The next newbuild

Did they ever decide on which L1? I seem to recall when the faults of the Thompson 2-6-4T were outlined, they switched to a Maunsell 4-4-0... Still, I supposed it saved having to change the Trust letterhead!

Tom

 

Interesting - the LNER encyclopedia website (http://www.lner.info/locos/L/l1thompson.shtml) mentions 5 Neasden L1s having their cylinders lined up from 20 in to 18.75 in to reduce the load on the axleboxes, but makes no mention of changes to the axlebox guides. The cylinder changes were not successful in improving axlebox reliability. Perhaps you should inform the LNER.info site of the additional information, so they can add it to the information on the L1.

As to a newbuild L1, the faults might well be ironed out for a newbuild, but as Sheff points out the V3 would probably have a better chance of funding.

 

Of that there is no doubt. A Gresley loco of any class, however flawed, will garner more support than any Thompson loco.

That should not preclude us discussing in a fair manner the engineering practicalities of new builds, surely?

 

If you are aiming that comment at me I haven't said any such thing. I even agree with you that changes could be made to rectified perceived faults. If changing to managanese liners helps, then fine, I'm sure the details could be worked out if there are no existing drawings.

Perhaps you are referring to other posts

 

I think there are many locos that historically have the reputation as "duds" that, with one or two minor mods, or simply changing circumstances, have come into their own in preservation. A classic example are the Wainwright Ps, which historically were always compared unfavourably with Stroudley Terriers: in preservation, I know which I'd rather be on!

Up thread, there was a suggestion about a Maunsell K class River tank (another variant on the 2-6-4T theme) and I have little doubt that, if built, and restricted largely to 25mph, or mainline forays on modern well-maintained track, it would prove a useful and well regarded design.

That said, the mantra for new builds is "useful - buildable - fundable" and it is on the last of those points that many such possibles will founder. Not everything that is useful and buildable will excite sufficient people to be fundable, and I suspect a Thompson L1 would fall firmly into that camp - as I suspect would a Maunsell River tank (or a Maunsell L1, for that matter!) Sadly for those wishing to engage in a bit of "experimental archaeology" to see if certain original locos were as good as their reputation suggests, or can be transformed with minor modifications, I suspect that the answer will become clear for a Gresley P2, but anything by Thompson will remain a mystery.

Tom

 

They disbanded about a month ago, because their treasurer resigned. They were planning a Maunsell L1.

Another project lost to a lack of reality.


Keith

 

Not specifically: I've seen comments elsewhere. My apologies if you felt picked on, not my intention.

 

A lot of this sort of argument depends too much on the state of repair of a given machine and its particular "place in the Sun" of its particular type. By this I mean that one supposedly identical locomotive will perform very much better than another. For example I once hauled two heavily laden bogie wagons up the steep slope out of Minffordd yard on the F.R. with a Quarry Hunslet, to be told afterwards that Hunslet "X" would not have managed to do that.

PH

 

Paul - while I have sympathy with the view that different engines of the same class can vary, my preference for a P over a Terrier is nothing to do with condition, and everything to do with the inherent design characteristics of the locos, and specifically the "user friendliness" of each! Historically, Ps got a bad reputation essentially because the duties they were built to perform outgrew the capacity of the locos. Essentially the same happened to Terriers too (and they were replaced by bigger designs), but not before they had cemented their reputation amongst enthusiasts of the day!

In the context of new-builds, it would be interesting to think of locos that genuinely were irredeemable duds. I suspect (not really my field) that the Thompson L1 would probably not be too many mods away from being a genuinely useful loco. Whereas a Drummond T7 / E10 double single: I doubt many people are queuing up to salvage the reputation of those!

Tom

 

A lot, especially, forgive me, with amateur crews, depends upon how much finesse is needed to get the best out of a given machine. Away from railways, a man once wrote a book about his travels in a bullnose Morris. He was invited to drive a three litre Bentley but was unable to cope, which was not the Bentley's fault. Hence the Morris was the better vehicle for him but the Bentley clearly could outperform it. Similarly I doubt whether there is anyone reading these pages who could get the best out of a Chapelon "E" but that was capable of performances way beyond those experienced in this country.

