Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

I don't think we will ever be able to able to agree but at least we do it amicably. You say "where's the passion". say "a bit more sense please".

If I were to summarise my thoughts they are that one does not deliver coal using a Type 35 Bugatti any more than one wins a Grand Prix in a Model T Ford lorry.

With best wishes

PH

 

Absolutely Paul and I enjoy our exchanges. I also think that it's absolutely necessary to have 'contrarians' to a prevailing opinion (Although I'd admit that you're hardly a lone cry in the wilderness over the topic of new builds and over the topic of potentially stretching resources thin. I'd say there are more than a few people in the movement who strongly support your position or hold similar positions). The 'contrarian' opinion, well articulated as your's keeps people like myself who involved in such a project, mindful of the pitfalls. It's good and necessary to be challenged and to ensure that your project is self-sustaining for the reasons you rightly articulate.

I get it that you're not against new-builds per se but rather consider some more suitable than others. This is a prima facie reasonable point to make. In summary my response would be to say that 'suitability' is a far more nebulous term and harder to quantify than might be supposed and perhaps suitability is ultimately determined by those that survive and those that don't (although poor management and organisation may also cruel a project.)

As to your analogy, I'd say that if the Type 35 Bugatti is the express engine and the Model T lorry the 'more suitable' goods and mixed traffic classes, then surely one was expressly designed to transport people and the other goods, including coal? Surely then the Bugatti is more suitable for transporting people that the lorry? Ok I'm being a bit cute there with my response but both the lorry and the Bugatti will transport people, which is the job we're talking about.

Thanks again and best wishes to you too.

 

i dont like to disagree with paulhitch, but close study of the H2 Atlantics in service indicates they had quite a bit 'up their sleeve' so far as the Bluebell services are concerned. they will also cope with crap coal. the H2 Atlantics were far superior to the GNR Atlantics in very many ways. that they would accelerate out of Victoria up Grosvenor bank with the heavy Newhaven Boat trains suggests quite a lot in my book. the magic wand of B.K. Field was waved over the design, and they were marvelous locos. in fact they were adored by the footplate crews. i have supported this project from the start and will continue to do so like tom, and cant wait till Fred Bailey and his team have completed their thorough attention to detail, superb construction standards, and marvelous work!
cheers,
julian

 

No problem about disagreeing with me; feel free!

They also rode better than the G.N.R. machine by all accounts. However none of this is particularly relevant I fear. Those in favour of this project, having made up their mind, are casting around for reasons to justify this decision. This is an all too common human failing.

PH

 

True, but then the equal and opposite error is pretty common too.

 

You're missing the point Paul. Nobody buys a Bugatti for its fuel consumption, it's practicality, or its boot space. You buy (I don't, I drive a very battered old Mondeo) a Bugatti because you want one! And that is the centre of preservation... If you want the most practical machine for hauling passengers at 25mph on a branch line, I'm pretty sure your best bet would be a DMU.

Nobody is rebuilding Barry scrapyard wrecks, new A1s, or getting up at 4am to light up a loco on a cold morning because its practical!

 

You are awfully dismissive of what, though mostly new build, is still a great exercise in recycling components. There's also no "justification" required: it's well on its way to being built and to stop now would be a woeful waste of funds and talent. The locomotive has justified itself because the support structure (supporters, a railway, a workshop and major components) are already in existence.

The locomotive when built is going to have ample power for trains - which as explained by Tom on the Bluebell Motive Power thread, is better than thrashing locomotives which don't - not to mention (as you yourself have mentioned) have good riding characteristics and generally present a tidy and well proportioned locomotive when running.

Why all the negativity when the locomotive is not just filling a gap, but recycling components, giving the Bluebell a powerful locomotive which won't need to be thrashed to keep the timetable and also present an added and authentic historical interest to their already mostly unique collection of rolling stock?

I am beginning to feel that you are trying desperately to justify a point of view that refuses point blank to see any positives in this new build, let alone the others.

 

I think you had better read what I actually said. No objection to newbuilds provided they do what is needed and are not unnecessarily costly to build and operate. From time to time I handle a (narrow gauge) newbuild myself. It does the job it was built to do with great success and with remarkable economy. Had a prototype twice as large been selected it would have offered no operational advantages whatsoever and cost more to run simply because of its own un-necessary mass to haul around.

