Castle Aching

[corneliuslundie]

Duplicate post

Edited April 24, 2019 by corneliuslundie

[corneliuslundie]

Another duplicate post. not sure what has gone wrong!

Edited April 24, 2019 by corneliuslundie

[Edwardian]

The vexed question of passenger tanks for the mainline ...

 

Jonathan, I mean the Barry Js (I think!); I discounted those rebuilt from 2-4-0Ts from the earlier analysis for that very reason, though they are smaller, so more practical.  I lumped them in with Fuyrness J1s, which were rebuilt from 2-4-0 tender engines.

 

I don't want to make the WNR just a version of the M&GN in green.  That is why I have tried to combine some MG&N cast-offs with a distinctive WNR locomotive policy, drawing on what other smaller companies did. 

 

That has led me to these Sharp classes I've been talking about.  These give the WN something of its own identity, as these types were not otherwise to be seen on minor lines in the WN's part of the country.  So, I didn't want to ape the standard classes of the M&GN.  These were really only two before the Midland took charge; the Beyer Peacock 6' 4-4-0s, built 1882-1888 and the Hudswell Clarke 4-4-0 tanks, built 1878-1881.

 

 

Now, I'll accept a solitary 5'7" Beyer 4-4-0 of generally similar appearance, but the WNR standard class 'look' lies elsewhere, with the Sharp Stewarts.  

 

But, the Hudswell Clarkes are worth consideration as illustrative of the type of passenger tank that could run on lines like the Yarmouth & North Norfolk Railway, the Lynn & Fakenham Railway and, of course the West Norfolk Railway.  Should I be looking at something similar, in place of the larger Sharp 2-4-2T and 0-6-2T types recently discussed? 

 

Generally I think that prior to the merger that formed the MGN (1893) the permanent way of the constituent companies east of Lynn may have been quite rustic in places, with some running lines not renewed to bullhead until as late as 1907.

 

Thus, during the 1880s, the lines on which these Hudswell Clarkes ran was no better than the lines of the West Norfolk.  

 

What, then, were the characteristics of the chosen passenger tank class (of 7):

 

- 4'6" coupled wheels. Very small.  Later increased to 4' 7 1/2". The bogie wheels were a mere 2'4".

 

- A total wheelbase of 17' 5 1/2"; not much more than that of a Jinty

 

- Weight was 34 tons - only a ton more than the Sharp Stewart 2-4-0 SPC/E1 type used by the West Norfolk. 

 

- The crucial matter is, of course, the axle loadings: 11 tons on the bogies, 12 tons on the leading, driving, axle and 11 tons on the trailing.

 

- Those figures represents an increased axle loading compared with a WNR Sharp 2-4-0, which was: 8 tons, 1cwt on the leading wheel; 9 tons, 9cwt on the lead driving axle; and, 7 tons, 6 cwt on the rear axle.

 

- However, it is in line with the contemporary WNR Sharp Stewart 4-4-0 Small Bogie/K1 type, which was: 11 tons, 3cwt on the bogie; 11 tons, 2 cwt on the leading driving axle; and, 10 tons, 17 cwt on the rear axle.  

 

I don't know the axle loading of the 52 ton Rhenish 2-4-2T, but the 60 ton Barry Class J 2-4-2T had 21 and 18 tons respectively over the driving wheel axles.  The Rhenish loco might, then, have something around 16 tons on each of the centre axles.

 

All this leads me to conclude the the WNR really ought to be looking for 4-4-0Ts or 0-4-4Ts of a similar vintage, size and weight to the MGN Hudswells.

 

If the WNR had asked Sharp Stewart for such an engine, what, if anything, might they have been offered?

 

Well, my knowledge of Sharp Stewart's output is not equal to the task of providing the answer.

 

I do know that the firm provided the Carmarthen & Cardigan Railway with a brace of 4-4-0Ts in 1861.  These are too early, but we might imagine an 1880s version.

 

 

Unfortunately, I can't tell you much about them except that they had 5'2" coupled wheels. 

 

They seem to have supplied similar 4-4-0Ts to Spain around the same time (1862):

 

  

 

None of which, fascinating as it may be, is much helping. 

 

Dunrobin, an 0-4-4T, was, I think, a Sharp product, presumably to their design; imagine a class of them! Rather too late at 1895.

