Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I think I've read that when the Midland ordered locomotives from Baldwin in 1899, that firm first asked for loading figures, gradient profiles, and weight restrictions for the routes for which the engines were intended and where somewhat surprised, given that information, to be asked to provide engines of similar power to a standard Johnson 0-6-0.

 

However, I can't find this in the standard work on the Midland moguls*, so it may not be well authenticated.

 

*D. Hunt, American Locomotives of the Midland Railway (Wild Swan, 1997).

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

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

Well, one would hope so, but take an example from the P4 layout “Farringdon”, this is demonstrably not always the case...

 

I refer the Rt Hon Member for Northamptonshire/Leicestershire to my previous answer. It's a matter of semantics really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, wagonman said:

 

I refer the Rt Hon Member for Northamptonshire/Leicestershire to my previous answer. It's a matter of semantics really.

I was agreeing with your previous answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I think I've read that when the Midland ordered locomotives from Baldwin in 1899, that firm first asked for loading figures, gradient profiles, and weight restrictions for the routes for which the engines were intended and where somewhat surprised, given that information, to be asked to provide engines of similar power to a standard Johnson 0-6-0.

Which way surprised? That the Johnson figure was low, or high?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think the story went that for an American road with such requirements, they would have provided a Consolidation.

Well, they could have adopted the SDJR 2-8-0s to eliminate double heading...

Edited by Regularity
A bit later, obviously.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Well, they could have adopted the SDJR 2-8-0s to eliminate double heading...

 

Was tried on Toton-Brent mineral trains, but unsuccessful. The theory is that they couldn't sustain the long-term power output; in their native habitat they were ideal for short high-power output up the 1:50 over the Mendips and provided good braking. How did Derby get that right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Needed a bigger firebox, and maybe a taper boiler? ;)

But thank you: I have wondered why they weren’t used on the MR: a less than “100% boiler” (the USRA designs were renowned for this).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having become intrigued by why Stroudley's goods engines didn't gain the accolades that his passenger engines did, and quite how much the same designs made the Drummonds popular in Scotland, I've been getting "into" the boiler proportions of 0-6-0 goods engines lately, and trying to work out what 'good' consisted of.

 

My tentative conclusion is that they needed a big firebox, presumably with the ability to damp very tightly when idling about in loops and generally good airflow control to allow very steady energy release when plodding, and a good reservoir of steam (combination of volume and pressure) to cope with starting loads and the occasional nasty gradient.

 

Engines with a lack of readily available stored energy (pressurised steam first, then already burning fuel) seem to have been the ones that got "winded", and Stroudley's first attempts for the LBSCR seem to have been particularly unsuccessful, because he designed them like his passenger engines, which had quite small proportions all round, but could get through the coal-combustion-heat transfer-steam process very quickly and efficiently (very clever control of air flow, almost heading for gas-producer) ......... they ate coal while idling for long periods in order to keep the pressure up, then got winded, which presumably such a boiler didn't when working passenger trains, which presented either a fairly steady load ("little and often" firing) or very short sharp bursts of load (I've read that the Terriers were fired with a few shovels-full at each of the frequent station stops, and that they converted that into steam almost as soon as the regulator was opened).

 

I'd be interested to hear whether others think I'm on the right track here.

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

  • RMweb Premium

On the Midland, Johnson's first major area of activity was boiler development - with many 2-4-0s ordered to Kirtley's designs being delivered, he seems to have quite rapidly started replacing Kirtley's boiler with his own design, designated P, for "passenger". When he started having 0-6-0 goods engines built, with the same 8'0" + 8'6" wheelbase as the 2-4-0s (and inherited from Kirtley, of course), he gave them a boiler known as "goods". There was a difference of a couple of inches in the length of the barrel but not in firebox volume or grate area. These "goods" boilers were in due course designated "B" and used for reboilering the 2-4-0s as that became necessary in the 1890s. Thus by the end of the 19th century, the same design of boiler was being used indiscriminately on goods and passenger engines of similar size (including the 8'6" coupled wheelbase 4-4-0s) without, it would appear, any ill effect on the performance of either type. Of course the B boiler of 1896 was not exactly the same as that of 1876 - it could be pressed to 160 psi rather than 140 psi and the number, arrangement, and diameter of tubes had been refined in the light of experience. It was evidently a satisfactory all-round boiler for stop-start goods work and sustained running with passenger trains.

