Wright writes.....

[Clive Mortimore]

BR were saddled with a dud diesel fleet, as the Modernisation Plan was seen as a golden opportunity for UK manufacturers.  I thought it amusing that the 03, 04, 05 and Barclay shunters all had the same Gardner engine.  Not so amusing were the NBL class  22 diesel hydraulics that were built and needed a general overhaul at Swindon before entering service.  Putting dud Crossley engines in the class 28 and an 08 variant was ridiculous.  However, a great variety for modellers-unlike the bland, uninteresting scene today.

The point I hope I made was that the rubbish diesels and small classes I spent time researching and making because "they would never be RTR" have all been done.....except a class 48 and Hawk but don't tell anyone or they will be.

 

To say the Thompson pacifics will not be be RTR models, let us wait and see.

 

 

My first scratchbuilt loco was a Baby Deltic, I was very proud of it, especially when the Heljan one was introduced. It might not been the neatest but every thing was in the right place. What made me laugh was the complaint the headcode FONT (typeface) was too small. Yes it was but if those shouting about got out their rules and drawings they would know why it was too small.....the headcode panel window was 1mm to short in height.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Headstock]

Hello everyone

 

To help readers get a balanced view of the subject for the purpose of comparison, I have attached:

1. Extract - List of LNER Locos as presented to voters as 'the voting slip' in The Wishlist Poll 2018 (I have excluded The Guide Notes);

2. Extract - LNER Locos in result format, also for 2018.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

What, no mention of wagons or carriages?

[Headstock]

GN was a fated engine on the day it was rebuilt, there is so much said relating to Thompson and his rebuild that I sometimes wonder how much is true and the rest venom/rumour/spite for the sake of it? It was a one off as the W1, and no matter how good or bad it would have never survived the BR cull of small classes in the early 60's.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/A/a1_1.php

 

note the comment better then a single chimney A3 and A4 in the text.

 

Is Peter Townsend a recognised author ?,as he praises the A2/3 in his excellent LNER Pacifics book as the only type to manage a Cement train which a 9F couldn't manage. The comments will no doubt go around in its usual circle, perhaps we will never know the answer ? 

 

 

What without a doubt for me is that the ECML, for a modeller would be a much poorer place without the Thompson's having existed good or bad.

 

1 a gn IMG_5824.jpg

Evening Mick,

 

are you a Thompson Pacific apologist? I think not, the main complaints against the Thompson engines would seem to be rough riding, a tendency to slip and being mechanically unreliable. In comparison to the locomotives that the men were used to (A3 and A4), this would seem to be the case. The rough riding can be traced to the unsuitable B1 bogie with its insufficient side control, and a mathematical miscalculation in the slide of the catazi truck in relation to the length of the engine. Both errors were perpetuated in the Peppercorn A1s (corrected on Tornado) Funny how the problem was commented on but tolerated on the later engines. I suspect, that after the comfort of the Gresley engines the Thompson Pacific were something of a shock. All this is relative to what they were used to. The Annesley men, who occasional had the York A2/3s  thought of them as nowhere near as rough as the rebuilt Scots, yet the LMS 4-6-0 were never pilloried in the same manner, even if you could come off the latter black and blue.

 

Given the increased power over the Gresley Pacifics, it is not surprising that an inexperienced driver could make them Thompson engines slip. Most of the horror stories of Thompson Pacific slipping violently come from the time of their first introduction. This is a curious one, as if you do the maths, the Thompson Pacific are not really any less light on their feet than a Duchess. Could it be that if the big LMS pacific had operated out of Top shed in the 1940's, the inexperienced local crews would have had them burning through the rails in gasworks tunnel?

 

Having looked through the record cards of numerous classes of locomotive at the NRM, a quick comment on maintenance. This was always regarded as a blot on Thompson's copy book. However, I find interesting that the A2/3 class spent less time in works than did the LMS Princess Royal class. I don't recall the later engines being taken to task in this regard, food for thought when comparing one locomotive against another. In comparison, the A2/2  were very poor, these six engines seem to have been rather poorly built, or rebuilt. A lot of the poor reputation of the Thompson Pacifics rest on their shoulders. Great Northern was just hated and could nothing right. Though it was more successful away from top shed. I'm not saying that the Thompson Pacific were brilliant locomotives, more that their poor reputation is rather over egged, and relative to what comparison you chose to make. Polmadie shed for example, did not hate the A 2/3s in the same way as those sheds associated with the Gresley Pacifics on the southern end of the East coast mainline.

