A1SLT... What next.

Following on from the thread which wandered from Scots Gaurdsman and Galatea to Garratts on the Jacobite , the people who brought you Tornado and Prince of Wales are already thinking of What next...
Youre chance to be one the 8 out of 10....

 

Can I vote "all of the above?"

 

Something else LNER, to be specific a B16, or failing that an A8, as soon as possible please!
Being somewhat more realistic won't it depend on what sort of work the A1SLT want their locos to do?

 

LNER U1

 

D16

 

Depends on where they wish to operate it. The Trust seems to be pretty well geared to the National network, so of the options given, the V4. Though a P1, built using A4 cylinders etc. would be interesting.

 

A pair of K2s for the Jacobite...?

 

The V4 gets my vote.

Would make a nice change from the beautiful Behemoth currently being built!

The 'down shift' in size is a very sensible decision IMHO.....

 

How 'bout a W1 for a LNER loco that didn't survive into preservation perhaps you'd get another group building the rebuilt version too!

 

How about an earlier A4 in silver, a Fairburn 2-6-4T ,C13 class 4-4-2,Austerity 8F.

 

As much as I'd love to see a V4 built... its something else LNER that gets my vote...I believe it's unlikely that Green Arrow will ever run again so I'd like to see another V2 built. That way Green Arrow can be left in peace at the NRM but we will still have a V2 to enjoy - and depending on where your allegiances lie "The Loco's that won the war" will live on.

 

Surely a J50 would tick a box and be suitable for many preserved lines?

 

Can we go back in time? How about a Stirling 2-2-2? Significant engine in the ECML history and an interesting comparison with the better known 4-2-2 ...

Being serious, surely the first question to answer is what traffic do they wish to tap into, and then decide on which prototype would match that demand. Given their track record of hefty mainline motive power, with a side-order of choosing slightly quirky visual designs (esp. the P2), then I'd go for the W1. How feasible would a W1 be with the original external appearance, but underneath with a conventional boiler? (*)

(*) Disclaimer: my detail knowledge of LNER design could be written here --> .

Tom

 

I think the expression is "all I know could be written on the back of a postage stamp, and still have room for the Lord's prayer!"

I like the idea of some of those earlier locos, but then you get all the problems associated with them, low haulage capacity, difficulty in obtaining drawings, high cost for probably only HR work etc. A W1 with conventional boiler sounds fun, I know it did have one, but did it have it before they put an A4 face on it?

 

The conventional boiler was part of the rebuild as was the A4 style streamlining.

 

Thought so, in that case boilerwork should be fun for an original W1, reckon Riley'll do it!? I'd still be perfectly happy with a normal boiler with W1 casing...

 

Now the W1 would be something - all a rather special loco in our house because my great Uncle was one of the Darlington drivers involved in its initial test runs and we still have "somewhere" (terrible admission I don't precisely know where) an envelope marked Christmas 1930 (I think) containing a full set of the ex-works postcard pictures of the loco, a gift to my Dad from his Uncle George, the driver in question.

Steven

 

I would steer clear of the original W1 purely down to the innate conservatism of UK based locomotive boiler design. If you wanted to re-create the design you would have to address the boiler issue. Somehow you have to obtain a working pressure of 450/475 psi. It can be done, but not with boilers as we preservationists understand them.
A good deal of work would be required modifying the chassis design. This would depend, in part, on how much extra rigidity could be offered by the new boiler design c/w conventional designs. The engine would be set up to work as a pseudo three cylinder design, the two high pressure cylinders acting effectively as one. Steam chest volumes would need enlargement. Ditto receiver volumes. The original had a poor cross sectional area through the H.P. superheater but the design could function very well with steam jacketed H.P. cylinders and an adequate interstage superheater.
A significant problem is that no one found out how to drive the original machine properly. Extrapolating from existing test results with due reference to the results achieved by Europe's greatest steam locomotive then the original would have been capable of producing some 4000 hp. if adequately developed.
Thinking about it for a moment, that power potential is one good reason to re-create the beast.

 

Possibly a V4 and subsequently another similar boilered/wheel-diameter mogul/tank sort. Furthermore, the second V4 included a thermic syphon and welded firebox, so perhaps this might have been Bulleid's first foray into detailed locomotive design under Gresley's tutelage?

 

There weren't any tanks with similar boilers to the V4s - they were wide firebox engines. The V4 gets my vote though.