Current and Proposed New-Builds

Would converting a 57xx ( theres quite a few of them kicking about) to a 97xx be classed as a new build ?
Ugly, Reduced coal and water capacity, additional complicated machinery .. surely its a winner.

Handy for underground working though.... Wondering why these locos didnt end up going to LT instead of the normal 57xx's.

 

Cab profile was the problem as the 8750 class was no good for the LU as well other than a small area such from Paddington to Smithfield, also the 97XX class held 30 more gallons of water than the 57XX/8750 class and the coal will be the same.

 

Also the axle loading on the 97xx was higher than on the 57xx, might have been a factor?

 

The LNER did have a small amount of route mileage in Wales, although I admit I'd be very surprised to find a P2 ever ran on it!

I also don't really understand the rationale behind building a V4. Maybe I'm just not anti-Thompson enough!

 

The Wrexham Mold & Connahs Quay was the only LNER outlet into Wales

 

*grins*
Nothing to do with 'anti-Thompson', simply that it was a powerful yet compact design, whose development was cut short by the war (availability of certain materials) & so its full potential was never reached. Also, it's identified as a design that people are prepared to support in a meaningful way.

 

Perhaps it is.. Apart from the W1 not much by way of big LNE engines to build other than Thompson Pacifics.
Next rung down a K5/K3 ( hmmm hint of Thompson) or V4 either of which should be good for 75 mph after the same kind of test schedule Tornado has just undergone.
Think the V4 has it on looks, and versatility/ route availability plus that personality factor (Pocket Rocket, Potential to Name, Last Gresley Design ) ...

 

I must admit that it's a personal thing, but in my view NEW BUILDS should be just that, not conversions (or worse scrapping) of existing locomotives, by rights they shouldn't even be using up existing spares, after all, if you were to buy a new car and then find that it had a reconditioned gearbox you'd be a bit miffed, In simple terms New Builds should add one more to the number of existing locomotives.

 

....which, as the history of new builds shows, rather tends to help!

 

Anyone thought of using whats left of 42859 to build a new Crab?

 

Just a bit!

 

M'yes, but the old railway companies also did exactly that - conversions - so surely precedents have already been made, and the heritage movement is again 'recreating the past'? Indeed, the definition of 'rebuilding' was occasionally, shall we say, "creative", in order to keep the accountants happy

 

That would then, surely, be a rebuild....

 

Yes it would, and, I suppose the GWR ones involving existing parts should, technically, be classed as rebuilds?

I just think we need a bit more LMS input into this

 

GWR locomotives might be classed as new or repaired according to what suited things at the time, although there's some evidence to suggest that locomotives classified as new had a longer lifespan. There are a fair number of surviving GWR locomotives that were constructed with considerable numbers of second hand parts - 4 Manors (about 50% of the donor 4300s), three 7200s (almost all of the donor [which in two cases were effectively new] used) and the Dukedog (chassis from donor Bulldog, above footplate components from donor Duke).

 

Talking about GWR rebuilds, marginally off topic, but did they not convert 20 Dean Goods into odd looking 2-6-2 tanks?

 

By odd looking do you mean not green /without copper and brass accoutrements ?

 

No, they were funny looking, big square side tanks without the sloping top which went right up to the smokebox and the leading and trailing wheelsets very close to the coupled wheels. I think they were classified as the 3900 class. May be wrong as I'm not massively knowledgeable about the GWR

 

So that's where the inspiration for the Thomson L1 cane from...