Current and Proposed New-Builds

Well, I'm not sure I originally read it here, but I've found this......

https://newbuildsteam.com/2012/04/29/news-round-up-april-2012/

Scroll to the end and there is a link to the website, with some pics.

Dave

 

I was connected to the planning group back in 2011.It fell flat due to lack of funding. The specific 4-6-0 locomotives had originally only the wheel size in common with the Immingham and after she got another wheel size, even that was gone. In Dutch literature a British text is quoted in which these engines are called "Inside Imminghams", original source unknown alas. I worked out a redesign taking care of all the troubles with the originals which had weight reduction in the frame plates and combined with the inside cylinders has systemic tears. My redesign used to be on the web, but I cannot find it now, must have been withdrawn by the website supplier. Part of it is in my thesis since the assumption was that the max velocity should go from 90/100 to 120 km/h (75mph) and I calculated the consequences for steam temperature/superheat and front-end.
If you care to look at http://www.hsm-814.nl/ you will find a comparable study for a 4-4-4 tank locomotive.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

Edit: The website (in Dutch) is http://www.stoomlok.nl/NBDS38/

 

That's interesting Jos, thanks for that. Not a true Immingham then. Shame about the funding problems as it would still have been interesting, and destined for the main line judging by the speed aspirations.

Dave

 

That project has already been abandoned, so it falls into the proposed new-builds category.

 

Which is precisely the topic of this thread.

Has anything of Robinson survived? Being from L (as in MS&LR) it would be a worthwhile gap to fill.

Dave

 

Yes: Butler-Henderson.

(Edit: plus an O4 in this country and more in Australia)

A new-build A5 would be nice though...

 

ROD 2-8-0 (GCR class 8K/LNER class 04) One here, plus some Aussie examples

From Robinson's time at the Waterford, Limerick and Western Rly, nothing survives. Of the seven of his designs which made it to GSR grouping, the last, a Class 276 2-4-0 tender loco rebuilt in 1925 (increasing the axle load to just under 13 1/2 tons) outlived the GSR, being withdrawn as late as 1959.

 

I recalled the O4 and edited just as you were posting!

 

Thought you might.... which is why I slapped my own post up before finishing the editing!

The posts yesterday about British designs working abroad jogged my memory. The ROD's and Dean Goods both came to mind reading those.

 

I could go for a Robinson Class 8 4-6-0 "Fish"

 

Rather an elegant design. Didn't know anything about these, so had a gander at the LNER bible's entry https://www.lner.info/locos/B/b5.php . On the surface they look like a viable choice for heritage work. They had a lot of modifications and variants over a fairly long working life. The original 3250 gal tender wouldn't be too much of an issue, though all were replaced between 1905 and 1925, so the 4000 gal would be a 'must' for one in latter guise.

Fitting of superheated boilers comes as no surprise, the initial replacements, of larger diameter and at higher pitch, suggest there were firebox grate issues. Later (superheated) replacements of the original 4ft 9in dia. appear to be at the higher pitch, presenting a very different appearance to the originals.

Rather more surprising was that half the class were fitted with larger cylinders and piston valves. Whether the five surviving Thompson's postwar renumbering were from this group I don't know. The LNER classifications B5/1 (4ft 9in dia boiler) and B5/2 (5ft dia boiler) were abolished in 1935, when the superheated 4ft 9in boiler became the class standard, but first withdrawl wasn't until 1939, suggesting that locos with 19in dia cyls and slide valves were classified the same as those with 21in dia cyls and piston valves! This just doesn't sound right.... can anyone shed any light on this?

The five late survivors were all allocated BR numbers, but as all had gone by 1950, I wonder whether any actually carried the new ID.

There are a fair number of MSLR/GCR carriages surviving, mostly as yet unrestored, with quite a concentration at the GCR(N), so scope for a complete Edwardian GCR train of authentic appearance on the 'right route' would be a distinct possibility..... with a loco in original condition.

Any interested lottery winners out there?

 

Maybe a follow-on project for the 567 group when we've finished her?

 

Got to admit I've not visited the website for quite a while as not much seemed to be happening for quite a while. Any chance of a progress summary please?