 

I am sorely tempted to run with just 3 standard Sharp tender classes: SPC/E1 2-4-0, SGC/D1 0-6-0 and SBC/K1 4-4-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Edwardian

[Compound2632]

Weight is a good reason for preferring small tender locomotives.

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Weight is a good reason for preferring small tender locomotives.

 

Indeed, the conclusion toward which I am inevitably being driven; stick with the 3 small tender classes!

Edited April 24, 2019 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

56 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

If you are referring to the Barry Class c as rebuilt, they were originally 2-4-0T not tender engines. The weight as rebuilt was 50 tons 15 cwt. the GWR rebuilt them again of course.

The J class were built as 2-4-2T and weighed 60 tons 18 cwt.

See Welsh Railway Records. Volume 2: Barry Railway Drawings recently published by the WRRC.

For a small consideration - such as you promising to produce a model to please us all - I might be able to slip you a copy of the drawing of the 2-4-2T version of the C class as drawn for the book. Or you might even buy the book, though I am not sure a Barry class d woud be much use to you.

Jonathan

 

Kind, of you.

 

And tempting!

[wagonman]

A good rationale: stick with the three small tender engines. BTW the Carmarthen & Cardigan tanks were broad gauge!

 

'Plynlimon', the smaller of the two Sharps 2-4-2T supplied to the M&MR (have I mentioned them before? :-) ) had weights of 11t, 12t 10c, 10t, 9t 16c. I am fighting hard to resist the temptation to build one myself though there is no way it could ever have gone anywhere near the Cwmtowy Mineral. I must resist, I must resist...

 

 

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, wagonman said:

A good rationale: stick with the three small tender engines. BTW the Carmarthen & Cardigan tanks were broad gauge!

 

'Plynlimon', the smaller of the two Sharps 2-4-2T supplied to the M&MR (have I mentioned them before? :-) ) had weights of 11t, 12t 10c, 10t, 9t 16c. I am fighting hard to resist the temptation to build one myself though there is no way it could ever have gone anywhere near the Cwmtowy Mineral. I must resist, I must resist...

 

 

 

Thank you.  That info on the weights is useful.  I thought this was an 1895 loco, thus too recent to fit the narrative? 

 

Just as when dealing with Irish prototypes, I generally assume that a standard gauge version would be produced for a standard gauge line if required.  Those Spanish examples are pretty much the same thing as the C&C pair, but to 5' gauge, I assume, therefore why not also 4' 8 1/2" gauge?  

[Nearholmer]

Another question to ask, if it hasn't been posed already, is why the WNR needs mainline tank engines? Or, if the trips are short enough that the coal capacity of tank engines is sufficient, why it needs tender engines? I'm assuming that water supply isn't an issue, so that tanks can easily be topped-up.

 

Put another way, is West Norfolk bigger than The Isle of Wight? Or, does it have through trains that are heavier than anything seen on IoW?

 

If weight of the through trains is the issue, could two tank engines together do the job?

 

(There is a representative of Messrs Beyer Peacock waiting in the outer office)

 

 

[uax6]

The tenders could be useful for reducing axle weight on the lightweight rails, but I do tend to agree, why tender engines?

 

Andy G

[Nearholmer]

Has anyone mentioned tractive effort yet?

 

If you think about the t.e. needed, the speed of operation (hence driven wheel diameter), maximum axle-weight, distance between watering and coaling points, and whether the road is tightly curved, or not, the loco necessary sort of designs itself.

 

[Martin S-C]

What about the ubiquitous and pretty Beyer Peacock 2-4-0T as used on the Isle of Wight, the Cambrian and elsewhere?

[Donw]

I would assume the WNR started with Tender Locos as the better weight distribution helped with the original track but also because the directors felt tender engines were what a proper railway needed. It is quite likely that having started using tender locos they continued in that vein. Of course by the turn of the century they may have decided to try out tank engines.

 

Don 

[corneliuslundie]

If you look around you will find that in the middle of the nineteenth century some companies which later used only tank locos were using mainly tender locos, eg Rhymney, Taff Vale, anyway. Certainly by the end of the century they were buying tank locos. So second hand locos dating from the earlier days of the line would often be tender locos. and as stated they were kinder on the light track. I agree that the Cambrian was buying both though tender engines predominated, and of course it was rather bigger than the WNR.

The C&C engine illustrated above was, from my reading, broad gauge, and was moved to the SDR. There are details in RCTS Part 2 which I do not have. The two of this design. had 17 x 24 inch cylinders. They look pretty beefy to me.

