It was gratifying to read that Bob Butrims (LI No. 56) was in broad agreement with my proposal for a modern steam design for leisure train service. However his article "The World's Most Modern Steam Locomotive" and subsequent comments on the 4-6-0 proposal illustrate some of the difficulties one has in putting such a proposal to the railway enthusiast fraternity.

Firstly there is the question of preference. Each person has his own favourite locomotive type and the danger is to fix on that, or on what one is familiar with as "the best", and consequently to reject or at least be indifferent to, any other scheme. The result is a kind of partisanship, which works against objective assessment of and support for other proposals. (Your editor chose the title for the article on the modified R class 4-6-4s and perhaps I should have called it "The World's Most Modern Main Line Steam Locomotive". David Wardale considers the recent products of SLM to be considerably more "modern", based on their specifications, but of course these benefit from having been built new whereas we have not had a new design of main line locomotive built for many years and modified products of earlier eras are as far advanced as we have got, so far).

Next we have the confusion over the nature of reliability. No. 711 is described as "very reliable", yet in the same sentence it is admitted that "maintenance costs are very large in man hours compared to a diesel", whilst elsewhere some of its component design is described as "a maintenance nightmare" (redesigned valve heads). The claim for high reliability and the admission of heavy maintenance are contradictory, for, as I have pointed out at some length in "The Red Devil and Other Tales from the Age of Steam", maintenance depends on reliability, and not the other way around.

Coming to the comments on my proposal, some of them unfortunately show how prejudices might creep in. For example the idea of a high speed 4-6-0 is criticised on the grounds of riding quality. Like Bob, I have travelled many thousands of km on locomotives, both with and without trailing trucks, in a fair number of countries, and certainly the worst riding in a lateral plain were the Chinese QJ Class 2-10-2s. It is not the presence or absence of a trailing truck (which is undesirable non-adhesive weight, not there for stability reasons but due to the large fireboxes necessary in former locomotives), which makes a locomotive stable, but the whole design of its chassis. Thus it is possible to have a perfectly riding 4-6-0 and a badly riding 4-6-2, and practical examples of both certainly existed. Against Bob's experience one can, for example, point to the GWR King and Castle class 4-6-0s which by all accounts rode like Rolls Royces, so much so that the crews complained of the riding of the Britannia 4-6-2s when they were introduced. And as eminent a person as André Chapelon proposed 4-6-0s for 200 km/h operation, (see book reviews - Ed.), which he was unlikely to have done if they were inherently unstable. Thus experience of imperfectly designed 4-6-0s should not be used to condemn this type as such. The chassis of the proposed 4-6-0 can and would be designed for very stable riding, roller side control of the leading bogie, roller bearings, self-adjusting wedges, and manganese steel liners and mechanical lubrication of the relevant components (or "dry" lowwear materials), enabling riding quality to be maintained from shopping to shopping, as was actually the case with SAR locomotives so fitted.

Concerning comments made on firebox design, with coal firing using the GPCS (Gas Producer Combustion System), there is no need to "clean the fire" in the conventional sense, but merely shaking the grate on the move to discharge ash into the ashpan, for which a narrow firebox between the frames is more suitable than a wide firebox when the latter, as was usual, does not have a self-emptying ashpan (one of the problems with 3450). Higher thermal efficiency translates into reduced fuel consumption, so that the simple dumping of accumulated ash from the ashpan would be required at relatively infrequent intervals. But as explained in my original article, the type of fuel is optional, and the preliminary performance calculations have in fact been made for diesel fuel (gas oil). Although there is currently some difference of opinion regarding the merits of deep narrow fireboxes and shallow wide ones for oil firing, it is the case that in the past the former has been preferred for locomotives specifically designed to burn only oil fuel. Bob would prefer wide ones which "suit what we do very well", but he has not mentioned the oily deposits, building up to 6 inches in 5,000 km, which have to be laboriously scraped off the lower firebox walls of No. 711 - another maintenance nightmare which would have to faced every 4 days at the level of utilisation of the former New York Central 4-6-4s!

With modern design and construction methods and water treatment, there would be no leakage from the firebox, therefore having a firebox partly between the frames would not give rise to any maintenance inconvenience. A deep narrow firebox is not a matter of going back to the past, but is rather based on the not-negligible advantages of such a design, as recognised by Chapelon.

This reply to Bob's comments is intended to stress the fact that if there is going to be real progress we must have open minds and not be bound by limited experience or prejudices. For example, whilst my own inclination leans towards a 2-cylinder simple, advice is being sought regarding the possibility of compounding. The proposal for a 4-6-0 has many sound engineering and operational arguments to support it, but it will always be genuinely possible to find fault with it, for in the real world of engineering there are always compromises to be made (despite which L.D. Porta has described it as "perfect for the intended duty"), however, there is a difference between informed discussion based on sound knowledge, which can result in improvement to a proposal, and criticism based on incomplete knowledge, which has a detrimental effect if it adversely moulds others' opinions.

Do you want to see a really new high-performance steam locomotive or not? if you do, you need to show that you do, for whatever the 4-6-0 proposal ultimately evolves into it needs to unite a sizeable section of the railway enthusiast community and get their active support, otherwise it will not be built, precisely because the demand for it will not have been made apparent. I everyone keeps to his own preference (and mine would probably be a "transformed" C & O Allegheny 2-6-6-6!) there tends to be as many proposal as there are people, in which case nothing gets done. To modify a saying of one of our politicians, the 4-6-0 may not be the locomotive of your dreams, but it is one you can get. But only if you support it, which means showing your support - not just in "Locomotives International" or to the guy next door but wherever you can make your voice heard, for example in the mass-circulation enthusiast periodicals. This is what is needed now if the project is to take off.

Firstly, many thanks for the letters and comments that have been sent in so far. I have not been able to reply to all the letters, though I have had some discussions with David Wardale about points raised and will be able to present the main questions and answers in an organised fashion in the next issue.

Meanwhile, the initial proposal for the project has now been picked up by other railway magazines and it has also received a mention in the new Chapelon book, so word is spreading
and momentum is being gathered. I had hoped to be able to announce the setting up of a trust or company by now, but relevant sound advice on the precise terms and conditions concerning trusts is still needed.

The other matter to be taken in hand now is preparation of a project plan with methods, costings, and time scales etc. - a suitable task for a project co-ordinator....

Project Co-ordinator Required!

It seems that I'm being presented as 'Project Co-ordinator', but really all I've done is present the proposals in the magazine and publicised the project to other editors and potentially interested parties. Although I'm able and very willing, my time is heavily tied up with 'Locomotives International' and I hope that somebody else with project management experience can come forward to take on this role - please write in to the L.I. address or make contact by e-mail (locomotives.international@talk21.com).

Are You An Experienced Draughtsman?

The detail design work will require draughtsmen to prepare drawings once the project is ready to go ahead. For now I am simply making up a list of those willing to take part in the project - this is not a firm commitment, but will provide contact details for David Wardale when the time comes. If you are interested and able then please write in to the L.I. address with a brief indication of experience.

Please continue to write in with your comments, ideas, and criticism - the more feedback the better.