Sandringham New Build(s)

You'd know if you listen to 6 music! How do I put this, this guy is to music what 84E is to Castles.

 

Music?

PH

 

What's 84E?

Tom

 

I have to agree, the name is a bit naff......

 

Some minor shed in the West Midlands I believe.

 

Best name for a new B17? It has to be "New Hall", a 16th century mansion, now a girl's school, adjacent to the GE main line at Boreham, just north of Chelmsford (there used to be a New Hall signal box). The original New Hall was one of Henry VIII's grandest palaces, so there's even a royal connection. It always seemed odd to me that there were only 3 (possibly 4 if you include "Thorpe Hall", which might be the one near Colchester or the one near Peterborough) B17 names from Essex, in spite of the locos spending so much of their time in the county.

On the other hand, why would you want to build a new B17 anyway? They were generally reckoned to be poor locos.

 

Agreed that has a very definite and accurate quality about it. Don't like the over Romantic Spirit of wotsit, but there's a certain romance in championing the underdog isn't there, and putting right past wrongs. Many of the problems associate with the B17 being due to creating a class 5xp at the same weight as a class 4 (b12). Without having to worry quite so much about axle loadings there's every reason to believe the various shortcomings wont be sorted out for Spirit of wotsit. Hope they try out a Kylchap. Corrected after admonishment from Steve see below.

 

One of the leading lights of the project is an ex BBLS member, Brian Hall. Not sure if he's stately enough to have a loco named after him though.

 

Has anyone asked... could be called Askham -Bryan Hall (Groan>>>)

 

Tyseley 1950 - 1963

 

Failed miserably, then, as the originals were only classed as 4MT.

 

Hmm, well, yes. Think the 17/6's Were 5P /4F...
Sorry, will do homework first and post second.
Thinking Flaman has a good point....

 

Reminds me of someone I knew (sadly now departed) who fired B17s and thought them lousy. These are not the only "new builds" that provoke the thought "why would anyone want to build one"reactions.

Paul H.

 

According to LNER encyclopdia crews on theb GER mainline weren't keen, Cambridge crews were (Trinity Hall?). Given it is meant to be based on the MNR then surely Kimberly Hall is apt...I don't care so long as it gets built. then we need a Claude and a Bantam Cock and we've most of the GE mainline toplink from the C20 represented (if you ignore the fact that some of the rebuilds were quite extreme)

 

IMHO no-one "needs" anything unless it is effective in doing a job.

PH

 

Effective at showing not every steam locomotive design was a success?

Steven

 

Seems a bit of an expensive way of proving the point!

PH

 

Building one would fill in the gap of GE express and there were more powerfully then the B12s. Plus one would great double heading with B12 8572. Then it would possible to do a line up of all GE express locomotives with the new build D16 plus the B12 and a BR Standard 7. It would look great pulling railtours out of Norwich or London Liverpool Street. The LNER do need more classes as there are still more GWR, LMS and SR classes then LNER. In working order.

 

Pure W.I.B.N. I fear.

PH

 

The only real number that matters with new builds is the value of n in the following equation:

Sustainable long-term annual fundraising capacity = £1*10^n

Fo n < 4, even a teenage supporter is going to be dead before the loco ever sees the light of day.

For n ⪆ 4.7, even if the loco being built is some completely left-field design, who is to say that those who wish to see it built are wrong? (For the A1 / P2 group, n is getting towards 6)

For 4 < n ⪅ 4.7 the project is probably a bit marginal - it has support, but a bit borderline whether that support is sufficient for the loco to see the light of day.

Ultimately, all locos will to some degree haul trains, so the most important measure of "effective" is really "effective at generating funds".

Tom