The next newbuild

You're misquoting me heavily there. Reread what I posted. "I'm fully aware that the P2 won't be a Gresley P2 but looking forward to seeing it flatten Shap nonetheless." Where did I say in that post it would prove Gresley right?

 

Not aimed at you either as it happens, though I did note your comments which prompted me to throw it out there for debate.

The LNER is underrepresented in preservation which is why many of the new builds have been LNER designs - A1, P2, G5, F5, and so on. Historical significance and short working life (question this one actually: the class had a much longer working life than many BR designed locomotives and its working life was longer than some pilot scheme diesels - 1944-1962 is pretty good to be frank) aside, any equivalent tank locomotive of the 4MT would be welcome on usefulness alone.

I think it's fair to say that tank engine designs from the LNER are severely lacking in preservation - I can only think off the top of my head of the J69 at York, the two J72s and the N2 and N7 - I think that's actually it isn't it? So whether V1/3 or L1, or J50, Q1, whatever, any LNER design tank engine furthers the overall story of the LNER and represents a period in LNER history. To argue that the V1/3 represents more of LNER history is perhaps right on time spent working for the LNER alone but both classes are important to the overall story in different ways and, truth be told, probably both represent their designer's engineering ethos rather well.

I think for my part, 60163 was necessary because the Peppercorn A1 was the biggest missing link for the express passenger line - 49 examples of what was arguable Britain's best Pacific design. There was definitely a groundswell of opinion and my late grandfather used to tell me what a fantastic project the A1 would make before it had even started. I remember being handed a copy of Steam Railway when the project was first announced and how excited he was. Gutted that he never lived to see it but he would have been so happy.

The A1 has its roots in the Thompson designs previous, and the P2 from which the A2/2s directly derived - so it goes effectively P2 > A2/2 > A2/3 > A1 in some respects, so the ability to build that Pacific - which would definitely work on the mainline - has directly led to the further project to build a new P2, and we have seen how the P2 Trust has built the confidence leading to their astonishing and brilliant start.

 

I'm not entirely sure that I was suggesting that - but if we apply cast axle boxes or indeed, manganese liners to the original L1 design and build the whole thing more accurately using modern measuring equipment and manufacturing techniques, then you could (as with the A1) remove any frailties and produce a better locomotive. I don't believe I was calling for wholesale changes at all but simply concentrating on resolving the problems known and producing what would otherwise be a Thompson L1 in all other respects.

But then I'm not seriously suggesting we build one, just hypothesising that actually, producing a Thompson L1 that does better than the originals is pretty straight forward and not difficult engineering wise.

 

It may seem pretty straightforward but might not be so in reality. ISTR that you were advocating roller bearings in an earlier post (too lazy/late to look back). These would inevitably be bigger than the original boxes and might entail a total re-design of the frames/firebox/whatever. I don't know. The tanks are an interesting one. The LMS went from all riveted to all welded tanks on their Stanier 4,000 gallon tenders and abandoned the latter because of leakage. Might be OK, though.
I also guess that you would go for an all-welded boiler as well. New boiler, new tanks, frame mods; there's not going to be much left of Thompson's original apart from a couple of cylinders and a few wheels!

 

Two J72's?!!. There's a J52, two J 94's, a Y1 & two Y7's missing, though. Not disputing the fact that it would be good to have more, though.

 

I think I got the number of Y7s and J72s mixed up there…!

I completely forgot about Bill Parker's J52 which is a heinous crime, given its place in preservation history. That's still a tiny sample of the tank engines the LNER employed and no passenger tank engines larger than an 0-6-2T preserved. A shame in many respects.

 

Not only did you forget the J52, you also forgot that it belongs to the NRM!

One can speculate ad nauseum about what the next new build will be - but the reality is that it will be decided by a n individual or group of people with the ambition and drive to carry others with them and make it happen, and it will almost certainly come from "left field" just like the G5 did.

 

No I do remember it's an NRM loco - but it'll always be Bill Smith's to me, much the same way you can't talk of 4472s history without Pegler.

I agree you entirely about the rest - the next one will come from left field and it will be interesting to see how it all goes. The positive developments in LNER circles and with the Patriot project prove some prototypes fire the imagination so - I wonder what the next one will be that does that.

(Edited for error)

 

Er... Bill Smith saved the J52. Bill Parker owns the Y5.

 

A Y5? Is that the GER 0-4-0ST, formerly of Woolwich?

 

Not doing very well today!

 

ET Syndrome?

 

That's the one.

 

And we've all forgotten the Y9 (68095). All in all, there's quite a collection of small LNER tank locos.

 

Drifting off topic, but that's one engine I can't wait to see back in steam

 

I remember that one in the car park when I worked for Fairfield Mabey.

 

I worry that new builds such as the P2 will only find a home in a museum cometh the day that mainline steam on NR finishes, which it inevitably will one day. I cannot see any Heritage line wanting that loco in its working fleet.

The" practical" way ahead surely is to build more "standard" types, which in the main will be of use on our Heritage lines and thus having a means of earning their keep. Also the original reasoning behind the standards still applies as volunteer resources become stretched, ie easy servicing and maintenance. Self-cleaning smokeboxes, drop grates, two outside cylinders (71000 excepted) and in some cases roller bearings.

Having said that, my favourite candidate for a new build and an ideal candidate for a number of Heritage lines, would be a Fowler 2300 2-6-4T.

46118

 

Do locos still have self cleaning smokeboxes? I wondered about that when I read about them in Cox recently. For sure if I lived within ash range of a heritage railway I'd want them banned. They're scarcely compatible with a good neighbour policy.

 

Maybe, but ultimately the thing has to find somewhere to work, otherwise you'll need a really big mantelpiece for it to sit on.