Discussion:
6202 Turbomotive
(too old to reply)
Neil
2018-03-07 09:21:26 UTC
Permalink
I have added new photos to this collection


The Turbomotive was a modified Princess Royal Class steam locomotive designed by William Stanier and built by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway in 1935. It used turbines instead of cylinders. It was later rebuilt as a conventional locomotive 46202 Princess Anne.
The forward turbine had 18 rows of blading. Output was 2,400 hp (1,800 kW) at 7060 rpm, corresponding to running at 62 mph (100 km/h). Boiler pressure was 250 psi (1.7 MPa). The turbine was designed to operate into a maximum back-pressure of 2 psi (14 kPa), allowing a conventional double blast-pipe to provide the boiler draught, and eliminating draught fans, which always seemed to give a disproportionate amount of trouble.
The reverse turbine had 4 rows of blades. It was engaged by a dog clutch, activated when the reverser lever was set to "0". This was originally steam-operated by a small piston and cylinder.
Compared to some other experimental steam locomotives of the era such as the LNER Class W1, Turbomotive was relatively successful, showing a saving of coal compared to a normal reciprocating engine and no hammer blow on the track. Because steam turbines are highly inefficient when throttled (not a problem on steamships, where turbines typically run at constant output, but a major disadvantage for a railway locomotive which has to run at different speeds), power was instead controlled by turning on a different number of nozzles (from the six available) through which steam was admitted to the turbine. One disadvantage of the design was that the small reverse turbine only had sufficient power for manoeuvring "light engine" and the locomotive always had to be turned to face forwards in order to pull a train.
When a turbine failure occurred in 1949 it was considered uneconomic to repair during post-war austerity measures, so the locomotive was taken out of service pending a rebuild.
6202 was rebuilt as a conventional locomotive in 1952, using new mainframes and a set of cylinders of the same type as used in the "Coronation" class, and named Princess Anne. On 8 October 1952, after only two months in service, it was the train engine of the double-headed Liverpool and Manchester express involved in the Harrow and Wealdstone railway accident. The locomotive was taken to Crewe, where it was deemed beyond economical repair and scrapped. The destruction of No. 46202 led to the construction of BR Standard Class 8 number 71000, Duke of Gloucester.


6202 Stanier Turbomotive loco Crewe Works date unknown


https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMSSteam/Stanier-Locomotives/Princess-Royal-Class/620246202-TurbomotivePrincess-Ann/6202-Turbomorive46202-Princess-Ann/i-nPpXCFd


6202 Turbomotive/46202 Princess Anne - Railway-Photography
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years

6202

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMSSteam/Stanier-Locomotives/Princess-Royal-Class/620246202-TurbomotivePrincess-Ann/6202-Turbomorive46202-Princess-Ann/i-CngswCP


6202 Turbomotive/46202 Princess Anne - Railway-Photography
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years

6202


https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMSSteam/Stanier-Locomotives/Princess-Royal-Class/620246202-TurbomotivePrincess-Ann/6202-Turbomorive46202-Princess-Ann/i-VGBJsXC


6202 Turbomotive/46202 Princess Anne - Railway-Photography
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years

now as 46202

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMSSteam/Stanier-Locomotives/Princess-Royal-Class/620246202-TurbomotivePrincess-Ann/6202-Turbomorive46202-Princess-Ann/i-SsM7r7B


6202 Turbomotive/46202 Princess Anne - Railway-Photography
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years

Rebuilt now as 46202 Princess Anne


https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMSSteam/Stanier-Locomotives/Princess-Royal-Class/620246202-TurbomotivePrincess-Ann/6202-Turbomorive46202-Princess-Ann/i-vqDTLKV


6202 Turbomotive/46202 Princess Anne - Railway-Photography
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years

46202

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMSSteam/Stanier-Locomotives/Princess-Royal-Class/620246202-TurbomotivePrincess-Ann/6202-Turbomorive46202-Princess-Ann/i-J6ThCfr/A


6202 Turbomotive/46202 Princess Anne - Railway-Photography
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years
46202


https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LMSSteam/Stanier-Locomotives/Princess-Royal-Class/620246202-TurbomotivePrincess-Ann/6202-Turbomorive46202-Princess-Ann/i-Ts4mSCb/A


46202 Princess Anne Crewe Station
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway photographs from the last 100 years
Neil
l***@gmail.com
2018-03-07 09:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?

