4003 Lode Star

This is inevitable. The baton gets passed on. One hopes there will still be steam locomotive projects going when we've all kicked the bucket. If anyone here wants to get involved in researching or planning for a Dean Single join the GWS and make contact, and I imagine they'll put you in touch with other interested parties. I don't know what's actively happening at the moment, but it would be surprising if nothing was.

 

Re the single wheelers, I find myself thinking back to the building of Iron Duke which used austerity parts and an austerity boiler to build what was a highly convincing replica of the broad gauge loco, and I feel there's some merit in applying this level of thinking to other classes.

I have always wanted, for example, to see a GNR 2-2-2 (of which there's a clear choice), given the likelihood that no.1 will not steam again. Using standard components already existing (or able to be built more cheaply) around a new set of frames and a tender might bring the overall costs of a new build down.

Of course, I am spitballing there.

 

Co-incidentally the GWS Facebook page has just posted a scan of a drawing of the cylinders from no 10 of 1886, which was an experimental 2-2-2, and the first GWR design to have the valves under the cylinders, which layout was later used on the Dean 4-2-2 Singles and 4-4-0s.

 

I'm not sure what their thinking is. They de-accessioned a couple of unique locos recently.

 

That was why I would be quite content with "The Queen" on static display at Didcot, perhaps with just sufficient additional work to allow it to be towed (new driving wheels and axle boxes?).

 

Whilst a Dean Single would be lovely, I think the practicalities of where it could\would run probably make it a less appealing machine.

A Dean goods on the other hand, whilst not being unique would be a more useful machine, there is a boiler kicking about somewhere I believe, and there must be some commonality with other surviving/existing locos to be able to save on production of parts where multiple orders may be possible?

it may not be as glamorous but is certainly something with merit!

Chris

 

On this forum - just no. Please - no ...

Tom

 

According to a post on the Churchward County website, the frame drawing(s) for 3840 was supplied by the GWS, which suggests that the GWS may have quite a good library of drawings. There are some drawings available from the OPC/NRM collection which I am sure Didcot has. I have here for instance the GA, cross sections, frame plans and tender drawings. I cannot believe that the project group does not have these, but if for some strange reason they do not, they are welcome to mine.

 

Sorry, I risked opening that can again.

Chris

 

The original steam pipes to the flange on the back of the cylinder are shown on a drawing in Nock's "Stars Castles and Kings" of North Star passing through the smokebox saddle formed as part of the massive bracket that stiffens the frames for the outside cylinders and incorporates the exhaust passages fro the outside cylinders. It may be that the superheater header of later castle type did not allow the pipework to do this simply, so it was easier to go with the elbow pipes. I'd be surprised if the the superheater header is the old type, but it would be intersting to see inside the smokebox. Are there any pictues of this loco with the door open?

Rob

 

Did earlier headers stick out more? I have a vague recollection that they did, but my copy of Nock is in storage at the mo. I assume the drawing of 4000 shows the header for a No.3 superheater? For what it's worth, I've attached some photos taken between the frames of 4003, showing the pipe on the fireman's side. The cladding was obviously removed for asbestos removal, and then only partially replaced - it does at least prove that the pipes really are there! The pipes themselves are quite pitted, I would say they were an original set Swindon had lying around, rather than bespoke-made in 1961, although it's possible that the pitting is a result of the lagging having remained damp for a long time. Anyway, the first photo shows the pipe leaving the back of the smokebox saddle, the second is taken from the opposite direction (i.e. looking up), the third is taken from the driver's side - you can see how the pipe curves round at the bottom in order to enter the cylinder. Anyway, hope it's of some interest, they are very awkward to photograph!

 

I can't speak for GWR loco drawings but for GWR coaches the NRM seems to have all the drawings ever done of every part. Just the list of the coach drawings alone is about 850 pages, and you can search through the pdf for what you want. The NRM person to contact is Chris Valkoinen email him at Copy.service@railwaymuseum.org.uk. Not met him but he is always very helpful if you email him. You can just order the drawings from the list but then you take the chance that it isn't what you need, so you can also go to York and arrange to look at them but you have to let them know at least a week in advance what drawings you want to see and when you are coming and you can only look at about 10 at a time.
It is cheaper (and better) if you get them in downloadable format then you can print as many copies as you want. The Swindon drawings were often done on tracing paper which in some cases has deteriorated so it says the condition of each drawing on the list.

