LNER P1 2-8-2

"John Ruddy" wrote

There's a lot of sense in that! Leave the 'obscure' liveries for issue as 'limited' or 'special editions' for those collectors' clubs or retailers prepared to take the commercial gamble in return for exclusivity and release the every day liveries through the trade in general.

John.

Reply to
John Turner
Loading thread data ...

The 2-8-2 tanks had enormous coal capacity and were main line engines with almost the power of a 27xx 2-8-0. The similar 2-8-0 tanks were used around the collieries.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

The 2-8-0ts (42xx/52xx) were also used in South Devon (as banking engines) and also in Cornwall for china-clay traffic, I believe. I believe they also worked iron-ore trains from Banbury to South Wales. The 2-8-2ts were rebuilt specifically for longer distance coal trains from South Wales, running towards both Salisbury and London. Brian

Reply to
BH Williams

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

Probaly more power - the weight of the tanks on the driving wheels would potentially give them more traction.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

someone

chassis

Radials and

transitional era,

following to

better

Pacifics'. As

Well, a LNER Y1 would fit your arguments, cheap to produce (aka commercially attractive due to tooling costs etc.) they were around in the BR transitional era [1] and survived into preservation - but I doubt those reasons alone would make them good sellers...

The reason why we have 'yet another' Bulleid Pacific is because all of the above plus the fact that they are truly popular.

The Adam's and Beattie tanks, by the time you suggest (BR transitional era) were relegated to minor branch line work in one area on the country, in that respect and apart from the M7 it would make more sense for Hornby etc to produce a 'H class' if they are to produce another SR tank loco.

[1] and were more wildly scattered than the Adam's or Beattie tanks!...
Reply to
:::Jerry::::

They only had a number 4 boiler (same as the Cities, Counties and Aberdares). The 27xx had a number 1. In BR days they had a lower xF rating.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

collection of

locos sell.

Ivatt

Yes, but also, some were a/. built at Doncaster, b/. used widely on the ex LNER and c/. are of more use to the average modeller than a mainline express loco - now before you start shouting "Bulleid", they were mixed traffic whilst the light version was used extensively on secondary lines and goods trains and could equally be seen pulling three coaches as 12 even in their prime.

The worst selling (recently new) model

I wonder how many K3's or J39's are sold by model shops south of the Themes to locals?...

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

Thanks for that, just showing my ignorance of all things GWR! ;-)

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Actually this sounds like a perfect set of reasons for a SuperD from the LNWR

Reply to
estarriol

wagons

released

So why did they survive when they could have been used to build an A3 or even V2 without to much problems - they were needed to work the

100 wagon coal trains that is why, the traffic department needed to limit the number of trains and by combining two trains into one they achieved it - even if it was only one working per day, one less train to find a path for...

You suggested that the V2's killed off the P1's, what killed them was Thompson's 'standardisation' and the availability of the ex WD 2-10-0 and 2-8-0's after WW2.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

One reason because in real life they finished the journey with three or four carriages having dropped the other portions en route.

But they're only for Southern Railway/Region modellers after the

1940s.
Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

Hence less tractive effort because of smaller heating surface.

They also had a longer coupled wheelbase, the 2-8-0s being

5'5"+5'5"+6' (16'10"). These had 7'+6'+7' (20'), winch limited their operation in yards.

Really massive engines.

On my last trip back home, I rode behind one of the 2-8-0T variant on the North York Moors Railway, in the seat closest to the engine. The GWR beat, with the thump of the crosshead vacuum pump. talk about bliss and boyhood memories.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

In message , Christopher A. Lee writes

Not so. The 28xx (not 27xx) 2-8-0 was 8F, and the 72xx 2-8-2T was also

8F. The 2-8-0Ts were 7F (42xx class) and 8F (5205 class).
Reply to
Jane Sullivan

":::Jerry::::" wrote

Being around in the transitional era and being represented in preservation are only two criteria (albeit important ones in my estimation) but there are other factors to consider too, another, and one of the more compelling is the geographical area in which the prototype of the model operated.

Look at some of the most popular (in terms of model sales) RTR locos and you'll see that they operated over large chunks of the country. The Ivatt

2-6-2T (apparantly Bachmann's most successful) being a classical case in point - these saw operation on all BR regions. I suppose the new Hornby 'Britannia' will also meet all three of these considerations and is perhaps the best prospect for sales of all the locos they've announced as new for 2006.

I'm not suggesting that for a model to be successful it necessarily has to meet all of the criteria, just that it has more chance if it does. I wouldn't want a Y1, just as I wouldn't want a P1, but only because they don't meet my modelling requirements.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

":::Jerry::::" wrote

I'm not disputing any of that. They were good engines as far as I'm aware, so even though the authorities may not have wanted to build more, they may well have been perfectly happy with them.

No I suggested the V2s were a possible reason why further P1s were not built. Maybe there was just *no need* for further P!s.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

":::Jerry::::" wrote

I think you'll find they were built at Darlington (not Doncaster) but that's incidental.

At last realisation that there is a demand for other than big express passenger engines - Hornby take note!

John.

Reply to
John Turner

The nail in the P1s coffin was the Government selling off ex-ROD O4s cheap. Using a fleet of P1s in the Yorkshire coalfield would have made a lot of sense, but using pairs of O4s bought for nearly nothing made even more sense.

The final nail was that (a) they were non-standard locos but (b) all their bits were standard, either with the Pacifics or with the O2s, except for the leading and coupled wheels. They weren't so much scrapped as put back in the parts bin.

Tim

Reply to
Tim Illingworth

"estarriol" wrote

Good idea, but as it's not Southern, nor a big passenger engine Hornby would be unlikely to show interest.

The Super D got around a bit, so it would meet the wide geaographical spread factor too. They'd work throughout the original LNWR area (not sure whether they got into Scotland) but certainly got to South Wales.

They were also pretty long-lived another definite advantage.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

OK it's not my era. But what made the later ones 8F?

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

In message , Christopher A. Lee writes

More weight and an extra half inch on the cylinders.

Reply to
Jane Sullivan

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.