Is there a future for bigger new build steam engines?

[rogger13]

Excellent post! Sums up my opinion entirely.

Me too!

 

[70014IronDuke]

The great Central is short and flat. It can manage with a 2MT!

Possibly. Even if not, it could manage with noting larger than 4MTs.

But, whether they still practice this or not I don't know, but when I was there in the 90s there were two pacifics at work - a Duchess and hmmm, I forget, maybe an A4.

Someone from the line told me that this was part of their branding, ie they specifically put out at least one large locomotive and the public could rely on that as part of the GC experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... whilst the 77021 project makes great sense in terms of the size of loco and the gap in the lineup, it seems to have just a handful of people and a relatively low profile - the slow rate of progress may discourage people from investing.

It may be a highly efficient, easily maintanable machine (as far as steam go), but the 77xxx class was small in number, didn't carry a Swindon-build plate, and were stationed mostly in the grimy parts of Scotland. In other words, they created no, or almost no, emotional attachment with anyone.

Had they been named Mons Meg, Wolf of Badenoch, Hairy Harry or whatever, painted green and used on crack commuter trains between Waverley and Kirkcaldy, they might have created a following. As it is, they have the brand recognition of an out of season cabbage.

I've noticed that - it's a shame because some of the smaller locos have the most character.

...

I'm sure there are many aeroplane enthusiasts who love Tiger Moths, just as there are car enthusiasts who drool over a mini-cooper or Riley Elf, and rail fans (me included) who would oggle at an Isle of Wight 02 or 57XX pannier tank.

Nonetheless, just as a Stratofortress or Vulcan will carry a greater wow factor with aero freaks, and an E-Type or Ferrari likewise for petrol heads, so no rail buff can fail to gasp at the sight of ruddy great maroon Duchess or blue A4 etc at work.

Even an 8 year old kid can see/hear/feel the difference. It's the nature of human appreciation of power in engineering.

I'm sure many in here will appreciate that a 77xxx or 82xxx would be, in many ways, an excellent and possibly far more appropriate machine for many preserved railways, but I know I wouldn't go far out of my way, or pay any appreciable sum to see one at work.

But a new P2 with 12 carriages behind it storming Ais Gill or Shap? That would be something else, and would truly be a sight I'd make an effort to experience.

 

[snakeeyes]

I would like to see an updated Oliver Bulleid 0-6-6-0T SR "Leader" class, with computer aided design etc, the original almost worked.

 

[Flying Phil]

Possibly. Even if not, it could manage with noting larger than 4MTs.

But, whether they still practice this or not I don't know, but when I was there in the 90s there were two pacifics at work - a Duchess and hmmm, I forget, maybe an A4.

Someone from the line told me that this was part of their branding, ie they specifically put out at least one large locomotive and the public could rely on that as part of the GC experience.

Certainly the GC "Brand" is a double track Main Line and they have had an impressive collection of motive power over the years, but the new build project of the "Victorian Main Line locomotive - "567 project" is very exciting.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Excellent post! Sums up my opinion entirely.

If running tender-first is a problem, surely the ideal new-build project would be a full-size Double Fairlie...?

 

[Phil.]

I would like to see an updated Oliver Bulleid 0-6-6-0T SR "Leader" class, with computer aided design etc, the original almost worked.

You wouldn't want to fire it. The poor old fireman used to almost cook.

 

[MarkyT]

You wouldn't want to fire it. The poor old fireman used to almost cook.

You could add remote controlled mechanical stoking or oil firing. Such a system could be supervised from the driving cab instead. Not authentic though!

 

[snakeeyes]

oil firing was planned

 

[Bevan Price]

One thing to decide with "new-build" steam is do you produce an exact replica of the original, or do you include current knowledge to produce a physically similar loco , but with improvements to produce a useful, reliable loco.

Various large locos that "escaped" preservation were flawed designs. Some, like the NER Raven 4-6-2s and the Robinson GCR 4-6-0s included some components designed for earlier, smaller locos. Others, such as the LNWR Claughton 4-6-0s, and the Hughes L&YR 4-6-0s ("Lanky Dreadnoughts") were extremely inefficient in terms of water & coal consumption.

