Bachmann Midland 1P 0-4-4T

[farren]

Sorry, I meant  that as a casual observer in model shop. 

[No Decorum]

2 hours ago, farren said:

How about the Austin 7. Big black freight seem to sell. Yes it could be said it’s too similar to a super D. But stanier8f and WD look similar or MR 3fs and 4fs. Though the down said is Time in service.

It would make a nice model. Short time in service, yes. Designed to replace the LNWR 0-8-0s. Long valve travel, powerful and economical. Some enginemen preferred them to 8Fs because of their pulling power. Yet, withdrawn before the locos they were intended to replace. Why? Standard Midland axleboxes unable to cope with the high power output. If only Fowler had checked how his locos were performing, things might have been different.

[Compound2632]

46 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

Why? Standard Midland axleboxes unable to cope with the high power output. 

 

That old canard. Has the question of lubricants not been discussed often enough? Also the question of LMS management structure, which happens to be relevant?

 

Anyway, I'm unsure what power output has to do with it. The nominal tractive effort of a Standard 7F was 21% greater than that of a Standard 4F; its weight 25% greater, but the number of axleboxes 33% greater!

Edited August 7, 2020 by Compound2632

[John-Miles]

The Super Ds were worse on axle box performance than the ex-Midland types but they get a much better press. The reasons why Midland axle box performance deteriorated during the 1930s, as Stephen says, have been well aired elsewhere on RMWeb and were in part due to the LMS cutting costs by using inferior whitemetal in bearings and changing the type of oil used. Also inside cylinder locos with internal valve gear don't have much room left for axleboxes.

[Dunsignalling]

7 hours ago, farren said:

How about the Austin 7. Big black freight seem to sell. Yes it could be said it’s too similar to a super D. But stanier8f and WD look similar or MR 3fs and 4fs. Though the down said is Time in service.

They'd only need to put motors in about a quarter of them from what I've read.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That old canard. Has the question of lubricants not been discussed often enough? Also the question of LMS management structure, which happens to be relevant?

 

Anyway, I'm unsure what power output has to do with it. The nominal tractive effort of a Standard 7F was 21% greater than that of a Standard 4F; its weight 25% greater, but the number of axleboxes 33% greater!

Weight, and how hard the locos were habitually worked, also comes into the equation. Some Austin Sevens were either clearly much better than others, or confined to duties which did not expose their weaknesses. Otherwise, why would some have lasted in traffic for two decades more than others?  

 

That said, standard Midland axleboxes on 4Fs by no means escaped criticism. Mentions of issues with 3Fs are fairly rare but, when the 4Fs came along, many of them effectively became semi-retired, with the new, larger locos taking over their more arduous duties.

 

4Fs were heavier, more powerful and most got worked harder, on underpinnings pretty much identical not only to the 3Fs but to even smaller, older, lighter MR 2F rebuilds. Not really surprising they gave trouble.

 

Whilst much larger again, the Garratts probably generated lower stresses that the sevens and probably little more than the big 0-6-0s. That didn't stop Beyer Peacock effectively washing their hands of any consequences arising from the LMS insisting on incorporating their standard components.

 

John

[Compound2632]

Just now, Dunsignalling said:

Weight, and how hard the locos were habitually worked, also comes into the equation. Some Austin Sevens were either clearly much better than others, or confined to duties which did not expose their weaknesses. Otherwise, why would some have lasted in traffic for two decades more than others?  

 

That said, standard Midland axleboxes on 4Fs by no means escaped criticism. Mentions of issues with 3Fs are fairly rare but, when the 4Fs came along, many of them effectively became semi-retired, with the new, larger locos taking over their more arduous duties.

 

4Fs were heavier, more powerful and most got worked harder, on underpinnings pretty much identical not only to the 3Fs but to even smaller, older, lighter MR 2F rebuilds. Not really surprising they gave trouble.

 

Whilst much larger again, the Garratts probably generated lower stresses that the sevens and probably little more than the big 0-6-0s. That didn't stop Beyer Peacock effectively washing their hands of any consequences arising from the LMS insisting on incorporating their standard components.