PP
BevanPrice
2018-03-07 16:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?

I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot of
time out of service due to problems with the turbines.

The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine - type)
water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems when
put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems were
associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater than those
encountered on ships.

As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to be
worth pursuing.
Peter Lawrence
2018-03-07 18:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of
these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot of
time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine - type)
water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems when
put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems were
associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater than those
encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to be
worth pursuing.
At least nobody has suggested replicating the LMS Fury!

Peter Lawrence

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
BevanPrice
2018-03-07 23:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of
these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot
of time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine -
type) water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems
when put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems
were associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater
than those encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to
be worth pursuing.
At least nobody has suggested replicating the LMS Fury!
Peter Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
No, but 2 groups are supposedly building different versions of Gresley's
track-straightening machines (Class P2 2-8-2). I wonder if NR will allow
them to run anywhere ?
Recliner
2018-03-08 00:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by BevanPrice
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of
these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot
of time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine -
type) water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems
when put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems
were associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater
than those encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to
be worth pursuing.
At least nobody has suggested replicating the LMS Fury!
Peter Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
No, but 2 groups are supposedly building different versions of Gresley's
track-straightening machines (Class P2 2-8-2). I wonder if NR will allow
them to run anywhere ?
I didn't know there were two P2 groups!

It's not too hard to deal with curves on a Mikado: the two middle axles can
be flangeless.

Here's narrow gauge Mikados I recently shot on the Cumbres & Toltec:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/37482492636/in/album-72157687636227223/lightbox/>

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/37530337081/in/album-72157687636227223/lightbox/>

And the twisty, metre gauge Hartz mountain railway runs 2-10-2s:
<https://www.fgb-galerie.de/details.php?image_id=6877&sessionid=673165f5a2c097ca571b8c1a1e8f1eda>
Jeremy Double
2018-03-08 08:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by BevanPrice
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of
these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot
of time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine -
type) water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems
when put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems
were associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater
than those encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to
be worth pursuing.
At least nobody has suggested replicating the LMS Fury!
Peter Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
No, but 2 groups are supposedly building different versions of Gresley's
track-straightening machines (Class P2 2-8-2). I wonder if NR will allow
them to run anywhere ?
I didn't know there were two P2 groups!
It's not too hard to deal with curves on a Mikado: the two middle axles can
be flangeless.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/37482492636/in/album-72157687636227223/lightbox/>
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/37530337081/in/album-72157687636227223/lightbox/>
<https://www.fgb-galerie.de/details.php?image_id=6877&sessionid=673165f5a2c097ca571b8c1a1e8f1eda>
As do the twisty 750 mm gauge railways in Saxony, e.g.

https://flic.kr/p/Qm5na3
https://flic.kr/p/QVf4oP
https://flic.kr/p/5NZsRJ
https://flic.kr/p/4rdKL6
--
Jeremy Double
Dick
2018-03-08 08:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by BevanPrice
No, but 2 groups are supposedly building different versions of Gresley's
track-straightening machines (Class P2 2-8-2). I wonder if NR will allow
them to run anywhere ?
I didn't know there were two P2 groups!
It's not too hard to deal with curves on a Mikado: the two middle axles can
be flangeless.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/37482492636/in/album-72157687636227223/lightbox/>
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/37530337081/in/album-72157687636227223/lightbox/>
<https://www.fgb-galerie.de/details.php?image_id=6877&sessionid=673165f5a2c097ca571b8c1a1e8f1eda>
I don't think flangeless wheels would be allowed on NR, witness the ban on
9F 2-10-0
Marland
2018-03-08 10:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by BevanPrice
No, but 2 groups are supposedly building different versions of Gresley's
track-straightening machines (Class P2 2-8-2). I wonder if NR will allow
them to run anywhere ?
I didn't know there were two P2 groups!
It's not too hard to deal with curves on a Mikado: the two middle axles can
be flangeless.
Which unless I am mistaken is what would prevent them running on Network
Rail.
Since the 9F s ran check rail dimensions have changed and some are slightly
higher so wheels deviating
could foul them. The main risk isn’t so much with conventional check rail
but the castings now sometimes
Installed on point and crossings.


