Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by aron33, Aug 15, 2017.
Plan drawings of Planet and Patentee designs, as described by Tom, courtesy of Mr Ahrons.
According to the RCTS book on the Jubilees, the boiler (No. 8630) from 45637 was the only surviving part of it, and was repaired and put back into service on 45583 Assam in March 1953. This boiler ended its days on 45664 Nelson, withdrawn from Holbeck shed on 3rd. May 1965, being disposed of to Albert Draper's, Hull w/c 16.07.65
Interestingly, (4)5637 was involved in 3 other incidents where damage was caused...
1936 - £17 damage recorded on EHC, repaired at shed
02.10.1936 - Collision at Temple Meads when a Birmingham-Penzance express collided with a Western train. Coach tipped over, and bogie leant on motion of Jubilee.
03.10.1936 - Tender damage repaired at Light Repair at Crewe Works [presumably as a result of 2. above]
When LBSC designed a 3.5" gauge version of Jenny Lind he did not attach the inner frames to the firebox. They are attached at the rear to the outside frames, which take all the load. This works fine but the rear section of the frames is very flexible side to side and has to be stiffened by a horizontal plate. This arrangement works very well.
Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk
This has not proved a problem on either Welsh Pony or Palmerston on the Festiniog which have the same arrangement. Most of the replicas of early locos are also built around the boiler so there is plenty of precedent for this.
I assume that Mountaineer III will have/has the same arrangement?
To judge by the 3/4 rearview photo of the boiler (28th May 2020) on the project's Facebook page, that looks like a "yes". No login needed:
Easy to see where the idea of 'Frames' comes from
This is how they do it in India
A very interesting watch, Thank You for posting this!
Given the love of A4s and their obvious public attraction/appearance....and the withdrawal of "Union of South Africa" and "Sir Nigel Gresley" we now have no working example in this country. So what are the chances of a "New Build" A4?
SNG has almost finished overhaul, it ought to be running soon. There's also Bittern waiting an overhaul slot. So, no. Which is good, because we can then instead fund the new build Bulleid Leader that we all secretly know we need.
Absolutely no chance at all. Better to channel any funds into restoring and maintaining the ones we have
Many of us have WIBNs. Yours might be a Leader: mine would be a Claughton. But let's wait until a few more of the present projects are completed before diluting resources by taking any new projects beyond the preliminary stage of gathering drawings and other background information.
Most will never be built. If you tot up the total funds required for those so far projected it just doesn’t add up. Perhaps the most hopeless case is the Doncaster P2 but why build a B17, not really Sir Nigel’s most successful design. A Clan was the least successful of the BR Standards, being under boilered, address that shortcoming and you end up with a Britannia.
What we need are smaller locos suitable for heritage railway use such as the 82000 and G5, the build cost is less and as the SVR has shown can be built in house
Be it known that if my lottery numbers come up (assuming the shock doesn't kill me!) I'll spend it on whatever I jolly well please ..... so there!
(My 'to do' candidates have been mentioned before, but as yet, Camelot still haven't managed to get the damned numbers right! )
Mine is a Claughton too. Presumably the reaction would be "why does anyone want to recreate a not entirely successful and long scrapped LNWR design?"
My reply is " why recreate a long scrapped and not entirely successful LNER design? "
Oh, wait the P2 are doing this...
Runs and hides..
I think the one thing you can say about all new-builds is that there is no common logic. Success or failure seems (although too early to tell), revolves around fundraising and getting the thing built.
Cartman, you are a very naughty boy! However, your comment is in some ways valid, despite the fact that the P2SLC is making a determined effort to eliminate the most obvious weaknesses in Gresley's original design. It has to be said, as well, that after the A1 was announced there was a surprising groundswell of opinion in favour of a P2, something that seems to have been born out by the number of people willing to support the project.
I see it slightly differently. I think that if a project develops a critical mass of funders, the design team, skilled builders, place to build etc then they are more likely to succeed.
I don't think it is an accident that A1SLT and Boston Lodge are the most prolific and rapid when it comes to new building steam locomotives.
We've also seen how projects can ebb and flow. The Clan looked like it was going no where and was turned around, the Patriot looked in superb shape and we know what has gone on there. Likewise, the County project has had setbacks while the P2 is clearly benefiting from the retention of the critical mass that emerged during the construction of the A1. There are also low key projects such as F5 which are getting on with things.
There are clearly going to be failures, but it is the same with restoration - that there are still ex-Barry locos out there which were bought in the 70s and 80s and have never run, even locomotives that are perfectly suited for heritage operation.
Sooner the P2 is finished, the sooner they can start on proper locos - V4, V3 and K3!
Separate names with a comma.