 

John

 

All very well but as @John-Miles reminds us, the root of the problem was the LMS's change of lubricant. Deeley was an expert in lubricants; the Midland-designed axleboxes were designed with particular lubricants in mind. I dare say your car would start to complain if you put the wrong formula oil in it.

[Dunsignalling]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

All very well but as @John-Miles reminds us, the root of the problem was the LMS's change of lubricant. Deeley was an expert in lubricants; the Midland-designed axleboxes were designed with particular lubricants in mind. I dare say your car would start to complain if you put the wrong formula oil in it.

Strange that nobody seems to have done anything about it, even allowing for the notoriously autocratic late-MR and pre-Stanier LMS locomotive managements' apparent delusions of infallibility. The consequences of appointing a CME who wasn't an engineer? 

 

The sheer waste of effectively chucking out Austin Sevens, many of which hadn't done enough work to recoup their capital cost, added to having to rebuild locos they were intended to replace in order to fill the gaps, must have exceeded the cost of using better lubricants hundreds of times over.

 

John

 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Strange that nobody seems to have done anything about it, even allowing for the notoriously autocratic late-MR and pre-Stanier LMS locomotive managements' apparent delusions of infallibility. The consequences of appointing a CME who wasn't an engineer? 

 

This post by @Crimson Rambler provides a brief explanation:

He has put this in the content of LMS managment somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

 

Can't find it. I think the post I'm thinking of was by @Dave Hunt.

 

Anyway, here's a nice bit of film of a Midland-ish 0-4-4T in action:

Admittedly it's not a 1532 Class per Bachmann but one of the LMS-built engines which I believe were just the 2228 Class drawings dusted over, with the addition of Belpaire boiler and cab and bunker details based on the Standard 3F 0-6-0T. (BTW this illustrates the importance of the Operating Department in LMS locomotive development - they knew what they wanted and it was more of the same, thankyou.)

 

Genuine 1532 Class here:

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-the-kiss-in-the-tunnel-1899-online-0

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Compound2632

[PenrithBeacon]

7 hours ago, John-Miles said:

The Super Ds were worse on axle box performance than the ex-Midland types but they get a much better press. The reasons why Midland axle box performance deteriorated during the 1930s, as Stephen says, have been well aired elsewhere on RMWeb and were in part due to the LMS cutting costs by using inferior whitemetal in bearings and changing the type of oil used. Also inside cylinder locos with internal valve gear don't have much room left for axleboxes.

The G2 and G2a locomotives were equipped with redesigned lubrication system from the late twenties onwards.

Do you have a reference, preferably a primary reference, for the grades of oil and white metal the LMS used, please.

[PenrithBeacon]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Weight, and how hard the locos were habitually worked, also comes into the equation. Some Austin Sevens were either clearly much better than others, or confined to duties which did not expose their weaknesses. Otherwise, why would some have lasted in traffic for two decades more than others?  

 

That said, standard Midland axleboxes on 4Fs by no means escaped criticism. Mentions of issues with 3Fs are fairly rare but, when the 4Fs came along, many of them effectively became semi-retired, with the new, larger locos taking over their more arduous duties.

 

4Fs were heavier, more powerful and most got worked harder, on underpinnings pretty much identical not only to the 3Fs but to even smaller, older, lighter MR 2F rebuilds. Not really surprising they gave trouble.

 

Whilst much larger again, the Garratts probably generated lower stresses that the sevens and probably little more than the big 0-6-0s. That didn't stop Beyer Peacock effectively washing their hands of any consequences arising from the LMS insisting on incorporating their standard components.

 

John

The 7F 0-8-0s were intended to be withdrawn by the early 1950s according to a plan written in 1944. Many were but then there was a projected shortage of heavy mineral engines so the withdrawal programme was itself withdrawn. This explains why many survived a lot longer than the others.

