Peterborough North

[great northern]

I now have permission to post a couple of images relating to the debate about Tyneside Pacifics. These are reproduced with the kind permission of the owner and photographer Brian Easter. I'm grateful to him both for that, and for the forethought to be on Peterborough North station in 1958 taking photos, and in particular for pointing his camera at these two rare beasts.

Here's the Heaton duty. 60539 was always a Heaton engine from building through to 1961. This is a southbound arrival, and it is most unlikely that the loco will have carried on to Kings Cross.

This one at first sight looks straightforward. I assumed that Tehran, a Gateshead engine, was coming off the engine line from New England, which is definitely the line it is on. It would then have reversed further till past the platform end, crossed to the Down main and then reversed into a bay to await its train. However on closer inspection the signal at the end of the Up platform is off! The Up main was signalled for working in both directions, and that signal logically would allow movement in the Down direction. That suggests that the loco may be travelling forwards, not in reverse. I'm afraid I can't work that out from the position of the valve gear. I can think of no reason why a Gateshead loco should be travelling via the Up main light engine. If it had come off a train from London, which is highly unlikely, it would just have moved forward on the Down main and thence to New England.We have already established that some manoeuvres were carried out at North which didn't appear in any rule book. I wonder if this is another example. All opinions/theories gratefully received.

 

What a lovely photo this is. Even a Thompson pacific looks handsome from this angle. I find myself irresistibly urged to add Tehran to my loco stud.

[Timara]

Hello Gilbert,

 

Glad those photographs proved useful! Having looked closer at the large sized images soon after pieceing them together, Tehran is indeed in forward gear, but only a couple of notches. Dad's still not sure as to why he went there on both the Friday AND the Tuesday (the date of the above pair), but as it was indeed Whitsuntide, we both reckon it was a case of "anything goes".

 

Incidentally, there's a shot of 60092 'Fairway' awaiting scanning, which you mention in a previous post as being an appropriate one! I'll also get the rear 3/4 view of 60073 'St Gatien' at Grantham sorted out, seeing as you've got the model now . No need to renumber it!

 

Cheers!

[great northern]

Hello Gilbert,

 

Glad those photographs proved useful! Having looked closer at the large sized images soon after pieceing them together, Tehran is indeed in forward gear, but only a couple of notches. Dad's still not sure as to why he went there on both the Friday AND the Tuesday (the date of the above pair), but as it was indeed Whitsuntide, we both reckon it was a case of "anything goes".

 

Incidentally, there's a shot of 60092 'Fairway' awaiting scanning, which you mention in a previous post as being an appropriate one! I'll also get the rear 3/4 view of 60073 'St Gatien' at Grantham sorted out, seeing as you've got the model now . No need to renumber it!

 

Cheers!

 

Thanks Tim, this could be the answer. If it was a Bank Holiday weekend, and Top Shed was as usual struggling to find enough locos this could be a case of "borrowing". I know Kings Cross quite regularly used the roller bearing Gateshead A1 off an overnight sleeper for a daytime trip to Grantham and back, so they definitely had form for it. I still can't work out why the loco is on the engine road though if that's the case. It would require quite a lot of manouevring to get it from either Platform 3 or Platform 6 to where it is on the photo, including blocking both the Up and Down main. It would have been simpler just to send the loco forward via the Down main and then across into the yards the other side of Spital Bridge.

 

I have to say I'm tempted by the summer Saturday and Bank Holiday timetables, as there were lots of extras. The problem is that most goods traffic was cancelled to make room for them (and some of the top expresses didn't run on Saturdays).

[Timara]

I have to say I'm tempted by the summer Saturday and Bank Holiday timetables, as there were lots of extras. The problem is that most goods traffic was cancelled to make room for them (and some of the top expresses didn't run on Saturdays).

 

That makes two of us then!

 

I'm modelling the late July/early August weekends for that very reason, albeit using a Friday as my preferred day. If I was going for something non-freight-related, then I'd be doing Summer Saturdays like a shot! Exotic not 'arf!

 

EDIT: I'm assuming you already know this but, 60092 had a normal domed boiler and what looks like a non-corridor tender in 1958, going on the photo I have.

 

Cheers,

[micklner]

You cant beat a nice Thomo Pacific

[HerbertHopkins]

What a lovely photo this is. Even a Thompson pacific looks handsome from this angle. I find myself irresistibly urged to add Tehran to my loco stud.

Better tell John Houlden to plug his soldering iron in then!

[great northern]

Better tell John Houlden to plug his soldering iron in then!

 

Er, I should have said- almost irresisitible urge.

