Bulleid Leader proposed by KR Models for EOI

[Bigmet]

And here's another piece of real exotica, Oliver Bulleid's 'looks like a tube train on steroids, but is actually a steam loco' Leader class, in OO gauge. Expressions of Interest are sought to evaluate the viability of bringing this to market. (With a centre motor all wheel drive mechanism specified, if manufactured it will probably have much the best performance available from a RTR OO steam model: all very ironic considering that the prototype was so dire that it was abandoned by its designer before it had been worked up to the point that it could enter service.)

[Bigmet]

Just been catching up on announcements various, and this one is going ahead! Next thing you know there will be folk asking what the best sound project might be for this improbable device. (I'd recommend the opening verse and refrain of Simon and Garfunkel's 'Cecilia'. It's going to be at least as realistic as any alternative to silence...)

[Bufferstop]

A mix of a couple of unsynchronised 0-6-0s drowning out any sounds of the train they are pulling might get close, chances of anyone who ever heard it being able to hear anything again are pretty slim. I doubt there's even an old "Movietone News" soundtrack of it, it was a bit camera shy, I doubt the comments of the crews were ever committed to film! I'd say the view from the cab of a Class 66 must be the closest we've ever come to repeating the experience.

[Bigmet]

The long and indirect exhaust path from the bunker end bogie, would rather 'mush' the sound of one group of engines. Don't forget it's three cylinders per bogie too, so will sound 'busier' than a two cylinder machine. And then there's the harsh mechanical noises as the thing progressively damaged itself in operation.

Between the chain drives and sleeve valve gears, the only running example 'ate itself' pretty swiftly, regularly breaking the sleeve valve drive connections, and at least two axles, in a total of about 4,000 miles accrued running. I expect Bulleid was very glad to be far away as all this emerged, even his monumental confidence might have been momentarily dented by such evidence of unacceptable failure rate. An owner could operate the model its entire running distance in just three months of daily runs for an hour at scale for 60mph...

[D605Eagle]

His turfburner proved the design could work successfully. It's worth reading the book about the loco. That explains why it suffered so many reliability issues and the fact that most of them were addressed in the second one which was still born. I would have thought a shay would have been the closest for sound. However as I have often said, in OO gauge just listen to some heavy metal for a few hours way too loud and you'll have authentic sound of a similar quality in your ears 24/7.

[Bigmet]

His turfburner proved the design could work successfully...

That's a very generous assessment, because as I recall it from the description of an Inchicore man that was involved in this project, all the proven troublesome mechanism and layout aspects of the 'Leader' were dropped. Two cylinders per bogie instead of three so less cramped and a less complex crank axle, conventional piston valves instead of sleeve valves, Walschaerts gear instead of Bulleid's bicycle chain gear. Likewise, while there was never any doubt about the Leader boiler's steam raising capability, the brutal environment for the fireman and the potential for him being cremated in a derailment would always be an objection: and the turf burner layout was also radically different in these respects, for an altogether superior result.

So had Bulleid used a different more conventional mechanism and a different boiler and crew layout while with SR, then the loco might indeed have done better: but then it wouldn't have been 'Leader' as constructed, but something very different!

[flying scotsman123]

His turfburner proved the design could work successfully...

So had Bulleid used a different more conventional mechanism and a different boiler and crew layout while with SR, then the loco might indeed have done better: but then it wouldn't have been 'Leader' as constructed, but something very different!

I have shamelessly stolen this from a fellow member of another railway-related forum which the comment above very much reminded me of;

Basically, as a design it was a resounding success with just one or two little teething issues, that could be easily sorted out as follows:

1) For the designed duties of moving two or three coaches at relatively low speeds, 150 tons of metal was clearly extravagant. So a modest weight reduction programme down to, ooh, about 60 tons, would be undertaken.

2) Having reduced the weight, clearly the loco does not need to be supported on six axles - four should be ample to support the weight without an excessive axle load.

3) The redesigned, lighter loco would also be shorter, so in order to allow adequate space for the firebox and ashpan, two of the axles would need smaller "carrying" wheels, leaving two axles with larger "driving" wheels.

4) A single driving cab would simplify construction and, as the redesigned loco is shorter, visibility should be adequate whichever way the loco is travelling. By a system of rods and compressed air (supplied from a small pump mounted alongside the boiler), it might be possible to control the locomotive remotely from its carriages, saving time by not needing to "run round" at each end of the journey.

