Current and Proposed New-Builds

Why Dummy shoes. Principally on the grounds that apart from Southern Region/London Underground, nobody else uses' them. What's more the Authorities I believe don't care for new third rail being installed. The arrangement were similar to the surviving North Eastern Bo-Bo No 1. One of a pair that were used on the Newcastle Quayside Branch, as it had both overhead lines/pantographs and third rail shoes/rail as the branch had both.

 

The odd thing about that loco was that it only ever ran a few trial runs on the Newport-Shildon section and never ran under its own power again. The LNER seemed reluctant to scrap it and put it in store for years, and it was still there when BR took over. It could have been tried out on Woodhead but wasnt

 

Yup Cartman.That's sort of why I suggested a new build. As Raven with the Blessings/backing of the North Eastern Board had planned to electrify the East Coast Mainline between [as a start] York and Newcastle. Hence No 13 was Born, though sadly never ran in public service. Also as you say she was kept in store at South Gosforth depot [these days used by the Tyne & Wear Metro as car sheds] until 1950 before being scrapped.

 

Without going into the 3rd rail/overhead issue on Southern lines (life's too short and whatever happens will happen!), but if they featured on the original, why rule out the odd jaunt away from the overhead? It'd look well alongside the 5BEL under the roof at Brighton..... better yet if it was the same day "Gladstone" brings it's first special into platform 10 from the Bluebell, via Culver Junction.... (Oink-Oink, Flutter-Flutter)

 

One good point front wheel driving is that cylinders can be closer to midplane as conrods sits inside coupling rods.That was the reason that LMS compounds could have 22 inch LP-cylinders outside.
It was mentioned that some of the restored GWR four-cylinder engines had gauge problems?
The some Chapelon locomotives were rebuilds of older unsatisfactory locomotives.
Apart from the 6 cylinder 12 coupled one ,all others had original cylinder placement arrangement.

 

It is not very likely that an high power high speed rigid frame six coupler was a solution in 1989.Powered bogies had been tried and found usefull elsewhere.

 

If you must do electric, having 3rd rail 750v DC capability would be useful. There's 3rd rail as far north as Watford, and indeed some around Liverpuddle. Frankly, I'd regard some more Class 76/77s and 81/82/83/84/85 and 71/74 as being a higher priority than a failed experimental class that isn't compatible with the modern system... but I'd rather you forget about all that and focus on steam!

 

Wasn't it the NER electrification scheme that failed (to get off the ground, that is), rather than the loco?

 

This comes up constantly and it is wearying. The P2 rebuilds were very maintenance heavy (as inherited from their P2 origins, incidentally, and not helped by an initially small pool of boilers until Peppercorn ones were fitted) but the A1/1, A2/1 and A2/3 classes were all actually rather good.

Depends if you want to see something different or not! There is absolutely no doubt that without Thompson we would have no Peppercorn A1.

Arguably Britain's best Pacific had the benefit of the P2 rebuilds (there are many common parts and dimensions between them) and Thompson's desire for divided drive has, in retrospect, proven perfectly viable and very reliable in service. Peppercorn changed the cylinder placement on his A2s and then his A1 developed from that.

I've written about this before - but Great Northern isn't really a development of line towards the Peppercorn A1s. It's a development of the A4s. Tornado's lineage is from the P2s, to the rebuilds, through A2/3 and to Peppercorn's A2 in reality.

 

Weren't there constant problems with frame flexing and cracking on the A2/3? The A2/1 was just a V2 spoiled. The A1/1 was just crap, awful to look at, sacrilege and longer in wheelbase even than the P2s.

 

It was


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Indeed, it could be said that Sir Vincent Raven and the North Eastern Railway Board were 60 years+/- ahead of their time with plans to electrify about half of their section of the East Coast Mainline York-Newcastle-Berwick [York-Newcastle] and build a fleet of locomotives too, in 1920. The electrification throughout not being completed as I mentioned until 1989. As for it being a failure, why are the A1 Boys building another failed design in the form of P2 2007 Prince of Wales? As the previous 6 had a variety of problems.

 

You know nothing, John Snow...

LNER Pacific Classes A10, A3, A2/2, A2/3, Peppercorn A1 and A2 all suffered a degree of frame cracking to various degrees, some worse than others and the A2/2 was undoubtedly the worst due to the split in the front and rear portion of the frames which was also where the cylinders were placed. This was also a source of trouble for the P2s, by the way.

The A4s, A2/1s and V2s don't seem to have suffered as badly and it's probably no coincidence that they share a degree of commonality in terms of the frame and stay arrangements. Class A1/1 didn't suffer frame cracking as badly either due most likely to sharing stay arrangements with the A4s. People forget that the lone A1/1 was the highest mileage Thompson Pacific.

I've said my bit on the Thompson Pacific classes many times. May I refer you to this thread - Edward Thompson.

Who knows, you might learn something and be a bit more open minded after.

 

Why not give Raven's A2 a chance?

 

Another failure like the Great Bear? Not exactly pretty either. Con-rod on the wrong axle too.

 

Naah... Not until the "Hush-Hush" has been sorted out. There are plenty of pacifics already, but no baltics..... or locos with Yarrow boilers.... or 4cyl compounds. Can't think why!

 

I would suggest that the Raven A2 was probably better than TGB, although not as good as the Gresley A1s. As for driving on the "wrong" axle, plenty of other NER locomotives had this arrangement, and many survived until quite late on, the B16 class, for example. The A8 tanks only disappeared because their work disappeared with the introduction of DMUs; there was still plenty of life left in them.

 

I just find it astonishing that Raven built something so conservative eight years AFTER this: http://www.billspennsyphotos.com/K4 1361 R a.jpg

 

Wasn't the Pennsy K4 an influence on Gresley when he designed the A3s? On the NER electric loco, again, it could have been sold to the Netherlands Railways after the war, they had had the first EM1, Tommy on loan and they were, presumably short of traction at the time.

 

Ditto, at the other end of England, Lawson Billinton opting for inside valve gear for his "K" class, after substituting the same arrangement on the second (and final) example of his predecessors' "J" class for Walschaerts gear. Can anyone throw any light on what looks like a retrograde step? Although the "K" tops my personal newbuild list, I'd love to know the thinking behind that particular decision.