Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Well, you’ve got the driving wheels going up into the tanks, so you don’t have to faff with splashers, then they’re just the place to put plenty of lead to get the weight on to the drivers., and you don’t have to worry about the motor and gears showing underneath like on a saddle tank, and there’s less spectacle plate to fit round the firebox, and shorter handrails round the boiler, and they’re much easier to do than saddle or pannier tanks, and there’s no tender needed, so side tanks are a great idea, I reckon.

  • Like 4
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, runs as required said:

Please could you remind me of the technical/operational advantages of side tanks

 

I said, bigger, But now I've looked it up, I have to retract. Kirtley's 690 and 780 Class back tanks carried 1,000 gal and 39 cwt of coal. Johnson's early side tanks, 6 Class, S&DJR Class A, and 1252 class carried 950 gal, 876 gal, and 1,000 gal respectively (I don't have numbers for the 134 Class). It wasn't until the 1532 Class of 1881 that larger capacity was achieved: 1,150 gal and 42 cwt.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Well, you’ve got the driving wheels going up into the tanks, so you don’t have to faff with splashers, then they’re just the place to put plenty of lead to get the weight on to the drivers., and you don’t have to worry about the motor and gears showing underneath like on a saddle tank, and there’s less spectacle plate to fit round the firebox, and shorter handrails round the boiler, and they’re much easier to do than saddle or pannier tanks, and there’s no tender needed, so side tanks are a great idea, I reckon.

 

And they're easier to do the "Hand of God" thing when you need to turn them round!

 

  • Funny 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
17 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Well, you’ve got the driving wheels going up into the tanks, so you don’t have to faff with splashers, then they’re just the place to put plenty of lead to get the weight on to the drivers., and you don’t have to worry about the motor and gears showing underneath like on a saddle tank, and there’s less spectacle plate to fit round the firebox, and shorter handrails round the boiler, and they’re much easier to do than saddle or pannier tanks, and there’s no tender needed, so side tanks are a great idea, I reckon.

 

... hence the surprising popularity of Deeley's 2000 Class "Flatiron" 0-6-4Ts:

 

image.png.6bf9978bb5438652dab87e9b00c665eb.png

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

So, go and smack yourself for being unnecessarily pedantic!

Ooer missus!

I think the subtle differences detract from the looks of the second batch, but yes, they are essentially the same class.


In my late teens I tried to produce a drawing, using photos and known measurements as a guide. Not knowing that there was a difference, I struggled to estimate the height of the side tanks and I ended up with a drawing that would have made Hornby* proud: managed to combine bits of both, which didn’t look right. (Width of an E22, height of a B32.)

These differences are important in creating an accurate model.

 

* The “silver seal” Black Five had a short firebox and a short boiler, rather than a long and a short or a short and a long.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well tanks are limited in size by frame-spacing and the presence of inside valve gear, cranks etc, and they get in the way of piling-round, and back tanks tend to put mass in the wrong place.

 

Well tanks, however, work very well with outside valve-gear, and the world standard industrial narrow gauge design became the German one, with a well tank integral with the frames (most are separate) and o/s valvegear. They are cheap to build and very effective, especially with a low c.o.g., but tank corrosion can kill them, or require huge repairs, which isn’t too much of an issue given that they were designed for c10yr life anyway (many have racked-up 100+ of course, given tlc).

 

The LBSCR Baltic’s are interesting, because they had well, back and side tanks, although the last were about half-height to control sloshing and c.o.g., hidden behind false full-height side panels. The lessons of this design failed to make it from Brighton to Ashford, hence the sad saga of the River tanks.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you WNR stakeholders shareholders for those posts on tanks.

I was thinking too of easy accessibility for large filler flaps and leak staunching compared to well tanks (but many appear, from rivets lines, to also have back tanks ). I hadn't thought of interchangeability mentioned above.

Saddletanks seem to be the most beneficial in locos of smaller boiler diameter: engine valve gear accessibility/ adhesion/driving wheel dia./ preheating.

I suppose the Armstrongs' panniers win out on the above (including condensing pipe connections) but lose in terms of overall capacity 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, runs as required said:

Please could you remind me of the technical/operational advantages of side tanks over other less visually obvious placings.

Except for pannier/saddle, they seem to become universal in standard gauge practice through the C20.

Is is not a matter of highest capacity with lowest centre of gravity?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting - I hadn't thought of riding at speed in terms of tank engines. 