5) The relatively low speeds attained and frequent stopping and starting do not place great demands on the boiler, so a simplified, more conventional boiler could be provided, dispensing with the superheater and novel firebox construction. An airier cab should mean that environmental conditions for the fireman would be more tolerable, as well as improving communication between driver and fireman.

6) The simpler, shorter, rigid frame mean that a smaller number of larger cylinders, which could be double-acting, would suffice for propulsion. The lower pressure and greater amount of space would also mean a simpler, more reliable system of slide valves could be employed.

Apart from that, the basic concept was sound and large parts could be incorporated into the revised design. Obviously, as a production rather than a prototype, livery would follow the then corporate standards of lined black.

So, ladies and gentlemen, here it is: the production Leader Mark II with all the major problems ironed out:

[Peterm]

[SRman]

[D605Eagle]

His turfburner proved the design could work successfully...

That's a very generous assessment

The design as in a twin cabbed enclosed locomotive, not the use of those particular methods of arriving at such loco.

[Bigmet]

While indeed funny, that 'proven solution' was heading for the scrap heap, and OVSB was looking for something with sufficient advantage over such a machine to extend steam in service. He probably could have delivered on the concept too, had he been prepared to adopt the proven and successful 'Kitson-Meyer' format. Bulleid had no trouble with boilers, but had an obsession with MORE! where the better solution was smaller, but still capable of more than adequate steam raising capacity. That saves on weight, and should enable a relatively conventional looking tank loco with the firebox between two four coupled powered bogies, 0-4-4-0T.

That way you get flexibility and track kindliness with total adhesion, and a deep firebox and large ashpan for extended range between stops with simpler ash disposal; in a relatively compact loco that should be achievable at circa 70 tons, all based on long proven technique. Had something like that been produced in power class 3, it might be rather popular on today's preserved lines. (It was for the scrapper on BR, no matter how successful!)

[Bufferstop]

There already was a proven layout for a two bogie steam locomotive with a single firebox boiler assembly and centre cab. The fact that one user can still build them after 100years, adapt them to different fuels and introduce modern mechanical improvements, must indicate that the design is sound. The UK examples are of course narrow gauge but larger standard gauge versions have been employed around the world. Why didn't he just build a large Fairlie.

[Bigmet]

There already was a proven layout for a two bogie steam locomotive with a single firebox boiler assembly and centre cab. The fact that one user can still build them after 100years, adapt them to different fuels and introduce modern mechanical improvements, must indicate that the design is sound. The UK examples are of course narrow gauge but larger standard gauge versions have been employed around the world. Why didn't he just build a large Fairlie.

I would suggest the reason is that the Fairlie scheme doesn't 'scale up' well: and a very particular limitation that rules it out for Bulleid's project is the inherent limitation on coal capacity of this layout. Standard gauge Double Fairlies were either oil fired, or if built coal fired very frequently converted to oil fired once service experience had been obtained; and however fuelled typically fell well short of the 30 - 40 year economic service life of a steam loco before withdrawal.

[mattmay05]

Some updates on said KR models Bulleid Leader....

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/new ... kr-models/

Initially it looks ok, but closer inspection and I know its a first EP... they have been very lazy... 20 odd errors... even the basic handrail for the door is in the wrong place, bogies not right, cab window too big or too high, some concern over the roof or top profile... body is either not attached or is sitting too high, and seemingly they have copied and pasted one side to the other...

As this is a tooled EP its a very expensive way to find if the CAD works... guess they haven't heard of 3D Printers yet... and any changes at this point to tooling is rather expensive...

A few of us have noted errors with KR Models... to get a very odd or off reply... unfortunately it looks like a that will do approach, when your paying £185.... and have people in the know it's disappointing attitude to have.

[Bigmet]

Thanks for posting the link. It's ultimately up to the customers: if sufficient are prepared to purchase what finally appears to sustain KR Models as a viable business, then the model will be 'good enough'. Customers are still purchasing other brand's existing models with noted inaccuracy in the same price bracket...

Flight of imagination: if it had gone into service under Oliver Bulleid's direction would it have looked like the prototype? No of course not, he just couldn't stop fiddling - it's actually ideal for a little 'steam punking'. Definitely need to add 3rd rail collector shoes to make it an electro-steamer, just for a start.

(The Clayton DHP1 model in the same link looks decently tidy, not that I am any expert on how it should look!)