Current and Proposed New-Builds

My own impractical LNER rebuild dream is the Gresley C9. Just as many built as the V4, and their lives were only 3 years shorter.

 

The P1 seems to generate more discussion on this forum that most of the other suggestions that come up.

I can understand the A1SLT not being interested in another 2-8-2, after building the P2.

 

The next step into the unknown should be a new design - the BR 2-8-2 passed over in favour of the 9F. But since there are drawings for the 9F and the Britannia...( hell the frames for the Clan are all in CAD now) its not that difficult a design task to combine the two.
Sure it wouldn't run at 75 like a Brit( only 5ft 3 wheels), It wouldn't pull 2000 tonnes at a quarry like a 9f but would be a pretty handy tool for just about everything inbetween more versatile than a P1.

 

Is a 5'8" 2-cylinder 2-8-0 really that much better a prospect than a 5'2" 3-cylinder 2-8-2? True that the 47xx shares lots of parts with other things, but then the P1 is just an A1/V2 hybrid with K4 driving wheels (uh oh, better not mention that class given what happened last time I talked about it). You could take moulds off the Mogul to produce the necessary patterns, or even 3D print them with laser-scanner data. The boiler, cylinders and valve gear aren't much of a mystery, and somehow I doubt rigging the necessary brake gear would be a deal-breaker. Personally, I reckon it's a much better idea than the K3...

Well, since it would be a new-build, you could stick the Kylchap and elephant ears on, and paint it Brunswick, with a fake BR number, then watch the rivet-counting frothers literally explode with confusion and rage! ;-)

Wasn't that going to be something more like 5'8", using the wheelsets from the Standard 4MT family? What you describe sounds as if it would work very much like a P1, only it'd be a 2-cylinder...

 

well one of the 4MT'S also has 5ft 3 wheels.
The initial design definitely shows with 5ft 3's (cox). Though Riddles later said ( on a visit to the GCR to see 71000) that 5ft 6's would be the ideal. And yes like a P1 but a bit more Compact.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/236/entry-6943-2-8-2-after-a-couple-of-weeks/

 

Would it actually end up being more compact? I'd have thought they'd be around the same size.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. If the Clan mob want a second project... the 5MT-based 2-8-0 (or 2-8-2T?) would be a good idea too.

There is an argument to be made that, where considerable standardisation of significant components already exists, but potential variations remain unexplored, it would be entirely in keeping with tradition (especially that of Swindon) to carry on exploring the possibilities. The WSR Mogul is a prime example of how this can work to useful effect.

 

Distance between tubeplates (and coupled wheel centres) approx. 17 feet on a standard, gettting on for 19 on a P1 INM. Wheelbase <56ft on standard.<60ft on p1. Interestingly enough Performance wise a closer comparison would probably be a 250psi V2

 

But you then have to ask would the railway system have developed as it did given the additional costs associated with building in broad gauge? Given that so many preserved lines are those that were only just economically viable to build would those lines have been built if their costs hadn’t been greater, so would those lines have been in place to be preserved when they were closed down in the 1960s?

Would underground and urban transportation been stunted? Would we have ended up with a mixed gauge network which would have made the task of early preservation harder? - what about industrial railways?

Anyway, why not go the whole hog and have a new build broad gauge railway? Just to annoy the traditionalists.

 

Last point first ..... I believe derogation from gauge legislation would be the least of the problems facing any modern BG proposal!

I quite fancy the idea of a reopened Bridport line as a BG operation. At need, a third rail could provide SG access, if it were felt 'big railway' operations were a desireable option, with separate platform line for network services meaning the BG terminus could be just that ..... BG only.

So far as my original speculation goes, the only likely mechanism by which a BG network with NG feeders might have developed would have been for Parliament to have defined desired mainline routes and then let private companies bid to construct and operate them on a [pick a number] year franchise ..... which mightn't have been the worst idea in any event.

Since there's probably more chance of a unicorn winning the Grand National, it's 99.999% certain to remain permanently in WIBN territory in any case!

 

It is a fun pub conversation

You might argue that broad gauge as gauge of choice might have led to a ‘natural’ beeching cuts - borderline lines, duplication etc become too expensive and so don’t get built.