Jonathan

[Annie]

And of course old tender engines were sometimes rebuilt as tank engines, but that might be moving the topic into strange new territory.

 

[sem34090]

It's been known for the inverse operation to occur...

That particular operation having been carried out by my own beloved Mid Hants - One of a couple of 12"/' scale Austerity bashes we did back in the 1990s...

[RedGemAlchemist]

14 minutes ago, Annie said:

And of course old tender engines were sometimes rebuilt as tank engines, but that might be moving the topic into strange new territory.

 

Hmm. Interesting. I thought only weirdos like me did that sort of thing. 

 

9 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

It's been known for the inverse operation to occur...

That particular operation having been carried out by my own beloved Mid Hants - One of a couple of 12"/' scale Austerity bashes we did back in the 1990s...

I believe we've discussed that before in PMs, Sem, as I mentioned potentially doing something similar. 

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, sem34090 said:

It's been known for the inverse operation to occur...

That particular operation having been carried out by my own beloved Mid Hants - One of a couple of 12"/' scale Austerity bashes we did back in the 1990s...

 

Indeed, as on the Brampton Railway:

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

What about the ubiquitous and pretty Beyer Peacock 2-4-0T as used on the Isle of Wight, the Cambrian and elsewhere?

 

Good choice.

 

These, in the form of the small 'Seaham' 1860s tanks, were used by the Isle of Eldernell Railway.  They ran with contemporary Oldbury 4-wheelers. That is why the idea is not repeated on the West Norfolk.

 

 

4 hours ago, Donw said:

I would assume the WNR started with Tender Locos as the better weight distribution helped with the original track but also because the directors felt tender engines were what a proper railway needed. It is quite likely that having started using tender locos they continued in that vein. Of course by the turn of the century they may have decided to try out tank engines.

 

Don 

 

3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

If you look around you will find that in the middle of the nineteenth century some companies which later used only tank locos were using mainly tender locos, eg Rhymney, Taff Vale, anyway. Certainly by the end of the century they were buying tank locos. So second hand locos dating from the earlier days of the line would often be tender locos. and as stated they were kinder on the light track. I agree that the Cambrian was buying both though tender engines predominated, and of course it was rather bigger than the WNR.

The C&C engine illustrated above was, from my reading, broad gauge, and was moved to the SDR. There are details in RCTS Part 2 which I do not have. The two of this design. had 17 x 24 inch cylinders. They look pretty beefy to me.

Jonathan

 

Yes, I am very much coming to this conclusion. With the upgrade of the mainlines c.1898, axle weights can be increased and this would allow for more powerful tanks for mainline traffic.

 

Receipts continues to boom in the Edwardian period, but the WNR had taken a financial hit at the close of the Century, but by c.1904, the line is probably in a position to consider some more modern motive power. 

 

Something like the late 19th century Cambrian 0-4-4Ts would be fun. 

 

 

12 hours ago, uax6 said:

The tenders could be useful for reducing axle weight on the lightweight rails, but I do tend to agree, why tender engines?

 

Andy G

 

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Has anyone mentioned tractive effort yet?

 

If you think about the t.e. needed, the speed of operation (hence driven wheel diameter), maximum axle-weight, distance between watering and coaling points, and whether the road is tightly curved, or not, the loco necessary sort of designs itself.

 

 

This takes me back to the WNR's unmapped empire ....

 

 

 

[wagonman]

3 hours ago, sem34090 said:

It's been known for the inverse operation to occur...

That particular operation having been carried out by my own beloved Mid Hants - One of a couple of 12"/' scale Austerity bashes we did back in the 1990s...

 

I believe the S&DJR did both. A couple of the Fox Walker saddle tanks (nos 1 and 8) were rebuilt as 0-6-0 tender engines, while 2-4-0Ts nos 26A and 27A were rebuilds from old George England tender engines.

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by wagonman
auto-correct did the opposite, again

[wagonman]

13 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Thank you.  That info on the weights is useful.  I thought this was an 1895 loco, thus too recent to fit the narrative? 

 

Just as when dealing with Irish prototypes, I generally assume that a standard gauge version would be produced for a standard gauge line if required.  Those Spanish examples are pretty much the same thing as the C&C pair, but to 5' gauge, I assume, therefore why not also 4' 8 1/2" gauge?  

