Pandora

Possibly the most interesting railway video on youtube, jump to 7:00 minutes, D5579 in Ochre, MetroVick Condor service, Road -Railer wagons and more

I had a new Bachmann 66, which needed a lot of power to move from rest, but otherwise ran quite well, I found one of the wheel-sets (I think it was a middle axle of a bogie) had seized solid and would not rotate, the other five wheel-sets were normal, the model was exchanged by the retailer, so 1) please observe the wheels for correct rotation in both directions. 2) does the loco move easily on low power settings of the controller?

I would recommend you research Kato Unitrack, Unitrack is available in N and HO, Unitrack is durable and reliable, especially the method of track joints, as for value for money, more expensive than Peco, but you can shop around using Ebay and Amazon, the Kato Track sets are better value, nothing else on the market better than Kato in my opinion

LMS 10000/1 were Ivatt locos but far-sighted Fairburn, who died in office at only 58 years of age had made the proposals, LMS 10000/1 were far closer to the mark than the Bulleid diesels, 10000/1 were "almost" a class 37 which had 12 cylinders and 1750 bhp under the bonnet and 15 tons lighter. It is a pity the BTC did not buy a fleet based on 10000/1. Again another "botch" at 222 Marylebone Road

A shed tour of Crewe depot in 1971, (with Permit) the Fitter was quite free with his knowledge of the D400s he described the many problems they were trying to sort out on the D400s, at the time they were on lease, 4 years into service and they were still not right, From memories of spotting days at Crewe on the platform end, watching the Electric detach and the Diesel attach, Y can only Double heading as the standard for the Class 50 working passenger trains during daylight hours north of Crewe

The leading British Railway Companies and Engineering Industry had a firm grip on Electrification as long ago as 1900, the contenders were the L&Y, North Eastern and Dick Kerr of Preston, the two railways built pilot schemes in advance of main line schemes,the pilots were Liverpool to Southport and Newport to Shildon, The NER built the 4-6-4 loco for the abandoned York - Newcastle - Edinburgh proposal (NBR line). WW1 and the downturn in railway fortunes in the 20s and 30s and WW2 were some of the downfalls of these advanced schemes. Recommended book on the subject: Henry Eogan O'Brien An Engineer of Distinction by Beesley https://shop.lyrs.org.uk/collections/books/products/henry-eoghan-obrien Post the Grouping, O'Brien had a serious run in with the Board of the LMSR at Euston over Traction Policy ending in his departure on half-pension for life, before his demise at 92 years of age he made comment on the WCML Euston to Glasgow Electrification of the 1960s, as his original case, an electric locomotive simply flattening Shap and unlike a steam locomotive, fit for the return trip unhindered by a need for servicing. O'Brien had a long lasting friendship with Gresley from their days on the L&Y, I hazard a guess O'Brien was consulted by Gresley in the proposals of the LNER Woodhead scheme

Jumping into this thread I thought the reasons the Peaks became redundant was the rundown in their parcels traffic work during the 1980s, and the reduction of steam-heated Mark 1 stock saw around half of the fleet of surplus to requirements

The coal to oil conversion initiative came from the Ministry of Fuel and Power and not from the railways, the intiative affected both British Industry and the Railways, the Railways were not "convinced" and only modest numbers of locomotives were converted, there were practical difficulties such as a shortage of tank wagons to transport fuel oil to serve the demands of industry, in essence another "Groundnuts" project.

A Govt inspired scheme of the post WW2 1940s, led to the spending of £500,000 by the LNER on conversions and facilities for steam locos to be fired on oil, a Govt project to cope with coal supply issues of the period, the ever-incisive Bonavia pointed out, 30 cwt of fuel oil in a steam locomotive firebox needed to to save 20 cwt of locomotive coal, but 20cwt of fuel oil in a diesel locomotive saved 100 cwt of locomotive coal, we can make a guess of the wasted money on the oil-firing project triggering the cash-strapped LNER to commission the 1947 ECML diesel fleet study, many thousands of tons of coal needed each week were required to run the express passenger service between London and Scotland

The Report does account for the issue of servicing maintenance and works attention of the diesel fleet, two new purpose built depots, London and Edinburgh, it is a carefully thought through scheme, not much has been overlooked, it is not a flight of fancy, which adds to the tragedy of the shelving of the scheme by 222 Marylebone Road

In the case of LMS 10000/1 and the Bulleid diesels, they were pooled as a fleet and worked on the Southern and then the WCML. during the early 1950s. Had the LNER scheme gone ahead, I can envisage the pool of Ivatt and Bulleid diesels not on the Southern, but allocated to the ECML to work alongside the LNER fleet, as an extra twist, perhaps the WR Gas Turbines would have joined an the ECML loco pool too . That would give the Board an extra dimension to examine as a pilot scheme, Gas Turbine side by side with diesel electrics. Perhaps the Gas Turbines of the WR may have been at home on the long distance high speed runs of the ECML, where the penalty of high fuel consumption at slow-speed / part-load working of a gas turbine locomotive would be side-stepped

A magazine published an article with drawings of the LNER diesels, I think it may have been The Railway Magazine in the 2016 or 2017 volume. i do not have a copy. Please may I ask the forum to look through their magazine libraries and post the title and date of the magazine and article.