[Guest Tom F]

They are stunning pictures indeed.....Bronzino being a favourite of mine......and regardless of what people think of Thompson Pacifics, they had good names...Tehran...what a cracking title! I said to Tim yesterday that IMO that picture of Tehran is one of the best pacific photos I have seen, as you say....it even makes a Thompson look handsome, I'd totally agree!

[great northern]

 

That makes two of us then!

 

I'm modelling the late July/early August weekends for that very reason, albeit using a Friday as my preferred day. If I was going for something non-freight-related, then I'd be doing Summer Saturdays like a shot! Exotic not 'arf!

 

EDIT: I'm assuming you already know this but, 60092 had a normal domed boiler and what looks like a non-corridor tender in 1958, going on the photo I have.

 

Cheers,

 

Yes thanks Tim, I'd identified that 92 had a 94HP boiler and new type tender. Fortunately Hornby don't do that variant at present.

[S.A.C Martin]

You cant beat a nice Thomo Pacific

 

Severely underrated machines and models:

 

Sorry Gilbert, I'll stop derailing your thread now!

[Timara]

Nah, you'll want one of these Gilbert.....

 

Nice combination of features, not to mention carrying the RH facing crest on the tender - lasted longer than I expected!

 

 

You know you wanna .

 

Cheers,

[great northern]

Nah, you'll want one of these Gilbert.....

 

Nice combination of features, not to mention carrying the RH facing crest on the tender - lasted longer than I expected!

 

 

You know you wanna .

 

Cheers,

 

Lovely photo Tim, please thank your Dad. He certainly knew where to point his camera. Very handsome, double chimney and GN tender- that's why I already have three of that combination. You've picked one I can resist this time........for the time being anyway.

[Timara]

 

Lovely photo Tim, please thank your Dad. He certainly knew where to point his camera. Very handsome, double chimney and GN tender- that's why I already have three of that combination. You've picked one I can resist this time........for the time being anyway.

 

I shall do so! I've got 60903 on my hit-list tomorrow, partly due to the horsebox in the background - I want to model the darn thing .

 

If you're anything like me, resistance is futile when such things are presented in front of us. Which reminds me.......

 

 

 

And why is everyone suddenly trying to give me excuses for having more locos. You wouldn't offer a drink to an alcoholic would you? So have pity on a poor locoholic.

 

And why not - it's fun!

[great northern]

The last couple of days I have mainly been watching paint dry. Well, varnish actually, but it's equally uninteresting. We got some more fascia done on Sunday, on the station side this time. Nothing fancy, just 6mm MDF, which I have tried to persuade to look a bit more attractive. This also allowed us to install the cab bus, but I still have to make some sort of harness or hook to avoid leaving the Procab lying on the layout.

So, this is where we are so far. Should you ever visit my layout, do check carefully before you sit down.

Here's a view looking the other way. The gap is there so that I can see the circuit breaker in the event of a short circuit.

Next I turned my attention to the fiddle yard side, and varnished the stock box, having carefully selected a colour which matched the fascia either side.(Or not, as the case may be.) Senoir moment number 36,298 I think. Time will tell whether I do anything to change it. It is only fiddle yard after all......... And I couldn't find any alphabet stick ons the same colour as the numbers.

This last one shows my cunning plan in all its glory. 34E was the code for New England shed, and this is the stock box which contains all the engines shedded there. Each sits in a numbered bay, corresponding to its duty number for the day, so when the laptop prompts me to find 34E 16 for the next train, I know exactly where to find it. The down side of the plan is that I would rather not handle locos manually, which means Peco loco lifts. I have a fair number, but would need 79 more in order to have one for every loco.£12.55 x 79 = far too much. Plan B is needed. Any suggestions? ( Other than get rid of a lot of locos).

 

 

I have another purpose built stock box up in the loft, which is extremely heavy. Fortunately I have two eminent members of Woverhampton MRC visiting tomorrow, and they will help me get it down. They just don't know about it yet.

[great northern]

Well, we spent some time on Wednesday trying to sort out the inevitable problems that arose as we ran through the sequence. Perhaps the most trying was the vexed question of the Elizabethan set. Much fettling got the coaches running as freely as possible, but a Hornby A4 still just slithered. DP1 had no problem, nor did a 9F, but an A4- no chance. There being few, or to my knowledge no recorded instances of either hauling the train, plan B is needed. At least the Golden Age A4 will now cope, though even she struggles when the whole of the train is on a 3ft radius curve. To prove it, here is a photo, though you'll have to take my word for it that the train got to here under power.

Only now do I notice that some time during the fettling process I managed to pop two windows on the second coach. Bachmann don't use very strong glue on MK1's but I know that, and normally handle them with care. I don't like taking them to bits either, but it will have to be done, though if viewing normally from the operating well this would not be noticeable.

