Jump to content

whart57

Members
  • Posts

    1,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

985 profile views

whart57's Achievements

1.9k

Reputation

  1. That's why the Midland solution was adopted so widely so quickly after being invented. Other fireboxes though were more complicated and couldn't just be altered like that.
  2. There was one other factor in the nineteenth century regarding boiler changes and that was the change from coke to coal firing. Most Parliamentary Bills approving railways made the specification that locomotives should "consume their own smoke". What MPs thought a locomotive builder could do about that was a mystery then and still is now. However the amount of smoke was reduced by burning coke instead of coal and that's what most engines of the 1840s and 50s did. However during the 1850s engineers experimented with ways of burning off the tars and gases in coal smoke and thus reducing overall emissions. Long fireboxes were tried along with double fireboxes but the simplest and most effective solution was the brick arch where the red hot bricks did the burning off. However changing the firebox meant changing the boiler and a lot of mid-nineteenth century boiler replacements were actually firebox replacements.
  3. I'm building stock for an imaginary railway company (see the believable pre-group topic) so imaginary locos are part of the game. I've settled on a period in the mid-1870s and I'm looking for something suitable as an older goods loco type now relegated to pick-up goods work. This imaginary company is in Surrey, but that doesn't mean there isn't any heavy stuff to shift. The network serves brickworks and limeworks as well as a number of towns. I already have the bits for a modern (for 1875) 0-6-0 so I want something different. A Bury 0-4-0 like on the Furness was a possibility but that is a bit identifiable. An 0-4-2 was an alternative. The basis for my imaginary designs is off the peg locomotives from the big builders like Sharps or Stephenson. The aforementioned "modern" 0-6-0 is actually a Cambrian small goods type, but that fits my brief because that was a standard Sharp Stewart design and actually built on spec to keep the workforce at Sharps together through a slump in orders. The six built were offered to smaller companies at knock-down prices so its not hard to divert the two that went to the LCDR to my Surrey Railway. I found a drawing of a suitable 0-4-2 build by Hawthorns for the Great Northern in 1848. The problem was that it was outside framed. As this loco will be scratch built I didn't want that complication so I had a go at redrawing it as having inside frames. The boiler fittings are also later suggesting its onto its second boiler. However a loco of c1850 is likely to have received a new boiler after 15-20 years. When (if) I build it I'll probably put a cab on but here it just has a weatherboard
  4. You also need to be careful about what the patent is actually for.
  5. I stand to be corrected but I believe the main advantage is the flexibility. A longer frame can negotiate the tighter curves, and a longer frame means a longer boiler and firebox and hence a more powerful engine. They also have more driven axles, hence better adhesion. Mallets and Garrets have been known to have the separate portions run at different speeds, one portion slipping badly and the other still adhering to the rails. Not recommended though.
  6. Could you Swindonise these French Mallets used on the Reseau Breton?
  7. Like the Dutch big tanks I posted about earlier, these German ones demonstrate the advantage of a more generous loading gauge. The restricted - by world standards - British loading gauge is a major restraint on designing large steam engines. Even some Thai meter gauge steam locos would foul British loading gauge and lets not even think about those South African monsters on the 3'6" gauge. Its the space around the rails that matters more than the distance between them. It also helps if the stock you're pulling is fitted with vacuum or air brakes.
  8. Those Sulzer A1A-A1A were a different class bought at the same time. I found this pic of one of the Frichs locos heading a train at Bangkok
