Standard 'Class' 8 Pacific's

[Bernard Lamb]

71045 Duke of Cumberland?

 

Bernard

[scots region]

71045 Duke of Cumberland?

 

Bernard

 

 

Hmm maybe.

[Bernard Lamb]

Hmm maybe.

Might be a bit toooooo political.

Just imagine it turning up on a football special for the wrong side.

Bernard

[micklner]

P10 build here by Graeme King

 

http://www.lner.info/forums/loco-workbench-many-done-but-time-for-a-break-van-or-two-t2443s150.html

[Sailor Charon]

P10 build here by Graeme King

 

http://www.lner.info/forums/loco-workbench-many-done-but-time-for-a-break-van-or-two-t2443s150.html

 

I'm tempted to ask which P10, as it went through about six iterations before being... I mean, not being made. [small variations in the size of the side tanks, etc] Ah, it's (one of) the small side tank version(s).

[Guest Max Stafford]

71045 Duke of Cumberland?

 

Bernard

 

It would be a brave man that posted that one to Inverness...

 

Dave.

[scots region]

I know this is going off subject slightly, but I've always wondered the 2-8-2 combination had been a more successful venture, would there have been more P1s for example, maybe, this is pure fantasy but here is my list of Ten P classes;

 

LNER CLASS P (2-8-2).

 

Class P1, 33 in class, primarily heavy goods machines yet saw occasional use on passenger work in the north.

 

Class P2, 12 in class, used mostly on express passenger and parcel traffic

 

Class P3, 6 in class, essentially a passenger version of the P1s fitted with an extended version of the A3 boiler and 6ft 0in wheels, used on Edinburgh to Glasgow services.

 

Class P4, 42 in class, 15 rebuilds of O1’s and 27 new builds, fitted with an O2 boiler with a wide fire box. Used for mineral traffic.

 

Class P5, 116 in class, very much a middle of the road design, utilised a V2 boiler and firebox with 5ft 7in driving wheels. Like the V2s the found favour both on passenger and goods service.

 

Class P6, 4 in class, fitted with the A2 boiler and 5ft 5in driving wheels they were experimental builds by Peppercorn. They were an exercise to view the possibility of further 2-8-2 construction post war, it was decided not to pursue this due to the post war economy and construction was halted.

 

Class P7, 7 in class, essentially a 2-8-2 version of his L1 by Thompson, used for short haul goods services and occasional passenger work.

 

Class P8, 1 in class, experiment by Gresley into 2-8-2 tanks, essentially the doyen of the P10s.

 

Class P9, 45 in class, almost an O2 tank, used for intermediate passenger work and trip fright working.

 

Class P10, 38 in class, a short range tank for fast, closely rimed services and short haul freight.

 

Total: 304

 

what do you think?

[70022Tornado]

In the popularity stakes 700xx "SIr Samuel Vimes` Duke of Ankh-Morpork"

 

70022

[S.A.C Martin]

Class P6, 4 in class, fitted with the A2 boiler and 5ft 5in driving wheels they were experimental builds by Peppercorn. They were an exercise to view the possibility of further 2-8-2 construction post war, it was decided not to pursue this due to the post war economy and construction was halted.

 

Pretty much that I posted earlier in this thread. 5'5'' wheels in a 2-8-2 formation would be a decent compromise between mixed traffic and outright express engine. 250lb boiler of 118 diagram, Peppercorn cab and an 8 wheel tender would make an interesting eight coupled locomotive.

 

The only difference would be the numbering - P1 would be taken as both P1 and P2 classes were extinct by 1945. The LNER reused classifications several times (looking at "A1" as the best example) so a Peppercorn P1 would be the designation (assuming of course that other mikado classes did not occur).

[scots region]

Pretty much that I posted earlier in this thread. 5'5'' wheels in a 2-8-2 formation would be a decent compromise between mixed traffic and outright express engine. 250lb boiler of 118 diagram, Peppercorn cab and an 8 wheel tender would make an interesting eight coupled locomotive.