[Theakerr]

Thks Gentlemen for the input.  Re the DJH A2, all it says on the box is  A2 Peppercorn and I am guessing but it is probably 10 to 15 years old.  It does include two nameplates, Blue Peter and Hornets Beauty.  The picture on the box shows 60535 with a single chimney and an old BR crest.  So since I model BR Eastern Region I will be restricted to Sugar Palm, Bahram, Happy Knight (Already have) and Trimbush.  However, I have to do some more research because I have come across a reference to Bachelors Button being a York loco and spending much of its time running on the Northern end of the ECML.

[rowanj]

Other than when first built, the single chimney Peppercorn A2, which is what you have as a kit, were all in Scotland and pretty rare birds on the ER. Another option is to source a double chimney and model Bronzino, 60539, a Heaton loco which was certainly seen in ER territory.
Enjoy the kit.

Edited November 23, 2018 by rowanj

[micklner]

Evening Mick,

 

are you a Thompson Pacific apologist? I think not, the main complaints against the Thompson engines would seem to be rough riding, a tendency to slip and being mechanically unreliable. In comparison to the locomotives that the men were used to (A3 and A4), this would seem to be the case. The rough riding can be traced to the unsuitable B1 bogie with its insufficient side control, and a mathematical miscalculation in the slide of the catazi truck in relation to the length of the engine. Both errors were perpetuated in the Peppercorn A1s (corrected on Tornado) Funny how the problem was commented on but tolerated on the later engines. I suspect, that after the comfort of the Gresley engines the Thompson Pacific were something of a shock. All this is relative to what they were used to. The Annesley men, who occasional had the York A2/3s  thought of them as nowhere near as rough as the rebuilt Scots, yet the LMS 4-6-0 were never pilloried in the same manner, even if you could come off the latter black and blue.

 

Given the increased power over the Gresley Pacifics, it is not surprising that an inexperienced driver could make them Thompson engines slip. Most of the horror stories of Thompson Pacific slipping violently come from the time of their first introduction. This is a curious one, as if you do the maths, the Thompson Pacific are not really any less light on their feet than a Duchess. Could it be that if the big LMS pacific had operated out of Top shed in the 1940's, the inexperienced local crews would have had them burning through the rails in gasworks tunnel?

 

Having looked through the record cards of numerous classes of locomotive at the NRM, a quick comment on maintenance. This was always regarded as a blot on Thompson's copy book. However, I find interesting that the A2/3 class spent less time in works than did the LMS Princess Royal class. I don't recall the later engines being taken to task in this regard, food for thought when comparing one locomotive against another. In comparison, the A2/2  were very poor, these six engines seem to have been rather poorly built, or rebuilt. A lot of the poor reputation of the Thompson Pacifics rest on their shoulders. Great Northern was just hated and could nothing right. Though it was more successful away from top shed. I'm not saying that the Thompson Pacific were brilliant locomotives, more that their poor reputation is rather over egged, and relative to what comparison you chose to make. Polmadie shed for example, did not hate the A 2/3s in the same way as those sheds associated with the Gresley Pacifics on the southern end of the East coast mainline.

 

 

Apologist not in the slightest. Thompson comes over as a rather unpleasant character and did himself no favours with some of the ideas he had. As to the actual Locos, they suffered as a result of the link to the designer far more than was warranted (on occasions).

Edited November 23, 2018 by micklner

[BMacdermott]

What, no mention of wagons or carriages?