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There was a difference of a couple of inches in the length of the barrel but not in firebox volume or grate area. These "goods" boilers were in due course designated "B" and used for reboilering the 2-4-0s as that became necessary in the 1890s.

The difference being longer or shorter?

Quote

It was evidently a satisfactory all-round boiler for stop-start goods work and sustained running with passenger trains.

Not sure. 
It worked provided the loads were relatively light, or if double-heading was acceptable: on the Midland, this was. Not every railway thought like this - if there is a regular and frequent need for more power, then larger locomotives may turn out to be more effective in the long run, at least with steam power. (With diesel power, there is scope for working in multiple, with a single crew and a greater degree of operational flexibility due to the higher availability of the motive power units, as exemplified by multiple unit passenger trains.)

When applied to a 2-8-0, the embedded/established thinking about boiler design wasn’t up to the mark, unless it was for sprint-rest-sprint duties.
No disrespect to the Midland, but the dominance of the operating department stifled engineering development at Derby, and they were very good at perfecting Victorian designs, but I shudder to think of the mess they would have made of a 4-6-0 - just as most successful designers of 4-4-0s struggled with 4-6-0s. For a period of time, say the Edwardian era, this was a good thing for their shareholders, but I think WWI prevented the failings from becoming apparent, and as we know the LMS was nearly strangled at birth by hidebound thinking.

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

  • RMweb Premium

Pickups. Not easy , but they are absolutely vital. I'm fortunate, I have worked in electrical engineering all my life. Anything scrapped with relays in gets the relays stripped out before it goes in the bin. Not for the relays , but for the contacts. 

 

Here is a closeup. There is a bit of copperclad on the frames in a sort of fork shape split don the middle. That gives a pad to which the pickups are fixed. They consist of 11 thou guitar string with the gold contact pad from a relay contact soldered to the end. 

 

 

558895113_pickupchass2.jpg.eb1923d1361290d505c768889b02cdb7.jpg

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I buggered about with bits of bent wire for years before I realised that the longest wire possible and gold on ns just worked. 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations Edwardian.

 

Boilers etc.: one of the things that makes steam locomotives interesting is that the process of getting energy out of the fuel and available to do work is so very time-consuming, which means that the crew have to anticipate demand effectively, and that the designer has to give them somewhere to store energy until it is needed ....... all hugely inefficient, of course, because the cleverest anticipations can be thwarted by circumstance.

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

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

If I may take you back to February 2016, not much more than a week after we began this Sternesque digression of a topic, we might contemplate WNR No.1, the Achingham Branch locomotive, and my version of the Colne Valley & Halstead's version of the GER T7. 

 

As the locomotive list has it:

 

1877:  0-4-2T, Neilson & Co/SW Johnson of 1877, WNR No. 1 - same as CV&HR GER T7 derivative

 

Note that she is the WNR's second No.1, replacing an E B Wilson tender locomotive, one of the Castle Aching & Birchoverham Railway's original engines from the 1850s.   

 

 

185995995_GER0-4-2TClassT7No.82oneoforiginal3withsmallertanks.jpg.7fd657cd10b84da0bf17fe8b544f41f4.jpg

 

Move forward a year and something has been done ......image.png.1053d6bb1106e93fa081e259a7b38ab5.png

1968294121_CVHR0-4-2TNo1asbuilt.JPG.c970706e95bb88bddb398d2dd5ba5f29.JPG

post-25673-0-53913900-1494360137_thumb.jpg.a20e36531c2287805b7daad6fa14bc3a.jpg

 

Unfortunately, that is where matters stalled.

 

I had created two problems.  First, I had shortened the chassis at the rear and reduced the wheelbase, bringing the trailing wheel in closer to the coupled wheels.  This left me with no means to attach the rear of the keeper-plate.