 

What to do next. " Buy another Golden Age A4" has been suggested. Nice idea, but not perhaps the most economical of solutions. At the moment I have the coaches as close coupled as I can get them, but I suppose I may have to use longer kadees which would avoid so much tightening up on the curves. Alternatively I could remove one coach and see if that does the trick. As the first four coaches in the rake are all SK's, that might not be too noticeable, but I did want to model the whole train. Either would be preferable to the £1100 solution though, especially as that amount of cash isn't readily available right now. John Houlden, who built the coaches is coming over on Sunday, so I'll see if he has any other ideas.

 

Apart from that, and a few other little niggles, what else has been achieved? The other stock box came down from the loft with comparative ease, and no injuries to my "willing " helpers, so we now have Kings Cross "Top Shed". And here it is.

A little imagination is needed , but the principle should be clear by now, and this idea at least does seem to work well. I'm not happy though with handling locos directly on and off the layout, so more Peco loco lifts will have to be acquired. Yet more expense. It does look though as if not many locos will actually be in the stock boxes at any one time, so at least I'm not looking at one per loco. On that note, I shall retire to bed muttering darkly. Can't find an emoticon for that.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Two suggestions.

 

Check the tender of the A4. After some running Hornby's pick up wipers often start to function as very effective brakes, the only complete cure I have found is to take them out of contact with the wheelbacks. Fair number of times now I have had a previously capable Hornby model quite suddenly start doing just the slithering you describe, on a trainload it had no trouble with on the previous outing, and it's the draggy tender pick up problem on investigation.

 

Plenty of room inside for lead; get it up to 450g balanced in the middle of the coupled wheelbase and then it will pull as it should and match a Bachmann 9F with no trouble. It is possible to make them weigh 600g if real heroics are required (emulating the famed 25 coach start out of KX by Silver Link unassisted).

[60027Merlin]

Sorry to read about the pulling problems with The Elizabethan set.

 

Are the coaches coupled up as provided i. e. via the bogies? A few years ago I changed the coupling system to the method written about in a BRM article by fitting the coaches with the wire bar and hook fitted on the buffer beams. This seemed to make the running a lot smoother as the bogies were now really just taking the weight of the coaches rather than being pulled with the resultant tension. Perhaps additional weight in the loco may provide an improvement re better traction on the driving wheels and as 34th. letter says the tender pick ups can be too tight causing a drag on the loco.

 

I recall viewing a layout at the Model Rail Scotland Show a few years ago where a pacific had a similar problem with pulling a 10 coach set and it was O.K. on the straight sections but toiled on the curves and on occasion came to a standstill. The radius did seem a bit tight so perhaps that could be something to investigate. Hoping you can solve the problem as "The Lizzie" must run!

[great northern]

Two suggestions.

 

Check the tender of the A4. After some running Hornby's pick up wipers often start to function as very effective brakes, the only complete cure I have found is to take them out of contact with the wheelbacks. Fair number of times now I have had a previously capable Hornby model quite suddenly start doing just the slithering you describe, on a trainload it had no trouble with on the previous outing, and it's the draggy tender pick up problem on investigation.

 

Plenty of room inside for lead; get it up to 450g balanced in the middle of the coupled wheelbase and then it will pull as it should and match a Bachmann 9F with no trouble. It is possible to make them weigh 600g if real heroics are required (emulating the famed 25 coach start out of KX by Silver Link unassisted).

 

THanks very much Paul, I will investigate the tender pick up problem tomorrow morning, and if that isn't the solution we will pack a loco with lead. 60013 did a lot of the Top Shed work in '58, and so that will be the guinea pig.

[great northern]

Sorry to read about the pulling problems with The Elizabethan set.

 

Are the coaches coupled up as provided i. e. via the bogies? A few years ago I changed the coupling system to the method written about in a BRM article by fitting the coaches with the wire bar and hook fitted on the buffer beams. This seemed to make the running a lot smoother as the bogies were now really just taking the weight of the coaches rather than being pulled with the resultant tension. Perhaps additional weight in the loco may provide an improvement re better traction on the driving wheels and as 34th. letter says the tender pick ups can be too tight causing a drag on the loco.

 

I recall viewing a layout at the Model Rail Scotland Show a few years ago where a pacific had a similar problem with pulling a 10 coach set and it was O.K. on the straight sections but toiled on the curves and on occasion came to a standstill. The radius did seem a bit tight so perhaps that could be something to investigate. Hoping you can solve the problem as "The Lizzie" must run!

