete the frames, then move on to the bogie, the driving wheels and the motion. The thought is that if we can get to the stage of having a rolling chassis then the project might be seen as less of a risky proposition for grants, also that as it becomes more recognisable as a locomotive it will attract more supporters and donations.

- To date the project has raised £200K and that is currently reckoned to be somewhere in the region of 1/3 to 1/4 of the cost of the completed locomotive.

- Date of completion is obviously going to be dependent upon the level of fundraising achieved but the management team currently believe somewhere between 2027 and 2030 should see the project finished.

 

Wonder if the B1 Trust know this or are exceptions carved out when its a prestigious project they want to keep around?

Certainly sounds a lot more positive, hopefully we're in for a few years of good news and a working locomotive at the end!

 

As it's an overhaul rather than a new build or restoration I would've thought it would be ok. It's not a wreck or a collection of random parts in a shipping container.

 

It was mentioned a few times through the day how the workshops are being restructured/ some tools are being disposed of/ the Railway generally is looking to rent out their workshop space more to projects with a definitive end date and reduced requirement for heavy machine tools. Whether this is actually what the Railway is doing, or just the personal take of the 567 Group management team, is something I can't answer.

I would point out though there is a bit of a difference between the B1 - which looked to be largely in one piece yesterday (and yes I know it's in need of overhaul and looks can be deceiving) - and 567 and the small industrial tanks - which are either reduced to their component parts, or manufacturing same.

 

It's not completely dismantled to a series of component part scattering to workshops and containers /yet/ then. But it's a project that hasn't started with no end definitive end date so it's as close to steaming as 567 is in my eyes both in time scale and that one is slowly moving ahead.

 

A new December newsletter has pictures of the new fabricated rear drag box - which is a positive move forward for the assembly of the frames. There is cash in hand for more parts to be ordered.

 

Cat's out the bag then about the drag box. It was on display at the AGM in a semi-finished state, I held 0ff mentioning it in my AGM notes as I was given to understand that the sponsor hadn't seen it yet. I assume that they have now?

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GCR567Loco/permalink/7047391055337746/?mibextid=c7yyfP

Very welcome little bit of news this morning is that the cylinder block has been sent for overhaul.

 

Nice to see a flurry of activity!
Looking forward to see if this is maintained as there is money available according to their accounts.