Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

(Deleted - duplicate post)

 

I'm not sure I would classify the G5 as 'storming ahead' at the minute. It's been going for a long time and as I understand it there's still pistons, valves, con/coupling rods, inside motion, backhead fittings, lubrication fittings, etc to be made.

I would agree that 82045 is a well organised, informative group that has made fantastic progress since day 1.


Keith

 

I don't know much about the G5 either, other than what I've read in the press, but didn't they reorganise their structure after years of not making much progress? Since then they seem to have gone a bit turbo charged. You're right, they don't have any of the things you list, but having just gone through their website out of interest they do appear to have:
Boiler and firebox
bogie
main-frames
buffers
buffer beams
cylinders
safety valves
‘Westinghouse’ pump
brake gear and tyres for the coupled-wheels
all wheels cast and machined
tyres are in stock and are awaiting final machining prior to fitting
rear section of the cab incorporating the coal bunker and water tank
Ross-pop safety valves
bell-type whistle
Davies & Metcalfe vacuum brake ejector valve
AWS equipment
eight port Wakefield lubricator
pair of Gresham & Craven lifting injectors

I mean, to be honest, for something that's been done out of the limelight that's not a bad list! I was quite surprised.

I think we're nearly in violent agreement. I'm the last person to tell people how to spend their own money, as I said I want all the projects to succeed and don't call any of them unnecessary. My point is we've got all these boilers kicking around (and, on the GWR side a lot of other bits and pieces) which has pushed the projects down the tender route "because we can." nothing wrong with that.

At the same time, with "true" blank sheet of paper new builds, I'm just not sure the evidence is there that that's what people will fund because it's what they want, so much as that's what people will fund because it's what they're being offered.

Bluntly, with your example I'm not stopping people from funding x if that's what they want to do; what I take issue with is any objective claim that "loco x can generate funds ten times quicker than ostensibly more sensible loco y" unless we're throwing into the mix the addendum "because we're starting with z percent from a donor locomotive."

There are 2 scratch new build tanks that are every bit as far down the line as the namer tender locos. The Fowler tank's a sensible pipe dream for the future. Maybe, when the last of the "because we can because we've got this boiler/these frames" locos is done, minds might focus on the "what's objectively a good idea?"

In closing I refer readers to my posts above that this isn't a criticism of any scheme, but it is a criticism of "named tender engines will raise money quicker because it's what people want." is it? Or is that because it's what we're offering?

 

It's a fair point - though in the specific case of Beachy Head, I wouldn't underestimate the psychological draw that that specific locomotive has to many older Bluebell members, on account it was "one that got away" back in the late 1950s, as well as running . Which explains why the project is to recreate Beachy Head, rather than (for example) the next locomotive in the series.

If in a few years time there is a decision to do another locomotive, I think the choice could be interesting. The younger generation who are likely to be more influential in decision making will likely not have a psychological attachment to a specific loco in quite the same way, which might generate a greater diversity on what would be suitable. Whatever it is (and it is likely to involve a complete loco, with next to no major components from a donor), it will have to be something to generate significant enthusiasm that a large number of people can coalesce behind.

Tom

 

What would be ideal;
Light axle loading
Clean
Cheap to run
Easy to crew
Low fuel usage

I think BR may have beaten us to it- Which is why what people want (enthusiasts/public) is what is needed!

I would be really interested to see where the costs of operating steam locos lie in the bigger picture compared to say maintenance of infrastructure and stock?

Chris

Edited as I missed a word out

 

Leader ! Impractical, uneconomic, very difficult to build - and ugly - with zero appeal to the general public. But wouldn't it be nice?

 

Yes please, just as long as I don't have to fire the damn thing.

 

You wont need to if its the oil fired Leader Mk II

 

I recall Bulleid justified this inter alia as a replacement for M7s on empty stock workings from Waterloo. Doesn't sound wildly different from building a 4-4-2 with 6ft.7ins wheels as a sort of E4 replacement on a 25m.p.h. tourist railway.

(Sorry, couldn't resist this!)

Paul H.

 

There are a number of candidates for another loco, though I don't think a Leader is one of them - at least not before about the fifth pint of the night ...

Euromillons time: I have in front of me a rather fetching picture of a mid-nineteenth century Cudworth Goods 0-6-0 from the South Eastern Railway. Now, the historical reason for such a loco would be that it would form the starting point of a sequence that goes Cudworth Goods - Stirling O1 - Wainwright C - Maunsell Q - Bulleid Q1.

But the bonkers reason: it has Mansell wooden-centred driving wheels. It would be worth building just to see the look on people's face when they looked at the varnished teak wheels!

Tom

 

Just to point out the words "inter alia" in my previous posting.
PH

 

Verbum sat sapienti.

 

Tom,

If the Atlantic gents are upto building a second loco. If given a choice. LBSCR K mogul. Fits all the bills.

 

If this posting duplicates any previous I apologise.

Assuming we ignore such matters as how to finance it I would suggest that what might be an appropriate addition to the Bluebell fleet is a Marsh 4-4-2 tank. Whilst the I1s, I2s and I4s can hardly be judged a success the superheating of an I3 and its subsequent running twixt Brighton and Rugby undoubtedly hastened the universal acceptance of superheating throughout the UK,

The I1s after rebuilding, under Maunsell auspices, with redundant B4 saturated steam boilers (I1X) became reliable and useful locos throughout the 'Oxted lines'. Thanks to the late Norman Harvey we have detailed records of their day to day performance.

The I3s, were due to weight considerations limited in their sphere of operation for a period of the Southern Railway's existance, but for the last few years of operation, before replacement by 2-6-4 tanks they were ubiquitous throughout the Oxted line routes, including handling eight coach trains, all stations East Croydon to TWW, with aplomb; hardly the type of working Marsh and his design team can have envisaged when deliberating over the original design. Yes, an I3 running on the Bluebell would look pretty good, one can but dream.

I will have to be content with the sight of them at East Croydon, when I was changing trains, as a young schoolboy making my way home from boarding school at half term or term ends.

Michael Rowe

 

Most of the postings on this thread from about 301 onwards have not been about the Atlantic but about other locos; either visitors to and from the Bluebell or putative new builds. Perhaps move to the Bluebell Motive Power thread?

 

Doesn't sound wildly different from building a 4-4-2 with 6ft.7ins wheels as a sort of E4 replacement on a 25m.p.h. tourist railway.

I don't understand this hang-up with wheel sizes. 6'7" isn't that much bigger than the 6' - 6'2" of most of the successful mixed traffic classes, and all of the big 4 used cascaded big-wheeled 4-4-0s on secondary services- clearly they had no qualms about wheel sizes. In the case of the atlantic it's suitability for the Bluebell is perhaps more questionable in terms of its grate size but I doubt whether it's much bigger than a 2-6-4 tank, which most would accept is a very suitable engine.

 

And presumably a lot smaller than Bulleid pacifics and 9Fs.

 

Well if the Blubell decide to follow the PH philosophy you could always consider the small, very pretty and relevant Adams T1

................................Oh and there's a boiler that could be used!!!

Would be good cover to the H and a nice stable partner to the Radial tank.


Paul

 

Or just restore the radial - please!