 

Frames were cut a few years ago and in the last newsletter we were given an update on their progress. They've been welded together, drilled and machined, then separated again (welding them together ensured that the two would match up after drilling and machining). As of July, the frames still needed to undergo a bending process in the area around the cylinder block. The original intention was to use a new-old stock cylinder block from a Robert Stephenson & Hawthorn industrial tank, machined down to fit in the frames. That intention has altered slightly- we'll be using the same block, but we're not going to cut it down. It will instead fit inside a rebate inside the frames, with doubling plates to the frames outside. The frame stretchers have been manufactured at Ruddington and are now awaiting the return of the frames.

At the AGM last October we were told that the cylinder block requires some work to remove 50 or 60 years of accumulated rust in the valve area and that the intention is to do that in-house at Ruddington (since then new machinery has arrived in Ruddington to allow this). We've bought and/ or reserved spare motion parts intended for an RS&H Class 60 0-6-0 and now have quite a sizeable amount of the motion and valvegear to hand, either as new-old stock spares we've secured or new parts we've manufactured.

We also have the material for the running plate valances and footplate steps, and of course the GCR tender at Ruddington, which requires a new tank. There's quite a lot of the locomotive we've got together, it's just not been assembled yet. Once the frames come back to Ruddington it wouldn't surprise me to see a lot of construction work take place quickly (though this last remark is my speculation).

All of the above is garnered from the 567 Group's newsletters (I'm a member of the Group).

 

That looks really lovely, would make a cracking subject for a new build IMO.

The A5 not as pretty, but would be a very useful engine for many lines I would think.

Dave

 

A5s were well respected locomotives, I think. Well, WIBN to have an A6, A7 and an A8 too - for an A1-8 gala!

 

Methinks the Great North of Scotland Rly Assoc might take issue with a "newbuild in LNER class order" approach.


Too oblique?

 

Returning to my theme from #274 (cf. Proverbs 26:11):

So what locos might be the best options for filling the gaps, taking into account the railways which are least well represented, and the types of loco which are both less represented and more likely to be useful shuttling four or five carriages up and down a 10 mile branch line at 25mph (we'll come to exceptions as we go along)?

From the GCR, we are particularly missing a tank loco. You could argue that Robinson built lots of handsome 4-6-0s, of which none are preserved, but then none of them were superlative and they aren't as well suited to tourist line use. A 0-6-0 Pom pom or a 4-4-2 Jersey Lily would bring back a handsome design - especially the latter - and in the (present day) GCR we have a main line to run the latter on (although running that beautiful Atlantic backwards would be criminal - as an aside I think turntables are much higher priority than new build locos on the longer lines using lots of tender engines!). But surely, when the GCR built so many fine, handsome and useful tank engines, the obvious candidates have to be a 9N Class 4-6-2T (an A5 in LNER parlance) or perhaps a 9K Class 4-4-2T (C13). The little 4-4-0 which is actually the subject of a current (long-running) project might have to be built first, I suppose, and would represent the MS&L era.

The proud Midland line is a straightforward proposition. For Samuel Johnson was a very great engineer indeed, and one who never built an ugly locomotive. We have his beautiful Single at York of course - and what a looker she is - but neither especially useful to our current needs nor likely to turn a wheel in anger again (and such a wheel!). Johnson built probably the best looking 4-4-0s ever to run in England (although Aspinall and Wainright produced fine 4-4-0s in a rather Johnsonesque style). But he produced something much more useful and just as handsome - some fine 0-4-4T locos. Imagine one of those, resplendent in gleaming lined Crimson Lake, safety valve cover gleaming in the sun, at the platform end at Oxenhope, or Butterley, or Matlock, or anywhere frankly! On looks and usefulness alone, I think this one deserves the top spot (we can divert all the money being wasted on Gresley's Big Mistake and get it built quick...).

When it comes to the mighty LNWR, we have no passenger tanks, later era passenger locos or small goods locos preserved. Now I am a fan of all things Premier Line (although far from blind to the numerous faults of the locomotive designs produced there over the years) and would happily suggest that we should get going in quick succession with a Webb Radial Tank and a Cauliflower - both excellent locos which should be useful. But of course we do have a serious new build project ongoing - the George the Fifth - which despite being a less useful design in terms of heritage line use does full an important void and deserves to be finished first.