GH

GH
BevanPrice
2018-03-08 17:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by BevanPrice
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of
these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot
of time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine -
type) water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems
when put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems
were associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater
than those encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to
be worth pursuing.
At least nobody has suggested replicating the LMS Fury!
Peter Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
No, but 2 groups are supposedly building different versions of Gresley's
track-straightening machines (Class P2 2-8-2). I wonder if NR will allow
them to run anywhere ?
I didn't know there were two P2 groups!
See here:
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2018/01/p2s-the-p2-steam-locomotive-company-and-doncaster-p2-locomotive-trust-project-information.html
Recliner
2018-03-08 21:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by BevanPrice
Post by Recliner
Post by BevanPrice
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of
these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot
of time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine -
type) water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems
when put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems
were associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater
than those encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to
be worth pursuing.
At least nobody has suggested replicating the LMS Fury!
Peter Lawrence
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
No, but 2 groups are supposedly building different versions of Gresley's
track-straightening machines (Class P2 2-8-2). I wonder if NR will allow
them to run anywhere ?
I didn't know there were two P2 groups!
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2018/01/p2s-the-p2-steam-locomotive-company-and-doncaster-p2-locomotive-trust-project-information.html
Thanks, I only knew about the first of the two.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2018-03-08 10:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes these
days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of these,
the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot of
time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine - type)
water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems when
put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems were
associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater than those
encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to be
worth pursuing.
Personally, I'd love to see a replica Leader. I'll add it to my list of
'when I win the Euromillions rollover' projects... ;)


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Marland
2018-03-08 10:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes these
days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of these,
the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
I gather that Turbomotive was good - when it worked - but spent a lot of
time out of service due to problems with the turbines.
The "Hush-Hush" was an interesting idea, a high pressure (marine - type)
water tube boiler should have higher thermal efficiency than
conventional loco boilers - but it gave lots of technical problems when
put on a loco; I have seen it suggested that some of the problems were
associated with vibrations on moving locos being much greater than those
encountered on ships.
As for the Leader - just an expensive bad idea - and came too late to be
worth pursuing.
Personally, I'd love to see a replica Leader. I'll add it to my list of
'when I win the Euromillions rollover' projects... ;)
Anna Noyd-Dryver
How long could such a Loco go on stored pressure like on a Fireless Loco?

You could use the concept for an electric Loco with last mile capability by
using an electrically heated boiler
And non of that orrid diesel whose emissions are rapidly becoming as deadly
as mustard gas if you believe some of the greenies.

GH
j***@nospam.com.au
2018-03-09 05:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
BevanPrice
2018-03-09 11:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@nospam.com.au
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
Failures in my opinion. Maybe material technology was not sufficiently
advanced to make Turbomotive more successful, but as far as I know, no
high pressure steam loco (e.g. Hush-Hush, Fury) can be described as a
big success.

Leader was an irrelevant sideline at a time when diesel & electric power
were the way forward. And the working conditions for the unfortunate
fireman have been described as horrendous...

Maybe an oil-fired version with computer-controlled firing might have
been feasible - but that was 40+ years before suitable computers were
available.
ColinR
2018-03-09 21:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by BevanPrice
Post by j***@nospam.com.au
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one
of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
Failures in my opinion. Maybe material technology was not sufficiently
advanced to make Turbomotive more successful, but as far as I know, no
high pressure steam loco (e.g. Hush-Hush, Fury) can be described as a
big success.
Leader was an irrelevant sideline at a time when diesel & electric power
were the way forward. And the working conditions for the unfortunate
fireman have been described as horrendous...
Maybe an oil-fired version with computer-controlled firing might have
been feasible - but that was 40+ years before suitable computers were
available.
But a modern build wiould be able to fit that (and all newly built
"replicas" which want to use NR are not pure replicas)
--
Colin
BevanPrice
2018-03-09 22:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ColinR
Post by BevanPrice
Post by j***@nospam.com.au
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one
of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
Failures in my opinion. Maybe material technology was not sufficiently
advanced to make Turbomotive more successful, but as far as I know, no
high pressure steam loco (e.g. Hush-Hush, Fury) can be described as a
big success.
Leader was an irrelevant sideline at a time when diesel & electric
power were the way forward. And the working conditions for the
unfortunate fireman have been described as horrendous...
Maybe an oil-fired version with computer-controlled firing might have
been feasible - but that was 40+ years before suitable computers were
available.
But a modern build wiould be able to fit that (and all newly built
"replicas" which want to use NR are not pure replicas)
Maybe, maybe not, but a lot of money to build something that may never
work satisfactorily.