These flaws could probably be eliminated - but the results would not be "original condition". Personally, I prefer the approach to "Duke of Gloucester" reconstruction, to produce a useful, fairly reliable loco. Spending millions to produce flawed , inadequate originals strikes me as a waste of money.

 

[alexl92]

One thing to decide with "new-build" steam is do you produce an exact replica of the original, or do you include current knowledge to produce a physically similar loco , but with improvements to produce a useful, reliable loco.

Various large locos that "escaped" preservation were flawed designs. Some, like the NER Raven 4-6-2s and the Robinson GCR 4-6-0s included some components designed for earlier, smaller locos. Others, such as the LNWR Claughton 4-6-0s, and the Hughes L&YR 4-6-0s ("Lanky Dreadnoughts") were extremely inefficient in terms of water & coal consumption.

These flaws could probably be eliminated - but the results would not be "original condition". Personally, I prefer the approach to "Duke of Gloucester" reconstruction, to produce a useful, fairly reliable loco. Spending millions to produce flawed , inadequate originals strikes me as a waste of money.

My own view is that had steam engines remained the primary form of power in the UK, our engineers would have continued to develop the designs and try and rectify any issues with steaming, consumption etc. So, why shouldn't we now take advantage of improved technology to enhance what we produce? As long as it's not a completely new design, I think it's fine. The Darlo P2's a great example - the originals had their faults, so the team building the new one have looked at the issues and used CAD/CAM to work out solutions.

To me, that's just common sense. It would be foolish not to do so.

I've made my feelings clear about the Doncaster P2 project (the streamlined one, not 2007) before now, but to their credit it now appears that they've accepted they too will have to modify the design of the original, in contrast to their original insistence that they wouldn't do that.

 

[43021HST]

I'm in favour of new builds, as I think it's more realistic than running a fleet of 60 - 80 year old steam locomotives. The Steam era companies and BR never had the majority of their fleet reach this age, with a few exceptions. M7s and Beattie Well Tanks spring to mind.

Furthermore new builds do provide a running experience more akin to how Steam engines used to run. IE a recently restored locomotive will never run quite like how a brand new loco. I remember riding behind Mid Hant's Black 5 that had been recently restored and Tornado at the Steam gala about 5 years ago, both ran pretty smoothly but Tornado definitely had the edge.

Someone mentioned how Steam Engines are often like Triggers broom. There's often more original parts than you'd think on a Steam loco, much of the non moving parts like the main frame, and cab parts are often original, preserved railways do tend to try to retain as many of the original features as possible.

Although Main frames on a Steam engine can last for a very long time, as soon as the main frames become knackered, that's when the only options left are to either stuff and mount or the scrapyard. We could see a glut of Steam engines soon where the main frames have become life expired, so more new builds maybe an option.

Personally I think for the time being, preserved railways should focus on carriage new builds rather than Steam engines. The Mk1s on most Steam railways look pretty knackered and the carriages being made redundant by mainline railways at the moment, such as MK2d's to f's and MK3's lack the same Steam era appeal as well as the obvious air braking issues.

I'd like to see a new build fleet of some grouping carriage designs, such as Hawksworth and Bullied stock. It would certainly be more authentic, than the current situation of a Steam loco decked out in GWR colours and hauling a string of MK1s.

 

[MarkyT]

My own view is that had steam engines remained the primary form of power in the UK, our engineers would have continued to develop the designs and try and rectify any issues with steaming, consumption etc. So, why shouldn't we now take advantage of improved technology to enhance what we produce? As long as it's not a completely new design, I think it's fine. The Darlo P2's a great example - the originals had their faults, so the team building the new one have looked at the issues and used CAD/CAM to work out solutions.

To me, that's just common sense. It would be foolish not to do so.

I've made my feelings clear about the Doncaster P2 project (the streamlined one, not 2007) before now, but to their credit it now appears that they've accepted they too will have to modify the design of the original, in contrast to their original insistence that they wouldn't do that.

