Hornby - New tooling - Peckett B2 0-6-0ST

[Zunnan]

I think inside vs outside cylinders was more an aesthetic decision over ease of maintenance in this country. Higher power levels needed more room for larger cylinders, but in these two cylinder applications where 18" will have been large enough to fulfil and surpass requirements, it would more likely come down to what the customer wanted and was used to working with.

 

The ultimate industrial steam locomotives were arguably the Bagnall New Standard 18, though the Peckett OQ will always have something to say on that front. These were outside cylinder and had outside Walschaerts valve gear. Unfortunately they ended up displaced by diesels even at the manufacture stage as Bagnall merged with Brush so only 3 were built. They were let down only really by their steel firebox, which probably did for one of the class with its second owner and poor maintenance. But they incorporated features more akin to the later BR Standards, so in that respect I think these easily surpassed the Q1 technologically for the mantle of 'ultimate' 0-6-0. With development from Port Talbots specifications for them, and had Bagnalls not merged with Brush so early, they would probably have attracted sales from other users and gone on to become quite the late success for steam. The OQs massive power was already within reach, so given a few more years and the right customer while the opportunity was still there to compete with the move towards diesel, who knows...

[rockershovel]

Some of the L&Y Pugs appear with shrouds over the slide bars, so I’d guess that for industrial tanks, minimising width and exposed moving parts were probably considerations for some users. 

 

I would surmise that inside cylinders are probably cheaper to construct than outside cylinders, and use less material. I also surmise that inside cylinders run more smoothly, the various out of balance forces being closer together ? 

[PhilJ W]

Hopefully Hornby would consider an inside cylinder Peckett 0-6-0. The two Metropolitan examples come to mind.

[Paul.Uni]

R3765 Bloxham & Whiston Ironstone Co. Ltd no. 1456, now has a release date of Autumn 2021 on the Hornby website

 

R3766 NCB no. 1426 is still listed as Autumn 2020.

[adb968008]

On 19/07/2020 at 12:10, rockershovel said:

Some of the L&Y Pugs appear with shrouds over the slide bars, so I’d guess that for industrial tanks, minimising width and exposed moving parts were probably considerations for some users. 

 

I would surmise that inside cylinders are probably cheaper to construct than outside cylinders, and use less material. I also surmise that inside cylinders run more smoothly, the various out of balance forces being closer together ? 

Inside cylinders are surely more awkward to maintain / get access to, which inturn increases both downtime and maintenance costs, which also requires more locos for traffic to be available to compensate.

[rockershovel]

12 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Inside cylinders are surely more awkward to maintain / get access to, which inturn increases both downtime and maintenance costs, which also requires more locos for traffic to be available to compensate.

 

I’d tend to feel from various information available, that the size, speed and power ranges of these locos were such that no clear preferred solution exists - that either configuration could be made to perform sufficiently, and construction costs were comparable. Certainly outside cylinders were the trend in “late Steam” days, see also the Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0T series for British Sugar (one of which survives in preservation at the NVR)

 

Another key point is that inside valve gear would normally be Stephenson type, whereas outside valve gear would be Walschaerts (because of the difficulty of accommodating the Stephenson eccentrics outside, whereas inside Walschaerts is very difficult to accommodate). So again, customer preference and designer experience. 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by rockershovel

[Corbs]

In case it's of interest, you can swap the Hornby Peckett W4 wheels onto the B2 chassis to represent locos with smaller wheels (3ft 1in instead of 3ft 7in).

Not a cheap swap but the gears are the same, the pickups need adjustment though.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Corbs

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Inside cylinders are surely more awkward to maintain / get access to, which inturn increases both downtime and maintenance costs, which also requires more locos for traffic to be available to compensate.

So explain the popularity of Hunslet austerities in industrial use?  They were worked hard with single man crews and considered very good and still popular workhorses in preservation. 