 

The couplings are kadees and are at buffer beam height, which I think is preferable to them being attached to the bogies. My curves are 3ft radius , so should not really cause problems. Thanks for the suggestions, which I will investigate. As you say the Lizzie must, and will run. I suspect that my desire to close couple may have been overdone, and that is part of the problem. I'll keep trying, and I really am grateful for your input.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Does the A4 haul, without any trouble, a similiar number of (say) standard Bachmann Mk1s? If it does then maybe the couplings on the "non-stop" are too tight.

 

If not, then as others have suggested it must be the loco and a bit of extra weight might do the trick.

 

Regards,

Peter

[60027Merlin]

Over breakfast this morning (those organic corn flakes fairly set the mind into top gear!) I thought that another potential source for you to investigate is that of the gangway connections, if you have them fitted, as I couldn't make out from the photo if they are.

 

If there is insufficient lateral clearance for them to move with ease on the curves but just enough to avoid a derailment then the effect is to make the coaches concerned very rigid as though they were all one long unit. This then acts as a brake. How do I know? - ah the joys of practical layout running!

[great northern]

Many thanks for the further suggestions. I have been experimenting this morning, using a heavy nine coach train, all of which is kit built. The Elizabethan set is 10 coaches, but two are standard Bachmann MK 1's, so I reckon the two trains are of equivalent weight. This train is not as close coupled. It does though have full connectors, whereas the Elizabethan at present has none.

 

I have run this train with three different Hornby A4's, and obtained three different results. One slithers to a stand on the curve at the North end - this was the one I had used on the Elizabethan. Another slips somewhat on that section, but still keeps the train rolling. The third handles it with no slipping at all. My preliminary conclusion is that a combination of factors are contributing to the problem.

 

1. Although the curves are 3ft radius, it is a continuous curve, so the whole train is in tension at one point.

2. The Elizabethan set is too close coupled.

3. One of my A4's( at least) has problems with tender pick ups.

4. The addition of some weight would do no harm.

 

What I am proposing to do therefore will incorporate a number of the helpful suggestions I have had. I shall replace all the kadees with longer ones, and then fit full size connectors to get rid of the yawning gap. Those are the modifications I think are needed to the train. I will also check the A4's, and try to sort out the tender pick up problems. Finally, we will get some weight into a couple of locos for the time being, and see what difference that makes.

 

But please, if anyone thinks I'm about to do the wrong thing, tell me!

Edited September 11, 2011 by great northern

[artizen]

Are all the locos you used for the test identical? That is, similar age, exactly the same weight, wheel back to backs, etc? Even though they are all Hornby locos, there is probably small differences in pickup contact tension, weight or number of hours running time etc.

 

I have four identical Bachmann Davenport 0n30 critters for future bashing into something worthwhile. Only one can handle a speed of less than 8 out of 128, two can handle 12 and the fourth is a rabbit. They all have different light intensities and motor noise. At this point they are all as they came and have been run straight out of the box but part of the bashing upgrade will obviously have to include a serious look at rolling resistance, wiring, weight and decoder settings.

 

Do the kit built coaches weigh more or less than the Bachmann coaches? Perhaps you also need to look at making all the coaches identical weight as well.

[great northern]

While experimenting I have also continued to do a trial run of the sequence, and taken a few more photos. There was a rather peculiar train in the 1958 WTT - a service from Peterborough to Edinburgh leaving at 1130. I don't have the official formation, but it does not appear to have had any catering vehicles. It ran FSO, so I assume that it acted as a relief train at a busy holiday time. Anyway, I decided to put it into the sequence, and here it is, waiting to leave the excursion platform.

I well remember that my friends and I used to get excited when a train was announced as running to or from Edinburgh, thinking we may get a Scottish "cop". Well, we were only 11 or 12, and we learned later. The reality was more prosaic- either a New England A2, or in times of heavy traffic one of New England's many V2's , as shown here.

Next is a loco I don't think has featured before, and one of my personal favourites.

 

This is a J6 performing a vital task, moving brake vans between some of the many marshalling yards that existed in those days around Peterborough. It's running on the Down slow, and will have to wait for a path across into the main yard. This is a challenging place to try to get photos, mainly because of the contortions necessary to even get into a position to take them, so please excuse the poor quality. To my surprise and delight the J6 has featured very prominently in the "official" w**** lists for the last couple of years. As we are now getting RTR models of more mundane locos, I wonder of this one might appear in the not too distant future? This one is built from the London Road models kit by the way.

[Guest Tom F]

Two lovely pictures Gilbert

My favourite has to be the humble J6 passing with the two vans...lovely.......I do think another RTR 0-6-0 is on the cards for sure...which pre grouping company it comes from....no idea!

 

Regarding the Peterborough-Edninburgh service....would the New England loco work right through to the Scottish Capital?