Current and Proposed New-Builds

If my memory is correct, the V4 was faster and more stable than the K4 on the level stretches of the West Highland Line but couldn't match the K4's adhesion on the hills and bends. Pros and cons of a trailing truck I suppose.

A1SLT certainly score highly for forward planning and I think a fair amount of design work has already been completed for the V4. It will be very interesting to see if they can make improvements to the Gresley conjugated gear. Before that though, there's the matter of the Lentz-Franklin gear on the P2! There may be a few tests and challenges to get that finally sorted out.

Any bets on a completion date for the V4? My guess is 2032ish. I think we may have thinned out a bit by then.

 

Twisty, turny (aren't they the same?) - yes - but I would hardly call the NYMR a switchback route. From Pickering to Whitby it is essentially 6 miles of very slightly uphill, 6 miles of uphill, 6 miles of downhill and 6 miles of slightly downhill, whichever direction you go in.

 

Yes, I really hope I'm around long enough to see the v4.

 

I wonder where the V4 developments leave the V3 tank plans? That's an engine (along with an L1) I'd like to see on the NYMR, but as it's probably not going to be a main line engine by the time its built I see it falling down the priority list.

 

Mee too!
So it`s just to keep chrunch our vitamin-pills!

 

Forum rules, no personal comments about my, or anyone else's hair please

 

Out of interest - if a V3 (or L1 for that matter) would be a desirable loco for the NYMR, is there any reason why the railway itself couldn’t construct one, rather than wait for someone else to do so? (Not saying they should, was just curious as to what might be the reasons why they wouldn’t?).

Tom

 

How much axle load and hammerblow can be accepted on NYMR?

 

Quite a lot of axle load, it would appear, seeing as they regularly run Class 8 Pacifics on the line

Doesn't hammerblow only really start to become a major factor at higher speeds than the 25mph on heritage lines?

 

For the NYMR these days it's all about business cases, I'm afraid,. and wqith a fleet of standard class4s and Black 5s to cover most services there isn't one. Heritage is only something to be paid lip service to and there has never been a formal heritage plan. The teak coaches are only there because the LNERCA have almost forced them on the railway, so we'll never see the NYMR able to operate a train of 4/6=wheelers representative of the NER era. If we're lucky we might see a short 1920s --1950s-ish era set based around the H&BRs and the Thompson CL, plus a possible Gresley non-corridor yet to be acquired, but that's about it.

 

True - unless running something lacking in the suspension department, like a DeWinton 'coffee pot', though I doubt anyone in their right mind would want to run one of those at anything approaching 25mph.

 

Ploughman can give a better answer but relays are to 25 ton axle load.

 

An L1 has been talked about. The drawings apparently exist. The motive power situation is improving so there may be a will to do such a thing. A long way to go yet with No.5, 3672, 44806, 75029 and 80135 to get to grips with and that should be sufficient to meet the motive power needs but you never know.

 

What we really need is another Royal Scot, but in original, parallel-boilered form:

 

And more LMS examples:

Fowler 7F "Baby Austin"

Stanier Class 2 0-4-4

And a Fowler 2P 4-4-0

 

I would love a Fowler 2P and and original Scot. Add that to a patriot and a Fowler 2-6-4t and it would be a great Fowler society!!

 

Regarding the Stanier/Lemon 0-4-4T, there were noises being made a few years ago regarding the construction of a new Johnson 0-4-4T, to replace the one so shamefully sent for scrap by Stanier shortly after his arrival on the LMS. (A new Kirtley 0-6-0 outside framer wouldn't go amiss either, of course...)

 

The interesting thing about the Thompson L1 is that we have a locomotive in preservation which does use some LNER parts which were standard with it and other classes.

62005 has identical valve gear, pony truck and a similar boiler set up. You could almost call the Peppercorn K1 the tender engine version of the L1 in some respects. So some degree of examining the K1 for parts to be made to be used on an L1 - as the A1 trust did when they looked at Blue Peter, the A2 - is possible.

I’d love to see a Thompson L1 built. A handsome locomotive that one suspects, with roller bearing axleboxes, would be far superior to the originals which suffered from the wartime austerity the LNER found itself in.

 

I have been told that the L1 cylinders are the same as the outside ones of the A1, so there's another possible head start.

 

The L1 cylinders were the same as the B1 cylinders at 20 X 26, and the A1 cylinders are 19 X 26 and all three have the same 10" piston valve.