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

So explain the popularity of Hunslet austerities in industrial use?  They were worked hard with single man crews and considered very good and still popular workhorses in preservation. 

You cant equate preservation to real life.

 

Preservationists will take any route, easy or hard to get a preferred loco in steam, if Leader was still with us, it will have done more miles by now than BR ever would have.

 

If your applying commercial logic to preservation, 71000 would be scrapped 40 years ago. Commercial logic doesnt apply.

 

J94s are the absence of a BR logo makes them cheap to buy, loads of spares makes them cheap to run, basic rugged compared to a fleet of Bulleid pacifics, Black fives, Halls etc. What they arent is the most  cost efficient option to have existed, but they are acceptable amongst what remains. They are not suited to longer lines, or even heavier use on shorter lines.. they wear out faster, many were tired, much worse than ex-BR on entering preservation... but beggars cannot be choosers.
There are a growing lot of knackered J94’s out there, that need big investments and most likely have run their last ticket. Many others are only running by feasting on their remains.

 

Given choice I think many lines would prefer a fleet of BR Std 2MT or 3MT in tank or tender versions.. but they just dont exist in suficient quantities. Look how popular 4MTs are... there are almost equal number of Merchant Navies too.. yet only a handful have run.

 

In the future restorations by preserved lines are increasingly based on economics rather than passion... there are growing numbers of commercial funded overhauls by railways, and less locomotives overhauled by volunteer groups. So ask the same question in 10 years.

Edited November 24, 2020 by adb968008

[PaulRhB]

6 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

You cant equate preservation to real life

 

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

J94s are cheap to buy, cheap to run, basic rugged compared to a fleet of Bulleid pacifics etc. 

That’s exactly why the coal board etc used them over theoretically more suitable locos just like preservation. Money has always driven the choice over the definitive solution. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

What they arent is the most  cost efficient option to have existed, but they are amongst what remains.

Again much like the coal board and other industries picking up surplus locos it was a case of what was available cheap. Austerities and other tanks are also much cheaper to run on a day to day basis in fuel and water over a pacific on a shorter preserved line. It’s often enthusiasm that dictates using big inefficient locos wasting money there too. Yes there are knackered j94’s but they are still cheaper to repair than a larger loco which usually suffers more in boiler wear with the irregular cycles in preservation. Only the big railway companies had the luxury to buy exactly what they needed so industries and preservation make/made do with what they can get and put up with spreading the cost of repairs. 

[adb968008]

Summed up in 2 words...

 

Army Surplus.

 

Must have hurt Private manufacturers sales post war.

Cheap doesnt mean better, British have always done things on the cheap, if your labour is cheap than it offsets the extra costs of doing it properly, but overall reduces productivity.. the very same problem the nation has today, before covid.

 

so my point still stands... are inside cylinders better ? Just because theres more Fords on the road doesnt make Ford the best.

Edited November 24, 2020 by adb968008

[No Decorum]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Summed up in 2 words...

 

Army Surplus.

 

Must have hurt Private manufacturers sales post war.

Cheap doesnt mean better, British have always done things on the cheap, if your labour is cheap than it offsets the extra costs of doing it properly, but overall reduces productivity.. the very same problem the nation has today, before covid.

 

so my point still stands... are inside cylinders better ? Just because theres more Fords on the road doesnt make Ford the best.

It’s well known that Rocket rocked, which is why the cylinders were brought down to the horizontal. Rocket also yawed, which is why the design was altered from Planet onwards to place the cylinders close together between the frames. The same would apply to any locomotive with a short wheelbase, although perhaps not very important for a shunting locomotive.

[Paul.Uni]

According to the Hornby Website the release dates are as follows:

• R3871 Port Of Bristol Authority 'Henry' 1264 - Summer 2021
• R3765 Bloxham & Whiston Ironstone Co. Ltd 1456 - Autumn 2021
• R2766 NCB 1426 - Autumn 2021
• R3870 NCB 'The Earl' 1203 - Autumn 2021

[rope runner]

On 24/11/2020 at 10:52, PaulRhB said:

So explain the popularity of Hunslet austerities in industrial use?

