A1SLT... What next.

Like a G5 for example!

 

Or something like this perhaps...........




Cheers

Alan

 

Is it just me who thinks that the 5AT project would have stood a much greater chance of attracting funding if it hadn't been for the illustrations accompanying the project? I feel sure that if it had been designed to incorporate all the modern technical improvements, but to resemble a traditional BR locomotive like the class 5 it was supposedly based on, it would have had a much more favorable reception. I guess we will never know.

 

More 'Thomas', less 'Chuggington'…

Simon

 

If they were even as well-documented to begin with...

Noel

 

The 5AT was based on the traditional mixed traffic 4-6-0. It would be a major, to put it mildly, problem to get a totally new design built. The design produced had to be something that was within the capacity of understanding of those who would be required to assess the fitness or otherwise of the design to operate on the mainline. Also part of the exercise was the production of a machine that would surpass existing designs whilst being significantly smaller. The traditional, partisan enthusiast would automatically be extremely hostile to such a concept. It was designed to have a long range, hence the tender, and to work at high speed, hence the external profile.

You could build the original W1, suitably refined and developed, it wouldn't take much, but the sheer levels of apathy and hostility make this a No No. Rather like running 4472 on the Western in the 1960s but worse.

So, you can keep running on the mainline for a while longer, complaining about diesel assistance. Or bite the bullet and escape from 1920s thinking. Yes, we are, bye and large, that limited in the UK. Why do I write this? Because designers in this country were largely unwilling and incapable of grasping the importance of research carried out elsewhere. Which is why we have express passenger locomotives, produced by cash rich companies, that are totally incapable of maintaining 40ihp per ton of locomotive weight.

 

But if the 5AT really had to be streamlined why for goodness sake couldn't they have used a Sandringham as inspiration rather than Manorbier Castle!

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk

 

A bit off topic, but as the 5AT has been mentioned, I would just remind folk that all the hard work that went in to the design is not going to waste. The 5AT group are working with other loco groups and owners to apply the technology to the benefit of new builds and overhauls alike. Should anyone on here wish to discuss their project with us then please PM me. Thanks.

 

Thanks 242A1, some very good points as ever. Although I didn't mention it in my post, I had realised that the tender was larger to improve the range. I think I am right in saying that was one of the reasons for choosing a 4-6-0 rather than a pacific, so as to keep the overall length within workable limits?

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating producing a completely new loco (as opposed to a new addition to an extinct class) using '20s technology. I was simply suggesting that it might have been better to produce a design incorporating modern best practice (including international developments), while at the same time packaging it in a way which gave the appearance of a traditional British locomotive - enlarged tender notwithstanding.

It is a matter of aesthetics, after all would there really have been any worthwhile benefit from the aerodynamics as shown (genuine question as I have no idea if the person who produced the drawings is an artist or aerodynamicist, or if any aerodynamic evaluations were performed)? Or as Simon very aptly put it, was it intended to look more like Chuggington.

Yes it is a bit off topic, but interesting nevertheless, especially if some of the thinking is benefitting other new builds.

 

No idea what Chuggington is/was, but the outline of the proposed design is a bit like a paint debate I feel. If there had been the demand for the loco, then I'm sure the sponsor would have had plenty of say in the ultimate appearance. The reason for the 4-6-0 layout was, I believe, to maximise adhesion as nothing more extravagant (eg Pacific) was required to meet the design brief. Read (much) more here ............ http://5at.co.uk/index.php

 

I can well understand that sentiment. The Gresley variation of the Bugatti front, as it were, works rather well putting it mildly, particularly when you think about how old the research is that gave rise to the design. I tend to subscribe to the late George Hinchcliffe's view concerning the A4s. Time to draw up the 5AT in a different format I think!

 

Well there's some spare room in the nose for sure

 

well the poll has run its course and I suspected that the Bantam Cock would be the most popular. Hopefully one will be built some day...
A1slt have built one loco. to Plan, and are well on the way to redesigning and building one.
Perhaps the next stage would be to build something that requires even further development....
Prior to Thompsons L1, Gresley had also proposed a 2-6-4 tank based on the V4, unusually (for a tank engine) with a wide firebox..

 

The undoing of the L1 was in fact in the variations made from the Gresley design, which resulted in a loco with insufficient brake force for its power, unnecessarily high piston thrusts, and wheels too small for the relatively high speeds often required for them. Net result, unsafe on a load near to their capacity, and knocked themselves to bits on faster duties. Had Thompson proceeded with his original proposal, which was a simple 2-6-4 extension of the V3 with a larger bunker and the middle cylinder eviscerated, all could have been well. It was particularly the late decision to give them small wheels to make them 'mixed traffic' that compounded the faults introduced by the other departures from the Gresley design.

 

Yes, both the L1's and B1's suffered with undue axlebox wear. Little excuse on the B1's with their 6' 2" drivers.

 

Thread Convergence....

 

Wasn't it this trait that earned them the nickname of "Concrete Mixers"?

 

I am a little surprised that anyone wants to build a new L1. Were'nt the things, by reputation, a bit crap? the issue I can see is that, given this reputation, it may be more difficult to attract enthusiasm for the project than it would to another class of loco which did not have this negative connotation?

 

Like anything with the name of Thompson, research proves the picture is not as clear as his detractors would have you believe. The L1s suffered with axle box wear to a great extent and were perhaps a victim of the wartime and post war austerity measures more than the B1 for example. Once axle box wedges of a specific design started to be used, the locomotives settled down though they were never as well liked as, say, the K1.

Equally applicable to any locomotive class ever built. One man's meat is another man's poisson.

In any event the L1 is not being built but a V3 is. I have been reasonably persuaded by one member of the trust that the V3 represents a more historically important locomotive to the LNER ranks (the only conjugated valve gear 2-6-2 tank locomotive in this country).

 

No one's intending to build a L1 to my knowledge (other than our old friend Stuart Reeder some while ago?).