A1SLT... What next.

Those wide cylinders limit their use though...

 

I'd say go for something designed by Thompson. I'm not a huge fan of his express locos (or what he did to Great Northern and the P2's) but it would give the trust one loco of each LNER designer.

 

Yes I see what you mean. Although the tractive effort using 20" cylinders would only be about 3% greater than the originals. Would that be a problem? Also the B1s have 20" cylinders and they don't seem to have width problems.

Having said all that, yes a new build W1 would be amazing, but I would still be very happy with a V4.

 

It's a tough choice. As others have said, we really need some clarification as to what the trust intends to use the loco for.

Personally, I'd advocate a relatively small engine suitable for preserved lines; two big main line engines (A1 and P2) ought to be enough for the trust, surely? In which case, I guess the V3 would probably be the best choice from the above list. However, if you want a big passenger tank from the LNER family, why not a Robinson A5? We currently have far fewer GCR locos in preservation than LNER, and the A5s were far more handsome than the V3s IMHO!

 

I believe they were later given the long travel gear, but if not they easily could have been. They also got 220lb boilers, one of which had a banjo dome. I'd love to see one, but then I'd also love to see a V4 or a K3, and the V4 would likely be the most versatile and the easiest to fit modern gauge restrictions etc. Bulleid thought the P1 the best looking engine Gresley designed.

I'm actually not so keen on a P2, I think the appearance of all the various versions was a bit compromised by the various smoke lifting arrangements and they were not after all a terribly practical design for the job - used too much fuel and water and too unreliable. Gresley did realise that, which is why no more were built and why no two were exactly alike. The A4 was a much better job. But the original W1 - now that would be worth building. Impossibly expensive, I expect. If we are fantasising how about a Peppercorn A1 boiler on the W1's 4 cyl compound chassis which was very successful? Would need some adjustment of cylinder sizes, though.

 

K2 - as i've got a photo of my grandad driving 61763 at Ingarsby & Houghton station.

Did any of the boilers on tender engines also fit any of the tanks ?

 

V3 for me. Perfect loco for heritage railway use. Would also be right at home on NYMR Whitby trains.

Weve got enough large locos for mainline use. Why not think about a smaller loco for more economical use and of greater use to preserved railways.

 

82046?

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk

 

Thompson A2/3, by virtue of being a carefully modified and improved A2/2, should be the next logical choice if it is based purely on sharing of components, patterns and CADwork.

The boiler is shared by the existing A1 and P2 designs. The P2 chassis is 70% the same as the A2/2 (aside from, of course, the front bogie - which can be made standard with the A1), of which we already have computer models made of the P2 which could in theory be modified to produce the A2/3 design.

The coupling and connecting rods are shared with the P2. All three designs effectively share the same tender frames with modified tender tops for aesthetics on top.

The A2/2 plugs the gap between the original A1, the A3, A4, P2 and then Peppercorn's Pacifics.

Of course, I don't expect a Thompson machine to garner as much support as any Gresley design, so that is the stumbling block. But an improved Thompson Pacific is entirely possible, more feasible and probably less costly than any of the smaller mixed traffic locomotives suggested by virtue of its shared lineage.

The A1/1 is a non starter in my view because although it shares in theory a lot of the A3 design at the rear end, and an A4 type boiler, the front end is actually unique to the A1/1, aside from the outside connecting rods which appear to be standard with the P2 and A2/2. The A1/1 had a different length inside connecting rod for its third set of walschaerts.

Though personally speaking, Great Northern as a Thompson Pacific is one project I would like to do if I ever won the lottery. In its original form with short cab, no deflectors and prussian blue livery, I think she's one of the most handsome Pacifics ever built.

 

How about a GC Jersey Lilley, in full GC livery, surely one of the most beautiful locomotive designs ever, no problem with a v4 though.

 

The improved Thompson A2 has already been built, it's a Peppercorn A2.

 

Glad to see the A1 guys are pondering a smaller/lighter LNER design, aimed more to operations on Preserved Lines perhaps. I've plumed for the V4 as the "production" batch of 10 were cancelled by Thompson and replaced with the first 10 B1s, leaving the pilot/prototype pair as the only members of the class. Shades of 1470 Great Northern and 1471 Sir Frederick Banbury twenty years earlier, followed with a production batch of 10 A1s the first being 1472/4472 of course.

It was in the circumstances I feel understandable that the next 10 V4s were cancelled considering it was the height of the Second World War and the UK was alone, until that is Hitler turned his attention East and invaded the Soviet Union bring "Uncle Joe" [Starlin] in on our side the the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour bringing the U.S. in too......As things stand the V4s as has been said elsewhere before something of a "Rolls Royce" to do a "Ford" job, and even more so in the circumstances. So but for the war and all they could have been quite a run of V4s for the secondary routes of the LNER.

 

Of course the world may have changed by the time the P2 is completed. Perhaps it will be more appropriate to build a replica of 13/6999 but with modern 25kV equipment inside.

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk

 

Is this poll actually sanctioned by the A1 Trust? I wouldn't have thought so, or else it would be posted by one of their officers?

 

No shef - I haven't been put up to it by anyone.
So sanctioned no, observed -hopefully.

 

Touche!

However I happen to quite like the Thompson Pacifics. There's nothing inherently wrong with the outline - Stanier's Princesses are very similar in layout and are much loved for it.

 

Just thought it was worth clarifying, as some on here seem to think it's for real

 

Ah but it is! , theres a piece in Heritage rail* from them which mentions what the Design / Engineering team might look at once the groundwork for P2 is done.
The locos in the Poll are their candidates not mine otherwise an L1 would definitely be here as would a B17 (though i believe there is one of those up and running that Mr Elliot is involved with already)
So whilst this poll wasnt posted by A1slt, it was always going to happen...

*Note: Other Steam -soap/whimsy magazines are available

 

Ah .... thanks for clearing that up. Odd that they haven't mentioned this to their supporters directly ... hmmm.

 

To be fair i dont remember the 'membership' being asked if they should build a P2. but Mr Allatt told me back in 2009 that that's what they we're thinking of doing next and i signed up to support Tornado on the strength of that.
Clearly through a bit of 'fuzzy' market research they sensed the undercurrent of support was there for P2 and they certainly we'rent wrong

If this hot air shop is any indication the V4 would be similarly well supported, but i think as long as the P2 Project doesnt stall whatever they chose to do next would be better supported than any 'Facebook Project'

Putting your other hat on we know that the A1SLT are big Kylchap afficionados - interesting to see whether they would consider rethinking the draughting on any of these 'Secondary' loco's.