 

The only difference would be the numbering - P1 would be taken as both P1 and P2 classes were extinct by 1945. The LNER reused classifications several times (looking at "A1" as the best example) so a Peppercorn P1 would be the designation (assuming of course that other mikado classes did not occur).

 

 

That was a deliberate plantation of mine, sorry to mess with another mans idea, to each his own. Personally I prefer the idea of more P1s, I've always viewed them as , extremely large, underdogs. Maybe a Mastiff, who knows? I wanted the Thompson and Peppercorn classes to fit the circumstances around them, post war depression and all that, hence their small numbers. I agree though a 'P1/P6' would be an interesting sight.

[The Black Hat]

Honestly, don't forget us up North.....

 

What about

 

71013 Duke of Northumberland

71014 Duke of Newcastle

 

and really surprised no one has mentioned this:

 

71015 Duke of Wellington!

[scots region]

Honestly, don't forget us up North.....

 

What about

 

71013 Duke of Northumberland

71014 Duke of Newcastle

 

and really surprised no one has mentioned this:

 

71015 Duke of Wellington!

 

 

I'm sure I can smugle them in, perhaps a reallocation

[scots region]

Going off track here, I mentioned earlier that I am interested by the notion of more P1s or essentially the P1 being a more successful design, for the sake of the North Eastern fans I'm referring to Gresleys design of 1925. I now have thought of a senario in which this might work; In 1925, at the same time as the P1s Gresley introduces a large eight wheel coal wagon on two bogies, with the notion of 25% more hauage than the O2s with 75% less wagons, so sucessful does this prove that it is decided to cancel the extra O2s and halt construction at the 34th Locomotive, the gulf left over is filled by 33 P1s that recive the numbers originally allocated for the O2s

 

Do tell me what you think.

 

ScR

[James]

Gresley introduces a large eight wheel coal wagon on two bogies, with the notion of 25% more hauage than the O2s with 75% less wagons

The NER had large bogie hopper wagons - adopting their arrangement for coal handling could have allowed for a development of similar wagons.

[scots region]

The NER had large bogie hopper wagons - adopting their arrangement for coal handling could have allowed for a development of similar wagons.

 

 

thanks I'll keep that in mind, so you agree with the idea?

[Sailor Charon]

If I remember, the GCR were going to build some hefty coal wagons, then again, they were also thinking of buying a huge 2-10-0 from Baldwin, and would have had to cut the top off one of their tunnels to let it through...

[asmay2002]

Going off track here, I mentioned earlier that I am interested by the notion of more P1s or essentially the P1 being a more successful design, for the sake of the North Eastern fans I'm referring to Gresleys design of 1925. I now have thought of a senario in which this might work; In 1925, at the same time as the P1s Gresley introduces a large eight wheel coal wagon on two bogies, with the notion of 25% more hauage than the O2s with 75% less wagons, so sucessful does this prove that it is decided to cancel the extra O2s and halt construction at the 34th Locomotive, the gulf left over is filled by 33 P1s that recive the numbers originally allocated for the O2s

 

Do tell me what you think.

 

ScR

 

Most of the wagons the P1 would have been hauling were Private owners. Whatever the LNER built for it's own interests would have been largely irrelevant. You would have had to rebuild the infrastructure at either end to allow bigger wagons and that would have cost a fortune for the private owners. Once the Great Depression started this just wasn't going to happen. Even BR and the NCB struggled to modernise things with vast amounts of taxpayers money in a relatively prosperous time. It would probably have required legislation to force the owners to modernise.

[scots region]

Most of the wagons the P1 would have been hauling were Private owners. Whatever the LNER built for it's own interests would have been largely irrelevant. You would have had to rebuild the infrastructure at either end to allow bigger wagons and that would have cost a fortune for the private owners. Once the Great Depression started this just wasn't going to happen. Even BR and the NCB struggled to modernise things with vast amounts of taxpayers money in a relatively prosperous time. It would probably have required legislation to force the owners to modernise.