  9. People may choose to make the sign of the cross or chew on a clove of garlic now as we descend into the area of witchcraft and devil's work ...... Talk of wheel arrangements like 2-8-2 reminds me that in the early years of electric and diesel locomotives there was uncertainty about the best way to arrange wheels. Presumably many engineers felt uncomfortable about bogie pivots being a major power transfer point. So one arrangement was the 2-8-2, though it was actually called 1-Do-1. An example is the Netherlands Railways 1000 class that was put into service immediately after the war. It's not usually known by railway enthusiasts but the early pioneers of diesel traction were Denmark, as in the manufacturer Frichs, and Thailand, or Siam as it was still called then. When British railways were pushing steam to its limits, the Thais put a diesel on the front of their premier express - the Bangkok to Singapore service. Diesels only did a couple of full length runs because the British soon put a Malayan steam engine on the front at the Thai-Malay border, but those diesels ran the Thai end of the service for many years. The first Thai diesel class supplied by Frichs was a 2-Do-2 (4-8-4) arrangement. The next class went all Garratt and was a 2-Do-Do-2 (4-8-8-4). And all on meter gauge. Where is this leading? Well an imaginary loco. What about the British doing similar experiments with wheel arrangements and our imaginary loco having an EM2 body but a 1-Do-1 (2-8-2) wheel arrangement?
  10. And yet the Dutch 4-6-4T and 4-8-4T designs were very successful, as the fact the Germans stole most of them during the Occupation attests.
  11. I've just had a read in Waldorp, the "Bible" for Dutch railway steam, to see if he says why Netherlands Railways built big heavy tank engines. Or more accurately got Henschel, Hohenzollern and Beyer Peacock to do it for them. The Dutch had their "Grouping" in 1921 when the Holland Railway and the State Railway came together. I mention this because each had their own reasons for having big tank engines. The Holland Railway operated busy commuter lines from Amsterdam to the Gooi (i.e. Hilversum, Bussum etc, a sort of Dutch NW Surrey). They needed powerful engines for the heavy trains as the stops were frequent and so were the services. These lines would be among the first to be electrified but in pre-WW1 days that wasn't an option. The distance was not great, about 40km, so water capacity was not an issue and thus tenders more of a nuisance than a necessity The State Railway (actually the privately operating company (SS) of the railways built by the state, franchising is not that new) was responsible for the coal traffic from Limburg. Limburg is where all the Netherlands' hills are so gradients were stiff. The SS liked the extra weight of tank engines for the extra adhesion offered and that's why they built these monsters. The NS 4-8-4T I referred to earlier was a post fusion design continuing the SS tradition. It was also the last steam locomotive to be built for Dutch railways, not counting the post 1945 emergency acquisitions.
  12. Triang described the L1 as a "maid of all work" in their booklet The First 10 Years. That's an interesting pitch and it does reflect the changing state of railway modelling in the late fifties, early sixties period. We started this mini-thread discussing the Hornby R1 and how it signalled a move away from the express passenger bias of the model train market. Triang had Princesses, Britannias, BofB Pacifics, Hornby added the A4 and Castle. In the modelling magazines though the West Country branch line terminus was starting to become the favourite. Was there a plan at Triang to provide the sort of medium sized loco that was more typical of passenger trains than the top link Pacifics? At the time the Kent Coast trains from Margate and Ramsgate (just before electrification in 1959) would have been hauled by U1s mostly, but the locals to Dover via Deal and Ashford via Canterbury West would very likely have had an L1 or the visually similar D1 and E1 in front. Anyway, to get back to "Imaginary Locomotives" how about a Wainwright Atlantic in full SECR livery? Again, the story and a weight diagram are in Bradley's book.
  13. There are a couple on eBay for what looks like a reasonable (i.e. not silly) price
  14. I may be wrong but didn't Triang produce the S initially as a clockwork loco. We forget these days that there were still parts of the country on DC mains electricity in the 1950s which meant transformers couldn't be used. Even in AC areas there wasn't necessarily a socket in every room and of course electricity was considered to be very dangerous. Battery controllers were produced for the same reason. An overscale saddle tank would have been the only way to accommodate the clockwork mechanism in OO gauge. The L1 was a lovely model, one of the best of its time but it didn't sell well. That's where Triang went wrong with their marketing. Had they done a Midland 4-4-0 instead they would have flown out of the door.
×
×
  • Create New...