Current and Proposed New-Builds

Agreed - I can't see quite what the point of a theoretical 40hp/ton machine would be, not least because with only one such machine available, if you built loads and schedules to require it, the operators couldn't reliably deliver their trains in the event of a late substitution for a less powerful loco; and if you have schedules that can also be delivered by substitutes, what advantage is the more powerful loco bringing? Add to that the likely cost, time and problems of getting such a radical departure to work reliably before you could start actually pulling revenue-earning trains...

I hadn't previously realised the early involvement of Porta in the A1 proposals, but from reading the supplied link, I think the trust got it spot on by rejecting his proposals and instead building what was an incremental update of a 1940s loco. When all is said and done, rail tours are a nostalgia product, and proposals that deviate too far from tradition just for the amusement of a few seem to ignore that core selling point. The fact that Tornadohas spent ten years pulling the trains asked of it with a high degree of reliability suggests that it is exactly the right tool for the job.

Tom

 

Best three-cylinder layout?
The Prussians started to go three cylinder in earnest with S10.2 in 1914 with all three conrods to leading driving axle.
The baureihe 39 2-8-2 had all on second driving.
The germans got rather tired of three cylinders and made
the 01 and 03 pacifics and the heavy freigth 2-10-0 baureihe 43 as two cylinders.
Around 1935 the pacifics were asked to run 130 km per hour regularly and new ones were made threecylinder but with divided drive.
The 43 gave way to the 44s with three cylinders and divided drive.Problem here was not speed but the cranpins on the 43 worked loose.
The latest pacjfic baureihe 10 was threecylinder and divided drive.
Cegilski in poland made some twocylinder 2-12-4 for Bulgaria and Krupp made same as threecylinder divided during WW11
There is a morale somewhere .

 

Or one of the 0-6-0STs which were later rebuilt as pannier tanks? Two of those reached BR still as saddle tanks.

 

850s

 

Lord Nelsons? There's one of those preserved already, though I suppose 857 would make a nice contrast ...

Tom

 

Groan. You Southern mad heathen.

 

I'm struggling to think what LMS 850 would have been... some sort of Midland 4-4-0 I expect

 

Not sure about heathen (having never knowingly genuflected at the sacred altar of the copper cap), but I'll give you the rest ...

Just curious about what an "850" actually is?

Tom

 

Something far more superior than your SR 850 class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_850_Class http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/GreatWestern/Narrowgauge/Armstrong850Class.html

 

Piece of trivia, one of Stroudleys 0-6-0 tender engines ended up with an LMS number, 2404 I think. It was sold out of service by the LBSCR before the grouping to the Stratford on Avon & Midland Junction Railway which became part of the LMS.

 

Could be the Great Southern P1 class 2-6-2t No.850? A rare GSR new design, this solitary loco was a less than successful attempt at modernising the ex-Dublin & South Eastern passenger services in the 30's.

 

Handsome, though! I can never work out why it was so unsatisfactory (or even if it was - late accounts of course concern a much run down locomotive, while in early accounts it must be remembered that it was utterly different to anything else on the DSE....). Bazin designed an excellent 4-6-0 and had the Maunsell 2-6-0s to study, how did 850 miss?

To return to Great Britain, new build fantasies bring out the partisan in us all. Only a GW fanatic could seriously think we need more GW classes....
Only LNER nuts and big chufferists would think we really need to replace an example of a small class of largely unsuccessful express Mikados which were a design dead-end...
Only a pre-grouping obsessive like me could imagine anyone would fund important missing parts of the overall picture (like a LNWR George V or a Midland 0-4-4T) while there are missing BR standards or big green monsters...

 

we do really need more GWR classes. Don't forget the GWR existed a long time before 1923 and there were a lot of SG locos built alongside BG rway back into the 19th century almost all of which have been lost.It's not an exaggeration to say dozens of classes of really interesting locos.

 

Andrew's post sent me straight to my sources on 850. The problems with the loco seem to have been down to compromises forced on Bazin by weight restrictions on the D&SER line. As built, the lightweight motion looks, well .... lightweight. Bearings running hot, coupled with a reported preponderance to roll makes me wonder whether there was a combination of suspension issues (given that modifying the motion evidently provided only partial relief), coupled with the same water surging which plagued Billinton's 'L' Class Baltic as originally built. Maybe weight distribution was too critical to permit a similar solution.

The real mystery is why so little was done to improve the loco, given it's performance was otherwise up to spec. Suggestions that 5ft 6in wheels, supposedly left over from construction of class 372, were somehow unsatisfactory hold no water as Harty's subsequent (rather uninspired) 0-6-2t design used the same size. With Bazin's retirement a year after 850 entered service and his successor, Morton, concentrating on organisational issues, it seems more likely that the ex-GS&W Harty was more comfortable on home ground than with MGWR ideas. I also doubt the fallout from the 1929 crash helped any more than having four CMEs in 10 years!

 

Apologies but we don't need anything. If this exercise is to be more than wimwam a candidate has to avoid serious known maintenance and performance issues. Reality check please.

PH

 

Well maybe, but because the GWR completely refreshed their small locomotive fleet in the 30s and 50s we actually have very few older tank engines. I think I'm right in saying that pre group tank engines number 5, 4 of the big 2-8-0T, which you'd doubtless charcterise as big chuffers, and the little outside cylinder Churchward dock tank at Didcot. I think there are actually more surviving pre group tank engines from the Welsh lines as there are Swindon natives.

 

FWIW, several of the MNs did over 100000 miles straight out of rebuilding, on generally shorter runs than ECML duties. 35008 for instance did over 120,000 before its first Light Intermediate, there are others, although the mileages can be somewhat cryptic and towards the end they disappear completely - 35030 has nothing recorded after 1963 and ran on the last day. I think it's fair to say the MNs weren't exactly run under the best of conditions in their latter days...

 

I think I speak for the majority of LNER enthusiasts in asking: are you joking? Of all the railway companies, the GWR came out with an amazing collection of preserved locomotives and rolling stock.

If you go by big four only, the LNER has gained one working additional loco class and several on the go. It is represented disproportionally in preservation by some way.

It's not just about locomotives, surely?

Of course knowing the GWR you could probably find enough stuff standard bits to build a missing class anyway...

 

Barry 10 to 3031? Can't wait!

 

So did the other Big Four in the form of their constituents, the LNER goes back to 1825 and the LMS to 1828. And all their early engines fit on the rails!