The LNER Encyclopedia

I have just bought an interesting book on the above engine. For those with an affection for the W1, there are a large number of good quality photographs included.

Hush-Hush, the Story of LNER 10000 by William Brown and published by Kestrel Rly. Books.

Very interesting and I can recommend it.

One point that surprised me, I was always led to believe it was a one-off which led to its early scrapping in 1959 but when you read the book, the boiler was virtually that of a Peppercorn A1, which with minimum work could have been fitted to 60700 and most of the valve gear and motion was of the A1 type.

Perhaps instead of building a P2 the A1 Trust ought to build a W1. Just a thought.

Rgds

NG.

Interesting thought. I presume you're thinking about it's original incarnation with the high pressure marine water-tube boiler (I think that's right but I'm sure I'll be corrected). IIRC SNG and the Doncaster drawing office struggled with this "new" concept for several years, making a tweak here and there, before deciding it wasn't the future for LNER motive power and rebuilding the engine as a conventionally powered steam loco. Allegedly, on one occasion SNG sent for the GA drawing of Stirling No1 on account of the fact "they had no firebox to speak of but steamed well."

On account of those difficulties encountered by Doncaster's finest, I wouldn't recommend a similar course of action now! Stick with the P2 I say.

Standing by for incoming.

Regards,

Vernon

interesting...I'm no expert on the W1 but I'm confused about the reference to the use of Peppercorn's A1 valve gear and boiler. I'd have thought it much more likely to be a Gresley A1. To check this I just took a look at the LNER encyclopaedia , it states there that the rebuilt boiler was along the lines of Gresley's A1 although lengthened similar to his P2. It also states that although later in W1's life a Peppercorn A1 boiler was considered it was never used. I can't see that anything on the Gresley W1 would be related to a Peppercorn A1... and if there is any similarity then it would be that Peppercorn followed Gresley rather than the other way around?
There's a very good engineer at my SME club who has built an accurate live steam model of W1, I could always ask him what's what as he spent a great many years researching this loco before and during building his very fine model.

Regards

Pete

greenglade wrote:interesting...I'm no expert on the W1 but I'm confused about the reference to the use of Peppercorn's A1 valve gear and boiler. I'd have thought it much more likely to be a Gresley A1. To check this I just took a look at the LNER encyclopaedia , it states there that the rebuilt boiler was along the lines of Gresley's A1 although lengthened similar to his P2. It also states that although later in W1's life a Peppercorn A1 boiler was considered it was never used. I can't see that anything on the Gresley W1 would be related to a Peppercorn A1... and if there is any similarity then it would be that Peppercorn followed Gresley rather than the other way around?
There's a very good engineer at my SME club who has built an accurate live steam model of W1, I could always ask him what's what as he spent a great many years researching this loco before and during building his very fine model.

Regards

Pete

Just a hunch, but I think the OP was referring to the W1s rebuilt boiler as it was longer than the A4s type. I think it was the one off boiler which was the reason for long periods within the Plant.

The rebuilt 10000 was not quite what has been described so far. The boiler (dia 111) was based on diagram 108 as fitted to P2 2006, but pressed to 250psi. The cylinders were 20" - same as the Gresley A1 but different due to the streamlined front end and had required different patterns to cast them. The valves were only 8" unlike the 9" on the A4s. The first cylinders were replaced after 9 years in 1946 and these were only bored to 19".

It had been proposed to fit a diagram 118 Peppercorn boiler but this never happened.

Even as rebuilt 10000/60700 was very much a one off and was therefore an early candidate for withdrawal.


I would add that before 1946 the reference anywhere to A1 refers to a Gresley A1 (180lb boiler) and not the Peppercorn ones. By that date Thompson had redesignated the remaining A1s to A10 and all the other Gresley A1s had been rebuilt to A3s.

I was slightly amiss in referring to Peppercorn A1's as such but on Page 91 of the book, there is a part of a paragraph which states:-

"It was argued that it was standard in respect to individual parts, for example a Peppercorn type could easily replace the W1 boiler and the chassis was common in many respects to the A3. The bogie was the same as the B17."