Personally, if it were my money, I would prefer to donate to build a
"lost", but more successful design, e.g.

Raven NER (LNER B16) 4-6-0
GCR, L&YR, NBR and / or NER 4-4-2
LNWR "Prince of Wales" 4-6-0
LNWR "Precursor" 4-4-0
L&YR 4-4-0
GCR, GNR and /or NBR 4-4-2T
GCR & NER 4-6-2T
LMSR Fowler 2-6-4T
ColinR
2018-03-11 17:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by BevanPrice
Post by ColinR
Post by BevanPrice
Post by j***@nospam.com.au
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one
of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
Failures in my opinion. Maybe material technology was not
sufficiently advanced to make Turbomotive more successful, but as far
as I know, no high pressure steam loco (e.g. Hush-Hush, Fury) can be
described as a big success.
Leader was an irrelevant sideline at a time when diesel & electric
power were the way forward. And the working conditions for the
unfortunate fireman have been described as horrendous...
Maybe an oil-fired version with computer-controlled firing might have
been feasible - but that was 40+ years before suitable computers were
available.
But a modern build wiould be able to fit that (and all newly built
"replicas" which want to use NR are not pure replicas)
Maybe, maybe not, but a lot of money to build something that may never
work satisfactorily.
Personally, if it were my money, I would prefer to donate to build a
"lost", but more successful design, e.g.
Raven NER (LNER B16) 4-6-0
GCR, L&YR, NBR and / or NER 4-4-2
LNWR "Prince of Wales" 4-6-0
LNWR "Precursor" 4-4-0
L&YR 4-4-0
GCR, GNR and /or NBR 4-4-2T
GCR & NER 4-6-2T
LMSR Fowler 2-6-4T
My comment was a bit tongue in cheek and I agree with you that there are
better candidates for a new build, particularly smaller engines such as
the G5 being built instead of the "mine is bigger" vanity projects
currently planned / in hand. (https://www.g5locomotiveltd.co.uk)
--
Colin
Ian Batten
2018-03-10 12:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ColinR
Post by BevanPrice
Post by j***@nospam.com.au
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one
of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
Failures in my opinion. Maybe material technology was not sufficiently
advanced to make Turbomotive more successful, but as far as I know, no
high pressure steam loco (e.g. Hush-Hush, Fury) can be described as a
big success.
Leader was an irrelevant sideline at a time when diesel & electric power
were the way forward. And the working conditions for the unfortunate
fireman have been described as horrendous...
Maybe an oil-fired version with computer-controlled firing might have
been feasible - but that was 40+ years before suitable computers were
available.
But a modern build wiould be able to fit that (and all newly built
"replicas" which want to use NR are not pure replicas)
It was hardly Leader's only problem: the whole sleeve valve mechanism appears
highly dubious.

There is a book I bought in a moment of weakness which starts from the position
that Bulleid was a complete genius and Leader the future of steam, and moves on
accusations of deliberate sabotage by SHADOWY FORCES, presumably Ernest Cox
and Robin Riddles dressed in ninja outfits.

ian
Andrew Clarke
2018-03-10 13:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Batten
Post by ColinR
Post by BevanPrice
Post by j***@nospam.com.au
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one
of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
Failures in my opinion. Maybe material technology was not sufficiently
advanced to make Turbomotive more successful, but as far as I know, no
high pressure steam loco (e.g. Hush-Hush, Fury) can be described as a
big success.
Leader was an irrelevant sideline at a time when diesel & electric power
were the way forward. And the working conditions for the unfortunate
fireman have been described as horrendous...
Maybe an oil-fired version with computer-controlled firing might have
been feasible - but that was 40+ years before suitable computers were
available.
But a modern build wiould be able to fit that (and all newly built
"replicas" which want to use NR are not pure replicas)
It was hardly Leader's only problem: the whole sleeve valve mechanism appears
highly dubious.
There is a book I bought in a moment of weakness which starts from the position
that Bulleid was a complete genius and Leader the future of steam, and moves on
accusations of deliberate sabotage by SHADOWY FORCES, presumably Ernest Cox
and Robin Riddles dressed in ninja outfits.
ian
Wasn't "Leader" originally designed for empty carriage working or some such menial duty?

