Peterborough North

[2750Papyrus]

I'd really like to vote for the P1 but if the criterion is success, then I have to recognise it was probably ahead of it's time.  I therefore have to vote for the O2.

[Clive Mortimore]

15 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

 

They woz included in yesterday's mixed traffic group, Clive. A victim of their own success presumably, due to their relatively frequent use on passenger trains?

 

C'mon, don't let yourself be beaten - why not suggest the U1? (two O2s joined back-to-back)

No the U1 was useless, the Bromsgrove crews proved that Big Bertha was better, and that was an older Fowler design.

[Market65]

Well, I’m going with the O2 in today’s poll.

 

Rob.

[Welly]

O2 here.

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I am still not playing after being disqualified yesterday.

Such a sad loss.

[DaveF]

I'm going for the O2

 

David

[David Bell]

J38

[Sandhole]

I regard the P1 as the steam Kestrel.
So much power with nobody knowing what to do with it!
O2 for me  too.
The U1 was Gresley excess.

[60027Merlin]

J38

 

Lasted until 1967 putting in a power of work over many decades and proving a successful design.

[jollysmart]

02 for me despite a soft spot for the J38, the 02 was a great, hardworking engine.

[geoff west]

O2 for me 

[thegreenhowards]

My heart says P1, followed by O2 but most successful is surely the J38.

[Flying Fox 34F]

02.  Stalwarts of the Stainby branch until Grantham shed closed

 

Paul

[great northern]

10 hours ago, drmditch said:

Difficult this - because probably the 'most typical' goods/freight locomotive for the LNER (although perhaps not all areas) would be what became the O4 and it's derivatives.

The one Gresley presumably liked best (because he wanted to build more of them even in the early days of the war) must have been the O2.

 

So - I'll go for the O2 please.

 

(I would have gone for the P1 if ever the Operating department had worked out how to use them properly!) 

Having refuges long enough to take the length of train they were capable of handling would have helped.

[great northern]

Second jab done today, all extremely efficient, and no side effects so far.

 

Tonight's shot sees that run down B1 starting on its journey to Grantham. Two coaches shouldn't cause may problems.

 

 

I've only just noticed that I haven't photoshopped this, but I don't think it really makes too much difference.

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

I'm going to vote for the O1, a simple modern 2-8-0, when they were introduced.

 

manna

[Woodcock29]

My heart also says P1, I really do like my model P1, it's just gone back on the layout after a spell in storage. But I think it has to be the O2. My O2/2 never having been put into storage, (except during house moves and the need to get a new layout up and running) and its now about 39 years old and still going strong , even with its w/m chassis.

Andrew

[drmditch]

18 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

No the U1 was useless, the Bromsgrove crews proved that Big Bertha was better, and that was an older Fowler design.

Fighting talk! Surely any crew can 'prove' a locomotive is 'useless', especially if it is a one-off and from a different railway/design background?

Quite a lot of that after the grouping!

[Woodcock29]

19 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

No the U1 was useless, the Bromsgrove crews proved that Big Bertha was better, and that was an older Fowler design.

I like to describe the U1 as more of a white elephant. My U1 simply goes from its refuge siding across to the loco depot for coaling during my operating sequence. Then sits in the refuge siding waiting for a non-existent banking turn, which must be after the sequence has finished and before we run the next one!

Andrew

[great northern]

Another glorious morning, and no side effects yet from the jab. Long may that continue.

 

The morning image shows the B17 waiting to reverse its stock down to the carriage sidings. It can't do that until this WD has dragged its empties out of the way though.

 

 

Actually this is the afternoon pick up from KX Goods, empties marshalled at the front for some reason.

[great northern]

Another runaway winner, 02 with 14 votes.

 

What next?  We could look for the very best of everything, I suppose. Let's have a try. The very best locomotive ever to be produced by the North Eastern Railway, taking into account efficiency, longevity, looks, and impact on future locomotive design.

[drmditch]

Difficult.

Efficiency' - theoretical or in practical use? - consider 4CC Atlantic for the former T2/Q6 for the latter - or - now disregarded - the Shildon Electrics !

'Longevity' - has to be the C/C1/J21 ( after major rebuilds)

'Looks' - either the V/C6 or Z/C7 - I prefer the former.

'Impact on future locomotive design' - perhaps the three cylinder principal - so first was the X/T1 from 1909 but that had divided drive so the Z/C7 from 1911 might be most significant. 

However, the 3CC/D19 might be seen as the prototype for the 'Midland Compounds' - and I think that there 240 of them!

 

So - my choice - after a balancing of views - would be.....

 

The Z/C7 Raven Atlantic.

 

(But I do like all of the others as well!)

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

46 minutes ago, great northern said:

Another runaway winner, 02 with 14 votes.

 

What next?  We could look for the very best of everything, I suppose. Let's have a try. The very best locomotive ever to be produced by the North Eastern Railway, taking into account efficiency, longevity, looks, and impact on future locomotive design.

Hi Gilbert

 

Does this include locomotives of the railways that helped form the NER?

 

If so it has to be Locomotion of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.

[LNER4479]

34 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Does this include locomotives of the railways that helped form the NER?

 

If so it has to be Locomotion of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.

Disagree! (Cos I know Clive likes a good argument)

 

Genesis for all modern steam locos was 'Rocket', with its firetube boiler and separate smokebox that created the draft to draw the fire, proportionate to amount of effort being exerted. A stroke of genius that changed the world forever. Locomotion was a simple flue arrangement, OK for pottering around in a colliery but no basis for what was required for long distance, at speed.

 

Other than the adoption of superheating, there's very little difference at a basic principles level between 'Rocket' and 'Evening Star'

 

Go on - pick the bones out of that!

 

Meanwhile, NER-wise, the humble J27 gets my vote.

Edited April 22, 2021 by LNER4479

[Denbridge]

8 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Disagree! (Cos I know Clive likes a good argument)

 

Genesis for all modern steam locos was 'Rocket', with its firetube boiler and separate smokebox that created the draft to draw the fire, proportionate to amount of effort being exerted. A stroke of genius that changed the world forever. Locomotion was a simple flue arrangement, OK for pottering around in a colliery but no basis for what was required for long distance, at speed.

 

Other than the adoption of superheating, there's very little difference at a basic principles level between 'Rocket' and 'Evening Star'

 

Go on - pick the bones out of that!

 

Meanwhile, NER-wise, the humble J27 gets my vote.

Ah, but without the success of Locomotion and others, would we have had Rocket?

Whilst I am in no doubt the steam locomotive development would have happened sooner or later, if steam, as motive power on the S&D been a failure, that development may have been delayed and the Stephensons possibly not being the prime movers behind said development.

Hat, coat, exit