L1 new build

we are in the process of finding out if the drawing exist and once we got the drawings we will find a base to build this.

thanks

stuart

 

Oh that's cruel. :rofl:

 

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation, Steve. I am now going for a nice lie down with a couple of Co-Dydramols while I get my head round that!!!

 

Torque variation and associated peaks of TE have some interesting consequences, micro-slip and the tyre wear that goes with it being just one of them. With a three cylinder locomotive you can make use of the lower rate of fluctuation by designing your locomotive to have a higher nominal TE than would have been used with a two cylinder design of similar overall weight/size. The factor of adhesion is frequently maintained at around 4 yet the K4 with an adhesive weight of 57t 18cwt has a factor of 3.54 and a nominal TE of 36,599lb - it weighs less than a Black 5 too. Interestingly what was probably the best starting locomotive in Europe was a 3 cylinder design - it did have the further advantage of being a compound. The steam locomotive is nearly always poor at starting since it lacks both adhesive weight and tractive effort, this means that it is never trusted with what are considered really heavy trains.

As for the L1 project? Why not build something really outstanding? Build the W1 in original form - fully free from the issues that restricted it at the first attempt.

 

we are sticking with an L1 for our first build

 

Vs a W1 that at least is very sensible!

 

thankyou

 

I think for a preserved line an L1 is abit more sensible than a W1. All it needs is better axle boxes.
The trade of for that mre powerful cylinder push on the two cylinder loco is of course the need for amore robust axlebox arangement and frames, some of the larger BR Standards frames were in a sorry state after only 10 years, the idea of Bulleid style frames with only two outside cylinders didnt help...

 

thanyou for the info

 

I don't know whether any of you have read the RCTS book Locos of the LNER 9A. One section is about the L1s. The axleboxes were similar to those fitted to the V3s. In 1954 10 Neasden L1s were fitted with manganese steel liners to the axleboxes and horns. This was accompanied by removal of the wedges. It was found that this stopped heated bearings.

 

Think theres a mention of this in Dick Hardy's book too. Both essential to have in your projects Reference library i feel.

 

Your first? Given up on the J39 then, have we?

 

It was a bit heavy! Perhaps the lateness of the hour and the alcohol had an effect!
Anyhow, I've started a discussion in the MIC section where I hope thast I've explained it a lot better.

 

yes our first ! , the J39 group is still around but due to the fact there was little communication between the team 3 of us left and i decided to do a L1 tank new build and the other two joined me and all of us at the L1 group communicate with each other unlike the J39 group.

 

/sigh another new build. sorry I think there is just way too many now. It was fun at first to see lots of groups after Tornado to say they were going to build loco x and so on but now there is so many its just silly. I know that ppl have every right to try, and some of course will succeed. but I feel that many will simply dry up when they find out the true cost of building these machines. As for the L1 group, good luck to you. I think a V3 would probably be better though. Mind you, anythings better than a P2. Nice engine, but if network rail dont allow 9Fs any more on national network, then I doubt they would allow a massive beast like the P2 anywhere near teh main line.

 

Hmm, perhaps, but the difference, as I see it, is that the 9F ban is because of the flangeless centre drivers, as opposed to size. Martin has already covered the point about access possibilities being covered before metal is cut. We will see

Mark

 

There seems to be a misconception about 9f's; as mentioned the ban is due to the flangeless middle drivers -necessary to get such a long wheelbase around curves, but apart from this long wheelbase there s nothing massive about a 9f, its shorter than any of the Pacifics and lighter apart from the Clan or WC/BB... No one ever calls V2'S Massive but theres a lot more metal in one than a 9F.

 

The problem with the 9F is not size of loco but flangeless middle drivers and that's not a problem a new build P2 will have.