Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, Regularity said:

IIRC, Churchward did build some 4-6-0s as atlantics, but in such a way as to be converted back to ten-wheelers with minimal trouble, which is what happened.

 

They had ten wheels in either configuration...

 

As I understand it, the plan is to reconfigure Lady of Legend as an atlantic at some time before the current boiler ticket expires.

 

I've been thinking a bit about why there was the move towards these early 20th century "big engines". It seems to me that they are a symbol of the long decline in profitability of British railways that began around that time. On the passenger side, from the early 90s it was being found necessary to provide improved amenities for the long-distance passenger - notably dining carriages and lavatories. This led to the introduction of gangwayed side corridor carriages, increasing train weight per passenger by (I believe) at least a third - where an arc-roofed 7-compartment third seating 56 was around 20 tons, an elliptical-roofed 57 ft side-corridor 8-compartment third seating 48 was more like 30 tons. So, heavier carriages, more expensive to build, needing heavier, more powerful locomotives more expensive to build and run*, for the same revenue.

 

*Churchward seems to have been the only locomotive engineer to have got an effective grip on the coal consumption of a 4-6-0 in the first couple of decades of the 20th century. 

[brack]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Churchward seems to have been the only locomotive engineer to have got an effective grip on the coal consumption of a 4-6-0 in the first couple of decades of the 20th century. 

The highland railway might beg to differ on that (although it's fair to say that their designs might owe more to the design and drawing offices of the manufacturers than those at lochgorm).

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, brack said:

The highland railway might beg to differ on that (although it's fair to say that their designs might owe more to the design and drawing offices of the manufacturers than those at lochgorm).

 

Perhaps I should re-phrase: of locomotive engineers in the first couple of decades of the 20th century, Churchward seems to have got the best grip on the coal consumption of a 4-6-0. Some, such as Hughes, were notably unsuccessful in this respect.

[Donw]

My earlier post was referring to full size preserved examples but for models well if you have deep pockets Lee Marsh has done some in 7mm but not in my price bracket. However my stash of kits to be built includes Duke and Dean Goods by Finney  the later has options for both round topped and Belpaire fireboxes,these would be available in 4mm from Brassmasters. I have a David Andrews Duke in 7mm . Fred Blackman did the Barnum in 4mm under Mallard models but no 7mm one until I persuaded him to do one in 7mm years later, the 517 he did in 4mm has provision for a round topped boiler. Scorpio do in 7mm the Armstrong 4-4-0 and Armstrong goods, Dean goods, Achillies class, Queen class, Broad gauge Armstrong goods, Buffalo saddle tank, a saddle tank buildable as several classes including 645,1501,1854 and 2721. So there is quite a lot of stuff out there particularly in 7mm.

 

Don

[Hroth]

The rear wheel set is apparently "relatively easily" removable, and there is a set of "bolt on" axle boxes for the trailing wheels. There is also a short coupling rod set for when the rear drivers are removed, and ptobably the rear splashers are removable too!  I should imagine that Churchward provided a similar box of tricks for when the programme of parallel running came to an end. 

 

http://www.thesaintproject.co.uk/Pages/AtlanticOption.html

 

 

[phil_sutters]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

@phil_sutters, I'm embarrassed at having to disagree with you again on S&DJR matters, but the No. 15 in that photo is clearly the 4-4-0 of 1891 - note the shape of the front framing above footplate level, the lack of outside framing for a leading axle, and the way the splashers are joined in a sweeping curve rather than being separate - 5'9" drivers v. 5'0" on the Vulcan 2-4-0s. This photo appears in Maggs, Highbridge in its Heyday, captioned "pre-1895" - but evidently after 1891; long enough after for a 4-4-0 to be in for a heavy overhaul.

It is me that should be embarrassed. I shall hide that post.

[brack]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Perhaps I should re-phrase: of locomotive engineers in the first couple of decades of the 20th century, Churchward seems to have got the best grip on the coal consumption of a 4-6-0. Some, such as Hughes, were notably unsuccessful in this respect.

I was probably being unduly picky - there is little argument against churchward having produced the best pregrouping 460 of any uk railway design office, then just playing variations on that very successful theme. I picked the HR because they produced a range of very different 460s, all pretty well regarded in their time, but clearly without any strong commonality of parts or design. That a relatively small line could roll the dice half a dozen times and get it pretty right every time, whereas many larger railways consistently turned out disappointments intrigues me. Clearly the secret ingredient in the HR's success lies with the design offices of the manufacturers, but again they're coming from a range of builders, so the knack of making a good 460 was out there, were some railways (and CMEs) just too prideful to ask for help?

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

It is me that should be embarrassed. I shall hide that post.

 

No, don't - it's a lovely picture!

[Hroth]

6 minutes ago, brack said:

Clearly the secret ingredient in the HR's success lies with the design offices of the manufacturers

 

Not knowing anything about the Highland Railways loco procurement policy, or the builders they used, is it possible that their chosen loco suppliers had a good deal of experience with "larger" six coupled designs (2-6-0 and 4-6-0) for export trade?  Other railway companies who went their own way may well have scaled up 4-4-0 design practice and found that didn't work particularly well.

