Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by aron33, Aug 15, 2017.
Where are the spare A3 cylinders and boiler?
I think the spare boiler is the type 107 (A4) taken off Scotsman, presently owned by Mr Hosking?
As I understand it, Scotsman is currently running with the boiler and cylinders from 60041 Salmon Trout, which Alan Pegler acquired as spares... I understood that Mr Hosking has the A4 boiler Scotsman ran with under Tony Marchington, but that the NRM still had the boiler and cylinders that were on Scotsman when it was sold to Mr Pegler.
Do I remember an A4 boiler and some spares being sold to Mr Hoskings organisation ? what I do remember clearly is a certain A3 carries the only existing A3 boiler and, has done for the last couple of years or so..
The P1 should have good acceleration, which is one of the criticisms of steam.
Due to the flangeless centre drivers, 9F's are not permitted on the main line.
Are you sure about that? I always understood that there were only two boilers - the A3 one currently on the loco and the A4 one previously on Scotsman and now with Jeremy Hosking as a spare for bittern.
A clapped out A3 boiler, I've not heard of any cylinders but assume you are right, frames wheels tender brake gear and everything else to build from scratch I think you are talking of P2 type money or as near as damn it. The P2 will do anything a P1 can but can run at 75mph. There really is no business case for it.
Now now... don't mention that word in front of me! ;-)
I was under the impression the NRM had two A3 boilers and six A3 cylinders...
True, but the P2's driving wheels are a whole foot bigger in diameter, which would inevitably blunt acceleration and tractive effort assuming all else was equal... don't get me wrong, I'm very much looking forward to the P2 steaming, but I think the P1 would actually be somewhat more useful overall...
The design was far from being your traditional heavy freight type as found on the railways of the UK, driving wheels were larger and the boiler substantially so. The design was intended for freight traffic but makes more sense when viewed as a heavy mixed traffic design, the class class could get along quite respectably even while hamstrung to a degree by an outdated valve gear design.
Other classes exist, true enough, all the class 5 4-6-0s are, and have been, one thing but the existence of these types, in relative abundance, has not prevented a significant number of people from taking an interest in another way of doing things, the product of another train of thought.
The P1 was another way of doing things, perhaps more of "another way" than the V4.
Tom makes a valid point on the subject of Diesel assistance/inclusion, the changing nature of the network and the reduction and elimination of facilities needed for the more traditional operating of steam hauled trains does present a problem that can make such additions regrettably necessary. However lack of adhesion and acceleration are other factors. The P1 might not be viewed as a 75mph machine, but it would achieve its permitted 60 -65 mph very smartly. Putting it more simply 'shovage' simply to get the train up to speed quickly enough would be most unlikely and the design would be far less likely to struggle on steeper gradients or in more adverse conditions.
I won't say anything along the lines of 'time proving me or anyone else right or wrong', back in the 1950s and 60s who imagined that steam locomotive enthusiasts would be capable of redesigning and building new engines. They might move on from that, I won't discount the possibility.
The P1 at least is a bit different, and it's close enough to Scotsman to ride on its coat-tails PR-wise... half the public wouldn't know the difference. Plus all the shortcomings in boiler design and valve gear can be addressed simply by upgrading to A3/A4 spec.
Let's face it, though, nobody's going to be in the slightest bit interested in building yet another GWR 4-6-0 that's literally just a Hall with Manor driving wheels. It's a ludicrous idea, filling a non-existent micro-niche, all so they can tick another box marked 'Grange'. It's doomed to fail without any new metal actually being cut... wait, what? Oh. Right.
P.S. I'd love to see a new-build 242A1.
So scotsman ran around with the A4 boiler but when it was bought by the NRM they went back to the A3 boiler instead. Isn't this why it is running in BR livery as if they used the A3 and single chimney it wouldn't of been as powerful?
The A4 boiler was purchased by JH and a lot of work has been done on it. I was told that once the boiler was completed it would go on bittern to get the loco back out but then I heard that that plan was being postponed and bitterns current boiler would be done for the next time and the time after that is when the spare boiler would be fitted. But now the loco is not at the front of the queue so unsure if that has changed for another time.
Unless you're a Swindon fan?
Good point, forgot about 4709. Sits exactly halfway between the two Gresley Mikados in driving wheel diameter. Very big boiler, but I reckon the P1 would edge it for outright horsepower as well as tractive effort.
The plan was to give it a spare no. 1 boiler, at least to start with, that being what the GWR did with 4701 until they had designed and built a bigger boiler. I don't know whether that is still the plan.
Personally I would hope not; the No1 boiler was not adequate, but any drive to fundraise for the correct boiler would be considerably diminished by fitting it.
Presumably it would have the various tweeks: roller bearings, double Kylchap etc., or of course a triple Kylchap for 242A1.
5' 8" 's a better prospect for serious main line opertaion and presumably lots of GWR bits available 'off the shelf'? I actually think the P1 is a lovely machine but I still believe it's just another WIBN project regarding the chance of funding. It was nowhere on the A1 Trust next project 'wish list' and doesn't even have a FB page
Do we need any more obscure LNER types anyway!! (runs and hides)
Separate names with a comma.