LMS 2P 4-4-0

And probably a case where it's the 2P does the work!

Lights the blue touch paper and retires immediately!

 

not successfully anyway

Nevermind 25mph light railways, get yourself across the water and ride at 60+ for 160 miles....

 

And how many 2Ps could a George pull backwards!?

 

The tender only, probably.

The Georges REGULARLY took 400 ton loads over the WCML.

 

While that is correct, what does that have to do with building a 2P to haul 5 mk1s on a preserved line? If it ever happens as from the looks of the Facebook page it is only one person wanting to do this. It's a nice idea and great for a conversation on here but it's not a serious proposal as I understand at the moment.

 

It answered a direct question, nothing more. Are we getting a bit het up over this, Gav?

 

I'm not het up in the slightest. I have had a great day fundraising for the LMS Patriot project down at the Epping ongar railway today.

While I completely understand people talking about the 2Ps being substandard for the job back in the day doing heavy loads etc, I don't understand why this is relevant when the job that one could do now would be ok for many locations around the UK.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest if one does or doesn't get built if I'm completely honest, unlike the Fowler tank which I genuinely will be putting time and money into, but I have to say it would be nice to see one and they were very well spread out over the network so would tick a lot of boxes.

 

How can a 2p be considered for newbuilding instead of a LMS Compound ?
Mr Cox liked the compounds and said frames did not crack often.
Cheating a little Chapelon way can be made almost invisible.
And then test it on Settle Carisle.

 

Because the Schools - and for that matter D49 are thoroughly different - and superior machines

 

.... which one could also say of the GNRI's excellent S/V/VS classes, examples of two out of three of which (Slieve Gullion and Merlin) may still be sampled in harness on RPSI workings - just not the sadly extinct VS.

The Q's were pretty good too, though from an earlier era and we can enjoy the recently restored No.131

 

if you want a compound please make it the original version which was a brilliant machine ,unlike the standards which no more than competent.

 

in the eye of the beholder I suppose . what preserved line wouldn't want one of these ?

 

[ QUOTE="Hermod, post: 2166670, member: 27663"]How can a 2p be considered for newbuilding instead of a LMS Compound ?
Mr Cox liked the compounds and said frames did not crack often.
Cheating a little Chapelon way can be made almost invisible.
And then test it on Settle Carisle.[/QUOTE]
We already have a compound. Why duplicate when there are still gaps that can be filled?

 

this is the pic I was looking for --- i'll stop now !

 

We should have told the OP that suggestions for a new build from someone who has not already put in significant effort on either i) a rebuild from scrap condition, or ii) some other new build, are pretty much going to be ignored. Go earn your spurs first.

In fact, we should probably make that an NP 'rule' - and apply it to line restorations, too.

Noel

 

Start down that road and pretty soon there'll be calls to qualify participation in any subject specific thread. That sounds a very different proposition to a forum for those with an interest as well as those active in railway preservation.

Regardless of who makes them, random suggestions (preferably on the thread which exists for the purpose) more often than not throw up a lot of useful info about long-lost designs, the people behind them, their quirks and foibles and the roles they once played in service. Several times they've evolved into extremely useful and well informed debate highlighting some very real issues with extinct designs and often debunking myths.

A good example was the discussion on Bowen-Cooke's 'Claughtons', which started with a photo and casual suggestion. The reasons the class was regarded as a near miss were identified and explained in the context of practical rather than the purely historical and academic considerations you'd find in most books.

I've learned nearly as much from such randomly evolving debate as from those over on class/loco specific threads starting with any given definite question. If any particular aspect gets taken up by those versed in the field and finds its way to specialist discussion on 'Mutual Improvement', I for one wouldn't feel justified in more than the odd polite question to clarify some particulat point and hoping for (as opposed to expecting) an answer I can comprehend. Offhand, I can't think of anyone doing differently in any such thread I've read through, which admittedly isn't all of them.

Whilst it's vanishingly unlikely that, insane lottery winners aside, 99% of suggestions would reach any serious feasibility study or costing, let alone design and construction, I'd submit much that follows is often of great interest to quite a few of us and dare I say might occasionally even produce the odd leftfield post relevant to an apparently unrelated issue with a still extant loco. Even one such occurance which gives a pointer to some seemingly intractable problem which has prevented one loco returning to active service justifies some leeway IMO.

If a thread for actual projects, with only those qualified or directly involved, is the suggestion, I'd be a wee bit surprised if a closed Facebook group wasn't considered a more suitable vehicle for the purpose.

Of course, if some the idea of the laity getting uppity with their unsolicited opinions is anathema, go for it regardless and be sure to establish some clear thread privilage levels, so we know where we stand. Just don't dare complain that not enough new blood joins the ranks, or that the legion of enthusiasts who merely part with their money to travel on lines, decade in and decade out, become alienated, or what remains on-post gradually evolves into an online textbook and the search facility into it's index.

 

The 'rule' was in quotation marks for a reason.

Noel

 

We already have a compound. Why duplicate when there are still gaps that can be filled?[/QUOTE]

Mr Cox is my guiding angel through my british locomotive faith.
He is kind to very few locomotives not made by himself.
The LMS compounds
The eventual enlargement into 4-6-0
and the Hungarian 4-8-0 type 424.
A better valved LMS compound will be a first step.

 

Especially with 3 cylinders at their heart !

 

Duly noted Noel. Quotation marks or no, the thing I had in mind when composing the post was an old Turkish proverb: An Englishman will burn his bed to catch a flea.

For my own part, I'll cheerfully sit back whilst any number of digressions get aired. Even those which head further off-piste than normal - even by NP standards - can throw up the odd gem and 9 times out of 10, when they don't warrant their own more appropriate threads, they tend to run their course in a few posts anyway and even when they don't, our moderators can pitch in (well, we wouldn't want them dozing off) .... just please nobody mention cider!

On balance, I'd rather stick with the 'broad church' approach for all the reasons mentioned in my earlier post.