New builds - how many will ever really work?

wonderful video: you must show it to that silly, imbecil, crappy HSE "officers" and others creatures from the "PC" fringe!
regards
noel

 

In the latest issue of a certain heritage railway magazine, there is a thought-provoking and, in my view, well-balanced letter with the title: "Preserve what we have before building new." the title is shown against a sepia photograph of the original MS&LR 4-4-0 No 567 and alludes to the new-build project to recreate this locomotive. The author argues that we need to spend money now on conserving what railway locomotives and rolling stock we already have at heritage sites and, in many cases, this means urgent construction of covered accommodation. The author points out that a visit to any heritage railway, "large or small, ...sidings full of locomotives and rolling stock gradually succumbing to the ravages of time and weather."
There is no doubt that this is a generally sound argument but to quote Captain Blackadder, there is a tiny flaw in the plan...
People will spend money on what they want to.
Whilst many heritage railways are working to put their valuable assets under cover and, where possible, restore them or offer them for sale to people who can restore them, they cannot dictate what supporters or beneficiaries of the railway heritage movement will do with their own money and that is the big flaw in the argument. Logically, the writer is spot on but so much in the heritage movement is, by nature, history or deliberation, illogical.
For example, there has been much recent discussion on this forum regarding the construction of another new build/hybrid steam locomotive, the Churchward 47xx 2-8-0. When the GWS put forward this proposal a little while ago, I recall reading a post by some fool who believed that the only 47xx that would be built was a scale model. Oh yes that fool was me! I had reckoned without the planning, determination, logistics and most importantly, kick-start funding that was available to enable this project to be formally announced and launched in a very positive atmosphere by an organisation that had already enough backing to say that the project was under way. This was not a "Hornby Catalogue/Facebook/let's build an LNER loco/chat room web page," this was a proper project.
There are several 51xx and 28xx locomotives alone that should be restored. The 51xx 2-6-2Ts have already proved themselves as ideal heritage line locomotives, doing a very similar job to their GWR/BR days. Therefore, logically they should all be in service having been gobbled up and restored for use. Instead, considerable amounts of money are going to be spent on a large 2-8-0 with 5ft 8in main wheels and a unique boiler which was used by its owners for generally one task only, fast fitted freights run mainly at night on restricted routes. Yet, as Churchward's last design, the 47xx is perhaps a missing link and the construction of a full size new build, based upon some non-unique GWR donor locomotives is bound to succeed as long as the support is there. It is a classic example of what some might argue is illogical use of money to create a new locomotive whilst others remain unrestored.
So, whilst we have freedom to choose how we spend our m oney, I guess we will never be logical.
And the full-size 47xx? Well, I freely admit that I would go to Didcot to see it, just as I will to see the County and the Saint once they are done. As for money, mine's literally on the Patriot and the 82xxx!

 

The latest copy of SR has an article by Wardale on the shelving of the 5AT project. Disappointing but understandable.

 

The LNER didn't build any small passenger tanks; it inherited them!

 

It built all but 12 of the N7's and many of the N2's.

 

Perhaps that should have read "The LNER didn't design any small passenger tanks of its own; it inherited the designs of the ones they did build"...

 

why"understandable"?? it's a very sad new : I have not yet received the last isuue(I live in france= late delivery-15 days about!!!) can you enlight me about the D.Wardale annouce?
It's vey sad because it was-by the very far- the more interesting and challenging project!!.........british irreducible conservatism????????:nerd:
regards
noel

 

Basically yes - very little support from the movement.

 

If you've not seen it yet, the formal announcement is here: Project Suspension Announcement | 5AT Advanced Steam Locomotive Project.

 

Why bother? Preservation is about what is old, not what is new. Perhaps the 5AT was aimed at the wrong section of people from the start. I have no interest in putting my money into something like the 5AT but I might be interested in putting money into a new build of some kind one day that represents a lost design.

 

Steam traction on the mainline is not worth preserving then? We have the thread about diesels being used to assist steam. But does anyone think about the whys and wherefores of this? The locomotives we have are simply not capable enough - end of story. We have an A1 to play with, it weighs a little over 105 tons and so by the standards of sixty and more years ago it should be able to maintain 4200ihp, with water level constant and full boiler pressure maintained - little sign of that being possible so far and given what we know of the design as it stands - currently totally impossible.

The 5at was a starting point, you can argue about whether or not it was the right one, but it would have given a great deal of feedback to counter the arguements of those whose understanding of the steam locomotive has not progressed beyond the platform end and the Ian Allan ABC. The team who put the project together will disperse and it will be very difficult to reactivate matters should the need arise

When the day comes that no mainline excursion runs without an i.c. or electric chaperon how will you convince the next generations that the steam locomotive was quite capable of working a train on it's own? Pottering around on a preserved line is interesting enough for some in it's own way but it will convince very few.

When I first started to travel on steam hauled excursions some of the preserved engines were quite capable of matching the overall level of performance of the then existing modern traction with the exception of electrics and the type 55. Time has moved on far and fast and the overall ability of steam traction on today's network is embarassing in comparison wth the modern traction of the hour. but this need not be the case.