 

 

I am aware that there were mitigating circumstances that played against the P1s, I came up with idea of larger coal wagons primarily because the P1s were only efficient when up to 100+ wagons, something that the system could barely handle. The idea is to contain the respective weight of the load whilst taking up less room, sort of like transporting a product with less packaging. I've got no idea how it would work in real terms, maybe if more economic freedom had been granted to the railways. I came up with the idea because I think of the P1s as underdogs, it really was a fault of circumstance that things turned out the way they did. Remember this is all for fun, if it made sense I'd be out of a job

[James]

Most of the wagons the P1 would have been hauling were Private owners. Whatever the LNER built for it's own interests would have been largely irrelevant. You would have had to rebuild the infrastructure at either end to allow bigger wagons and that would have cost a fortune for the private owners. Once the Great Depression started this just wasn't going to happen. Even BR and the NCB struggled to modernise things with vast amounts of taxpayers money in a relatively prosperous time. It would probably have required legislation to force the owners to modernise.

It's worth remembering that one huge part of the LNER used railway owned coal wagons. The NER had never gone in for the use of private owner wagon for a lot of the coal traffic. I suspect this was probably a development from its very routes. It meant that the north east's coal handling was far more modern than elsewhere on the railway so it's not too 'wild' to think the LNER may have wanted to expand this method of working elsewhere on their system, especially as it could have fitted in very well with Gresley's big engine policy. Adopting it for certain flows could have made sense.

[scots region]

It's worth remembering that one huge part of the LNER used railway owned coal wagons. The NER had never gone in for the use of private owner wagon for a lot of the coal traffic. I suspect this was probably a development from its very routes. It meant that the north east's coal handling was far more modern than elsewhere on the railway so it's not too 'wild' to think the LNER may have wanted to expand this method of working elsewhere on their system, especially as it could have fitted in very well with Gresley's big engine policy. Adopting it for certain flows could have made sense.

 

 

I see, thanks anything for plausibility, so I could have the P1s confined to coal flows serving major areas with the large wagon and the O2s working to secondary areas use PO wagons? The private owners get a return and the LNER gets modern fleet of wagons and Locomotives, everybody wins.

[Bernard Lamb]

I see, thanks anything for plausibility, so I could have the P1s confined to coal flows serving major areas with the large wagon and the O2s working to secondary areas use PO wagons? The private owners get a return and the LNER gets modern fleet of wagons and Locomotives, everybody wins.

Very basically the north east tended to use company owned wagons, mainly of the hopper type, with dedicated loading/unloading facilities. Many of the coal merchants were ex railway men who had bought a local franchise. The midland area tended to use coal merchant and colliery owned wagons of a smaller capacity. These were often unloaded by hand at small yards. The P1 on a new design of hopper wagons would make an interesting scenario. You would need to change the economic climate of the north east to justify your idea. Having got that far then why not take your P1 class further south and run dedicated brick trains from around Peterborough/Bedfordshire to London? This would only be a small step from the actual situation. A dual use would be more justification for building more locos of this class. Then of course after 1948 you could lend them to the western division of BR to haul coal trains from South Wales to London.

Bernard

[scots region]

Very basically the north east tended to use company owned wagons, mainly of the hopper type, with dedicated loading/unloading facilities. Many of the coal merchants were ex railway men who had bought a local franchise. The midland area tended to use coal merchant and colliery owned wagons of a smaller capacity. These were often unloaded by hand at small yards. The P1 on a new design of hopper wagons would make an interesting scenario. You would need to change the economic climate of the north east to justify your idea. Having got that far then why not take your P1 class further south and run dedicated brick trains from around Peterborough/Bedfordshire to London? This would only be a small step from the actual situation. A dual use would be more justification for building more locos of this class. Then of course after 1948 you could lend them to the western division of BR to haul coal trains from South Wales to London.

Bernard

 

 

An interesting idea, I am half welsh. Just imagine: out of the rain born mist comes a black smoking behemoth, far from home yet doing the same job, she tackles the gradients slowly, smoke deflectors rattling, her climb is slow yet unending, eternal struggle but with dignity, grace. As she passes the wagons voice their complaints in sequels and moans as the move in eternal servitude, at the rear pants a pannier sharing the strife. to the right of the trackbed a tree rocks, all of Wales shaken by a Gresley 3 cylinder