 

'Plynlimon' was built in 1891 using the boiler that would have been fitted to SPC-type 'Carmarthen' had the engine not been destroyed when its old boiler exploded in 1890!

 

The financial trajectory of the WNR sounds rather like that of the MSWJR – impecunious beginnings with a grab bag of odd locos, by the Edwardian era sufficiently 'prosperous' to buy a class of modern passenger engines, albeit only one or two at a time.

[Corbs]

41 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

This takes me back to the WNR's unmapped empire ....

 

Here be monsters...

[Edwardian]

So, the requirements of the system ...

 

Please see the latest system map below. 

 

It is a sketch, really, as the lines have not be surveyed.  Some parishioners may be surprised, or even shocked and dismayed at the extent of the system, which now reaches south through Thetford forest to the Suffolk town of Bury St Edmunds, has a second route to the north coast and strikes boldly east to Norwich itself. 

 

For the north coast extension, I will have to deconflict with Annie's tramway.  For the southern route, I need to deconflict with Red's KLR.

 

However, this gives me more route mileage.

 

The genesis of the project was to represent something of the places in Norfolk we visited and./or drove through on our weekend escapes from the Fens.  The new network takes in more of these places, on the north Norfolk coast and Thetford Forest. It also allows me to connect with other places important to me or which I have known, like Bury St Edmunds and Norwich, which I have several times visited. 

 

It also gives access to places off-system, such as Wisbech and March, both of which I know well, and other favourites, Ely and Cambridge.  WNR trains can now run off-system, to these destinations.

 

COMPETITION!

 

The map shows approximate routes and, the further from CA it gets, the vaguer it gets and the fewer of the stations and communities served it identifies.

 

The challenge is to survey the routes.  There are really only two rules to follow:

 

- To bear in mind that you are not taking the line through Real Norfolk. The line necessitates a strip-like Expanded Norfolk wherever it goes.  These are the famous/notorious folds in the map, which conceal a strip of Extra Norfolk either side of the line.  A lot gets lost down these.  There has to be an expanded population (and a regiment recruited from it!) in an expanded countryside either side of the line, where the towns and villages served by the line may be found.   The trick is that the New Land must match the terrain into which it is inserted, so that it can be stitched to the real landscape to ether side of it.

 

- Otherwise, normal railway civil engineering considerations apply.

 

This is not my forte, though it's a passion for some.  So I wonder, is anyone up for surveying part of the WNR?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Edwardian

[Nearholmer]

OMG, I hadn't realised that it got all the way to Bury St Edmunds! Or, Norwich!

 

Mr O'Doolite could certainly make some detailed proposals as to alignments, gradients etc, but he isn't used to having to create the contours first, then purpose the route ........ he usually relies on The Good Lord to provide the terrain. And, we now seem to need an awful lot of terrain.

 

I hope that the folds in the map aren't concealing any sudden changes in topography, hitherto unsuspected (and very thin) ridges of intrusive igneous rock, soaring thousands of feet above the near-plain, that sort of thing.

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

OMG, I hadn't realised that it got all the way to Bury St Edmunds! Or, Norwich!

 

Mr O'Doolite could certainly make some detailed proposals as to alignments, gradients etc, but he isn't used to having to create the contours first, then purpose the route ........ he usually relies on The Good Lord to provide the terrain. And, we now seem to need an awful lot of terrain.

 

I hope that the folds in the map aren't concealing any sudden changes in topography, hitherto unsuspected (and very thin) ridges of intrusive igneous rock, soaring thousands of feet above the near-plain, that sort of thing.

 

I was surprised, too. The damn thing's got a life of its own. 

 

I think the only sane way to tackle this is to survey the existing terrain and then insert a bit more of the same.  Norfolk just has to be bigger, that was always the intention, because there has to be room and traffic for another railway and that means more places, as fictitious as the Line.  These have to be accommodated without erasing existing geography.

 

So, no, no sudden changes in topography - in one sense the aim of the exercise is to avoid that.

 

Some areas will be a new blob of land, rather than a streak, e.g. the area known as the Achings, where a cluster of new places exist and a shallow valley and stream runs through them. 

 

Most new areas need be no more than the margins of the line, wide enough, where necessary, to absorb a new town or village.  

[Martin S-C]

I should have used this technique when planning my railway empire but now I feel that using your ideas would be rude!