 

Sorry, I don't see what your point is? Yes, modern traction has a better power to weight ratio, better availability, greater fuel efficiency, requires less maintenance etc etc than 60 - 80 year old steam designs. So what? - that's called progress. But what are you trying to prove by trying to match modern traction by updating steam? Even if the 5AT or similar design worked exactly as designed, it still wouldn't match modern traction. So if you want efficiency - use modern traction. If you want romance, use heritage steam (either real heritage, or increasingly likely to be new build), and just accept it will not have the thermal, manpower or financial efficiency of modern traction.

You might as well bemoan the fact that a DeHavilland Dragon Rapide carries a tenth of the passengers of an Airbus at a quarter of the speed - but we can solve that problem by making a "next generation" Rapide using modern materials science, understanding of aerodynamics etc. Maybe you'll build something that can carry a quarter of the passengers of an Airbus at a third of the speed. But so what - what you've created ends up still not being an efficient airliner, but not being a romantic machine either.

I'm profoundly indifferent to the 5AT - it's a solution looking to solve a non-existent problem.

Your mileage may vary, of course!

Tom

 

Ah, glad we've all woken up now - thought my post had sunk without trace. As our French friend said - it's all down to our innate conservatism. Personally, as an engineer and steam nut I think it's a great shame. Non-'enthusiast' type operations e.g. the VSOE's could have benefited greatly years on from now, and that's where the long-term future lies for mainline steam I believe, once all the old gricers have passed on.

You've only got to look at the ever increasing failure rate year-on-year as old metal fatigues to see what the future holds and I'm not at all sure that constructing more copies of old designs is going to ensure the long term viability of our passion (P2 apart of course ).

I guess there just aren't enough inquisitive engineers around who share our desire to find out just how good steam locomotion could have been. One can only imagine the engineering greats from history gazing down on us in despair.

 

We know how good steam locomotion can be. You generate your steam in a large central plant, pass it through a turbine, generate electricity and use that to power a locomotive...

Surely a great engineer should be seeking to solve the problem "how do we use stored energy (coal, oil, nuclear etc etc) with the utmost efficiency to promote mass transportation?" The 5AT is trying to solve the problem "can we prolong the life beyond its natural span of a machine that will never be the most efficient way to use energy?"

It's like an engineer in the era of flat screen displays saying "I've got a great idea whereby I can halve the depth of a cathode ray tube". Might represent clever design, but its dead in the water before you even start.

It's Tom by the way - the clue is in the signature!

Tom

 

No problem - my user name is based on my surname...

Yes, but that is surely the equivalent of Tornado - looks like a heritage design, but has a few modern tricks under the skin (such as roller bearings, steel firebox) that add a bit of efficiency or ease of manufacture without fundamentally altering the appearance or design from something historic. I'd argue that is fundamentally different to the 5AT.

I'd argue that using Morgan as an example makes my point. Those that want a "heritage" experience, but need to comply with modern safety rules etc, can get a new morgan that effectively looks like an old one. But anyone wanting to design the best car (whether you define that in performance, fuel efficiency or other criteria) doesn't start with a Morgan and try to improve it. It's an evolutionary dead end that no amount of tinkering with the basic design will get past the fundamental flaws. It's the same with traditional steam engines - they are an evolutionary dead end and the 5AT is tinkering when teh world has moved on.

Tom

 

The 5at would have shown only a part of what could be achieved. Being simple expansion it had a fundamental problem from the start, but the basic idea was to show more what should hace been achieved many years ago. British engineers were the prisoners of a poor mindset to say nothing of the fact that some were not intellectually adequate enough to allow progress to be made.

The lead time for the production of a design that would offer sufficient performance to safeguard steam on the mainline would be substantial. You cannot obtain such a piece of work off the shelf, not in this country anyway. If you are preservationists then modifying an existing class member would not be the best idea though there is always a temptation to rebuild a MN as a 3 cylinder 4-8-0 - compound preferred naturally. (There would be precious little left by the time you had finished though)

During WW2 the Germans took a Norwegian 2-8-4 for trials in Germany. This engine gave them a nasty surprise since it could match the times of the German Pacifics without matching them for speed. Why? Acceleration. The 2-8-4 was a compound with 1.53m diameter driving wheels. The reason I mention this is that lack of acceleration is a major issue out on the national network. But it need not have ben the case if only the right design decisions had been taken in the past. The choice is stark; stick with what you have and fade away as a consequence or overcome prejudices and get creative.

 

Whilst I'm a huge fan and supporter of Tornado, I and others would have like to have seen rather more modern steam practice incorporated. Of course you then risk alienating the purists if ANY of this kit might happen to be visible. Hopefully the P2 will be given a bit more rein in that respect.

Conversely, the 5AT's appearance could have been toned down a bit to gain wider acceptance in today's conservative market - e.g. maybe a Spam Can type casing would have sat well with the Boxpok wheels and hidden a few of the 'offensive' bits from the photters - 2C001 anyone?

So by your reckoning then, all the machines built by the Campbells and their followers were also pointless, as if you want to get from A-B a quickly as possibly then the only way is to fly. In fact Thrust 2 and Thrust SSC are even more pointless than the 5AT, as you can't actually use them on the public highway, or convey more than one person at a time. But if we all subscribed to your view the world would be a much duller place.

Anyway, it's a mute point now, but when we're all dead and gone to the great ashpit in the sky, it would have been nice to think we'd left our grand kids with a viable mainline steam loco as our legacy.