The NBR is a much harder choice, because their finest locos were their 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s - and we've got one of each already. The 4-4-2s were handsome, but we have a new build Atlantic coming together already, and it's hardly the loco type best suited to, say, the Bo'ness line. But the NBR did build some handsome and useful 4-4-2T with inside cylinders - the M Class (later C15) and later the superheated L Class 4-4-2T (or C16). The latter is probably the best bet.

It is hard to stick to my own rules when it comes to the Caledonian, because not only do we already have a passenger tank of the Caley's most typical type, the 0-4-4T (and due back into service soon), but the Caley's 4-4-0s were a superb series of locos, representing a single line of development from Drummond to Pickersgill, all of them handsome and giving good service. We have locos from the Drumond and McIntosh eras, but are missing something showing Pickersgill's own design ideas - probably as well, since when he deviated far from the Drummond line he tended to build turkeys. His 4-6-2T were OK, and have been suggested above - I would love to see one. But let's be honest, could anyone with the cash to hand resist building a Dunalastair, even if it's not quite the most useful engine?

The poor old GSWR has just a shunting tank to it's name, and a Drummond one at that! But the GSWR is where my self imposed usefulness rules become hardest to follow. For the GSWR did have a series of nice 0-4-4Ts - rather Johnson looking, too - but this for a line with few tank engines, and those almost all goods locos. The GSWR relied on 4-4-0s for its passenger trains, even local ones, and fine locos they were (until spoiled later...). The Stirlings, Smellie and especially Manson were excellent engineers, and of a distinctive school. The 0-6-0s were good too, and Drummond redeemed himself with the "Austrian" Goods 2-6-0. Manson's 4-6-0s were handsome and distinctive, but like most early 4-6-0s rather underwhelming. Perhaps we could bend the rules, and build that most typical Sou' Western loco, an 8 Class 4-4-0, or a Wee Bogie? Whitelegg's Baltics were handsome, although probably didn't live up to their looks, and his rebuilds of older types were nice to look at too - but it seems that unfortunately he spoiled them in the process, so he doesn't seem worthy of a new build!

The Barry, the Cambrian, the Rhymney and the Midland & Great Northern have no preserved locos at all (if we ignore the narrow gauge locos with Cambrian associations - only Talyllyn ). What could we suggest for them? I don't know the Welsh lines well enough to suggest something particular, although the Barry and the Rhymney both possessed some nice and fairly powerful 0-6-2Ts which would be a great attraction at Abergwili or Pontypool. The Cambrian had an eclectic collection of locos, but perhaps a 2-4-0T might be a nice little project for the line at Oswestry?

The M&GN could be represented by a repainted Midland loco, to kill two birds with one stone - although in truth theirs were mostly slightly different from the Midland classes. The Beyer Peacock 4-4-0s were handsome and interesting - but I'm straying to far from the rules in Scotland, so perhaps not here too! One of the Marriott 4-4-2T might be a nice choice, and should be able to do Sheringham to Holt in good time. Or perhaps, as we know already that a nice little 0-6-0 is a good loco for the North Norfolk, we could settle on a D Class 0-6-0 (J40) - which could double as a Midland or even S&DJR loco with a bit of new paint.

The Furness deserves a more modern loco to represent it. Lakeside to Haverthwaite might suit a Cleator Tank 0-6-2T or one of those nice 2-4-2Ts. The 4-4-0s were very handsome too, and the 0-6-0 - but there is an obvious candidate and I can't resist! Wouldn't a magnificent Indian Red Baltic 4-6-4T be simply marvelous? We haven't got any preserved locos from any of the six 4-6-4T to run in these islands, and at Class 3 they should be very well suited indeed to tourist line use.

Right - I'm sure we've all got our cheque books ready - I'll even put in a special bonus payment myself for the first to be finished....!

(In the meantime I'm happy to accept gifts of 3mm scale models)

 

Best to stick with these I feel!

Apart from models please no newbuilds until one of the existing projects actually gets finished.

Paul H

 

Paul, you've left yourself wide open to people shouting "Tornado" or even "Lyd" (or EoM or whatever)...
But I completely agree with you!