New builds - how many will ever really work?

I think that may be down to the perhaps unsaid psychological barrier which is that all replicas have to be of classes which no longer exist. I wonder if we will, in time, see locomotives such as the 3MT perpetuated for use elsewhere in the country, or using new "standard" components which can be made common to several different classes, to build a locomotive anew, or repair.

 

Good point, my replica Lion scheme will have to wait! Given the nature of the new build projects announced/started I doubt that the replicated locos will gain sisters, a major part of the appeal seems to be creating a one off. Would Tornado be such a crowd puller if another A1 was built?

 

One question I have is would a standard 3 tank be powerful enough for all preserved lines? Would something more like a fowler 2-6-4t be more suited. Its more powerful. It has a cheaper design boiler and shares parts with the Irish jeep. Ok I'm biased as I like the lms and would love to see a fowler 2-6-4. I don't know everything about standard 3tanks, but for instance would they be capable of load 5 or 6 up cauldon lowe on the cvr?

Gavin

 

Would a Fowler 2-6-4T?

 

Would a Thompson L1 be better at hill climbing?

 

Don't know Gavin, but it's an interesting thought that the Irish Jeep shares a lot of commonality with the Fowler equivalent. If it could be measured up and tooling costs shared...another potential lazarus engine there!

No idea!

I'm not going there

So there's scope to build engines using ones still existing as templates in some respects.

 

Max load for a Class 3 loco over the SVR in BR days was 310 tons.

 

A 'Big Bertha' will do it!!!

 

In all cases of new build the biggest cost is always the boiler - find a boiler thats easy to produce, or already exists and you are half way there. Certainly with the combination of the parts needed for 72010, 84035 and the various restorations of standards that are underway there will be an impressive catalogue of patterns to make any standard that did or didnt exist, if you can afford a boiler

Remember that the smaller standard tanks we're built to run to weight limits that are no longer a factor on the lines they are running on now , as a result you can have a 250 psi boiler made for a 3 and it ll do what a 4 would have done... if thats an issue

 

So someone would have to completely redesign a boiler, I do not see the point. Even for a Class 4 boiler pressure of 225 psi, a redesign would be required.

 

The latest issue of Heritage Railway Magazine is speculating about a possible new build GWR Dean Goods using an existing boiler that has apparently never been steamed after its last Swindon overhaul. This boiler was going to be modified to fit pannier 9629, but a spare 57xx boiler has become available at Didcot for this engine.

David

 

The project to build a new GCR 4-4-0 is more than mooted, it is established. Fundraising has progressed very well since the press launch of the project in May 2011, and we now have funding available or pledged to construct the locomotive frame, bogie and bogie wheel sets, which together with the tender and cylinder block already secured constitutes a very solid start. We expect to be placing orders for the frame plates and for machining of them in the third quarter of this year with assembly to follow. With only two surviving GC locomotives in this country, No567 will fill a very obvious gap in the lineage of MS&LR and GCR locomotives, with a machine that will be very well suited to operation on heritage railways.


The GCR No567 Project

 

I have just read the article with great interest. Whilst a static example exisits at Swindon STEAM (which makes production of a new one somewhat easier as a real reference exists) it would be an asset for many GWR preserved lines especially during off-peak season and for special events. I was surprised to read that 54 examples made it into BR service. The fact that a suitable boiler survives with an "as new" firebox is, as has been said already, a real bonus and may make the difference between project success or failure.
Also interesting to see the article on the new 47xx with its newly-cut frames. Interesting times!

 

Has anyone suggested the 77XXX class for a newbuild yet? or have I just missed it in the blizzard of newbuild proposals?

 

Yes, it has been suggested and would be theoretically possible as there are common parts of course, but the 3MT Group is focussing on completing the 82xxx first but has not discounted the possibility of perhaps assisting another project in the future. (As far as I understand it.)

 

The Standard 3 2-6-0 Class has been in the minds of BRSLOG members for a number of years.

 

A 77xxx would 'complete the set' as it were with the construction of Hengist, 82045 and the Bluebell 2 2-6-2T, but they always struck me as ungainly looking beasts, the boiler too small for the loco, and what with there only having been 20 originally I wonder how much interest could be stirred.

A Dean Goods however...now there is a new-build project I'd set up a standing order for!

 

One of the earliest ideas for a new build was for a copy of 77014. The class didn't make a lot of impact, but 77014 was a celebrity loco on the southern for a couple of years and worked right up to the last day. Same boiler as the class 3 2-6-2, so a lot of design and tooling work to be saved.

 

I believe 77014 worked the last train on the last day.

Agreed they were ugly beasts but would be useful on heritage lines. I'm not sure how strong they are, but no doubt that will be evident once the tank version is running.

 

Worth bearing in mind that the tank version will have a greater weight on the driving wheels, probably giving it an edge in pulling power.