That can be explained thusly: they're the most numerous preserved steam loco of a single design and by a long chalk. They're mechanically very simple, robust and capable of a decent turn of speed unlike many industrial locos.

 

They may not be everyone's cup of tea but at the end of the day if you're looking to shuffle around 4-6 MK1's over a few miles they are absolutely fine. They're also cheap to run vs. other locos of the same power output. The preconception some people make about this class is presuming that as it's industrial it must be a shunting loco. This is incorrect and in truth they were primarily designed with trip working in mind. 

 

Paul A. 

[PaulRhB]

40 minutes ago, 1whitemoor said:

That can be explained thusly: they're the most numerous preserved steam loco of a single design and by a long chalk. They're mechanically very simple, robust and capable of a decent turn of speed unlike many industrial locos.

 

They may not be everyone's cup of tea but at the end of the day if you're looking to shuffle around 4-6 MK1's over a few miles they are absolutely fine. They're also cheap to run vs. other locos of the same power output. The preconception some people make about this class is presuming that as it's industrial it must be a shunting loco. This is incorrect and in truth they were primarily designed with trip working in mind. 

 

Paul A. 

That’s a bit out of context from how the question was posed  

 

On 24/11/2020 at 10:52, PaulRhB said:

So explain the popularity of Hunslet austerities in industrial use?  They were worked hard with single man crews and considered very good and still popular workhorses in preservation. 

 

[Paul.Uni]

On 24/01/2021 at 16:15, Paul.Uni said:

According to the Hornby Website the release dates are as follows:

• R3871 Port Of Bristol Authority 'Henry' 1264 - Summer 2021
• R3765 Bloxham & Whiston Ironstone Co. Ltd 1456 - Autumn 2021
• R3766 NCB 1426 - Autumn 2021
• R3870 NCB 'The Earl' 1203 - Autumn 2021

The Hornby coming soon page lists all four as due in April.

[tomparryharry]

Hunslet 18" Austerity: Very strong loco, simply designed to provide maximum use, in minimal conditions.  It's non-superheated, so no silly stuff about headers, or higher degree oils.  Simplicity can mean that instead of getting it wrong,  a fitter can take time to get it 'just right' .  Usually an 18" will have everything to be get-attable,  With the onset of mechanical lubricators, the working lifespan of the loco should be improved, but some preservationists put mech lubricators in vey awkward spots, because it looks good there.....

 

Some of these venerable locomotives are well over their asset book value, but are kept going. The big problem, however, is that having a 70 year old boiler is up for full renewal, which is an expensive prospect. 

 

It's not the fault of the locomotive: The failure normally lies with the operator failing to budget  for renewal when that falls due. I've done thousands of hours on Austerities, and they do exactly what's on the tin. 

[Dunsignalling]

On 24/11/2020 at 13:10, adb968008 said:

Summed up in 2 words...

 

Army Surplus.

 

Must have hurt Private manufacturers sales post war.

Cheap doesnt mean better, British have always done things on the cheap, if your labour is cheap than it offsets the extra costs of doing it properly, but overall reduces productivity.. the very same problem the nation has today, before covid.

 

so my point still stands... are inside cylinders better ? Just because theres more Fords on the road doesnt make Ford the best.

Inside cylinders are neither superior or inferior to outside ones but, in an industrial context, the lack of "Get-at-ability"  was offset by other factors. 

 

Many industrial locations, even large ones, had at least some cramped sections where outside cylinders might have clearance issues. In such complexes, having a few bits that were no-go areas for some locos would be a darned nuisance. Also, as weight and power outputs grew, short wheelbase outside cylinder locos had a real propensity to waddle - not good for ancient track that got fixed as necessary rather than regularly maintained as by railway companies. Thirdly, there's no outside slide-bars, con rods etc. for your workers to get caught up in.   

