New Build P2

Sorry, but any talk of the GCR being able to run Continental Berne Gauge stock currently or in the past is a myth.

 

Really? Thanks for that - I'd never seen it challenged, so just accepted it as 'pukka gen'...

OK, then the Finnish Mikado is even more limited - doesn't look good, does it?

 

I fear we may need another thread split, but...

It's my understanding that the GCR was built to be easily adaptable to the Berne gauge once the channel tunnel was opened; i.e. major structures like bridges and tunnels were big enough but things like platform edges would have required alteration. Is that correct or have I been misinformed?
Of course, had Watkin's grand plan been fulfilled, through traffic from Europe to the GCR would also have had to traverse the South Eastern and Metropolitan Railways - which would presumably have required major reconstruction to accommodate Berne gauge trains...

 

An unspecified large European loading gauge yes, Berne gauge (adopted at the Berne convention about 12 years after the GCR was built...) definitely not!

 

The former GCR was little or no different to other main lines as far as track spacing and platform clearances are concerned (former GWR Broad Gauge lines excepted). Loco Profiles for the GCR seem to be 9' - 0" width over cylinders and 13' - 3-1/2" chimney height, which seems to be the same for the Metropolitan Railway that the GCR used as its first access into London. A French Nord 4-6-0 of 1910 was (from memory and without looking out the drawing) 10' odd over cab steps and 13' - 10-1/2" over the chimney.

As an aside German Locos are even bigger, an 01 Pacific is 10' - 4-1/2 " (3150 mm) over cylinders and 14' - 11" (4550 mm) over the chimney.

Doubters please go to the GCR at Loughborough (or turn up photos) and see how much - or rather, how little - clearance there is between the girder over bridges and British profile Locos at their shed at the north end of the station. Girder bridges elsewhere on the GC and Metropolitan railways appear no different as regards height above the track. Do I recall a British profile Loco (at about 13' high) clouting an overbridge on GC metals at Neasden some years ago? No chance with a 1910 Nord 4-6-0!

As has been pointed out, lines in Kent are even more restricted in profile than the former GCR.

I can only think this myth arose as a result of Sir Edward Watkin's aspirations.

 

Thank you both for your replies, this is fascinating stuff! I've lost count of the number of people who have said over the years "the GC should never have been closed, it could have been a valuable link the to Chunnel"; it looks like that argument doesn't hold water after all. It just goes to show how errors can become ingrained in railway history.

 

Hmmm,

A3 - as fully developed by BR incluing A4 boiler, plus any minor hidden tweaks that could help power or reliability (sorry, I just like them - and the NRM and the "back to the past brigade" could do what they want to FS) I'd put money towards one of these. (especailly if they called it Great Northern...:tape

V2 - also as fully developed by BR (separate cylinders and kylchap) so the NRM don't have to worry their heads about trying to cast a monobloc cylinder set to get Green Arrow going again.

K3 - Final series

V3 - Though these also had a monobloc cylinder casting, so could be a real challenge, but would be most useful for heritage lines

V4 - and so did these, but they were designed for light weight using a lot of fabrication and welding. I think one had a steel firebox as well.

Eh we can but dream....

I guess they could try to purchase Blue Peter and rebuild it?

 

Yes, 46229 at Willesden Green Northbound. The overbridge knocked a bolt out of the cab roof and it smashed through a support coach window.

It was discovered that the track height had been raised during re-ballasting, and several class 47's were found to have previously hit the bridge as well, over quite a long period of time, but no one had noticed.

If I remember correctly, it went through the window of the compartment that John Peck happened to be sitting in, and he made sure that a full investigation was carried out.

 

Surely, a new monobloc for 4771 would still work out a lot cheaper than a whole new locomotive? A K3 would be interesting, being almost as powerful as a V2, but apparently the class had a reputation for rough riding so probably wouldn't be suitable for high-speed main line work. Dare I say it (!), the unique Thompson K5 rebuild was said to ride more smoothly. But then, as a one-off prototype the K5 can't be said to have been highly significant to the story of Britain's railways; would it be a gap worth spending millions of pounds to fill?
Personally, I think overhauling 60532 is the most sensible suggestion. Why spend millions of pounds on another new pacific, when Blue Peter still has plenty of life left in her but little prospect of steaming in the foreseeable future?

 

The K5 was pretty much a rebuild in name only as very little of the original K3 was used. The running department did report favourably on it though but an order for 10 more was cancelled.

 

Very true, but the NRM would have to find the will and the finance to produce the new casting. Perhaps if they were to start a public subscription it might be possible. They would still have the responsibility for the rebuild and the running of the loco afterward which they might prefer to avoid?.

Brian Haresnape's "Gresley locomotives" states the K5 had a reputation for becoming rough very soon after overhaul. Might as well have a significant rough rider if you're going to bother. It is said that ET deleted the hornblock wedges from the B1s so they became very rough quickly. It may be he did the same to the K5?

Which just leaves the owners of BP and how much they would want for it...assuming they would sell at all.

 

Well, raising the money for 4771 is certainly possible. But then, I remember an interview in an old SR in which (IIRC) Richard Gibbon estimated that it might be possible to get 1000 AND 6229 back in steam for the same money. As the old saying goes, you pay your money and make your choice!

 

Heh, but with public subscription they make their choice before they pay their money. It depends who would want what loco rebuilding more.

 

Mmmm.... but expanding electrification (GW main line, etc.) will ensure NR *have* to get their act together!

Foxy

 

Now you really are having a larf - that lot up their game - in your dreams!

 

I see there's an update on the P2 section A1 Trust website..

 

................. No. 2007: latest thinking

Nothing new in there.

 

The update (at the foot of the page under the image of No. 2001) by Graham Nicholas is from the latest "Communication Cord" and may not have been seen by non-A1SLT folk.

Foxy

 

That was quite interesting stuff about measuring electronically how Tornado rode in relation to the known track dynamics as produced by the yellow HST and using it to optimise the P2. If only there was the money it might prove an interesting exercise to do it with the other mainline Pacifics, A4, Duchess, West Country/BoB, Britannia etc to compare classes to establish what were the best riding loco's and least likely to damage the track. Then anyone looking to build something else in the future would have data as to which known design would be optimal, as it would appear this seems to be one of the main performance factors that NR are particularly interested in for certifying a new loco.