Perhaps the response is more light railways - narrow gauge in rural areas rather than standard gauge, so maybe the UK end so up looking more like say Austria with lots of 100 mile narrow gauge networks in remoter areas. Highland line built to metre gauge, all lines in Norfolk built to 2ft.

Oh the fun of the paths not taken.

But yeah, Bridport, new build big preserved line.

 

Bridport was the subject of a 2'-6" gauge scheme a few years back (by 'Thirty Inch Railways' who were also associated with one of the Glyn Valley proposals). After a few years of 'umming and aahing', it died a quiet death. IIRC, there was some support (at least for the general idea) from local interests, but not enough to amount to anything.

I believe Maiden Newton to Bridport was classed as the last 'Beeching' closure, with Dorset County Council subsidy keeping the line open for a few years, pending road improvements. Whether said road improvements ever happened is another matter entirely!

 

A bit like Ireland then. A broad (5'3'' gauge) with a feeder network of 3'0'' lines?

 

That prompts three comments.
First (pedant) comment: if the Highland line had been built to anything other than standard gauge, Cape gauge would seem more likely than (that nasty foreign, as it would have been perceived) metre gauge.
Second: why were the three gauges in Australia perceived to be a serious problem, even though you could travel (or your freight could) for hundreds of miles on one gauge before needing to transfer to a different one; yet in many parts of Europe multiple gauges survived and some countries still have them?
Thirdly, how much real difference does track gauge make in construction costs, outside mountainous areas where narrow gauge allows sharper curves?

 

Do you thinking of a new build 242A1 in Britain?

 

We have enough problems with gauging now!

 

Yes it was therefore I asked

 

Looking back from what is now a modern prosperous country, it does seem absurd. However, certainly Queensland's decision to go with 3'61/2" had merit, (see below). I'm not sure what prompted Victoria and South Australia to go 'big'. Given what was the best part of two days to travel from Brisbane to Sydney, I'd think hearing "All change!" might be welcomed somewhere in between! Extra freight handling is no good to anyone though.

Historically, the situation has been overblown somewhat by State v's State rivalry, and squeezed for all it is worth in the political arena. Now with road transport being dominant it is pretty much a non-issue. Any new or upgraded interstate projects would be standard gauge now.

For Queensland's decision, wiki says,

"The adoption of narrow gauge was controversial at the time, and was largely predicated by the government's desire for the fastest possible construction timeframe at least cost. This resulted in adoption of sharper curves and a lower axle load than was considered possible using standard gauge, and an assessment at the time put the cost of a narrow gauge line from Ipswich to Toowoomba at 25% of the cost of a standard gauge line. In a colony with a non-indigenous population of 30,000 when the decision was made, it is understandable."

 

More or less ..... though I'd hardly hold Irish practices up as a paragon of integrated transport! The classic had to be the C&L at Dromod, where incoming coal traffic from the mines at Dereenavoggy (on the Arigna branch) had to be transshipped from ground level up into 5'-3" wagons by MKI shovel from opening to closure! Transporter technology featured nowhere on the 3ft.

Loading gauges were never standardised either. Put a Schull & Skibereen tram loco next to a Swilly 4-8-0, or one of the decidedly compact S&S 4w tramway type carriages (not a million miles from the original Corris stock) next to West Clare 'tourist stock' to see what I mean.

The kind of levels of standardisation within the old Austro-Hungarian Empire simply never occured in Ireland. Buffer/coupling styles and heights differed from line to line and 0-4-4T ex-CMLR No.5 needed buffer beam surgery to clear platform edges on transfer to the S&S. Despite appearances, the Manx BP locos would have been out of gauge on Antrim's line, height wise (even though the later S class compound 2-4-2T's came in at 7'-4" wide, way bigger than IMR stock).

 

Are you saying that the original choice of different gauges was absurd or that worrying about it later and laying additional standard gauge track was absurd? Both were clearly perceived to be appropriate at the respective times.

Wasn't there fairly recently a through service all the way from China to Britain, presumably involving at least two gauge changes on the way, into and out of Russia? The longer the distances, the less an occasional break or gauge should matter. And yet there are still plenty of metre-gauge lines operating in Europe, and some narrower.

Sorry for increasing the thread drift from the delightful but remote prospect of a new-build Brunel-gauge line. Maybe one or more new threads are called for.

 

I would consider a new build loco from the Highland Railway.