 

Hello Andrew

 

I was working on the basis that the main subject matter was locos and revolving specifically around the A2/1 etc. If there was a stated demand, I could supply others - but there would be two tables for each of: PCCS; NPCCS; Freight Pre-1948; Freight 1948-1963; and General Railway Service. Apart from PCCS, much in the others would not be relevant to LNER.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[Enterprisingwestern]

Dear O Dear.  All this talk about A2s means I will have to do a whole lot of research before I start to build my newly acquired DJH kit.  Do I build an A2/2 or an A2/3 or since it is a rather old kit do I have any choice based on all the bits it came with.  In the past I have either built based on a remembered name or class.  For the A2s I really don't have any remembered name that I want to build and as a youngster I couldn't tell the difference between an A1 and an A2 let alone between an A2/2 and an A2/3.  So decisions as they say

 

 

Build it as you wish, but don't let Tony near it!

 

Mike.

[APOLLO]

Gresley ? Thompson ? NOTHING beats a Stanier Duchess storming up Beattock !!

 

I was watching this superb & recently published video last night. Just how do we model this ?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEANJRP9oJg

 

I've lived within a mile of the WCML all my life, (currently I'm 100 yards from it, just north of Wigan) and saw the last of the Duchesses back around 63/4,  but I've always modelled the Eastern region in OO. Why ? - I missed out on sights like this (sans mountains !!) on the ECML - it was mostly dieselised by the time I got there, a school trip to York in 1966, bunking York shed we saw a few mucky V2's, B1's etc - but NOT ONE pacific. I never saw one BR Eastern region pacific in steam - hence I (try) to model it. I have just a few Hornby & Trix pacifics. My tatty old Hornby Dublo "City of London" still gets an occasional outing though.

 

Brit15

[Mallard60022]

Gresley ? Thompson ? NOTHING beats a Stanier Duchess storming up Beattock !!

 

I was watching this superb & recently published video last night. Just how do we model this ?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEANJRP9oJg

 

I've lived within a mile of the WCML all my life, (currently I'm 100 yards from it, just north of Wigan) and saw the last of the Duchesses back around 63/4,  but I've always modelled the Eastern region in OO. Why ? - I missed out on sights like this (sans mountains !!) on the ECML - it was mostly dieselised by the time I got there, a school trip to York in 1966, bunking York shed we saw a few mucky V2's, B1's etc - but NOT ONE pacific. I never saw one BR Eastern region pacific in steam - hence I (try) to model it. I have just a few Hornby & Trix pacifics. My tatty old Hornby Dublo "City of London" still gets an occasional outing though.

 

Brit15

 

Blimey, that is impressive. Recognised the driver at one point met him at 36E once before and he knows his trade.

Thanks for that bit of light on a gloomy day.

Phl 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Mallard60022

[Tony Wright]

GN was a fated engine on the day it was rebuilt, there is so much said relating to Thompson and his rebuild that I sometimes wonder how much is true and the rest venom/rumour/spite for the sake of it? It was a one off as the W1, and no matter how good or bad it would have never survived the BR cull of small classes in the early 60's.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/A/a1_1.php

 

note the comment better then a single chimney A3 and A4 in the text.

 

Is Peter Townsend a recognised author ?,as he praises the A2/3 in his excellent LNER Pacifics book as the only type to manage a Cement train which a 9F couldn't manage. The comments will no doubt go around in its usual circle, perhaps we will never know the answer ? 

 

 

What without a doubt for me is that the ECML, for a modeller would be a much poorer place without the Thompson's having existed good or bad.

 

1 a gn IMG_5824.jpg

I think you're right, Mick, with regard to Thompson's contribution being more interesting to modellers.

 

I'd definitely say that Peter Townend is a recognised author, and it's right that the only class of loco to time the cement block train was an A2/3. But, then, shouldn't it have been able to? Compared with the (single chimney) V2s and 9Fs, the A2/3 was a much more powerful loco. Had an A2, or an A1, been tried on the train, I'm sure they'd have handled it very competently. As would a double chimney A3 and an A4. 

 

And, 60113 was probably better at steaming than a single chimney A3 or A4, but it wasn't as good as a double chimney example of both classes. Hence my point; why waste valuable resources on rebuilding (actually new-building) a loco when all that was needed was a double Kylchap. The question also arises; why did it take so long to fit double Kylchaps to all the Pacifics (with the exception of some A2s)? 