The weight of the 4F is itself a reason why the same axle boxes on the 2, 3 & 4F gave different reliability issues. As I have said before the standard Victorian axlebox had a single hole in the top of the box for lubricant, it isn't just a Midland phenomenon. This had the effect of reducing the length of the journal by the diameter of the hole. This was critical when the locomotives was starting. What was also critical was the fact, and it a fact Churchward measured it, that it took around 10-11 revolutions of the axle to fully lubricate the journal during which time the bearing was at risk. This risk was greater for heavier locomotives. Churchward mitigated this by adopting the underkeep method of lubrication developed in the USA.

[No Decorum]

Fascinating and informative discussion. Thanks to all! 

[Steamport Southport]

12 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The 7F 0-8-0s were intended to be withdrawn by the early 1950s according to a plan written in 1944. Many were but then there was a projected shortage of heavy mineral engines so the withdrawal programme was itself withdrawn. This explains why many survived a lot longer than the others.

The weight of the 4F is itself a reason why the same axle boxes on the 2, 3 & 4F gave different reliability issues. As I have said before the standard Victorian axlebox had a single hole in the top of the box for lubricant, it isn't just a Midland phenomenon. This had the effect of reducing the length of the journal by the diameter of the hole. This was critical when the locomotives was starting. What was also critical was the fact, and it a fact Churchward measured it, that it took around 10-11 revolutions of the axle to fully lubricate the journal during which time the bearing was at risk. This risk was greater for heavier locomotives. Churchward mitigated this by adopting the underkeep method of lubrication developed in the USA.

 

I remember talking to a fitter who was at Aintree and he said they were glad to see the back of them when they got the WDs.

 

 

Jason

[Flying Pig]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Anyway, here's a nice bit of film of a Midland-ish 0-4-4T in action

 

What the heck has that got to do with this thread?

 

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 (BTW this illustrates the importance of the Operating Department in LMS locomotive development - they knew what they wanted and it was more of the same, thankyou.)

 

How different is that from the GWR building the 48xx at the same time? Both were essentially Victorian locos in new clothes. You hear almost nothing about the 2P tanks but they lasted until dieselisation (most withdrawn 1959) despite the availability of more modern types from 1946 onwards.

 

[Dunsignalling]

17 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

What the heck has that got to do with this thread?

 

 

How different is that from the GWR building the 48xx at the same time? Both were essentially Victorian locos in new clothes. You hear almost nothing about the 2P tanks but they lasted until dieselisation (most withdrawn 1959) despite the availability of more modern types from 1946 onwards.

 

Not to mention BR (W) building tarted-up versions of lightweight Victorian Pannier tanks in the 1950s, basically just to replace the knackered originals because everything else was too heavy.

 

Other examples were NER J72s built off the original 1898 plans as late as 1951.

 

Down here on the Southern Region, the antiques (Beatties, Radials, Terriers etc.) were just kept going.....

 

John

Edited August 8, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[John-Miles]

There is a discussion of the whitemetal and lubrication in a book by Adrian Tester called "in Defence of the 4Fs" published by the author. You can buy copies from the Midland Railway Society. It's not what you would call an easy read.

[MJI]

I would like a 58071 am I better off with this or a LRM kit?

[Compound2632]

39 minutes ago, MJI said:

I would like a 58071 am I better off with this or a LRM kit?

 

London Road Models don't do a Midland 0-4-4T so far as I'm aware - there used to be one from Craftsman - 1532 Class, same as the Bachmann model. Beware that whereas Bachmann's BR liveried version 58072 received a Belpaire boiler in place of round-topped in mid-1951, 58071 was withdrawn in mid-1956 still with a round-topped boiler. Both engines retained their condensing gear to the end. (Photo of 58071 at Ashchurch in BR lined black 27 Aug 1955.)

 

So you've got a quandary:

1. Buy Bachmann's 58072 and do a conversion to round-topped boiler - challenging
2. Buy Bachmann's LMS-liveried 1303 and make some condensing gear, line out, etc - unsatisfactory since Bachmann have correctly modelled the different tank sides of condensing and non-condensing engines
3. Wait for Bachmann to produce a round-topped condensing version - frustrating

[NHY 581]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

I would like a 58071 am I better off with this or a LRM kit?

