New Builds for the future

[wimbledonpete]

Would love to see an LBSCR I3 tank - beautiful locos. And I'd go for it in Maunsell green, I think.

 

[59CosG95]

I'd love to see a new Warship built myself.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Classes 140, 151, 89 and 41 (HST proto) all need new trains for preservation.
I would like an old steam railcar that LMS or L&YR had rebuilt personally.

89001 still exists

one of the class 41 power cars has just undergone substantial refurbishment and has run replacing a 43 (albeit only on the GCR)

i think the eventual aim is to acquire a full set of 43s and discard / christmas tree one of the powercars and run a set with with the 41 at one end and a 43 at the other ( question being do you re-valenta the 43 )

For mass production of old trains I would order:
APT-E for non-electric intercity routes to enable fast speeds.
APT-P/S for electric inter city routes.
Class 142s for rural routes with minimal traffic.
Class 156s for all other rural routes.
Class 180s for old Alphaline/Transpennine routes.
For metro services a Thrumper.

APT-e was only ever proof of concept
APT-P was really a proof of concept

APT-S exists , she just doesn't tilt ( class91 +mk4) / has distributed power ( pendo)

the rest is pure basher/ gricer loonacy...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd love to see a new Warship built myself.

this is the kind of thing this thread is about

replicas / new builds of extinct classes or I suppose you could stretch it to a new build of a class where the single remaining example needs to be preserved as a none runner / limited runner because it is in the configuration it did something of note . (e.g. if Mallard was the only A4 left )

 

[43167]

Classes 140, 151, 89 and 41 (HST proto) all need new trains for preservation.
I would like an old steam railcar that LMS or L&YR had rebuilt personally.

For mass production of old trains I would order:
APT-E for non-electric intercity routes to enable fast speeds.
APT-P/S for electric inter city routes.
Class 142s for rural routes with minimal traffic.
Class 156s for all other rural routes.
Class 180s for old Alphaline/Transpennine routes.
For metro services a Thrumper.

140001 preserved at Keith & Dufftown.
89001 preserved at Barrow Hill
41001 preserved and based at GCRN.

 

[alexl92]

Classes 140, 151, 89 and 41 (HST proto) all need new trains for preservation.

I presume that with the class 41, GrimsbyPacer meant a second power car to partner 41001?

 

[D6975]

There's a short article in one of the railway mags this month about someone proposing 4 projects. Lion and Kestrel and another prototype (can't remember which) plus a Blue Pullman.
Now there's pie in the sky for you!

 

[Kinghambranch]

Small fleet of LBSCR E2s, painted pale blue and numbered 1

I know the prototype represented a small class of LBSC shunting locos but I am genuinely surprised that the heritage railway entertainment movement hasn't moved on from converting Jintys and Industrials to building the genuine article for "Thomas" events. However, perhaps this will happen in due course.

There is only 1 locomotive new build that I really would like to see and, again, surprising myself, this isn't a GWR type either. There is only one choice, "Cardean", the epitome of Edwardian elegance.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I presume that with the class 41, GrimsbyPacer meant a second power car to partner 41001?

That's right. It needs help going backwards now which is far from ideal.
The others need more examples as they are only a handful left just in case something goes wrong.

 

[341o2]

how about a new build Bulleid 2-8-2 because this is how the pacifics should have been and would have improved problems with lack of adhesion.

Bulleid was forced to abandon an eight coupled locomotive for a pacific

 

[alexl92]

how about a new build Bulleid 2-8-2 because this is how the pacifics should have been and would have improved problems with lack of adhesion.

Bulleid was forced to abandon an eight coupled locomotive for a pacific

Fascinating idea...

 

[E&W Lucas]

how about a new build Bulleid 2-8-2 because this is how the pacifics should have been and would have improved problems with lack of adhesion.
Bulleid was forced to abandon an eight coupled locomotive for a pacific

Platform end BS. They aren't that bad, it's all about technique. Those that were on them first time round, that taught me to handle them (on some very steep gradients, with heavy loads), would laugh at your suggestion. They had nothing but praise for the locos.

The 2 - 8 - 2 would be interesting, but would be a totally different machine. Suspect it would lack the same route availability.