 

As for venomous rumours or spite regarding Thompson's big locos, its been my privilege to get to know the sons of men who were responsible for their running. Geoff Lund at Haymarket almost lost his job because of his objections to the P2s' rebuilding, and, yet, he was vindicated when the wretched A2/2s were moved from the Aberdeen road because of their propensity to slip (something unheard of with the locos they once were). Jack Somers, shedmaster at New England, reckoned the Thompson big-things were appalling things to work on and keep running. And, contrary to some rumours, if the independent, middle valve gear failed on a Thompson/Peppercorn Pacific it rendered the loco a complete failure (witness TORNADO recently), whereas the Gresley gear tended to carry on. 

 

I think the name of ET will always be controversial in railway circles. In fairness, he should be praised for his B1 and O1 (and O4/8?), but the rest of his locos were rather lack-lustre. Other than the B1, O1 (and the J11/3?), none of his locos, rebuilds or new, superseded its predecessors. Even when he built a new loco such as the A2/3, as soon as he'd gone, the design for the next A2 was changed, and the Peppercorn A1s were very different from the A1/1. What remained from his ideas with regard to the later Pacifics? The independent inside valve gear. That's all, apart from the bogie, which wasn't good. The boilers and double Kylchap were Gresley features. Equal-length connecting rods were abandoned, as was the round dome and the flat-fronted cab, and also the inelegant front end. Had the Thompson Pacifics been any good, we'd have had 50 A1/1s and 30 A2/3s. Not so.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.    

[APOLLO]

Not to add to the debate on the merits (or not) of Thompson's locos, I have an informative book on the subject. Entitled "Thompson & Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers", by Colonel H.C.B. Roberts, published by Ian Allan back in 1979. ISBN 0 7110 0910 4. There's a couple on ebay  etc now for under a fiver. Worth it for the photo's.

 

 

Brit15

[Clive Mortimore]

Not to add to the debate on the merits (or not) of Thompson's locos, I have an informative book on the subject. Entitled "Thompson & Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers", by Colonel H.C.B. Roberts, published by Ian Allan back in 1979. ISBN 0 7110 0910 4. There's a couple on ebay  etc now for under a fiver. Worth it for the photo's.

 

 

Brit15

Hi Apollo

 

The same recognised author who said in his book Transition from Steam that there would never been the same crowds at the end of platforms for diesels like there was when steam finished.

 

"....that's 36 cylinders, that's why they are special."

[APOLLO]

"....that's 36 cylinders, that's why they are special."

 

Deltics - Couldn't be summed up better !!

 

Another reason I model the ER - though the Deltics were built just down the road a few miles from Wigan alongside the WCML !!

 

Brit15

[Headstock]

I think you're right, Mick, with regard to Thompson's contribution being more interesting to modellers.

 

I'd definitely say that Peter Townend is a recognised author, and it's right that the only class of loco to time the cement block train was an A2/3. But, then, shouldn't it have been able to? Compared with the (single chimney) V2s and 9Fs, the A2/3 was a much more powerful loco. Had an A2, or an A1, been tried on the train, I'm sure they'd have handled it very competently. As would a double chimney A3 and an A4. 

 

And, 60113 was probably better at steaming than a single chimney A3 or A4, but it wasn't as good as a double chimney example of both classes. Hence my point; why waste valuable resources on rebuilding (actually new-building) a loco when all that was needed was a double Kylchap. The question also arises; why did it take so long to fit double Kylchaps to all the Pacifics (with the exception of some A2s)? 

 

As for venomous rumours or spite regarding Thompson's big locos, its been my privilege to get to know the sons of men who were responsible for their running. Geoff Lund at Haymarket almost lost his job because of his objections to the P2s' rebuilding, and, yet, he was vindicated when the wretched A2/2s were moved from the Aberdeen road because of their propensity to slip (something unheard of with the locos they once were). Jack Somers, shedmaster at New England, reckoned the Thompson big-things were appalling things to work on and keep running. And, contrary to some rumours, if the independent, middle valve gear failed on a Thompson/Peppercorn Pacific it rendered the loco a complete failure (witness TORNADO recently), whereas the Gresley gear tended to carry on. 

