Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by aron33, Aug 15, 2017.
Anyone suggesting a Fowler or Stanier class 3 2-6-2 tank then?
Thanks for these two very interesting posts.
The Holden-Russell patent, for an inside-connecting rod enveloping an axle, appears to have been used on the Decapod itself, but not (as far as I know) anywhere else. The Decapod also had 3 sets of inside (Stephenson?) valve gear driven from the third axle, which needed to weave past the first and second axles to reach their respective valves. The underside of this engine must have been a cat's cradle of complexity. And a large well-tank was somehow also fitted in.
The Bouch S&D engine was one of a very rare breed in Britain - an outside-cylinder 0-6-0 tender engine. Engineers frequently placed the connecting rods inside the coupling rods on 2-4-0s and 4-4-0s, possibly wishing to bring cylinders closer together so as to reduce "crab motion" and limit overall width. But things got tricky if a designer wished to do the same on an outside cylinder 0-6-0.
The S&D "eyelet" solution was unusual. But if the designer was willing to accept inclined cylinders, then an alternative was to take the connecting rods above the level of the front axle. This approach was adopted for the standard Indian metre-gauge F-class 0-6-0s, of which more than 1000 were built between 1875 and 1922. British-designed and first built by Dubs of Glasgow, later by other British and Indian builders.
Mention of proprietary locomotive suppliers like Sharp Stewart reminds me of the lovely Taff Vale 4-4-2T, a Vulcan Foundry job, 5ft 3ins wheels... would be jolly nice in some places!
If you want a Met new build, the 0-6-2T would be my first priority (large commonality with the 0-4-4T IIRC?), then the bigger 0-6-4T, THEN the 4-4-4T. The Maunsell N-class-based 2-6-4T would also be obvious and could wear Southern livery quite happily...
As long as 80100 eventually gets restored, I wouldn't object even if it shows up in Stroudley goods green, Marsh umber or Bluebell blue.
Mention of the Met 0-6-2T reminds me that the appeal fund which saved E class 0-4-4T no.1 (L44) was originally intended for purchase of F class 0-6-2T L52 (source B.R.C. Stockbook website entry).
I would certainly love to see an F class running, but it is unlikely to happen in my my lifetime.
When did being ideal ever get you to the front of the restoration queue ? If you have a black 5 ( the other ideal loco of which several are in bits) or a BB/wc that someone will fund an overhaul for, or say a Manor that needs very little doing that is always going to get sorted first.
Thing there is only one standard 4 left ' unrestored' now.
80100. Also 80150 has a long way to go.
I’m back after a short hiatus.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking that the Glasgow & South Western needs some love.
If 4709 is a "new build" I wonder if the recent announcement by the GWS not to go mainline has implications? I was rather bemused to see that previously the intention was to ignore the No.1 boiler they have and build a brand new no.7 Its not just the considerable expense involved, its the effect on timescale . Alternatively I think that mating the No.1 to a No.7 sized smokebox shouldn't be too much of a problem, after all the P2 project is proposing some cladding chicanery to hide the smaller boiler they will use! I think using as much Swindon metal as possible would be a good selling point to potential funders as would seeing the finished loco somewhat sooner . I take all this back of course if the proposed creation of a massive new No.7 is attracting a similarly massive flood of donations!
Manson 18 or 240 gets my vote! Although I could settle for a Smellie 153.
For the "it has to be practical" crowd perhaps a Drummond 403 2-6-0? One lasted on the LMS until 1947 which is practically a minor miracle in of itself!
This WIBN post has been unashamedly brought to you by...well, me.
We're in a very grey area with projects that seek to represent an extinct class while being neither exact replicas nor, like Tornado, a notional "next one" of the class, identical apart from some detail improvements.
With a disguised No.1 boiler, 4709 will look like its deceased sisters but have less steam available. How much difference, if any, will that make on visits to preserved lines? With likely loads and a maximum speed of 25 mph, I suspect very little.
Much the same applies to the new Hawksworth County. I have muttered before about the decision to use (as it turned out in the end) a few bits of an 8f boiler with working pressure limited to 225 psi, rather than build a new one that could work at 250 psi or even 280 psi. On the main line the lower pressure would make the new County near enough equivalent to a Hall. But on preserved lines the lower maximum TE may make little difference.
Then we have the 10000 project, aiming to produce a diesel loco that will look and sound as close as possible to the original, but with many differences in less visible details (and probably never going main line).
The schoolboy in me relishes the idea of a large Smellie bogie... and the 153s were both beautiful and effective.
Just to confirm, at their 2018 AGM the 10000 group decided that their finished loco will not be going mainline because of the additional costs involved.
TSS Atlanta or PS Glen Sannox?
I'm just catching up on the discussion about 4-4-4Ts. I am surprised that everybody seems to have forgotten that we already have a beautiful pre-grouping 4-4-4T in preservation...
Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk
Meh. Its a diesel.
Now this would have been a little beauty.
I thought it was petrol....
A Wirral tank would be nicer....
One my favourite engines as a young schoolboy after I saw a drawing of one in "Look and Learn". I think I liked symmetry as my other favourite was (the original) Earl of Merioneth.
Separate names with a comma.