The information in the memorandum tabulates diesels of 1000 hp, 1600 hp, 2000 hp, but focuses on 6-axle 1600 hp of which 4 axles are powered, the memorandum mentions the Ivatt LMS diesels (10000/10001) of 1600hp, perhaps the LNER planned to use the same English Electric engines as the LMS twins

Bonavia : A History of the LNER the Final Years 1939 to 45 reproduces in verbatim the LNER Report dated 24th July 1947 for the 1947 LNER diesel scheme as an appendix to the volume.

It has taken a while , but I have tracked down a definitive statement concerning the 1947 LNER ECML diesel scheme. The memorandum printed as appendix 2 of A History of the LNER Volume 3 The Last Years 1939-48 by Michael Bonavia is the "smoking gun", Appendix 2 is the Memorandum dated 24th July 1947 from the CMGO ( assumed to be the Committee of General Managers Office) to the Joint Locomotive and Traffic Committees. Bonavia purposely reproduced the document as a lasting record so that it would be known the scrapping of this well-thought out scheme were the occupants of 222 Marylebone Road, Bonavia described the pilot scheme of 1955 diesels as a "disorderly scramble", had the 1947 scheme not been confined to the Marylebone dustbin, a possible 10 to 12 million miles of passenger train diesel operation would have accrued by the fleet between 1950 and 1955, the fleet would have worked 500 ton express passenger train diagrams over the mainlines between London and Edinburgh and return, a small number of turns extended to Aberdeen, and shorter turns between London to Grantham or Doncaster. Predicted annual mileage for the fleet as 2.46 million miles Reading the comprehensive report, too much to reproduce here, it is indeed a major oversight of judgement by Marylebone Road, had the scheme gone ahead, much of the "botch" may have been averted. Judgement: 1955 Pilot Scheme "Botched". Guilty as the Crime as Charged!

The grouping of the LNWR/L&Y and the Midland placed cats and dogs in the same cage, the Midland won the Boardroom and Midland thinking under Sir Guy Granet ran the LMSR show, Granet ( a Barrister) had a low opinion of engineers, the Granet policy of not approving infrastructure upgrades to bridges etc was the reason behind the lightweight trains and the urgent call for Stanier in the 1930s

Michael Bonavia , author of British Rail - The First 25 Years, Doctor Bonavia was Secretary to the Executive for many years, his knowledge of events as an insider extensive , few were closer to the Inner Temple than Bonavia, the book contains many insights into the formative years of the nationalised BR, the chapter "Messing with Diesels" Bonavia laments, the Executive failing to develop a decisive traction policy (7 years wasted, 1948 to 1955) , failing to properly study the operation of LMS 10000/1 and the Bulleid diesels for the case for dieselisation, specifically he laments the shelving of the 1947 LNER fleet of 25 2000 bhp diesels for the ECML , in particular he viewed the LNER fleet as an "oven-ready" Pilot Scheme in advance of the 1955 plan

I think the policy of fuelling will be either a local instruction for a depot or a company policy, our company policy is to leave a depot with not less than 50% of capacity whenever possible. Mistakes happen, the depot ran out of fuel when the office forgot to order supplies in spite of a rigorous system of recording date/time fuel taken and driver signatures. In the 1970s a specially cleaned and prepared class 47 for an enthusiasts charter trip from Crewe to Scotland had to come off with low fuel by Preston, all the cleaning and polishing to no avail, the near empty tanks had been missed at the depot.

LMS 10000/10001, BR had several years of several years of operational experience of the Twins which I believe were reliable units although a little bit underpowered at 1600 bhp. The 3-axle bogies were a good design, used on the more powerful EM2 electric locos, showing the traction motors had plenty in reserve to cope with a higher output diesel engine Why did the Pilot scheme seemingly disregard the Twins for unproven designs?

Looking back through old maps, the sidings in the early years served a Bone Mill, the sidings changed use, the map with the reference to either explosives, gunpowder, dynamite, i cannot recall the exact name, is not in my possession. i attach a map screenshot, dead centre of the screenshot is the isolated two road siding southwest of the level crossing where the mainline crosses the main road Denaby to Mexbrough via Grey's Bridge, I was a commuter on the line during the 1970s and can recall the area of land but cannot recall is the track was still in place

The Notice Board has the same authority as a Signal, it must be observed and treated as a Signal, if a Drivers passes without proper authority, it is a SPAD (Signal Passed at Danger incident)

From a map, Denaby Colliery at Conisbrough on the Doncaster to Sheffield line had a siding for explosives, the siding was very isolated from the main siding yard, located on the opposite side of the main line to the coal yard sidings

One of the last North British locomotive products , is the locomotive at Doncaster for a repaint for NRM York?

Also Water supplies, Steam locos required a lot of it, Doncaster Carr Loco (36 A )piped a supply located 5 miles south of the shed

Defining a prototype, your list seems to be constrained to locomotives of 1 or 2 examples, BR introduced diesels in sensible batches of 10 or more for the key types 1 to 4 by engine bhp known as the "Pilot Scheme" to see how they performed before placing fleet orders, the Class 47, D1500 - 19 and D5900 - D5909, the Baby Deltics and others