 

I think the name of ET will always be controversial in railway circles. In fairness, he should be praised for his B1 and O1 (and O4/8?), but the rest of his locos were rather lack-lustre. Other than the B1, O1 (and the J11/3?), none of his locos, rebuilds or new, superseded its predecessors. Even when he built a new loco such as the A2/3, as soon as he'd gone, the design for the next A2 was changed, and the Peppercorn A1s were very different from the A1/1. What remained from his ideas with regard to the later Pacifics? The independent inside valve gear. That's all, apart from the bogie, which wasn't good. The boilers and double Kylchap were Gresley features. Equal-length connecting rods were abandoned, as was the round dome and the flat-fronted cab, and also the inelegant front end. Had the Thompson Pacifics been any good, we'd have had 50 A1/1s and 30 A2/3s. Not so.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.    

 

A couple of points please,

 

The Great Northern rebuild was basically a Kylchap fitted A4 with bigger cylinders, how could it be a poorer steamer than a kylchap fitted A4? I've never heard anybody question the steaming abilities of the A4 boiler before! I don't recall any reports of the Thompson Pacifics being shy of steam.

 

With regards to the P2, it is now known that the LNER new that these locomotives were an accident waiting to happen. Every time one of these locomotives tried to developed full power it was damaging the crank axle to such an extent it would eventually fail. It is fortunate that nobody was killed if the locomotive had been derailed at speed due to a faulty crank axle. There is no way that the LNER would have sent the locomotives south during the war as is often claimed. The reports and pictures of the sheared crank axles are now available for anybody to see.

[Tony Wright]

A couple of points please,

 

The Great Northern rebuild was basically a Kylchap fitted A4 with bigger cylinders, how could it be a poorer steamer than a kylchap fitted A4? I've never heard anybody question the steaming abilities of the A4 boiler before! I don't recall any reports of the Thompson Pacifics being shy of steam.

 

With regards to the P2, it is now known that the LNER new that these locomotives were an accident waiting to happen. Every time one of these locomotives tried to developed full power it was damaging the crank axle to such an extent it would eventually fail. It is fortunate that nobody was killed if the locomotive had been derailed at speed due to a faulty crank axle. There is no way that the LNER would have sent the locomotives south during the war as is often claimed. The reports and pictures of the sheared crank axles are now available for anybody to see.

I don't think I made my point clearly enough, Andrew,

 

I wasn't suggesting GN wasn't as good a steamer as a double chimney A4, but it wasn't anywhere near as good a loco - not if reliability, annual mileages and service intervals are taken into consideration. How could it not be a good steamer? It had a Gresley boiler! 

 

An accident waiting to happen with regard to the P2s? One would have to wait a very long time in the case of the P2s, because no 'accident' is attributable to them. How many broke their crank axles? Two, three, four, more? 

 

I'm always more given to read, first hand, the reports of those who were responsible for their operation, then come to my conclusions. According to Geoff Lund's notes, union intransigence was partly to blame for Dundonian men insisting that two be shedded there, at least for a time. For much of their time, they just burned coal covering their massive grates.

 

Cowlairs' workmanship was well below what was needed to maintain the giants. Cause and effect?

 

During the darkest days of the War, six 'priceless' locos, the like of which no other passenger type in the land could match in terms of haulage capacity, were emaciated by their rebuilding, rendering them useless on their indigenous road. Two senior railwaymen, responsible for running the P2s, almost lost their jobs, such was their antipathy to the rebuilding. 

 

Part of the reason for their not being used on the ECML proper was the suggestion that they might encounter difficulty in negotiating tight shed roads. Did any P2 derail on shed? If so, I've not heard of it. Anyway, according to several railwaymen I've spoken to, locos were 'on the floor' every day on dud shed track. Including 0-4-0Ts!

 

Some accident! Some waiting!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[TrevorP1]

Gresley ? Thompson ? NOTHING beats a Stanier Duchess storming up Beattock !!

