Current and Proposed New-Builds

Actually, I think it was entirely logical. The testing showed that it was the combination of track and p/way that led to problems. However, having taken an entire class of almost new locos out of service, a moderate cost rebuild to get them all back in traffic was clearly more cost effective than waiting for years before the p/way came up to scratch, even though long term that was clearly necessary. So it was a very sound business decision to rebuild them even though they ran steadily on the East Coast Mainline when on trial.

Holcroft was of the view that the whole B4x rebuild was ruined because they put on a decent boiler and then ignored the valves - a case of spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.

"What a fine engine the B4/x would have been given 10 in. dia. long travel piston valves as in Maunsell's E1 class!" (Locomotive Adventure Vol 2. page 162)

Well, some of the rebuilds were top notch. The A1x, C2x, E6x rebuilds were all a success; the others much less so.

Tom

 

I'm fairly certain that his stated wish was that he didn't want to have a locomotive named after him. The line is his memorial, and the summit is generally called Holden Summit, which seems appropriate.

Tom

 

Aye... true.... but there's a bit of a difference between something "useable" and something "suitable". Saving something from the axe-man (or government museums policy!) is a way aways from deliberately setting about a new build express loco. Driver size is the main reason I'd prefer a newbuild I1x to an I3, even though one of the latter was more deserving of preservation in it's own right IMO.

Totally WIBN as things stand, but there's much to be said for interchangability of parts, even on a heritage line, so my own hankering for a D1 wouldn't exactly harm the chances for a D2 as well, in the fullness of time.

 

If that was Mr Holden's expressed wish, who am I to argue? Point cheerfully conceded.

Regarding the [post#681] point about the piston valves, I'm in full agreement, but my point about suspect stability (made in the same review IIRC) needs a look-see, were anyone to suggest a new build. Perhaps, especially as they were nearly as long lived, one of the originals (with steam circuit suitably optimised!) might be preferable?

While it's pointless to disagree with the logic of rebuilding the "Rivers", it was the associated blanket ban on 2-6-4T's on passenger work I find odd. Presumably, trailing truck aside, the 2-6-0 chassis wasn't all that different, so such issues as lead to instability were presumably to do with centre of gravity, as with the Brighton "Baltics".

 

Not really a new build, but how about a rebuild of an unrestored merchant navy using latest developments tailored to modern use. Not that as a class they need it though.

 

What do you think the 35011 group are doing?

 

A better and better looking A2/2?
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_09_2017/post-898-0-40142800-1505684845_thumb.jpg

 

I actually think it looks better as originally styled. There's a sort of GWR-esque "raging bull" sort of a front end and the cylinder spacing is very reminiscent of some of Chapelon's locomotives.



I can't see the point of modifying something that was actually modified to be better in the first place (and proven so).



The A2/3s didn't suffer frame fractures as badly as the A2/2s - different design of frames and stay arrangements. The full size smoke deflectors helped with smoke deflection better, and the boiler types came from a bigger pool including the later Peppercorn ones, as shown here.

The Peppercorn A2 then took the development further forward.

15 of each type built. The A2/3s stayed in England, the Peppercorn machines went to Scotland and took on the duties that the P2s and their rebuilds had been doing ten years before.

Perhaps, given that the original intention by Thompson was to replace the P2s with high tractive effort Pacific types, it was simply fulfilling the original idea.

 

But what improvements do they intend to make?

 

Undoing all Jarvis' modifications ...

Tom

 

I'd love to have a go at a MN - you could get away with murder under that spam can

 

Do we need more threads? Or classifications of them? Tags?
One the recreation of past designs, either with no survivors or so one can run one.
(The last has been done for the really early survivors on quite a scale - not only do we have Wylam Dilly the surviving twin to Puffing Billy
but two modern replicas, one in Munich, one in Beamish and never mind the Rocket building saga.)
One what one would like to build now from a clean sheet of paper, either for preserved railway operation or for the main line.
One for the modern ways you can now design and make things, common to anything.
(This has seen huge change welling up - computers are now setting to drive the machine tool straight through from
the outline design, calculations and checks, welding pales in comparison. See the recent stuff on boilers in the Mutual
Improvement Classes here.)
And of course, we still need ones to make the best we can of using and keeping what we have got.

 

I have to say that that "995" is actually a purposeful-looking machine, and very Raven-esque with the drive on to the leading coupled wheels. Thompson's father-in-law would have been pleased, I think?

 

An LBSCR L class is almost top of my list, despite the earlier mentioned issues. That is after a K class has been built.
I'd also like to see a batch of Stroudley D1s built in conjunction with some new E1s. As the E1 is very similar to the D1, and we have a E1 needing major rebuilding, the logical thing would be to draw up all the components of the E1, including the bits that don't need replacing on Burgundy, and mass produce the parts needed for some D1s and E1s. Both classes would be suitable for the Bluebell and Spa Valley (but please with the Stroudley boiler), and no doubt the Isle of White wouldn't mind another E1.
Daniel

 

But that's not how it actually was. That's the image posted earlier that's been modified to make it look like that!

 

The thing is that, if you're going to build a Thompson Pacific, it's going to need quite a bit fixing... and the logical conclusions of those improvements would land you exactly where Peppercorn ended up, so as we've got an A2 and a new-build A1, it's really rather pointless, isn't it?

 

Well yes, quite so, Simon, but I was merely making the point that that image does look good Quite what the practicalities of building it as opposed to the locomotives he did actually build would have been is, of course, another matter...

 

And my suggestion of a Claughton was felt to be not the most sensible choice

 

And now for something totally different to all the previous suggestions. Considering that the East Coast Mainline has been electrified since 1989 from Edinburgh to London, a new build electric locomotive based on the ill starred Raven Express Electric No. 13. Ok the new machine No. 14 would have a modern 25Kv AC power plant, rather than the 1500 DC electricals. Also the third rail contact shoes would be for show only and the power would be drawn from the overhead lines. The 3rd rail shoes meant that the original loco No 13 could run on the North Tyneside loop as it was powered that way.

Edit; I forgot to say that No 13 was fitted with overhead pantographs. Just like Nos 3-12 the Newport [Thornaby] - Shildon frieght electrics. As well as the third rail contact shoes like Nos1-2 and Tyneside EMU electrics.

 

I like it! But why dummy 3rd rail shoes? We haven't had anything in NER livery hauling a special south of the Thames for....... ever(?). Now that would be different!