Current and Proposed New-Builds

P1, Eh? With or without the booster? Either way, the NYM Ops wallahs would never want another loco on the legendary diner.

From what I read, the class bio in the LNER Encyclopedia (https://www.lner.info/locos/P/p1.php) suggests the view from the line's firemen might be different!

Perhaps if 2007 performs as we all hope it does, 'mikados' will suddenly catch the imagination of those who really don't give a stuff what their bank manager thinks!

 

Shouldn't be any different to fire to an A1/A3... the booster might increase steam demand, but then you wouldn't be able to fire an A3 flat out up Goathland bank as power would rapidly overcome adhesion, whereas a 2-8-2 with or without booster would stand a better chance of putting its power down. Tractive effort (loco only) of 47,000lb if fitted with a 220psi A3 boiler, nearly 53,500 if you went for a 250psi A4 boiler! Plus, 5'2" driving wheels = 60mph main line classification, plenty for thrashing up Ais Gill...

What's the usual motive power on the NYMR diner, anyway?

 

Agree with you 30854. just look at this picture and see the combination of the green locomotive and the teak-coaches! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Steam_Locomotive_69023_(7074556801).jpg/1200px-Steam_Locomotive_69023_(7074556801).jpg

kind regards
Knut[/QUOTE]
Lovely piccie .... super little locos the J72's and surely the least expected class for Peppercorn to have resurrected so late in the day, let alone for BR to have built batches. The turnout of that teak carriage is stunning.

The exact shade of any colour (or black!) is always elusive in photographs, but in bright sunlight, the lusterous NER green always hints at an untertone of burnished gold (of all things!) to my mind.

 

From what's been reported on our little forum, 'the butchest loco in steam' sounds to be first choice for the diner!

I don't think there's any doubt a P1 could handle whatever's thrown at it on any heritage line where one would fit (I'm guessing that means 'not the Foxfield with it's ferocious bank', which is a shame), but how often do you need a loco which can not only pull the longest practical train with ease, it would do just as well if you tacked on a full length broken down train complete with it's dead loco?

To put the power into context, consider the always quoted "100 wagon coal train" capability of these brutes. Don't get me wrong ..... I'd love to see a P1 for real and I reckon it's a worthwhile candidate ..... Perhaps if the V4 gets done, it'll be time for something other than named express locos.

I quite liked the idea of an LSW G16 or H16, but I 'spose there are big locos a-plenty native to the north and anyway, the folks at Ropley or SP might well prefer first dibs on a recreation of either of Mr Urie's impressive tank locos.

 

That's a bit exaggerated. According to RCTS the very last boilers were 4ft9/10 by 11ft barrel for a total of 2085 sq ft heating area and 24 sq ft grate at 140psi. An unsuperheated Std 1 boiler was 4ft10/5ft 6 by 14ft 10 barrel for 1988 sqft heating area and 27 sq ft grate and at 200 - 225psi. So really between a Std 4 and a Std 1, or roughly equivalent to a Manor. But to put it in perspective a Dean Single boiler was 4ft 3 diameter by 11ft 6 for around 1500 sq feet and 21 sq ft grate, so they were huge boilers for their day.

 

Anything bigger than a King would have only been Hawksworth’s Cathedrals, which would be a very interesting project, and the first to build a class that was never built.

 

Though a Southern partisan, if anyone fancies another go at the Turbomotive.....

 

That's settled it then, a U1.

If the Doncaster P2 group had decided to build a P1 instead (especially with some modern improvements), I'm wondering if they would receive more support.

 

Got to be worth it, if only to see the bemused faces on parents who've just gone through the ".... here's the steam engine, now listen to it saying chuff-chuff-chuff, just like Thomas and Gordon" routine (aren't I a nasty old get?), as well as ticking the 'leftfield' box very nicely, but something would need doing to address it's well documented inability to pull the skin off a rice pudding when operated in reverse.

I have little doubt that, were he still with us, Sir William (unlike many CME's who one feels would be tickled pink to have one of their designs resurrected) would regard the exercise as little short of utter lunacy and not be shy of very publicly saying so in no uncertain terms!

 

Because I am an ideas man, I have solved your problem: (other variations exist!)



Now stop making excuses and build your damn Turbomotive!

 

Even better.
If LNER had used five feet wheels instead of five feet two they could have made a better 9F thirty years earlier.

 

I'd say the U1 is a bit like overkill, but given that almost everything about the P1 is already extant in the great LNER parts-bin, right down to a spare A3 boiler and cylinders if I'm not mistaken(?), it could be one of the easier options...

Personally, I wouldn't be that bothered about resurrecting 6202, but I do think that a streamlined turbine Duchess could be quite something...

 

Excellent! Can't beat a Maunsell Mogul, and a three cylinder one would be an interesting contrast with the currently preserved two cylinder versions ...

Tom

 

Just a bit more to oil up especially when the 2 cylinder ones will do the job??

 

A three cylinder one would have a more steady running in higher speed I guess? And a higher tractive effort?

 

I have suggested before that a batch build of all the Maunsell 2-6-0/2-6-4T types could be a good idea! Eight different classes, all using fundamentally the same boiler and wheelsets (the only variable there being which of two different diameters of driving wheel is used, and whether a rear bogie or six-wheel tender is fitted).

We've only got one surviving N-class, which seems a crying shame to me, so let's have more of them.

Then, the tank version of the N, the LNER L2, would be a very obvious choice - at 25mph the tanks aren't going to cause instability issues, and you can stick a well-tank between the frames...

I'd love to see the 'K'/River tanks back and given a chance to prove what they could really do on good P-way.

You can't go wrong with the U-boats either, although building more examples of a class which has four survivors already might seem superfluous.

3-cylinder versions of them all, the N1, W, K1 and U1, would have obvious appeal, and I think I'm right in saying that the cylinders are also the same as those on the 'Z' 0-8-0T? Sort out a better boiler for that and it could be pretty useful, and if you wanted to make it more passenger-friendly, a 2-8-2T version might be useful... ;-)

 

But the point I was making was 3 cyls. an overkill for most of the UK railways, not just the oiling round each day but also the added maintenance.

 

Just one thing to say, to the drawing board.

 

I`m sorry I misunderstand you.

Knut

 

I have always though the River tanks would be a good new build project. There is a story to tell and given that Maunsell produced the K, K1, W and Z tank engines, a lack of any preserved southern railway built tank is a notable omission. They also have a name which helps!