Replica builds for heritage lines.

What I'd love to see? 4470 Great Northern as rebuilt.

I've never subscribed to the view that she was ungainly or ugly and I think "in the flesh" as built was probably better looking than photographs serve her.

I've built a few models of her and they're my favourites. I can't help it - I like the "post war A4" very much.

 

Adhesion not a major factor in your decision making I see.

 

Either that or substandard cylinder lubrication...

Tom

 

I'll bet you most of them get closer than you think, they just don't have enough superheat to get those heavy cast iron cylinders above saturation temperature fast enough. The only perfect case study available is the two 94XX tanks in preservation, but the superheated one will probably never run and since it's GWR it won't have high degree superheat.

Having said that, the main reason I specified superheat for a fantasy 700 or D15 is that I prefer the look of them that way, and if I one day have far too much money that is how they shall look. LSWR livery, superheat and all. Don't worry @Jamessquared , it'll never happen so you needn't worry about me succumbing to temptation and painting them BR black.

 

I would choose the DRG Class 86. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRG_Class_86

It's the right wheel arrangement for grip and steering. Outside cylinders, small wheels and a good size overall.
To save you converting the stats into Imperial, they are; Boiler. 200 psi, grate 26 sq ft, water 1978 gal, coal 4 t and 4'7" coupled wheels.
Strip out the superheater and any other gubbins, fit roller bearings to the axles, bolt on a Dreadnought ejector and you're good to go.
Outside cylinders are a good idea but not for the reasons most of you think. The best reasons are that inside ones suffer from smokebox rot. We at the Bluebell are seeing the effects of this now, other lines will as well. Outside cylinders are a much easier repair than inside ones too, clue, liners.
Regarding superheat, I notice our engines get much hotter cylinders now we run to East Grinstead. Our saturated engines get warmer and stay warmer for longer too.
Tender engines are a pain in the bum to drive backwards. I drove 100 milse on 73082 over two days and I've got backache from looking round the large tender.
Power wise the 5MT will accelerate a 6 coach train to line speed quite quickly. You can get to 20mph by Kingscote up advance starter whereas the E4 will be doing 20mph tops leaving Horsted and then only when you get to the tunnel.

Mine would not be a popular choice.

Russ.

 

It would have to be a classic British 4-4-0 of the turn of the century. In my view the handsomest were by Drummond (either of them, but before they got carried away with big boilers or four cylinders, so Caley, NBR, HR, LSWR - with the former two their successors built some handsome locos of the Drummond school), Aspinall (L&Y), Johnson (MR), Manson (GNSR or GSWR) or the Kitson and Sharp Stewart ones built for the smaller companies (Cambrian, Furness).
My personal choice might be a L&Y Flyer - but that is rather close to BR mixed traffic livery...

 

A River class tank I think would look right at home on the Bluebell. Always thought it was quite an attractive class.

Never been a massive fan of Thompson or his designs but quite liked the design of the L1 tank.

 

If we're going the 4-4-0 route, I'd vote for a Claud and/or a Brighton B4.

 

Did you see it in the flesh? I did and it looked wrong cab looked an afterthought and the footplating crews didn't think much of the early post war Pacifics either and it's hardly a loco suitable for heritage rail use.

 

No I didn't. I've pored over drawings, built models, even started and partially built a live steam model of her a few years ago.

So you actually saw it in the flesh? That is impressive. Is this when first out shopped in 1945 I presume?

What are your views on Stanier's Princess class locomotives, by way of comparison?

 

Very nice choice, and I believe they would give an 9F a good run for their money as well in terms of tractive effort. The only fly in the ointment, so to speak, would probably be all the bridges and platform edges demolished wherever it went in the UK.

My apologies as I know you weren't asking me the question, but if I may, I'm guessing you're drawing comparison to the outside cylinder positions of the two classes? If so, then for me it isn't quite comparing like for like because the cylinders of the Princess are ahead of the centre line of the rear bogie wheels and so it just gets away with looking balanced without too big a gap, whereas the A1/1's cylinders were well behind the rear bogie wheels and the resulting image just looks unusual to my eyes, but that's just me. The A1/1 is not one of my favourites it has to be said, but from reading Townend I think it was probably quite good at doing the jobs it was tasked with.

 

Not when out shopped, I'm not that old and I think I said before anything up against any Stanier Pacific and the red one wins every time

 

It's a good choice; the Nene Valley already has an out-of-ticket Class 64 though which illustrates the gauging issue. Originally imported for the Severn Valley, it managed one test run there and got as far as the first platform edge outside Bridgnorth...

 

I'm with Spamcan regarding a Claude and I agreed with him regarding the C12 too so I'm guessing the time 34081 spent at the NNR rubbed off on him, because that's where I see those 2 potentials running amongst others. On which note, given the evident support for Johnson 440s I remain surprised that there wasn't more of a movement to 'rebuild' M&GN 50 from the extant boiler. I gather it has gone towards a different project now but it could have represented a Midland 1808 (only small detail differences) for use on other lines. I'd have loved to see that

 

An excellent example which points out why this thread is a waste of space and time. Even though a good, original boiler's existence was widely known and its owner (me) put some effort into finding someone willing to and capable of making something out of it, it hung around for years until it found a home and even then, the new-build will not be "as original".

Face it lads, nobody with the cash or capability is seriously interested .

 

That boiler can I think only become 2 different classes and as you say it's not going to be the M&GN one. Which is a shame as that was a good looking engine. But at least something is being done with it and it's not just sitting around anymore.

But surely on the newbuild front it's who runs the project that actually decides whether it moves forward or not. If people can inspire and capture the imagination of people it has a better chance of being done than say a slightly better engine that has noone able to get people to had over the cash.

 

Well this is my point exactly. I know of one gentlemen who was present when it was out shopped (and thankfully is very much still with us). He described it as "impressive" in one of his books.

I rather think that all steam locomotives have good and bad sides and angles and aesthetics are of course subjective.

Comparing 4470 as out shopped to other locomotives being built around the time, even in the UK and certainly on the continent, Thompson's design decisions are not completely out of place nor are they particularly controversial, when taken in context outside of the LNER sphere.

Comparing a Chapelon Pacific (in aesthetics, I hasten to add) to Great Northern and the other 25 Thompson Pacifics shows he was not exactly out of tune with the somewhat more functional, austere lines being shown elsewhere. In this respect you could argue Thompson was austere to a point but not going so far as elsewhere. Very conservative in fact.

But put his actions into the context of the LNER CME role and the changes he made to future development were of course more radical compared to the continuous 35 years under Gresley the GNR and LNER had been party to.