There seems to be a fascination with resurrecting designs that proved less than satisfactory in service:

<http://www.d8233.org.uk/cobo_171223.htm>
<http://www.d8233.org.uk/ww172312.htm>
<http://www.thebabydelticproject.co.uk/>

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Marland
2018-03-10 16:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Ian Batten
It was hardly Leader's only problem: the whole sleeve valve mechanism appears
highly dubious.
There is a book I bought in a moment of weakness which starts from the position
that Bulleid was a complete genius and Leader the future of steam, and moves on
accusations of deliberate sabotage by SHADOWY FORCES, presumably Ernest Cox
and Robin Riddles dressed in ninja outfits.
ian
It was those dastardly socialists killing a product of private enterprise
despite people accusing them of being goat herders by not seeing the
innovation through.
Post by Andrew Clarke
Wasn't "Leader" originally designed for empty carriage working or some such menial duty?
It was a mixed traffic design intended to replace older designs like the
M7 4-4-0,
It does seem to be an excessively complicated way of doing so with diesels
already creeping in .
Bullied already had a main line mixed traffic Diesel design under way which
under a different body metamorphosed into the BR class 40 which was on of
the less troublesome designs of the modernisation plan era and at the other
end of the scale Bullied had proceeded with constructing further examples
of Maunsells version of the English Electric powered shutter.
It was the middle ground where a Diesel design was absent apart from one
Bullied 500 HP 0-6-0 example that wasn’t successful.

GH
l***@gmail.com
2018-03-12 09:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Batten
Post by ColinR
Post by BevanPrice
Post by j***@nospam.com.au
Post by BevanPrice
Post by l***@gmail.com
Given the fondness for building replicas of extinct steam classes
these days, this has to be an interesting candidate! How about one
of these, the LNER Hush-Hush and an SR Leader?
PP
A lot of money just to build replicas of 3 technical failures?
Failures, or prototypes which were denied further development?
Failures in my opinion. Maybe material technology was not sufficiently
advanced to make Turbomotive more successful, but as far as I know, no
high pressure steam loco (e.g. Hush-Hush, Fury) can be described as a
big success.
Leader was an irrelevant sideline at a time when diesel & electric power
were the way forward. And the working conditions for the unfortunate
fireman have been described as horrendous...
Maybe an oil-fired version with computer-controlled firing might have
been feasible - but that was 40+ years before suitable computers were
available.
But a modern build wiould be able to fit that (and all newly built
"replicas" which want to use NR are not pure replicas)
It was hardly Leader's only problem: the whole sleeve valve mechanism appears
highly dubious.
There is a book I bought in a moment of weakness which starts from the position
that Bulleid was a complete genius and Leader the future of steam, and moves on
accusations of deliberate sabotage by SHADOWY FORCES, presumably Ernest Cox
and Robin Riddles dressed in ninja outfits.
ian
I get the impression that most of Bulleid's colleagues on the Southern were completely exasperated by his refusal to design anything even remotely conventional. The Q1s worked pretty well, but the troubles experienced with the Pacifics and his other wackier inventions are well-known. It's absolutely extraordinary that the Leader was intended to replace small to medium sized tank engines!

I don't think the problems experienced with Leader were completely insurmountable - it was getting close to running well, and if you were to build a new one, you could fairly easily design out the most troublesome bits, namely the firy pit of hell for the fireman (it was originally designed for oil firing) and the problematic valve gear/cylinder blocks (apparently they weren't machined accurately enough).

It's pretty obvious why BR couldn't be bothered attempting to solve the issues, though - at the end of the day, they urgently needed new locos at a time when resources were scarce, and the simple, rugged approach of the Standards was obviously the way to go.

The turf burner was an even more bonkers machine, of course, but apparently it worked quite well.

PP

Loading...