You have a time machine and you can go back to the 50s/60s and save one Engine. Which would it be ?

Apparently the Tender used with Hush Hush has survived and is the one now behind A4 Union of South Africa. John Cameron had it swapped with USA original one when he bought it as it was in better condition.

 

Shot in the dark, but perhaps cracking of parts of the casting due to uneven thermal expansion with the large temperature cycles? I can see a steel casting with a simple cast iron liner being a lot more forgiving of that sort of thing than the full grey iron cylinder casting. Spheroidal graphite iron would be another solution, but it hadn't been invented then.

 

My error Steve. I should have waited until I had access to what I part remembered. The hp cylinders had ring problems. They didn't last very long. Could be down to a number of factors; lubrication, materials, the impact of the temperatures involved. Was there any distortion of the block? Such distortion did cause leakage through valves which was one of the reasons Chapelon reverted to piston valves. Exactly what was involved with 10000 in this area we will never know.

Later locomotive engineers found more modern materials useful. Better liners, rings, oils and methods of their application have all been used. What the LNE could have done in the 1920s to address the issue would not have been nothing and they might have made the issue tolerable.

 

I did!

 

What abut the GWR Moguls scrapped at Barry in the early days?

 

Let's be more ambitions. How about Lostock Hall shed complete from when I visited it in September 1967 - it was the only shed I ever got to go round in steam days.

I still have a couple of terrible photos (taken with a Polaroid camera) which is the nearest to a time machine I suspect we will ever get :-(

 

Doesn't meet the OP's question though - you're only allowed ONE loco!

Keith

 

See post 62.

 

I recommend the William Brown book for further info on the Hush Hush. It's not perfect - and there's some points that I think proper engineers would question - but the photographs and the documents on offer from its early days offer an insight into what was a very important project for the LNER of the time.

It is often misunderstood - the aim was to produce a locomotive comparable to an A1 for power but significantly more fuel efficient. By the time the A4s had come around, the original Hush Hush was almost there in its aims, but the improved A3s and A4s were simply better. As rebuilt, the W1 settled down and had a good service life, even proving the point on the original P2s when used on their lines temporarily (and leading to their rebuilding as a result).

No doubt in my mind though - it is entirely possible to fix the problems of the original Hush Hush if a new build was attempted. Should one be attempted is another question - I don't believe there's any need for it.

The original W1 became a dead end in locomotive development on the LNER. None of the technology contained within it, bar the Kylchap (used on Humorist and 4 A4s at a similar time) was taken forward into other locomotive designs. No other compounds built - certainly no other 4 cylinder engines after her rebuilding (one Atlantic had been rebuilt prior, I think?)

As a historical curiosity, a beautiful locomotive in its own right, but the rebuilt engine was far superior.

 

A Class 74

Surprised it didn't give you the genesis of an idea

 

Was it in a way a bit like Bulleid's later developments, with too much changed at once from the ordinary locomotives of the time? Presumably the rationale for a water-tube boiler was the difficulty of designing a conventional boiler for such a high pressure, but why go so high and compound expansion at the same time rather than either something around 280 psi and simple explansion or 220 psi and compounding?

 

So with the caveat that I am not a railway engineer (yet - watch this space!) and that I am merely making my own judgments based on years of reading on, and researching, the LNER, but:

No, I don't believe this was the case. The W1 is not significantly different from compound locomotives being built of the time and its water tube type boiler, though different of course from all other railway locomotives of the time, proved to not be a particular problem so far as steam production was concerned.

Gresley looked abroad more than once for inspiration and development and he no doubt was influenced by Chapelon in the choice of the W1 to be built as a compound locomotive, who in 1929 was also working on his own rebuilds of existing locomotives on Chemin de Fer and was particularly interested in compounding. The Kylchap - Chapelon's joint development with Kylala - was not fitted to the W1 until its later stages of its original form, and became a standard fitting on all LNER Pacifics in BR days.

I think it is entirely fair and possible that Gresley did not understand compounding like Chapelon did. The W1 remained his only express passenger compound locomotive. Ivatt of course had produced a couple of compound Atlantics but on the LNER compounding was virtually nonexistent. There was nothing to measure against and nothing to learn from.

The individual components of the W1's original form all work in theory. When applied in practice, the prototype was initially found wanting and unreliable. This isn't unusual: prototypes rarely work straight out of the box (perhaps we LNER enthusiasts are prejudiced due to Silver Link's most extraordinary debut?) and the W1's development continued until 1936.

In its final form before rebuilding the major issues of the W1 - mainly steaming and air leaking into the casing - had been more or less resolved. It was actually doing what it was intended to do: be comparable to a Gresley A1 for power but to be more fuel efficient.

The question marks over the W1 are largely due to preconceptions of what the prototype was intended to be used for. It was superseded by the A3s and A4s, largely because their fuel economies were superior to the A1s on which the W1 was being measured against.

When rebuilt, the LNER gained a good locomotive. Not an outstanding one, but a good one. It did good work - not exceptional work - and was another good publicity tool for the LNER. It lasted until 1959 as one of the last non-standard prototypes, outlasted only by Great Northern in this respect.

There was nothing wrong with the boiler design and it survived for many years as a stationary boiler outside Darlington works. It outlived the rebuilt locomotive too.

 

There were various other water tube boiler locos before the W1: de Bouquet built one for the Nord in the early years of the century

In 1929 Chapelon was at the Paris-Orleans and his first rebuilt Pacific came out in that year. Strictly speaking, Chapelon's exceptional locos of this period were mainly compounds because they were rebuilt from (de Glehn) compounds. His own personal developments on compounding came a bit later.

I think there were as many as four GNR compound Atlantics but they were pretty rotten. The LNER did inherit the (good) GCR compound Atlantics and the excellent NER compound Atlantics, plus the original Smith compound 4-4-0 no 1619. Plus all the history of compounding by Wordsell senior on the GER and NER (although none of the actual compound locos, I think).

 

Pick this:



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...acific_geograph-2827807-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg


and make that as two cylinder compound

https://imgur.com/ZQjgKpG

Most efficient UK loading gauge locomotive.

 

I doubt you could build an efficient large 2-cyl compound to fit the UK loading gauge.

The best bet would be a Bullied MN boiler (at 280psi) boiler on the original W1 chassis - would need some adjustment to cylinder ratios.

 

We always seem to, somehow, end up on LNER Pacific’s dont we?

 

The Thompson de Glehn like versions look so strange that someone could have earned money for making it less offensive.
My version looks better,is stiffer up front and uses less coal.
Advice is free

 

An outside,front wheel drive 22 inch high pressure cylinder and a 33 inch LP between frames will do more work than a Brittania for less coal

 

To build is a smidge more expensive though

 

Always one who believes the Thompson Pacifics are out of the ordinary.