It would be very rude of me to suggest that work on the H2 should cease and I am not. But no more please!

A long time ago it was said to me that the biggest threat to the long term future of preserved railways was unchecked romanticism. Whilst a quantity was a necessity, if left unrestrained it just wasted considerable amounts of money. Nothing much seems to have changed.

PH

 

But it's been this way for the last 62 years, at least. Back in 1951, I'm sure that the Rolts & Whitehouses of this world would have considered that to be long term.

 

The argument Mr. Hitch uses against new builds and extensions is largely the same that others have used against various heritage railway projects going back many years. Whilst there have been projects that have fallen by the wayside, the vast majority has confounded the critics and blossomed. Now the detractors may be proved right in the long term but in the meantime the various groups will forge on with their respective projects not because they necessarily make sense or are practical but because they are inspired by all manner of other reasons. If we had any brains, most of us wouldn't have got involved in the first place.

 

If I paraphrase you right, your view of the H2 is that it will be expensive to build and expensive to operate on account of being too big.

On the build cost, significant parts (tender underframe and wheels, and the boiler) were bought at essentially scrap prices, so are considerably cheaper than they could be made new, whilst being in effect new. The tender wheels (which cost £400 about ten years ago) are stamped 1958 or 1959 on the axles and tyres, and can have been hardly used. So on build cost, without underestimating that cost, it should be considerably cheaper than if everything had to be made new.

As for running costs, coal (and dragging its own weight around) is only a part of it. If you look at the total running cost of a steam loco, including setting aside overhaul costs, overhauls can be as much as the coal bill, especially of a loco that had a hard life in BR service and is significantly worn. So a brand new loco should cost significantly less to overhaul for its first two or three tickets. That is a significant saving (relative to, say, an ex-Barry loco) to set against the construction costs.

Finally, on size, it's not actually that big a loco. Our current requirement is for six coaches up a line that is, at its steepest, 1:55 - that's a tare load of about 210 to 220 tons. Within perhaps the first boiler ticket, that may rise to seven coaches - say 245 to 255 tons. With that requirement, a loco with 21,000lb of TE and about 31 square feet of grate area is not exactly large. (In comparison, the grate of a Black 5 is 28.5 square feet; a Collett Hall 27 square feet; so the H2 is not a lot bigger in grate, and rather smaller in TE).

To take another potential new build, a C2X might be nice, and typical for the line. But I suspect it wouldn't be able to take a 250 ton load along the line within the timetable, at least not without knocking six bells out of itself and giving higher subsequent overhaul costs. And it would probably be more expensive to build than the Atlantic anyway, on account of needing a new boiler to be part of the build. I also wonder if the coal bill of a C2X on the same load as an Atlantic might actually be higher, on account of working harder and throwing more of its fire. Wasn't it Webb on the LNWR that reckoned 25% of all the coal went unburnt up the chimney, on account of how relatively small locos were thrashed on big loads?

Tom

 

Thrashed on big loads? Come on, this is a little over 200 tons at 25m.p.h. Not the Southern Belle or the Newhaven Boat Train. Without success I have been looking for confirmation that a C2x was tested shortly after rebuilding on 700 ton loads. That would count as thrashing!

Apologies for continuing

Paul H

 

Not up a 1:55 gradient though...

Bradley covers trials with a couple of C2 and C2x locos on the Brighton mainline on loads up to around 800 tons. Coal consumption was over 56lb per mile (how much was burnt and how much up the chimney was not recorded!), water consumption about 70 gallons per mile and the locos were worked with cut-offs of 72% uphill, while speed was down to 7 mph. But that was on a line with maximum gradient of 1:264, and presumably was done to find the absolute limit, rather than what was a desirable limit. (Coal was a mixture of best quality Notts and Welsh, hand picked and broken into ideal sized lumps; weather was dry and rail conditions good).

So not really a practical proposition on a line in which the gradients (and therefore gravitational resistance for a given load) are more than four times steeper, while the required running speed is nearly four times faster!

Tom

 

But three times to four times the load.

