Jump to content

Flying Pig

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flying Pig

  1. True, but the number of trains that actually needed Class 8 power wasn't huge, so perhaps the cost could have been born. I'm assuming a lot of the short-lived low powered stuff would not have been bought, which would produce some savings.
  2. Apart from class 20s of course, which were a way of utilising reliable but low-powered units, somewhat in the US fashion. And I recall pairs of 37s on the GE main line on the 80s being fairly frequent. The influx of Type 5 power from the 90s onward did away with double heading, except for specialist applications like nuclear flask trains. Pretty much what the LMS was doing in 1948 with the twins, built to operate alone as a Class 5 equivalent or in multiple for Class 8 work. Dieselisation with essentially Type 3 locos would have been a very practical solution (I've suggested before that EE could have offered their 12SVT at that power and an axle loading about the same as a 37 by 1955), but I suspect the idea of replacing single Class 8 steam locos with double-headed diesels was politically unnacceptable.
  3. Well I hope that the diecast footplate eases Hornby's A3 production woes, but I wish they'd fix that terrible representation of the motion bracket which now seems to look even less like the prototype than before.
  4. Where do the trains go when they have left the station?
  5. That was my first thought too. It would be useful to see how the two modules fit the OP's available space, because if there's any way the shed can be relocated on the approach to the terminus that would be a much more typical arrangement.
  6. Yes, obviously. It's well-known that the LNER was quite poor. But to give an idea of the scale of the task, see the timetables for London to Boston here. It seems about two hours was the average for 1968 and that benefitting from considerable improvements on the ECML, higher average traffic speeds and considerably fewer freight and stopping passenger trains. Sub-ninety minutes looks like a very expensive proposition for the mid-1930s. Don't let that stop you imagining the trains, though (I'd get proposals from Armstrong Whitworth as well as EE). BTW @Captain Electra drew up a very nice streamlined diesel electric for the LNER on an old incarnation of RMweb, which I think has been reposted on the present forum, perhaps even in this thread.
  7. It's slightly more complicated than that as the plan in this post from the thread @Kris linked shows. There is the standard double ended siding, with trailing connection to the down line over a single slip at the other end of the yard, as OP said, and to the up line near the platforms. However, there is an additional trailing connection from the down line directly to the dock siding at the up end of the yard. A similar connection appears in the first sketch posted by @Compound2632, though in that case directly from the adjacent running line due to the orientation of the station, but not in the second. Is this perhaps to allow quick access to the dock by passenger trains attaching or detaching tail traffic, regardless of wagons standing in the rest of the yard?
  8. Bit big for an emoji, but to hand.
  9. But that is a red herring. The problem is not CO2 emissions but nett CO2 emissions and releasing carbon by burning material that was itself recently synthesised from atmospheric CO2 is not at all the same as releasing carbon out of long term stores like peat bogs or coal measures. Of course the side effects of producing biofuels may be very undesirable, but that isn't an inherent feature of burning the fuel itself.
  10. If you're going for H0e with a generic European feel, I'd suggest seeing if the following works: - remove the long crossover from section 2 to section 4 at top left; - remove the loop and siding from the branch; - add another loop to the upper station. This disconnects the branch even further from the main line, with a full circuit between the junction and the teminus. The main station needs some rearranging to maintain operation and I envisage it in the continental style (from the top): goods loop - platform line - low narrow island platform - platform line - low narrow platform (with buildings) The dedicated carriage siding is lost but the branch set can occupy one of the platform roads between runs without blocking the station. Not sure this can be done in the space even with short trains andtight curves.
  11. What emissions are they talking about? I'd be astonished if the steamer emitted 80% less carbon dioxide per unit of work than a modern diesel.
  12. Remembered that and looked it up. It was apparently in 1985! Where does the time go?
  13. I've been waiting over 40 years for this, so another few months given current circumstances is neither here nor there.
  14. I don't suppose the customers whose consignments were delayed in the crippled wagons were overjoyed either.
  15. You're overthinking it. It would most likely have have operated mechanically like the contemporary TPO set, with overscale hinges and fairly large gaps between the door and body.
  16. I can easily imagine a mechanical or electrical actuator under the user's control, so that the doors could be made to remain closed as a train passed. On the other hand it would give the option for passengers to be ejected from a moving train, TPO style. Hours of fun - what a pity it never made production.
  17. Assuming we're interested in the centripetal acceleration needed to get the train round the curve and not the torque about the CofG needed to make the train fall over, I still can't see how it makes a difference.
  18. Sorry to go off topic, but I've seen this stated before and it makes no physical sense to me. Can someone direct me to an explanation?
  19. Brave choice of track for a beginner but clearly worth the work as it looks great!
  20. Pretty close, but actually, they tend to use less obvious transport:
  21. I'd avoid Mainline - the split axles might not stand up to rough play and disconnecting the motor from the wheels will involve significant disassembly of the chassis.
  22. An axle passing through the ashpan wasn't uncommon, but one passing through the firebox is a definite nope. Look carefully at these diagrams of LMS Class 5s and you can see the sloping line of the grate with the ashpan below and the rear axle passing through the ashpan. Any axle arranged thus must leave enough space below the grate so that the fire does not choke, without creating a grate profile that would be difficult to fire.
  23. That's a relief - it doesn't quite fit and I was beginning to wonder which of Oxford or Mr B. had got the J27 boiler diameter wrong...
  • Create New...