Paul H.

 

I for one would love to see a Thompson L1 or a Gresley V3 standing in platform 2 at Whitby, awaiting departure for Pickering with a train of non-corridor stock. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be an appetite on the NYMR for building replicas, although the non-corridor coaches mighty happen one day.

 

There's a 'but' to all this. If you are going to build a replica, then surely it should be a replica, warts and all? If you are going to modify it to (hopefully) do away with all the problems, you might as well simply design a new loco. After all, you are building anew, not trying to improve on something that you already have and keep the accountants satisfied. What you appear to be promoting is the fact that, as long as it looks like an L1, it's OK. Taking this to an extreme, you could have a lookalike L1 with a diesel engine and appropriate transmission under the superstructure. That is arguably the best solution; it eliminates all the inherent problems of a dirty, labour intensive machine, instantly available and with no '10 year' cycle to worry about.

 

I agree. by making wholesale changes to a previously unsuccessful design does not prove that CME "X" was right except for the changes made to the new design.

 

The Neasden Manganese liner mod would be fair game though, wouldn't it? If it was so successful I wonder why it wasn't generally applied to the class. Shades of the B1 mod mentioned elsewhere (was t this thread or another?)

 

Incorporating an "in service" modification would seem to be fair game.

 

But you have to be consistent in your criticism! The P2 being built by the A1SLT is so fundamentally modified from the original (different boiler; different boiler pressure; different cylinder dimensions; different pony trucks and general suspension layout; to say nothing of the valve gear which still seems to be an unknown, but no guarantee it will be like the original) that effectively it is a P2 only in outline (or, if you like, an entirely new sub-class by a different designer). It certainly won't be a Gresley P2 incorporating only "in service" mods. By contrast, a Thompson L1 with modified axle boxes and strengthened tanks looks like a very minor variant on the original!

Tom

 

I'm fully aware that the P2 won't be a Gresley P2 but looking forward to seeing it flatten Shap nonetheless.

 

It may well do so, though to quote a certain Spamcan81 (who he?) "by making wholesale changes to a previously unsuccessful design does not prove that CME "X" was right"! You could quite convincingly argue that Thompson was closer to "right" with his 2-6-4T than Gresley was with his 2-8-2!

Tom

 

Gosh, I didn't realise it would be that heavy!

 

I'm disappointed to be accused of anti-Thompson bias - in fact, if you look at my posting history, you'll see that I've stood up to the "Thompson-bashers" in the past!

Ok, so you could probably find a solution to the axlebox problem. But to be honest - although in fairness, I didn't really make this clear - I was thinking more in terms of the class's historical significance than the practical difficulties. The L1s had an indifferent reputation and a relatively short working life. Only 100 were built, compared to 277 Fairburn tanks, or 155 Standard 4MTs. They were restricted to the Eastern region, whereas the latter two worked far more widely. Now imagine, that, of the large suburban post-war tank types - L1, Fairburn, 4MT - none had been preserved. Which would you pick to replicate first? Personally I'd plump for the Fairburn. Given that we already have examples of Fairburn and 4MT preserved - comparable, and more successful, locomotive types from the same era - do we really need an L1 as well?

Admittedly, the V1/V3 is only marginally more interesting. But they had three cylinders, which differentiates them from most other preserved British tank engines, 2500 excepted. They also had longer working lives than the L1, so they had a bigger part in Britain's railway story, if you see what I mean.

Of course, it's always going to be a matter of personal opinion - if people can raise the money to build an L1 then I won't stop them. But just to show that I'm not being inconsistent, I would like to emphasise that 2007 would not have been my first choice of new build design - nor would 60163, for that matter. Not that I don't love Tornado now she exists - but if you'd given me a blank sheet of paper in 1990, I'd have said, "we already have an A2, almost identical - why not do something different?"