 

39 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

London Road Models don't do a Midland 0-4-4T so far as I'm aware - there used to be one from Craftsman - 1532 Class, same as the Bachmann model. Beware that whereas Bachmann's BR liveried version 58072 received a Belpaire boiler in place of round-topped in mid-1951, 58071 was withdrawn in mid-1956 still with a round-topped boiler. Both engines retained their condensing gear to the end. (Photo of 58071 at Ashchurch in BR lined black 27 Aug 1955.)

 

So you've got a quandary:

1. Buy Bachmann's 58072 and do a conversion to round-topped boiler - challenging
2. Buy Bachmann's LMS-liveried 1303 and make some condensing gear, line out, etc - unsatisfactory since Bachmann have correctly modelled the different tank sides of condensing and non-condensing engines
3. Wait for Bachmann to produce a round-topped condensing version - frustrating

 

 

Alternatively.......( just a guess...) 

 

Buy 58072 and 1303.

 

Swap smokebox/boiler/firebox assembly from 1303 with that of 58072 making good as required. 

 

Add lining to 1303 boiler. 

 

Reassemble left overs and research suitable identity. 

 

 

Rob. . 

[MJI]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

London Road Models don't do a Midland 0-4-4T so far as I'm aware - there used to be one from Craftsman - 1532 Class, same as the Bachmann model. Beware that whereas Bachmann's BR liveried version 58072 received a Belpaire boiler in place of round-topped in mid-1951, 58071 was withdrawn in mid-1956 still with a round-topped boiler. Both engines retained their condensing gear to the end. (Photo of 58071 at Ashchurch in BR lined black 27 Aug 1955.)

 

So you've got a quandary:

1. Buy Bachmann's 58072 and do a conversion to round-topped boiler - challenging
2. Buy Bachmann's LMS-liveried 1303 and make some condensing gear, line out, etc - unsatisfactory since Bachmann have correctly modelled the different tank sides of condensing and non-condensing engines
3. Wait for Bachmann to produce a round-topped condensing version - frustrating

Interesting so may go for 41900 insteaf

 

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, MJI said:

Interesting so may go for 41900 insteaf

 

 

The first of the ten LMS-built 0-4-4Ts, from the LRM kit - another Ashchurch engine?

Edited August 10, 2020 by Compound2632

[adb968008]

MR and 58072 for me, plus the S&D one (given Bachmann's lean towards S&D you know they will do one), it'll join the 2P, 3F, 4F, 7F :-)

Edited August 10, 2020 by adb968008

[MJI]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The first of the ten LMS-built 0-4-4Ts, from the LRM kit - another Ashchurch engine?

 

Lickey route, Evesham line, Winchcombe line, Upton branch all of interest to me

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎04‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 15:07, No Decorum said:

According to Rails, the model will have an extra wheelset with traction tyres...

An alternative wheelset so that the owner can fit what they require. That's really welcome news.

[MonsalDan]

On 05/08/2020 at 14:36, Compound2632 said:

 

But even in 4 mm scale kit form there's currently, to the best of my knowledge, a distinct lack of:

 

5'3"-wheeled small-boilered Johnson 0-6-0 (around 700+ locomotives all told, including M&GN and S&DJR versions, though a great many rebuilt to 3F). These engines can be had (with a little flexibility) in two shades of green, red, blue, yellow, brown (possibly two shades), and varying degrees of black...

 

Any of the Belpaire boilered 4-4-0s - 483 Class, Belpaire, 999 (didn't the GEM kit attempt to be for both of those at once?), Compound. In fact, I think the LRM 1808 Class is the only 4-4-0 available, though a useful one - also doing for M&GN Class C. 

 

I think we're unlikely to see the resurrection of any of the old Alan Gibson kits - Mr Seymour has got his work cut out meeting the demand for wheels.

I hope that's not the case with regards to Alan Gibson kits.  If the orders are there then surely they could make a batch if profitable?

Edited August 16, 2020 by MonsalDan