PH

 

Yes, but look at the gradient and compute the gravitational pull back down the hill in relation to the Tractive Effort; and then consider the operations manager faced with a loco that was running at 7mph or less up hill...

A C2x (weight in working order 81 tons) pulling an 815 ton train up a 1:264 gradient is subject to a gravitational pull of

2240* (815+81)/264 = 7600lbs, against an available TE of 19,000lbs.

The same loco pulling a 250 ton train up a 1:55 gradient is subject to a gravitational pull of

2240 * (250+81)/55 = 13,500 lbs

In other words, the gradient is king: put 250 tons behind a C2x on a 1:55 gradient and it will be working far harder than a load of 800 tons on a 1:264 gradient. OK, you'd need to factor in the higher rolling resistance of grease axlebox wagons against modern carriages, but even so, just because a loco can slog away at a big load on a very lightly graded line, doesn't mean it can pull an equivalent load up a steep line, certainly not at 25mph!

Bradley's summary of the C2x is as follows:

"... but in practice a C2x proved capable of slogging away almost indefintely at low speeds with any train the LB&SCR was likely to offer. However, as passenger engines they were a complete failure for at speed the riding was poor and the steam supply seldom more than adequate".

Tom

 

i can see a Lawson Billinton class K being the next new build after the H2 Atlantic! though a C2X boiler would be much easier and cheaper to build.

tom, do the trains have much of a 'run' at the gradient on the extension? not something i have noticed much from 'the cushions', but your footplate experience would be very illuminating.

have any overtures been made by the Bluebell to the IOWSR to 'borrow' the Ivatt tank when it is finished? the IOWSR will soon have 5 locos available for a max 2 train service, with the Ivatt tank making 6 locos available next year (i gather effort is being currently being concentrated on getting NEWPORT finished with the Ivatt tank following in the New Year). very good relations exist between the 2 railways.

cheers,
julian

 

Not really - the 1:75 gradient starts pretty much at the platform ends at Kingscote, so you hit it from a dead stand. (Exactly the same as at Horsted, where the steep climb starts from the platform end). It is 1:75 until you are past the narrows, then it steepens to 1:55. The only slight recompense is that most of the climb is straight. It curves to the right from Kingscote to the start of the narrows, but is then largely straight almost all the way to the top, before curving left into the cutting.

Next time you take the trip, look out of the window on the "down" side as you leave Kingscote. The down siding is basically level, and by time you reach the end of the siding, you are looking down almost on the roofs of the vehicles that are stored there as the mainline climbs away above them.

Not that I know of. I can't imagine that, having spent all the effort to restore it, they'd want to lend it out straight away though! In any case, will it have vacuum brakes - many of their locos don't, which make loans harder?

Tom

 

hi tom, thanks for that - will take more notice next time!

i understand the IOWSR's Ivatt tank will be dual brake fitted - so no problem re your coaching stock. in truth (and i accept i might get shot down at this) it isnt really needed or appropriate for the the IOWSR. i suspect it was more of a 'gift horse' that couldnt possibly be refused - and am sure it wont be too long before a loan with yourselves is arranged if needed. after all, the Bluebell has been very helpful with coach parts moquette and the loan of the E4 etc plus lots of other stuff.

cheers,
julian

 

Don't forget the E.1 which has finance available for a new boiler although, presumably, it needs a lot of other work as well. With a fleet which will include three re-boilered specimens the IOWSR is in a position to become quite a player in the loco. hire business if it so wishes!

Incidentally the pull out of Haven Street is around 1 in 70 in either direction which puts the work expected of an Island A1x into perspective although the gradients are relatively short.

PH

 

hi paul,

the climb westwards out of Havenstreet towards Wootton is i believe a long 1 in 66 gradient.

i think it will take quite a few years to sort out the E1. i had a good look at it in March and there is so much of it that needs replacing/isnt original that it is one of the most extensive restoration jobs ever to be undertaken by a preserved railway. OK there is is quite a bit of funding available but it will take quite a long time nevertheless. all there is really is a chassis. everything upwards needs replacing with new. i didnt see much above the footplate that was either original/Stroudley or SR IW E1, or knackered. from handbrake column to virtually everything else. a bit off topic, but hey ho.

cheers,
julian