Discussions took place in 1951 about scrapping the engine but it survived for another eight years. Sadly by 1959 with it being a one off it got scrapped but apparently its tender is now behind 60009 U. o S.A.

As for the P2 comment, let's not get too serious. (The A2 variants were much more pleasing). No, I did not mean the Gresley A1/A10. I saw enough of them to know the difference, in fact, it used to get boring watching a constant procession of LNER 4-6-2's passing through York, a Stanier Black 5 or Jubilee was a welcome sight, not to mention 61659 turning up on a train from Scarborough or a Carlisle A3 heading home from Doncaster.

Also on a school visit to Darlington works in 1963 we were shown the original water tube boiler outside the Stooperdale Shops. Given that the preservation and railway museum side of things was just taking off, it is a shame such an original piece of railway history was not saved.

Ah well back to reality and a dose of baby sitting.

NG.

10000 as built had a far greater potential than the rebuild. The problem was that no one was quite sure how to realize that potential. Check on the test results given in the book. Look at the cut-offs used on high and low pressure cylinders. See the trend? Now look at how the Chapelon compounds were driven. The truth is that in all the testing that was carried out it was never driven correctly. Further work was needed, some of the steam flow cross sectional areas were not what they should have been and the steam chest volumes were not textbook. The boiler lacked the capacity of a conventional locomotive boiler to add extra rigidity to the structure so the frames would have benefited from further work. The boiler could do its job very well - it lasted long enough. The cladding and ducting needed further refinement but the book is interesting in that it shows just how little previous authors who commented on the engine actually knew.
Pity the boiler did not survive, a new 10000 could have been built around it.

Indeed, it was in use as a Stationary Boiler for years - and there's the rub! The application of a water tube boiler to a locomotive created problems insofar as the whole concept is an 'inside out' one where the fire is on the outside and the water on the inside. Keeping the cladding airtight, and the fact that a conventional loco boiler adds to the rigidity of the whole meant that the application of a water tube boiler to what were conventional locomotive frames created an immediate impasse. With more effort this could have been overcome no doubt but...

High pressure is OK, but at the end of the day with a locomotive you are exhausting the steam to atmosphere. High pressures are really only successful in a closed circuit where the steam is condensed and in the case of a railway engine this again raises problems!

Ay up!

I wonder.....

The Hush Hush casing with a conventional boiler inside?

Blink Bonny wrote:Ay up!

I wonder.....

The Hush Hush casing with a conventional boiler inside?

A VERY interesting idea, BB

Mark

Good morning all
I've always thought that the next step with 10000 should have been turbine drive, possibly with two stages because of the high pressure.
The next step from that could have the turbines driving generators and electric final drive, which would become a turbo-electric locomotive.
Earlswood nob

earlswood nob wrote:The next step from that could have the turbines driving generators and electric final drive, which would become a turbo-electric locomotive.

And the next step after that would be to remove the turbines and generators to a remote location, with the current being supplied to the loco through a third rail or overhead wires, thus removing the need to carry fuel and water. Imagine if that had happened!

Oh, hang on a minute...

Danby Wiske wrote:

earlswood nob wrote:The next step from that could have the turbines driving generators and electric final drive, which would become a turbo-electric locomotive.

And the next step after that would be to remove the turbines and generators to a remote location, with the current being supplied to the loco through a third rail or overhead wires, thus removing the need to carry fuel and water. Imagine if that had happened!

Oh, hang on a minute...

And a renumbering in the 91 xxx series.

Back to the original topic (slightly) - whilst searching for another subject in the IMechE archives some time ago, my father and I came across a couple of papers given by one H.N. Gresley on the topic of what was to become 10000. The letters and replies at the end of the papers were all the more fascinating because Monsieur Chapelon presented a couple of potential solutions for the vibration problems being encountered with the locomotive in traffic - foremost was to replace the compound drive with a turbine arrangement ala Staniers 6202. While this work might not have taken place on 10000, it does open up the possibility of what could have been had a second loco been built with a Yarrow-type boiler.

Good morning all
I, too, believe that the Hush-hush loco boiler would have been a good source for turbine power.
I had read somewhere that Bulleid had the same feeling, but forget the reference.
What is the Yarrow type boiler, and how does it differ from 10000's original boiler?
Earlswood nob