Where were the highest speeds attained with tank engines?

the Lanky 2-4-2s, Brighton, the runs from Glasgow to the Clyde steamers? - Even Annie's  Bristol & Exeter Broad gauge claimed astonishing maxima.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, runs as required said:

Even Annie's  Bristol & Exeter Broad gauge claimed astonishing maxima.

'Astonishing', - good word that.  I like words like 'awe' too.  We shall never see their like again  :cry:

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Good set of photos of an O&K well tank under repair here, which show how the frames form a rigid box structure.

 

 

7F317EB1-AA4A-4DCD-8F25-EE4F54C7B1C3.jpeg

I've never really ever come to a comfortable justifiable balance between Restoration; Preservation; Improvement; and Replicas - despite paying lip service to W Morris's SPAB (you never read this here)

The obvious improvement here would seem to be inserting a plastic bag into the space (other than an expendable small boy as in Brunel's Great Eastern steamship) :o 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The lessons of this design failed to make it from Brighton to Ashford, hence the sad saga of the River tanks.

 

To be fair on the Rivers, they were handicapped by the state of some track on the Southern, though a high CoG and inadequate baffling in the tanks caused a lot of "sloshing" and instability, which didn't help matters.  When tested on the LNER after the Sevenoaks accident, speeds of around 80mph were attained with no stability problems. 

 

LNER.  Southern.  LMS...

 

I'm sorry, that last one just slipped out...

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
43 minutes ago, runs as required said:

the runs from Glasgow to the Clyde steamers? 

 

Not Clyde bogies* but  Coast or Gourrock bogies for those - the standard Scottish 4-4-0 adapted to the local requirements. Only at the end did the 'Sou-West try the Big Puggies.

 

*Highland engines built by the Clyde Locomotive Co., Walter Neilson's company set up after he fell out with James Reid, leaving the Neilson name to Reid. Not a great success - the works were sold to Sharp, Stewart when the latter outgrew their Manchester Atlas Works. Sharp, Stewart renamed the Clyde works, Atlas Works, and in due course the wheel turned full circle as it returned to the Neilson fold as part of NBL.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, runs as required said:

I've never really ever come to a comfortable justifiable balance between Restoration; Preservation; Improvement; and Replicas -


These run-of-the-mill 20, 30, 40, 60 and 80hp well tanks are so incredibly useful that they are simple given ‘new heads and handles’ to keep them going.

 

Theres no point “conserving” one, because there are representative examples in museums already.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... hence the surprising popularity of Deeley's 2000 Class "Flatiron" 0-6-4Ts:

 

image.png.6bf9978bb5438652dab87e9b00c665eb.png

 

It does look a little silly with a hole for the splashers when you have shrunk and uncoupled the front wheel. It would be very interesting doing a live steam model of a flatiron with the tanks actually holding water. Mind you the same could be said of a pannier or saddle tanK.  I wonder if a saddle tank has a benefical pre-warming effect on the water?

 

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

It does look a little silly with a hole for the splashers when you have shrunk and uncoupled the front wheel. It would be very interesting doing a live steam model of a flatiron with the tanks actually holding water. Mind you the same could be said of a pannier or saddle tanK.  I wonder if a saddle tank has a benefical pre-warming effect on the water?

 

Don

 

My understanding is that live steam injectors work less effectively as the temperature of the feedwater increases. Locomotives with feedwater heaters had to use pumps. Common in North America, I believe.

  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m steeling myself for a foraging expedition too, and although I detest queueing as much as the next man, it feels less bad than going further in search of a shop that might, and might not, be less popular.

 

We’re beginning to suffer from Lockdown Lassitude, a state that seems to come after Cabin Fever, and hopefully not before something much darker. The lassitude involves realising that everything can wait ‘til tomorrow, because tomorrow is merely a time-shifted version of today. 
 

Time to attempt to motivate the offspring.

 

(Objective achieved with the help of the garden hose, set to “full squirt”)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

It does look a little silly with a hole for the splashers when you have shrunk .... the ... wheel. 

 

Don

 

Yes, I hate it when they do that ...

 

707744061_Gazelle10.jpg.bb946050ff66d5eba83fc2fdf89bc4e0.jpg

 

As God and Mr Burkett intended her, she looked better, if no less eccentric. A legitimate visitor to Castle Aching?

 

1427743509_Gazelle03.jpg.da32c550283ebc8c2d2dd50a28c5a636.jpg

  • Like 15
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...