Replica builds for heritage lines.

Trolling a bit, though.

 

The GN men called the L1s 'cement mixers' with good reason.

 

Funnily enough I was musing yesterday on which extinct GC classes would make a nice fleet of new builds and the larger 4-6-0s were some way down the list. You'd want a C13 and an A5 first, for sure, and probably a D6 (not sure why they are building a D7 instead), and one of the smaller 4-6-0s (my preference a B5). Then a C4, J11, N6, L1(L3), F2, B7, B3, Q4, complete the picture with a couple of Sacre things, one of those Baldwin 2-6-0s and an X4, then we'll have an S1 and a U1 (a GC project which got Greslified) for the hell of it, and I think we'll be about done. Oh sorry, I almost forgot the railmotor...

Difficult isn't it? Even with this wishlist I can't agree with the one they're actually trying to build.

We should probably have a Gresley K3 and a Thompson L1 too, to represent "progress".

 

If you say so, although that was not the aim.

 

On GC stuff, I would say an A5 4-6-2 tank and a J11 0-6-0

 

All valid arguments against building new L1s for semi-fast commuter work up the ECML at rush hour. Not, I think, persuasive arguments against building new L1s to toddle along the NYMR at 25mph.

 

I think personally an L1 would be a brilliant idea and possibly one of the best candidates for new build engines to run in preservation. Especially, if there was to be more than one of the class made. With new build there are the chances to correct or tweak areas of the design to suit. The L1 wheel size would give it very good grip, and the speed is not relevant as most likes, if not all, that the class should be near would be doing 25mph. On the mainline today should one somehow appear, it would only be doing 50mph max, by my reckoning.

Changes to the design would mean that the engine would become a new build L4. You could reduce the cylinder size slightly to stop the engine being overpowered, and thus sending too much power to the motion and overstressing the frames. Essentially you need to copy a design that already exists and has been proved to be highly effective - namely K1. Build the new L4 to the same boiler, wheels and cylinder size, and attach tanks to the side, and the bunker to the rear. Thus, you would tweak most of the L1 problems and should have a reliable machine.

Its an idea I ran with but sadly only in OO gauge. I went further giving the L4 air brakes, TPWS and OTMR too. The NER/Darlington smokebox was added to give it a more uniform appearance alongside Q6, B1, etc so that it fits in with Darlington drawing offices evolution through design. Changes to livery also make the engine and class look smart in something other than Black.

So, if I win the Euromillions, expect to see something similar to this:

 

If anyone wants to see a Fowler 2-6-4 tank help us finish the Patriot so that we can move onto building one! Simple design, and very well liked by Crews.

I wouldn't worry too much about patterns as with poly patterns etc they can be done much much easier. For instance the standard 4t that will be running in at Mangapps has had new cylinders from poly as has two black 5s, the patriot, grange, F5, soon to be done on Scots Guardsman also. And the C class from bluebell if my memory serves me right

 

Indeed it has -not fitted, but made and ready to use when needed.

Tom

 

There are those at the NYMR would dearly love to build an L1, and it shares quite a number of components with the A1 I believe, but with two standard class 4 tanks on the line there is no real business case for one - if someone would like to fund it that would all change!

 

K1 surely?

 

As I understand it 80136 is only there for another nine years, so there's a case to be made for having an L1 ready to go when it leaves.

 

Thats what I was thinking, hence post above making reference too.

 

There's no toddling involved on the 1 in 49 up to Goathland, needs more than a relatively unsuccessful design thta by all accounts couldn't pull the proverbial skin off the rice pudding

 

Perhaps we should build a new K4 given the permanent retirement of 3442

 

They did well enough on the notoriously difficult Scarborough-Whitby and Whitby-Saltburn lines, albeit admittedly on shorter trains.

 

An L1 would be a good loco for the NYMR for a number of reasons. Prime amongst them are:

• A relatively high tractive effort which would give it a distinct advantage over the Class 4's and Black 5's that are the present mainstay. 8 coach trains push the latter to their absolute limit.
• 2400 gal water capacity would enable it to run Grosmont-Whitby-Pickering without taking water. This is a fundamental problem with the BR 2-6-4 tanks unless a water supply can be installed at Whitby. The higher coal capacity is a similar advantage.
• It's an LNER loco so on home ground

The A1 and the P2 have been tweaked to improve them. No reason why the problem areas of the L1 could not be re-designed.

 

I think there are a number of classes of loco that had a malign historic reputation, but where the significant weaknesses could either be easily designed out, or would be broadly irrelevant in modern usage. (A Maunsell K class 2-6-4T would be a Southern equivalent - free steaming, lots in common with other preserved locos, and not much stability issue running one at 25mph).

The difficulty is whether the usefulness of such designs would be sufficient to generate funding from a large enough body of supporters, or whether the historic reputation would be such as to fundamentally hole such a project below the waterline before it even got off the drawing board. Thus far I don't think anyone has taken the plunge on such a proposal, unless you count the P2.

Tom

 

In that context we should count the P2. Addressing the (perceived and/or real) weaknesses of the originals has been an essential part of that project from the outset, though it is questionable how far even that would have gone towards generating the necessary scale of support if it hadn't been for the Trust's abilities as already demonstrated by Tornado.

 

Well that quite clearly isn't the case. What facts support that?

They may not have been very good but they undoubtedly did the work asked of them.