Just the same as the A1 Steam Trust did with Tornado. For example, aspects of the rear Cartazzi 'pony truck' design under the cab were responsible for very poor riding in the original locomotives. My dad recalls crews being physically thrown about the cab at speed in some cases with a very real risk of injuries. It would have been negligent not to address that shortcoming, which the team did successfully in the new build. Externally there is no apparent difference to the lay observer however, and the same applies to the decision to use roller axle bearings for lower rolling resistance and simplicity of maintenance (in that case some of the originals did have that feature).

What features of the streamlined P2 do you refer to, if I may ask?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd like to see a new build fleet of some grouping carriage designs, such as Hawksworth and Bullied stock. It would certainly be more authentic, than the current situation of a Steam loco decked out in GWR colours and hauling a string of MK1s.

I like that idea. They could be built well using modern materials resistant to rust etc and be much easier to maintain and keep looking smart and be fitted with modern electrics, plumbing etc. The perennial battle against the metal worm with Mk1 panelling is a never ending task, and there's no getting away from the fact that, although they are fairly 'traditional' in construction those examples surviving are mostly mainline express variants which look incongruous paired with small steam engines in the branch and secondary line environment represented by most heritage lines.

 

[alexl92]

What features of the streamlined P2 do you refer to, if I may ask?

It's less the features of the engine and more the project itself and those who are running it.

I understand they're desperate to see that form of P2 run again but I cannot see how there will be demand sufficient for two P2s in the UK. There's a limited number of heritage lines where they can run and I'm not sure whether the steam railtour market can support two either, especially considering that many are predicting that there will soon be far less capacity for railtours. I suppose at least one would have to have a permanent home on a larger line such as the GCR - but they've got a few new-builds happening on site as it is I believe, and even a railway like that only needs so many locos available at one time.

But the Doncaster company won't acknowledge this and initially were saying they would hardly need to modify the design from where Gresley left it. Furthermore, I understand that at one point they wanted access to the design improvements being developed by the Darlo lot without contributing to the cost of doing so - or at least not contributing a fair amount given the amount of time and research it would have saved them. To me, all this points to a badly-thought-out operation.

Let me be clear: I'm well in favour of new-build steam, and if I had similar-sized pockets to Mr. Hosking I'd be commissioning new builds myself. I'm also very excited to see a brand new P2 being built in the UK.
I don't currently have the luxury of sufficient disposable income to invest in a new-build project, but if I did and it was a choice of the P2s, the Darlington one is by far the more sensible investment - even if you took away their track record with Tornado, the way they went about the modelling and development etc showed that they intended to do things properly.

So that's my gripe with that one! If they really want a true Doncaster-built Gresley loco, surely there are other options?

NB: What I've stated here is all things that I've read/heard/been told; I can't necessarily pinpoint the source of all of it. If anything I've stated in this is inaccurate or just downright incorrect, please point it out to me. I'm not out to stir, simply stating things as I understand them.

 

[Flying Phil]

I too, wonder about having two P2 class "New Builds". Logic would suggest investigating the possibility of having two different front end claddings and ignore the valve gear differences...Then combine the two groups.
However logic is not a big factor in Steam preservation - fortunately!

 

[keith1879]

It may be a highly efficient, easily maintanable machine (as far as steam go), but the 77xxx class was small in number, didn't carry a Swindon-build plate, and were stationed mostly in the grimy parts of Scotland. In other words, they created no, or almost no, emotional attachment with anyone.

I agree with most of your points but ....they were all built at Swindon!!!!

 

[alexl92]

I agree with most of your points but ....they were all built at Swindon!!!!

...And isn't that enough in itself to guarantee them a following?!

 

[70014IronDuke]

I agree with most of your points but ....they were all built at Swindon!!!!

Ha ha! you got me there. Thanks for the correction. Did they use the 82xxx boiler then?

Of course, via a bizarre turn of events, the 77xxx does have (at least) one claim to fame.

Because of some railtour, a member of the class worked down to the Southern in around 1966 or early 67 from a shed in the Liverpool division (I think). It worked the special, and .... the Southern never bothered to send it back.
And it, rather than a Bulleid, or even the much-used Standard 5 or 4, worked the last ever scheduled revenue-earning train (I think it was a parcels job) on the Southern prior to the fully electrified timetable coming into use in July 67.