 

I was watching this superb & recently published video last night. Just how do we model this ?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEANJRP9oJg

 

I've lived within a mile of the WCML all my life, (currently I'm 100 yards from it, just north of Wigan) and saw the last of the Duchesses back around 63/4,  but I've always modelled the Eastern region in OO. Why ? - I missed out on sights like this (sans mountains !!) on the ECML - it was mostly dieselised by the time I got there, a school trip to York in 1966, bunking York shed we saw a few mucky V2's, B1's etc - but NOT ONE pacific. I never saw one BR Eastern region pacific in steam - hence I (try) to model it. I have just a few Hornby & Trix pacifics. My tatty old Hornby Dublo "City of London" still gets an occasional outing though.

 

Brit15

 

Brings to mind the day I pointed my trusty old Zenit E (remember them?) through the mist at this. 

 

 

Selside on the S&C 12 March1983. 46229 with, I think, 13 on. I expect the ground is still shaking now... 

[Denbridge]

A couple of points please,

The Great Northern rebuild was basically a Kylchap fitted A4 with bigger cylinders, how could it be a poorer steamer than a kylchap fitted A4? I've never heard anybody question the steaming abilities of the A4 boiler before! I don't recall any reports of the Thompson Pacifics being shy of steam.

With regards to the P2, it is now known that the LNER new that these locomotives were an accident waiting to happen. Every time one of these locomotives tried to developed full power it was damaging the crank axle to such an extent it would eventually fail. It is fortunate that nobody was killed if the locomotive had been derailed at speed due to a faulty crank axle. There is no way that the LNER would have sent the locomotives south during the war as is often claimed. The reports and pictures of the sheared crank axles are now available for anybody to see.

to be fair to the original design of the P2's the problem of fractured crank axles only happened (rarely) upon starting. The amount of power transmitted to the stationary machine was far more than the crank axle could take. There was never any fear of that happening once on the move. So any damage would be incurred at near stationary speeds, so was never dangerous as suggested.

[Headstock]

I don't think I made my point clearly enough, Andrew,

 

I wasn't suggesting GN wasn't as good a steamer as a double chimney A4, but it wasn't anywhere near as good a loco - not if reliability, annual mileages and service intervals are taken into consideration. How could it not be a good steamer? It had a Gresley boiler! 

 

An accident waiting to happen with regard to the P2s? One would have to wait a very long time in the case of the P2s, because no 'accident' is attributable to them. How many broke their crank axles? Two, three, four, more? 

 

I'm always more given to read, first hand, the reports of those who were responsible for their operation, then come to my conclusions. According to Geoff Lund's notes, union intransigence was partly to blame for Dundonian men insisting that two be shedded there, at least for a time. For much of their time, they just burned coal covering their massive grates.

 

Cowlairs' workmanship was well below what was needed to maintain the giants. Cause and effect?

 

During the darkest days of the War, six 'priceless' locos, the like of which no other passenger type in the land could match in terms of haulage capacity, were emaciated by their rebuilding, rendering them useless on their indigenous road. Two senior railwaymen, responsible for running the P2s, almost lost their jobs, such was their antipathy to the rebuilding. 

 

Part of the reason for their not being used on the ECML proper was the suggestion that they might encounter difficulty in negotiating tight shed roads. Did any P2 derail on shed? If so, I've not heard of it. Anyway, according to several railwaymen I've spoken to, locos were 'on the floor' every day on dud shed track. Including 0-4-0Ts!

 

Some accident! Some waiting!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

thanks for the clarification regards the A4 boiler.

 

five crank axle failures on a small class of locomotives over the pace of a few years was unheard of in LNER practice. In addition, the examination of the other locomotives showed signs of fatigue that would have led to the failure of the crank axle. A small crack developed on the edge of the keyway that held the wheel on to the axle, over time it would spread until it was about two thirds of the way through the axle, at that point the axle would fail. Fortunately, in each case this occurred as the locomotive was traveling at slow speed, significantly, when the locomotive was accelerating away and developing maximum torque on the axle. The P2 used the same crank axle design as the A3, on this locomotive there wasn't a problem. However the A3 couldn't develop the same amount of torque as the P2, and the later engine had a much higher factor of adhesion. The A3 would slip when higher force was applied to the crank axle, the P2 would not, in addition it could develop much higher forces anyway. The A3 crank axle was just not up to the job, thus rendering the P2s prodigies haulage capacity null and void.