 

Without wanting to pick on you particularly, it just shows how careful we need to be about statements on forums. Someone could easily have got the impression you were stating categorically that Lode Star had no inside steam pipes and then repeated it elsewhere as gospel.

There are various rumours going round about some of the GWS projects and plans that appear to be equally unsupported by anything I've heard in any GWS communication, and I can't help suspecting that they may be founded on supposition rather than any real knowledge, but if one doesn't know the facts for sure it seems unhelpful to challenge them.

Anyway, thanks to Mr Valentine for the definitive position. Just need someone who can distinguish between the many iterations of Star blast pipe, steam pipe and superheater arrangements to look inside the smokebox and see what is there...

 

To some extent, that is what is already happening with a lot of new build projects, particularly the various GWR projects (Saint, Counties, Grange, 47XX); they are essentially conversions from existing locos. Even locos like the Patriot, Brighton Atlantic and GCR 567 all incorporate a greater or lesser number of pre-existing components, albeit most of them not from locomotives which had previously survived (essentially) intact.

As Tom pointed out, though, even if we can raise the funds to build an engine, there will be a finite amount of work available for it. So, if a surviving locomotive is duplicated in preservation and has little prospect of restoration in its original form, I don't object to it being sacrificed to create something new. However, generally speaking I would sound a note of caution against the proliferation of new-build projects, because I worry, as Tom said, that by creating lots of shiny new engines we will end up condemning old favourites to many years of neglect.

Although I was speaking with tongue-in-cheek when I mentioned the Dean Single, in a way I think it is a relatively sensible choice precisely because it would not be competing for preserved line work with other locos. I suspect it would spend most of its time just shuffling up and down the demonstration line at Didcot. To my mind it doesn't matter too much if other Didcot locos remain out-of-ticket as a consequence, because at least Didcot is geared up to store and display those locos under cove.

 

(Tin hat ON ..... Dives for cover)
How's about the earlier Armstrong flavoured one?

 

Or combine the two new build suggestions and go for a Sir Daniel 0-6-0 rebuild. And try explaining that mutant to the general public.

 

I don't know why you'd think a Single would be confined to Didcot. In many ways it would be perfect for most of our lines, few of which have much in the way of gradients

 

Might find the NYMR or the incline on the East Lancs over the Metrolink bridge a bit of a challenge

 

GCR & GWSR aside most of our heritage lines have appreciable gradients. Thinking back to 9017 on the SVR (by no means the steepest line) that loco was limited to load 5 as I recall it the limiting factor being a northbound restart from Highley.
In similar circumstances a single wheeler with large driving wheels would probably manage load 3 max given the need to cope with different railhead conditions and not shred the timetable. Special events and fare supplements aside that is hardly a paying load.

 

I don't know which railways you routinely visit, but there is considerable data here:

https://www.national-preservation.c...es-of-heritage-railways-list-in-post-1.95457/

From those, the maximum gradients on a variety of lines are as follows. In many cases these are quite sustained and / or have notable curves as well:

Bluebell - 1 in 55
Bo'ness - 1 in 58
Dartmouth - 1 in 55
East Lancs - 1 in 36 for a very short section, but 1 in 80 sustained
East Somerset - 1 in 70
Isle of Wight - 1 in 70
KWVR - 1 in 58
KESR - 1 in 50
Mid Hants - 1 in 60
NYMR - 1 in 40
Severn Valley - 1 in 100
Swanage - 1 in 76
West Somerset - 1 in 65

Without getting into a "my line is steeper than yours" argument, that is a reasonable selection of major lines around the country, and I suspect a single wheeled loco would rather struggle to pull a decent load on a lot of those, even with good railhead conditions. I'd love to see a Dean Single operate, but I don't think you could say "it would be perfect for most of our lines".

Tom