 

Second, I had severed the wire from the motor to the pick-ups.

 

As you know, for me, electricity might as well be magic.  Don't understand it.  Can't get on with it. 

 

Here is what I discovered yesterday, on giving the thing a look over.

 

There are two wires.  A red one and a black one. Both emerge from the rear of the motor, one each side.  They then go into a couple of strange little things.  I have no idea what these are, so let's call them the 'warp coil' and the 'flux capacitor', which, for all I know, is exactly what they are.

 

So, let's assume these devices are important and leave them well alone.  So, where do the wires go after that?

 

Well, the red one is soldered to a connection on the metal chassis block.  Perhaps this makes the chassis a 'live chassis'.  The red side pickups must, presumably, draw magic through the chassis to the red wire and then the motor.  

 

The black wire disappears down a hole and emerges under the keeper plate where it is soldered to the pickup strip for the black side.

 

Now, I fixed the trailing wheels and managed to spring it so there is a modicum of downward force, just enough to keep in on the rails.

 

I bravely soldered the black wire back.  I bodged a screw to hold down the rear of the keeper plate.

 

It should now, I reckon, work.

 

I put it on the test track.

 

It was as dead as a Norwegian Blue.

 

B8gger.

 

Presumably the crappy wiper pickups were not doing their job. They looked rather the worse for wear.  Perhaps there was a short circuit somewhere, or perhaps it was under an immobility spell, or just plain cursed. 

 

So, my weekend has been taken up by Making it Go.  And now it does.

 

I had an "oh, sod it!" moment, and decided to install my own pickups.  Never done this, you understand, but there's a first time for everything. Disconnected the red wire from the chassis block and fed it down the same hole as the black wire.  Tore off Hornby's crappy pickup strips and wiper pickups and glued some copper-clad PCB to the bottom of the chassis.   Soldered wires and phosphor bronze (probably) wire to PCB.  

 

Happily discarded keeper plate; it had modern brake shoes and inside brake rigging, neither of which I need for this engine.  One of the traction tyres was loose, so I ditched those, too.

 

IMG_5893.JPG.d040fd5e88f5c99dc2917ffb3f7c5c62.JPG

 

As Hornby intended on the right, and my sawn-off bodge on the left. 

 

Doesn't look very pretty, but does it go?

 

Yes ....

 

1221378949_Itsalive.jpg.9d1983b9853dc31ba88420ca5eb18cf5.jpg

 

It runs strong and true.  I'm gradually running it in, and it's running better each length of the test track.

 

Now, where did I put that body .....

 

IMG_5891.JPG.22672b45e4c7e749c9bb0cedb235c6ce.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice work.

 

However (there's always a however), before you run it over any points you will need to fill the groove where the traction tyre isn't, preferably with something like conductive epoxy or wire glue. There are several suppliers in Australia, so I'm sure it will be available Oop North too.

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

  • RMweb Gold

Excellent James. Turning a disaster into a positive, building your confidence. I

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Congratulations Edwardian.

 

Boilers etc.: one of the things that makes steam locomotives interesting is that the process of getting energy out of the fuel and available to do work is so very time-consuming, which means that the crew have to anticipate demand effectively, and that the designer has to give them somewhere to store energy until it is needed ....... all hugely inefficient, of course, because the cleverest anticipations can be thwarted by circumstance.

 

I wonder if the choice of such large boilered locos in the US compared to the UK has a lot to do with the distances stops tend to be further apart than in the UK and a large boiler has a big reserve. High mountains must mean longer climbs were such a reserve may be vital. 

On the other hand a small boiler would respond more quickly much more suited to a stop and go situation. One factor which helps the steam engine is the use of the blast to draw the fire which means the heat input increases with a heavier load. Ideally the loco needs to be able to wait with the fire just keeping the boiler simmering but able to respond quickly when needed.

Don

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent stuff with the 0-4-2T Mr Edwardian. Now I know what to do with those chassis I have in a box. No longer consigned to E-bay, but set to become part of a fleet of mid Victorian locos. Unfortunately I had no idea that I needed to build a mid Victorian layout. After close examination it appears that this must be the Penydarren, Dowlais and Cardiff Railway, running on a guage of 4'2". Damn. yet another project.