 

The P2 truck is another issue, the performance of the original on the Vampire software is scary as a curve tightens. However, the LNER new that the locomotives were damaging themselves when utilising their undoubted power, hauling twenty five bogies out of KX would be last place you would wish to employ them. A new crank axle design was required for the original locomotives, this has been incorporated in to the design of the new build P2. Testing has revealed that the original was not strong enough for the forces that the locomotive could have developed.

[Mallard60022]

Hi Apollo

 

The same recognised author who said in his book Transition from Steam that there would never been the same crowds at the end of platforms for diesels like there was when steam finished.

 

"....that's 36 cylinders, that's why they are special."

 

Oh dear.........

P

[MarkC]

Thks Gentlemen for the input.  Re the DJH A2, all it says on the box is  A2 Peppercorn and I am guessing but it is probably 10 to 15 years old.  It does include two nameplates, Blue Peter and Hornets Beauty.  The picture on the box shows 60535 with a single chimney and an old BR crest.  So since I model BR Eastern Region I will be restricted to Sugar Palm, Bahram, Happy Knight (Already have) and Trimbush.  However, I have to do some more research because I have come across a reference to Bachelors Button being a York loco and spending much of its time running on the Northern end of the ECML.

I bought my example of that kit in 1994, and mine became 60532. I'm pretty sure that a double chimney was included, but what wasn't was the bits to represent the operating linkage and boxes cvering the multi-valve regulator that Blue Peter has. Whether later versions of the kit have these, I don't know, but I made suitable parts up

[Headstock]

to be fair to the original design of the P2's the problem of fractured crank axles only happened (rarely) upon starting. The amount of power transmitted to the stationary machine was far more than the crank axle could take. There was never any fear of that happening once on the move. So any damage would be incurred at near stationary speeds, so was never dangerous as suggested.

 

Not true, the crank axle was 'failing' over a continues period and was not a sudden event. It could have failed at any time when the crack reached two thirds of the way across the axel. Obviously, this was more likely when maximum force was applied as when starting a heavy load, but this was not guaranteed.

 

Not a rare event at all, five total failures and others showing signs of failure in a small class of locomotives was unusual to say the least. Compare and contrast the A3 locomotives using the same design of crank axle over the same period.

[60027Merlin]

Another reason why the P2s were not used south of Edinburgh was that during the War, Haymarket management were “advised” by Doncaster authorities that the P2s were on no account to used south of Edinburgh on the ECML.

 

With regard to the rebuilds their shortcomings were soon found out at Haymarket with their propensity to slip excessively and were soon transferred south with Haymarket receiving the Peppercorn A2s in their place.

 

The A2/1s, although used early on for named expresses south to Newcastle, were soon relegated to less arduous duties as they also were prone to slipping. Friends of mine from Galashiels, when trainspotting there in the 50s, often saw them requiring help from the station pilot when leaving the station on passenger workings.

 

The solitary A2/3 at Haymarket, Honeyway, was an entirely different case being used successfully on all manner of duties. It had the highest mileage out of all the A2/3s on withdrawal.

 

Harry Knox in his Haymarket books gives plenty information in this regard.

[MarkC]

Haymarket, like Top Shed, was full of Gresley devotees, according to Norman McKillop, so it is quite possible that attitudes towards ET's work were never going to be favourable.

[60027Merlin]

Haymarket put the P2 rebuilds through their paces on the requisite turns when they returned as A2/2s  and found them not up to it as were the A2/1s which followed. Yes they were Gresley devotees because the A3s, A4s, V2s, V1/V3s were proved over many years to be capable for the often tortuous roads assigned to their links. They were also happy with the performance of Honeyway and the Thompson B1s. It is wiser to take Norman McKillop's views with a degree of caution. 

 

Whilst the roads to Glasgow Queen Street and Newcastle afforded opportunities for speed the Aberdeen road and The Waverley Route required a great degree of pulling power which was beyond the capabilities of the A2/2s and A2/1s.