Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by PenrithBeacon

  1. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1473885574/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XAQlFbDPMQN3Z Just bought one!
  2. LMS 10000-1 had 3'-6" wheels, the Peaks had 3'-9"
  3. The 7F 0-8-0s were intended to be withdrawn by the early 1950s according to a plan written in 1944. Many were but then there was a projected shortage of heavy mineral engines so the withdrawal programme was itself withdrawn. This explains why many survived a lot longer than the others. The weight of the 4F is itself a reason why the same axle boxes on the 2, 3 & 4F gave different reliability issues. As I have said before the standard Victorian axlebox had a single hole in the top of the box for lubricant, it isn't just a Midland phenomenon. This had the effect of reducing the length of the journal by the diameter of the hole. This was critical when the locomotives was starting. What was also critical was the fact, and it a fact Churchward measured it, that it took around 10-11 revolutions of the axle to fully lubricate the journal during which time the bearing was at risk. This risk was greater for heavier locomotives. Churchward mitigated this by adopting the underkeep method of lubrication developed in the USA.
  4. The G2 and G2a locomotives were equipped with redesigned lubrication system from the late twenties onwards. Do you have a reference, preferably a primary reference, for the grades of oil and white metal the LMS used, please.
  5. Wouldn't there have been locomotives at Cricklewood too?
  6. During the break in the test match this afternoon I took another look at the wheels and they are supplied with pretty rough axles just lengths of steel roughly sawn and then broken off. For those of us without a lathe these would have to be files down and then filled on assembly. I wonder what affect the glass in 'glass filled nylon' would have on reamers? Regards
  7. So where are you going to put the waste generated during the lifetime of the power station plus all the contaminated materials when it has to be dismantled? You don't have to simply design against disaster or accident. Wind+sun+batteries can provide all the power needed
  8. I think the chassis could be designed which incorporates side frames and spacers and features a mounting for an N20 motor similar to this. The motor, which is very small, will allow for a lot of room between the frames for lead. I would doubt if the gap between the side frames could be sensibly done by having a solid 3D Printed block. There is plenty of volume available in the body for weight also; such a loco should be heavy enough. But it's all a fantasy really, it's not going to happen.
  9. 'A far smaller environmental impact' I think that should be in the Jokes thread.
  10. I think it would have to be scratchbuilt for P4, but it's very much a dream, if a doable one. Did you ever think of a 3D Print of the chassis? That could done too.
  11. You don't need nuclear power anymore, it's more expensive than renewables. There's lots of sun and wind in the US and I would have thought that the traffic over the Rockies with grades of 1:40 give or take would make it viable. Whether the prevailing climate deniers would agree is another matter. Probably not.
  12. This is the part of the instructions that relate to the compromises that Ruston refers to earlier. As I would want to model this in P4 I wouldn't want the Hornby chassis. I'll have to have a think, but I have so much in the stash that would be easier, I don't know. We have tried very hard to make this kit as close to the prototypes as possible. In order for it to fit the Hornby Peckett B2 chassis, a few compromises have been made. These are: -Larger wheels -Wheelbase is offset rather than equal -Buffers have been lowered slightly to counter the extra height from the wheels -Overall height has been reduced slightly to avoid having a big gap between the Avonside tanks and the Peckett boiler
  13. IIRC there is a lot of sunshine in the American West
  14. They are wheelsets and are complete with crankpin ferrules and nuts.
  15. I received my order yesterday and they don't look like old stock. Perhaps they're going back into production?
  16. These running powers came with joint ownership of the Birkenhead Rly. Before the LNW/GW takeover of that railway the BR had running powers over much of the Cheshire/Lancashire lines of the LNW as far as Stockport via Timperly Jc. Negotiation between the GW&LNW limiting those running powers gave the arrangement you describe. This meant that GW trains couldn't have access to the South Jc line, a big no-no for the LNW because of congestion.
  17. It might well have been sent to Derby for its last overhaul, I don't recall seeing any pictures of them at Swindon.
  18. The LNW was parsimonious with coal! Actually it's paramount position in the matter of Lancashire services gave it the ability to ignore much of the opposition. Enthusiasts tend to like the idea of racing and so lionise the MR etc. I think the LNW knew it could afford to ignore much it, and as far as the Liverpool traffic is concerned, all of it. The MR, GCR, GNR just couldn't compete at all as far as Liverpool is concerned and their affect on the Manchester traffic was negligible excepting for those cities the LNW couldn't conveniently reach anyway. Freight was a different story, but there was plenty for everybody until WW1 intervened.
  19. They were quick for the day, but it was a long way round and it became a serious issue when the GCR withdraw support. After this the route through Derbyshire on secondary lines to the Midland at Ripley took a lot of time out of the service. Then there was the arduous and slow climbing of the Peak route. The GCR/GNR services to Lancashire never really competed for end to end KX-Lancashire, but the intermediate stops added aspects that the LNWR and Midland couldn't provide. The shortest route was the LNWR one and it was the shortest by a long way. It was also the less hilly, a major advantage. People tend to get misty eyed about Victorian competition, and it's true that the route to Manchester, with exceptionally hard running KX-Retford, could just about hold its own with the LNW, but projecting the service on to Liverpool and it was bound to fail as the LNW had much the best way south. The GC/GN split made the GN concentrate on freight to Manchester and Liverpool over the Midland and CLC and I should think the railway's bottom line was all the better for it. I think the passenger services, or what remained of them, were withdrawn by the LNER, but I'm not sure about the dates offhand.
  20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_3700_Class_3440_City_of_Truro Not claiming that this is the first, but it seems that the City class locomotives were converted from slide to piston c1914-16 consequencial to superheating. I would imagine that similar processes were at work with other GWR classes but that these classes were being dealt with concurrently so the answer to your question might be difficult. I would guess that the first Churchward design would be the Saints and that would be a good approximation. But I'm not sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_2900_Class Looking at this the OP is really one of was there a GW locomotive before the Saints that had piston valves?
  21. I imagine it would! The more mileage over its own system would mean less money paid to the GCR. Not quite on topic, but then we have strayed far from the OP, when the GCR opened its London extension it withdrew its agreement with the GNR about GNR traffic over its system. The latter wasn't too fussed about expresses to Lancashire as they were hopelessly uncompetitive from KX but it did care about freight and minerals to Lancashire on the CLC. These were run from the GNR over the Midland via Butterley and the Peak Forest line and very successfully too
  22. The rail connection to the Manchester docks was over the LNWR over whose tracks it also operated its Chester-Manchester services into Exchange. I am not aware of any GWR service into the Manchester docks (powered by its own engines that is), but the GWR did run into Liverpool Road goods and it had a goods office in the centre of Manchester, but I can't remember where. The GWR didn't own any tracks in the Manchester area. See
  23. Yes, you're right, Low Gill; thanks. I had intended to take a week based at Ingleton last month, again confounded by the lockdown. perhaps again next year, assuming a vaccine to be available by then.
  24. No, the S&C didn't make sense and it started as a political ploy by the Midland to get access to the L&C at Low Moor for Anglo-Scottish traffic. This isn't the place to go into this but things went belly up and after much to-ing and fro-ing the Midland was obliged to build the railway by parliament. There are books on the topic, lots on Amazon
  25. No absolutely not. The natural boundary of the MR was Bristol. It only took over the S&DR because of the joint agreement with the LSWR, so limiting it's liability. Even that was a mistake. The B&E was, and is, very much a rural railway, Exeter was very small in the mid nineteenth century, not much there for the MR. Regards
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.