L1 new build

Sorry, should have made my point more clear, why a 2-6-4T ? I personally don't think that a 2-6-4T would be suited to a heritage railway, and in the case of an L1 to find a solution for the axleboxes could become more cost inefficient than it's worth. Don't get me wrong I would like to see them succeed with their goal, but I think they should reconsider the type of locomotive that they try and build.

 

NNR Engineer, whilst I agree that a L1 is a poor choice of loco (although, in fairness, the knocking itself to pieces issue probably wouldn't arise on a 25mph heritage line), the mid-sized tank engine such as a 2-6-4T or 2-6-2T has often been considered the ideal loco for many heritage railways - BR Std 2-6-4Ts being especially highly rated.

 

Woooo woooo guys. Forget the l1 there is now a Facebook page to bring back one of the Australian GCR Robinson o2s. Again on there page there is the mention that because hornby are doing another model it Will increase there chances. And then when its back its going to be converted to a Thompson version.

 

guard_jamie Whilst I agree with the 2-6-2T as a good choice for a heritage line, I'm still not convinced by the 2-6-4T as by the time you've accomodated the extra length / weight for only 2 cylinders, it just doesn't seem worth it, and you might as-well go for a 2-6-2T (V3 for example where you also get an extra cylinder compared to a Thompson L1 / Br std 4) as they are trying to build a "powerful tank locomotive".

 

I personally don't think that a 2-6-4T would be suited to a heritage railway

If the NNR had a standard 4 2-6-4T do you think you would have the same opinion? I don't think any of the lines that have them would want to losethe one(s) they have.

The L1 ought to be just as useful and a bit different, arguably a better choice for production thanthe Standard 3, having a simpler and cheaper boiler design. It would be an ideal engine for the NYMR I would imagine, and although they weren't used between Grosmont and Rillington they were frequently seen on on the Esk Valley line. Would be so hard to beef up the axleboxes?

 

:doh: God I hope not. It's not like there's many original GCR engines left.

 

I personally think that a BR Std 4 2-6-4T would look out of place. However if there are already 15 (I think) in preservation why do we need a new build one? Yes whilst the L1 would be 'a bit different', there is a fine line between 'being a bit different' and practically viable. With regard to the axleboxes what will be the consequences of 'beefing up the axleboxes', what other design implications / modifications will be required ? I'll say it again, I wish them every success but I would recommend choosing a different locomotive.

 

Yeah the L1s knocked themselves apart because the gearing was wrong for medium/high speed running (drivers too small) not because of any fundamental engineering flaw; they're far too modern design for that. But that gearing is right for running at 0-25 mph. The difference between 2-6-4T and a 2-6-2T isn't too much. Just a bit more room for coal. Both have leading/trailing pony trucks to help reduce wear on track.

 

Sorry, I'm not sure if I understand. I'm not a member of stalkbook so I haven't checked the page that Gavin is referring to there but I do know that one of the two R.O.Ds at Dorrigo is GCR built at Gorton.

In any case, I would say frankly as an Australian and knowing what I know of the fellow who owns them (he's quite notorious in preservation circles there; quite a character some would say) the L1 group has a better chance of building their L1 than this facebook group has of securing the GCR 04. Besides, it operated for much of it's life in Australia and consequently comes under Australian restrictions on the export of heritage as I understand it.

*Edit* This is the place:
http://www.dsrm.org.au/

 

Ah I understand what you're saying. The engine was never in GCR service. I thought it had been requisitioned from the GCR for the war effort. My mistake.

 

So how do you explain the N7? (Which Thompson may have been thinking of when he designed the L1)

Incidentally, I don't dislike Edward Thompson. I personally think his Pacifics look good, and they were both powerful and speedy, although they failed on maintenance costs. The B1 was desperately needed and the K1 would probably have been built to similar numbers had their been no nationalistaion. The O1 was a pretty good engine too as proved in the 1948 exchanges.

He met with a lot of opposition from his senior coleagues and maybe overreacted in defying them, but had he gone ahead with some of the ideas he had when he first came to power then he might have a better rep now - a 6'2" unstreamlined A4 anyone? With a Kylchap, of course - Thompson being the only designer to so fit all his big engines.

The P2's were untenable in wartime conditions. Those who say they should have been brought south should think of them trying to get into the engine yard at KX. He might have done better if he had kept all the cylinders driving on the leading axle, but I think the rebuilds are really handsome - in fact better looking than either 'Cock' as built or the half streamlined 'production' P2's. Lest anyone think I'm guilty of heresy I think the A3 is the best looking loco ever - although if you can't have one as originally built by the GN I prefer it with double chimney and wings (and a GN tender). And I do most sincerely wish he had not rebuilt Great Northern - quite apart from anything else because we would now have at least 2 A3's preserved (and we should by all rights have Papyrus too.)

The L1 also suffered from his overreaction to criticism - his first plan was a simple 2-6-4T modification of a V3 and had he stuck to that it would have been a better engine. As it was it was a lemon.

 

Having had extensive experience of firing and driving a 2-6-4T (80079) on a heritage railway, I can assure you they are absolutely perfect for the job. I often observed to friends that, a fleet of these, whilst a little boring for the enthusiast fraternity, would be perfect for running the railway. They are easy to fire, drive, prepare and maintain, comfortable to work on, well protected from the elements, economical and with plenty of punch, taking 8 coach trains in their stride and 10 without too much strain. What's not to like?

 

Wheel diameter is largely irrelevant. Smaller wheels will give you better acceleration but, for the most part the wheels of an L1 will not be rotating too rapidly. Bulleid pacifics were happy at 100 mph, as any number of people on here will tell you. If 6'-2" is OK for 100, then 5'-2" is going to be OK for for 80mph. Other things are of more concern than wheel diameter. Two cylinders are also better at starting than three cylinders when it comes to heavy trains. The only real advantage of three is with better balancing unless the loading gauge limits (outside) cylinder diameter.

 

Troll, troll!

 

Regarding the OT, experience says, oh look, another squadron of flying pigs (no LMS 2-6-0 reference intended). Experience also cautions; remember 71000, 6023, Welsh Highland Railway? All "project impossibles." Best of luck to them.

jtx

 

Again they are Br std's not L1's, and they are already in place as like you say as you have driven and fired them. I have nothing against them but again my point I should have been more clear, that a 2-6-4T as a new build especially to a L1 design isn't the best choice of locomotive. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there are any other 2-6-4T loco's in preservation that aren't BR Std's, does this explain what I mean ?

 

Deleted.

 

Oh my heavens. What an absolute a**e of an idea.

'Let's bring a locomotive back from Australia (that the Australians won't release) then only use the frames and wheels in a new-build!'

This surely takes the award for 'daftest plan heretofore tabled'? If the Australians were to release one of these locomotives (and it is a gigantic 'if') they sure as hell wouldn't release one for butchering. The only way I can see one of these ever being released would be as a WW1 memorial locomotive.

42073, 42085, 2500 (42500) - the LMS trio.

I think a 2-6-4T or a 2-6-2T is the ideal locomotive design - mid-range power just as happy in reverse as in forwards - for heritage railways. The only other new-build in this range - 82045 - makes a point of this in its publicity. However I do agree with you that when it comes to newbuilds an L1 is a poor choice due to their known issues (whether these would rear their head in low speed heritage service is a moot point however) when a V3 would tick all the boxes.