 

Once Churchward had his basic design sorted, enlargement wasn't as risky as starting from a smaller engine design, and for the loads and distances of the GWR, the GWR 4-6-0 family did all that was expected of them.  The one foray into the world of Pacifics, the Great Bear, was a technical exercise in boiler and grate size, and showed all the problems associated with scaling up.  However it did last until the "Castles" overtook it in power output and was "rebuilt" as a member of that class.

[Regularity]

6 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Other railway companies who went their own way may well have scaled up 4-4-0 design practice and found that didn't work particularly well.

 

Once Churchward had his basic design sorted, enlargement wasn't as risky as starting from a smaller engine design, and for the loads and distances of the GWR, the GWR 4-6-0 family did all that was expected of them.  The one foray into the world of Pacifics, the Great Bear, was a technical exercise in boiler and grate size, and showed all the problems associated with scaling up.  

There, I think, is the nub of it.

The really successful loco-designers of the late Victorian era produced superb 4-4-0s well into the Edwardian and pre-WWI period. Yet their 4-6-0s weren’t great.

 

The Churchward County 4-4-0 wasn’t  exceptional, either, but was produced as a necessary stop gap. But when GJC tried the same trick of thinking, “just make it longer and add another set of wheels” in creating 111, the result was not what it might have been. Put ten wheels under the loco, be that as a 4-6-0, 2-8-0 or 2-6-2T, and George was your man! (As the moguls were effectively a large prairie tank with the bunker replaced with a tender, they conform to rather than test the rule here!)

 

Gresley on the GNR was lucky: the large Atlantics were pretty much masters of their work, so he was able to concentrate on other things such as larger mixed traffic and goods engines before creating the Pacifics. Even then, he needed the loco exchanges with the GWR to bring home the need for longer valve travel before he got it right.

 

Some times it seems to require a change in people to effect the step change of enlarging technology. The GWR board seems to have been very aware of this at the end of the 19th century, as was Josiah Stamp 3 decades later on the LMS!

[Donw]

Just to add to my last post. Not a Dean design but for those fancying a GWR Atlantic Scorpio Models do list a kit for the 'Scot class' in 7mm. I dont think Scorpio will be a our show this weekend else I might overspend thinking about what they offer. To be honest I haven't the room to do the sort of layout to show off an Atlantic I doubt they appeared much on Branches and byways

 

Don

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

This one, presumably .... 

 

Indeed, although at 12 I was looking upwards rather than sideways at it.

[robmcg]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

One can get the impression that Great Western engines made a great turn-of-the-century leap from the truly antiquated to the ultra-modern but there was a period around the early 90s when Swindon produced some really very normal-looking locomotives:

 

 

Compare:

 

 

(Apologies for the Westinghouse pump.)

 

 

 

 

Ah, a locomotive with proper shape. Once a front bogie was added...

 

 

 

derived from a b+w pic in O S Nock's 'Great Locomotives of the LMS'...   I rather like the human element here....     Also the highly advanced steam sanding and 4 driving wheels.  Where will it end?   Perfidy and ruin, that's what I say...

Edited October 25, 2019 by robmcg
typos and additions.

[Donw]

My wallet and credit card will have to go into hiding I have discovered Sanspareil are doing a kit for a River Class details are on the CSPmodels site. Incidentally this site has quite a few small loco kits in 4mm which might interest parish members  http://cspmodels.com/abante/index.php?rt=product/category&path=65

 

Don

[Edwardian]

On 24/10/2019 at 09:29, Nearholmer said:

Very true - look at most contemporary photos of ordinary trains and stations, not the very newest express engines, and especially on the GWR things look quite amazingly antiquated ....... no surprise, given that everything on even a fairly prosperous railway lasts at least forty or fifty years in service, staff included, so the current average service life of everything taken together is always roughly 25-30 years.

 

Some very assiduous train-spotters would already have been prepared for the shock of the new, though.

 

 

 

 

I think this example shows well the softening of the bald US aesthetic through Anglicisation. 

 

We see, for example, British style boiler fittings and an absence of ugly accretions like boiler mounted sandboxes and the sort of Pompidou Centre school of exterior pipework that American and Continental loco builders generally indulged in.  

 

The footplate is mounted high, with relatively shallow splashers, like a Churchward design, which is not quite so shocking as having the running plate clear above the wheels.

 

So, clean lines, familiar fittings, not wholly naked wheels and painted a proper colour and lined out. In these respects, it has great similarity to Churchward's adaptation of US design.  What makes the similarities interesting is, of course, that this is a US designed and built loco, whereas Churchward's were original native specimens.  

 

 

By way, then, of a further 'contrast and compare', here is William Adam's designed, Neilson built, pioneering native Mogul of 1878:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Edwardian

[Compound2632]

That's one of the Schenectady (Skeh-neck-tedy) engines. The Baldwins (also bought by the Great Northern and Great Central) made fewer concessions:

 

 

Available as a kit:

 

 

NRM DY 1134, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

 

Note the all-American construction - bar frames, front footplate stays (puts me in mind of another variety of mogul...). Is the chimney an attempt at Johnsonification?