Now if we are talking Bulleid, the challenge would be to make the Leader concept work. The "issues" with the unmodified WC's have been solved in preservation (chain stretch, inadequate packings, etc). It would be interesting to see if modern materials, lubricants, etc, could make sleeve valves work.

 

[Spamcan81]

Sleeve valves worked perfectly well in aero engines so I see no reason why a properly designed modern system couldn't work in a steam loco environment.

 

[341o2]

Platform end BS. They aren't that bad, it's all about technique. Those that were on them first time round, that taught me to handle them (on some very steep gradients, with heavy loads), would laugh at your suggestion. They had nothing but praise for the locos.

The 2 - 8 - 2 would be interesting, but would be a totally different machine. Suspect it would lack the same route availability.

Now if we are talking Bulleid, the challenge would be to make the Leader concept work. The "issues" with the unmodified WC's have been solved in preservation (chain stretch, inadequate packings, etc). It would be interesting to see if modern materials, lubricants, etc, could make sleeve valves work.

with respect, I wonder if that includes former LM crews who worked 35022 who worked over the S&C on a series of test runs 1952 - 1954

Originally Bulleid proposed a 4-8-2 but that was rejected outright the 2-8-2 was then the concept for the MN, not surprising given their designer's close association with Gresleys Cock o'the North

It failed because the Southern's civil engineer, George Ellson had suffered a breakdown following the Sevenoaks disister of 1927. Ellson argued that had not the locomotive in question have a leading pony truck as well. Eventually he agreed to allow two prototype 2-8-2's for testing, but how long before he agreed that they had proved themselves. So Bulleid admirtted defeat and reverted to a 4-6-2.

 

[Spamcan81]

Regarding the opinions of crews where "foreign" locos were concerned, beware of opinions born of the "not invented here" syndrome. Crews used to the same general type of loco day in, day out did not always take kindly to something different.

 

[E&W Lucas]

with respect, I wonder if that includes former LM crews who worked 35022 who worked over the S&C on a series of test runs 1952 - 1954

Crews faced with an unfamiliar loco, which requires a different technique for starting away that what they were used to. Far more subtlety required than with an idiot proof Stanier loco.
I knew one of the firemen who was involved in the exchange trials on the Midland. Hadn't a good word to say about a WC; all he wanted was his 5X back!
Was dragged out of his comfort zone, that which he could operate instinctively, and wasn't happy about it.

There is nothing "wrong" with a Bulleid from the point of view of adhesion. You just have to know how to operate it, and that comes with practice.

 

[341o2]

I do not wish to convey the impression that i think thst there is something "wrong" with MN/WC/BB classes. Perhaps I should rephrase that statement

Had the MN class been 2-8-2's then a greater portion of the locomotive's weight would have been availiable for adhesion. And would the WC/BB's then been 2-6-2's?

yes re attitudes of other regions towards foregn locomotives existed, and there was fierce rivalry between the SR and GWR which lasted right up to 1963 when Southern staff saw the entire network west of Salisbury handed over to the WR and its entire closure proposed within a few years

Their designer defended the oil bath amougst other issues that frequent failure of the inside big end of the Gresley pacifics had virtually been eliminated


O S Nock timed the ACE exceeding the overall 85mph limit in 1962. He recorded passing Sherborne at 94, Hewish summit at 65 and a max of 104 at the foot of Honiton bank and still managed to be doing 59mph on the approach to the tunnel

 

[Spamcan81]

As an aside, post war modifications to the Gresley big end also eliminated the failures by and large. IMO the main advantage of the oil bath was that it removed the need to oil round the middle engine and the valve gear.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Well, for utter pie in the sky, an LMS Garratt.

Why be so modest? How about doing the North-Eastern Garrett? Now that would be a sight.

 

[E&W Lucas]

As an aside, post war modifications to the Gresley big end also eliminated the failures by and large. IMO the main advantage of the oil bath was that it removed the need to oil round the middle engine and the valve gear.

Correct. The intention was to save on man hours, saved on prep time, ie loco downtime and removed the danger of failures caused by crews failing to oil up properly.