De-streamlined A4's

Tom's just sparked one of my random thoughts (always risky!) ... Has anyone successfully prepared popcorn in a loco's firebox? Perhaps we should try with 92220's? ..... On the grounds that, as being the last word in something apparently doesn't in itself qualify a loco for preservation, some other gainful employment had best be found for it.

 

Nope, not going there.

 

Just re-name the thread 'Miscellaneous froth about Steam Locomotives'

 

Nor me...

 

They were just two possible examples used to illustrate a major omission in the original collection thankfully redressed through Billy Butlin's enterprise.

 

Just had a look for that book on Abebooks, and found three copies. Two are in Oz, one in the UK.

I can get a copy from a seller in Melbourne - with shipping - for less than half of the price the UK seller wants!

 

Elsewhere I read that the original national collection was to only have one example of a typical wheel formation - is that so?

 

Not sure but there seems to be a regression towards that recently. Takers for 4468, 34051, 70013, 35029 and 6229 - assuming 60103 retained :-o

 

Must have been a very long time ago if that were the case - at least the 1950s if not before.

 

Especially since both were built specifically for comparison with Ivatt's 10000 / 1 hence their historic value.

 

Those trials never took place. With only two locos, it wasn't possible to take the two Pacifics away from the normal Pacific diagrams. This would also explain why the planned 100,000 miles per annum were not achieved either.

 

If the intent was comparison in normal running then surely it would be the operational statistics that would be compared and not specific tests of both traction types on loaded / unloaded test trains ? I believe that operating experience showed the single 10000 to be equivalent to a Jubilee 4-6-0 at 6P/5F so I presume that some analysis of performance took place hence the thought that the comparison of performance statistics also took place.

 

I think a single diesel was considered the equal of a Black Five rather than a 5X, and such designations had to be established for operational purposes: sending out a single diesel at the head of the Midday Scot wouldn't work! But a major comparison was to be annual mileage, which couldn't be made for the reason stated. Others would be availability, fuel and repair costs, and failure rates, but since the duties of the diesels varied so much from those of the Pacifics - they had a mixed traffic function also - any data gathered would not be entirely consistent. The fact that there were only two diesels also brought in anomalies, some working for the engines but some against. Even when the Bulleid locos joined in, that gave only five main line diesels across the country, of two, possibly three, different classes. The North British B0-Bo and the Fell engine hardly helped.

 

Yes, the two Ivatt diesels 10000/1 were probably somewhere between a class 31 and a 37 in power, so one individual loco would be considerably less than 46256/7

 

The initial intent was to show that 10000/1 were equivalent to a Stanier 5MT when operated singly and a Stanier Coronation 8P when operated in pairs and in practice this proved to be the case except that the Derby duo proved to be the equivalent of a Jubilee 6P5F. Agreed that operations were not similar as the Derby Duo tended to work in pairs during summer months but when winter services required (steam) heat the duo were operated on freight services from Willesden whilst the Coronations continued working heavy passenger services. This would presume that the operating statistics (fuel cost per mile; hours per week / month / period available; reliability; load handling etc) would then be the main source of comparative data. I don't have any links to suitable analysis of such data and would be interested to know if any exist. In terms of TOPS classification I believe that 10000 / 1 would have been allocated Class 34 had they been operational when TOPS numbers were applied to locomotives.

 

No disrespect to your Princess Coronations, but I really don't understand what you have against Dwight D. Eisenhower. Not only was it's naming to honour the C-in-C of Allied forces in europe just as "special namey" as any other persons name, by the time the loco retired it's namesake was also a twice elected US president.
Not only that: 4496 Golden Shuttle was built/named specifically as one of the two locomotives for the West Riding Limited. Had both Golden Fleece and Golden Shuttle both been scrapped the Popular Liberation Front of West Yorkshire would have started a revolution.

 

What about the People's Liberation Front of West Yorkshire?

 

The train heating issue is a slightly odd one to my mind. Given that he started with the blankest of sheets, does anyone know what constraints may have mitigated against (or prevented) Ivatt including such a seemingly obvious feature?

 

Just don't mention the People's Front for the Liberation of West Yorkshire. Mr Petersen wouldn't like it

 

Bearing in mind the amount of troubles that were experienced with early steam heating installations on diesels, leaving it off and having one less experimental system to go wrong on the prototypes was probably quite a smart move.