 

 

NRM DY 1139, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

 

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

By way, then, of a further 'contrast and compare', here is William Adam's designed, Neilson built, pioneering native Mogul of 1878:

 

 

It's interesting that Adams' Mogul already has many of the characteristic features of the classic American mogul - highly asymmetric wheelbase, to clear the outside cylinders and the long firebox; long front platform, raised running plate, side window cab, and boiler-mounted sandbox. The American mogul goes back to the 1860s, so had Adams been looking across the Atlantic?

[Edwardian]

45 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It's interesting that Adams' Mogul already has many of the characteristic features of the classic American mogul - highly asymmetric wheelbase, to clear the outside cylinders and the long firebox; long front platform, raised running plate, side window cab, and boiler-mounted sandbox. The American mogul goes back to the 1860s, so had Adams been looking across the Atlantic?

 

Adams must have based this on US practice, the similarities are too great.  Then there is the name. I had always understood that the term "mogul" had been coined in the US in relation to the wheel arrangement.

 

Your Wiki link includes the following:

 

It is likely that the locomotive class name derives from a locomotive named Mogul, built by Taunton Locomotive Manufacturing Company in 1866 for the Central Railroad of New Jersey. However, it has also been suggested that, in England, it derived from the engine of that name built by Neilson and Company for the Great Eastern Railway in 1879.

 

Well, no doubt both statements are true, but the point is that surely the GER adopted the US term, which was clearly coined by then! 

 

Looking at his Mogul, we might conclude that this was not Adam at his most elegant.  However, it is clearly still an Anglicised design. Yes, there is that horrible sand dome, but other oddities do not seem to be specifically American, like the rectangular centre splasher box (which I take it includes sandboxes) or the less than elegant cab, which was a native design seen on other GE locos.  

 

Otherwise we have familiar GE boiler fittings and a lower-than-American running plate with splashers. 

 

Here is, I think, 538, looking all the better for losing the hideous boiler-mounted sandbox ....

 

A not bad-looking, and certainly a rather British-looking, locomotive emerges ....

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget, though, that the GWR began by bucking the US-design trend by initially combing the wheel arrangement with outside framing.

 

Clearly we needed time to assimilate this alien wheel arrangement into our native forms; by the time we get the the Brighton's K of 1913, you'd never have thought that a Mogul could have been anything but British!

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Edwardian

[Compound2632]

To make a very broad-brush generalisation, American locomotive design was based on adapting the Bury 2-2-0 and 0-4-0 bar framed locomotives to local conditions, in particular rough track, first by adding an extra driven axle behind the firebox and then by replacing the leading axle (of the 2-2-0) with a bogie truck - giving the classic American 4-4-0, which was well-established as early as the 1840s - and later, using a single axle leading truck on the 6-coupled locomotive derived from the Bury 0-4-0, giving the mogul. Extra boiler length made room for extra axles, giving the ten-wheeler and Consolidation.

 

British design was based on rejecting the Bury type in favour of the Patentee.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Let's not forget, though, that the GWR began by bucking the US-design trend by initially combing the wheel arrangement with outside framing.

Yes and no. The Aberdares were not designed straight off the board as moguls, but were 0-6-0s which had grown to the point of needing an extra axle.

[Martin S-C]

3 hours ago, Donw said:

My wallet and credit card will have to go into hiding I have discovered Sanspareil are doing a kit for a River Class details are on the CSPmodels site. Incidentally this site has quite a few small loco kits in 4mm which might interest parish members  http://cspmodels.com/abante/index.php?rt=product/category&path=65

 

Don

Don, I examined their site but couldn't find any mention of the River class - have you a direct link please by any chance?

[Donw]

8 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

Don, I examined their site but couldn't find any mention of the River class - have you a direct link please by any chance?

 

Ah Sanspareil do 7mm models and are sold through the CSP site http://cspmodels.com/abante/index.php?rt=product/product&path=66&product_id=248 . It might be enough to tempt you to 7mm until you note the price. My apologies for any confusion.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

17 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

Don, I examined their site but couldn't find any mention of the River class - have you a direct link please by any chance?

 

Sadly, it's only in the 7mm range: Link

[Edwardian]

36 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Yes and no. The Aberdares were not designed straight off the board as moguls, but were 0-6-0s which had grown to the point of needing an extra axle.

 

Well, yes and yes; that's the reason why they bucked the trend.  Let's say that it was an arrival at a 2-6-0 arrangement by a different route!

[wagonman]

30 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

Ah Sanspareil do 7mm models and are sold through the CSP site http://cspmodels.com/abante/index.php?rt=product/product&path=66&product_id=248 . It might be enough to tempt you to 7mm until you note the price. My apologies for any confusion.

 

Don

 

Is this the kit once produced by Peter K? I have a 4mm scale version sitting in my kit mountain...