Edited by webbcompound
  • Like 2
  • Funny 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1

Well done James for that chassis mod; 

I prefer it to the Hornby version (which inevitably has an over-manicured out-of-the-box look to it)

2

About Midland boilers:

Having lived most of my UK life near the hiller bits of the former Midland, it never seemed that Derby boiler design was over-sensitive to the needs of hard slogs against the collar on long grades - which what some of the discussion about US loco boilers was alluding to.

On truly awful cross-country runs from school up Chinley Churn (to Pingot) high above Gowhole sidings, we used to gaze down upon the most antiquated collections of 0-6-0s stationary gathering breath or imperceptibly slogging southwards around the opened out cutting of the former Bugsworth tunnel.

Derby, it seemed, was more inclined to smaller drivers on their passenger locos on the S&C.

dh

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

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

2

About Midland boilers:

Having lived most of my UK life near the hiller bits of the former Midland, it never seemed that Derby boiler design was over-sensitive to the needs of hard slogs against the collar on long grades - which what some of the discussion about US loco boilers was alluding to.

On truly awful cross-country runs from school up Chinley Churn (to Pingot) high above Gowhole sidings, we used to gaze down upon the most antiquated collections of 0-6-0s stationary gathering breath or imperceptibly slogging southwards around the opened out cutting of the former Bugsworth tunnel.

Derby, it seemed, was more inclined to smaller drivers on their passenger locos on the S&C.

 

I think one has to be careful to specify the period under discussion, particularly wrt the Midland; I was referring to 19th-century round-topped boilers - comparison with the Belpaire boilers of the 20th century, that became LMS standard types, isn't necessarily straightforward. The G7 boilers fitted to the 3F 0-6-0s seem to have had the reputation of raising steam very effectively.

 

What may have looked like small engines in 1950 were large engines half-a-century earlier.

 

In any case, I suspect that at Gowhole, it was the ability of a locomotive to stop its train that was at least as highly valued as its ability to get it underway.

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

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, runs as required said:

never seemed that Derby boiler design was over-sensitive to the needs of hard slogs against the collar on long grades - which what some of the discussion about US loco boilers was alluding to.

Not at all.

The design was perfectly balanced for the size of the engine and the work it produced, but it wasn’t good for larger engines like a 2-8-0.

The Midland had two possible solutions to this problem: experiment with boiler and firebox proportions to produce a more reliable eight-coupled loco, or double-head 0-6-0s on freight and add pilot locos to passenger trains where required. They chose the latter path, which was fine for the early part of the 20th Century when labour was relatively cheaper, but not really up to the needs of the 1920s onwards. As an example, stretching an 0-6-0 and fitting slightly smaller wheels to create an 0-8-0 (LMS 7F) wasn’t really successful. The LNWR was successful with its 0-8-0s, but less so with its 4-6-0s.

The essential point is that a decision which made perfect sense in 1901, became increasingly restrictive during the ‘teens, and the drawing office staff were not developing new ideas, vide the 4F, which used too many standard components with the “standard” 0-6-0s, and which was less preferred by enginemen than a 3F. The same design constraints proved to be the Achilles heel of the LMS Beyer-Garratts.

 

A decently boilered 2-8-0 would have been an alternative solution to double-heading, but the Derby design office (for whatever reason) simply wasn’t mentally geared up for the task.

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

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

If anyone wants to wallow in Agutter* on New Years Eve (tomorrow!), "The Railway Children" is to be broadcast on BBC1 at 11.20am.

 

 

* NOT a gutter....

 

Thank you for letting us know.

 

It's also being read on BBC Sounds. 

 

This gets you more detail, e.g. the aqueduct, the rock face of the cutting, and the date set (1905).

 

Nesbit stayed with relatives in a house overlooking the line in the vicinity of Marple.  There you get tunnel and cutting and aqueduct. You also get Strines, the perfect country passing station, and the Midland trains varied by the GCR's 'Green Dragon'.

 

Cue music, and ....

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
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...