PenrithBeacon

Well that is what I was taught at school and I have a dvd in my library in which Prof Brian Cox says the same! I think we'll have to agree to disagree

Water is a substance made up of two gases hydrogen and oxygen. When you boil water you do not separate out these two gases, they're still bound together but in different form. Hence steam is not a gas but a different state of water, a vapeous state. It is possible to have water in three different states, liquid, frozen and vapeous.

EMGS do a number of conversion sheets, in my experience they are applicable to P4

Steam is a vapour, not a gas.

There is the matter that heritage railways are a major part of the tourist industry. I don't think there will be legislation.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0947562001/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_MhL6FbQBNC91X

Or perhaps with rocking W-irons. Not everybody wants to do CSB springs

Sold by Bill Hudson at £30!

By Cities I'm assuming you mean the double frame 4-4-0. I would regard these as being very much inferior to the Midland Compounds which I think you would need to compare with such engines as the Precursors and the original Ivatt Atlantic. I think we're getting well away from the thread's title, so perhaps a return would be welcomed?

A very short lived superiority, and not only was there not enough them for the superiority to count, but the superiority was thrown away by poor engineering decisions. The Saint was at least as good with much reduced coal & oil consumption. From a business perspective a better engine.

I think the dynamometer trials do show the Compound to be the better engine in 1924. There is a clear superiority over all its competitors. The issue of the Birmingham expresses simply shows that the LMS didn't have a locomotive that could compete with the best of the contemporary GWR engines as was shown by the trials of a Castle and LMS locos. The Compound was the best LMS engine in 1924 it wasn't the best in the country: the Castle was.

It's possible to design the Stephenson gear with negative lead which gives it the advantage at slow speeds over Walchaerts which has a constant lead. Churchward exploited this feature and preservationists find that the GWR 2-6-2T will accelerate faster than the BR4 2-6-4T entirely because of this. Which isn't to say that one engine is better overall than the other.

I have recently bought a 'cab ride' dvd which includes the LYR mainline from Hallroyd Jc to Bradford and there was no chance of fast running, no chance at all. This is probably the cause of the lubrication issues with the Dreadnoughts because the problem was hidden until they were put on the WCML where sustained speeds of 60 were expected with top speeds of 75. They weren't up to it. Then they, and the Claughtons, were tested against Midland Compounds and the Compound was undoubtedly the better engine. Hence it, nominally a less powerful engine, became the LMS standard, but for three years only until the growth of passenger traffic made the design of the Scots essential Although I find the LYR passenger engines to look impressive, the railway was built for the transport of coal and merchandise and loco design was centred around that not passenger traffic. So the passenger types were never going to be the best engines, but the heavy freight 0-8-0 in all its forms could compete with the best.

Perhaps they didn't want to pay 2 firemen. I get the impression that boiler capacity was always an issue with Garretts, and the six cylinders on the Gresley would have hilighted that.

KISS always works

Haven't done any research much on the Garretts but they were thought by the LMS as being variants of the Horwich Mogul IIRC. I think it should be borne in mind that Beyers were very backwood in detail design and there were lots of issues with them. This is why some were built anywhere but Gorton! The Garret was a great idea imperfectly implemented.

Writers have always concentrated on the steam circuit issue but the issue of lubrication was serious too. Stanier was instructed by the board to correct the problem in no uncertain terms. This is something you don't see in the books. It was that matter that caused the introduction of underkeep lubrication to the LMS. I have often wondered if the North British ever suggested the use of underkeep lubrication during the design process, certainly the LN class had it from the start as it was introduced to SR practice with the N class before grouping.

Yep but fortunately I'm not the only one confused this Christmas! The LMS (I haven't looked much at the other railways excepting the CLC) had a very strict control over expenditure with a hierarchy of committees to provide checks on the ambitions of its salaried officials. I did a lot of research at Kew in the early naughties about the gestation of the Scots and 5X designs, a lot gets left out of books.

I've always thought that this is a very silly story originally written by one who didn't have a clue about how the railway, any railway, worked and one that I'm utterly amazed JJ would repeat. It would cost a lot of money for flanging blocks and only the board could authorise such a sum. In any case Fowler was CME and it would have to go through him first. The drawings are initialled HH

I believe that the February 1987 issue of RM has 4mm drawings. http://www.brmna.org/xrefs.shtml https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Railway-Modeller-Magazine-February-1987-/203210435390?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49292

I have yet to see a firebox flicker that realistic. Best left out.