 

The main effect of the surplus Austerities would have been to stave off replacing a lot of industrial steam with diesels, and led to more uniform fleets for many operators, simplifying maintenance. However, it must also be remembered that quite a few continued to be produced through the 1950s so there were clearly conscious decisions made to order more of them.

 

I won't get into Fords. I've only ever had two, and didn't exactly fall in love with either of them!

 

John 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Paul_sterling]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Inside cylinders are neither superior or inferior to outside ones but, in an industrial context, the lack of "Get-at-ability"  was offset by other factors. 

 

Many industrial locations, even large ones, had at least some cramped sections where outside cylinders might have clearance issues. In such complexes, having a few bits that were no-go areas for some locos would be a darned nuisance. Also, as weight and power outputs grew, short wheelbase outside cylinder locos had a real propensity to waddle - not good for ancient track that got fixed as necessary rather than regularly maintained as by railway companies. Thirdly, there's no outside slide-bars, con rods etc. for your workers to get caught up in.   

 

The main effect of the surplus Austerities would have been to stave off replacing a lot of industrial steam with diesels, and led to more uniform fleets for many operators, simplifying maintenance. However, it must also be remembered that quite a few continued to be produced through the 1950s so there were clearly conscious decisions made to order more of them.

 

I won't get into Fords. I've only ever had two, and didn't exactly fall in love with either of them!

 

John 

 

I agree John, 

 

The LH&JC, which most know I'm rather fond of, had a mix and match of both outside and inside cylinder locomotives. I've been adapting and populating the records for the loco's, but evidence is limited, as quite a few of the older ones were replaced post 1945 with Austerities and other classes, even so far as taking the old numbers (such as No.s 7 and 51). The Austerities were certainly welcome locomotives, tough, durable, and could haul heavy trains, and they allowed the replacement of some very old locomotives on the Lambton. 

 

There is some indication (but not as yet a strong one), that those engines which worked to the Coal Staithes were usually inside cylinders. It would make sense given the restricted loading gauge of the tunnel, and that also, not all locomotives on the LH&JC received "Lambton" cabs to work it. 

 

Paul. 

[tomparryharry]

On 24/11/2020 at 09:58, Corbs said:

In case it's of interest, you can swap the Hornby Peckett W4 wheels onto the B2 chassis to represent locos with smaller wheels (3ft 1in instead of 3ft 7in).

Not a cheap swap but the gears are the same, the pickups need adjustment though.

 

 

 

A lot of industrial locomotives went on cylinder size for any given gauge. Barclays are well-known for this. A classic example is the Barclay 14" locomotive. Both Victory, and Llantarnam Abbey (Blaenavon )  are the same size cylinder, which allows the same motion, etc. The 6-wheeler has (naturally ) longer frames, so you get luxuries like a roomier cab, and a better bunker. The boiler however, keeps the same boiler size, and the cab that adorns it.

 

In this instance, standardisation is not only confined to Swindon.....   

[tomparryharry]

As a further aside, is there a way modellers can acquire the different safety valves, etc, to modify these items?  On larger fleets, the engineer would change safety valves to a single recognised type.   Insurance inspectors liked that sort of thing as well. 

 

I've got both a W4, and a B2 Peckett. My prosed layout has a 'top side' shunter, and a 'bottom side'  one. Both have the same livery,  (or, will have ) but things like lubricators & safety valves need altering.

 

Cheers,

Ian.  

[Corbs]

2 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

As a further aside, is there a way modellers can acquire the different safety valves, etc, to modify these items?  On larger fleets, the engineer would change safety valves to a single recognised type.   Insurance inspectors liked that sort of thing as well. 

 

I've got both a W4, and a B2 Peckett. My prosed layout has a 'top side' shunter, and a 'bottom side'  one. Both have the same livery,  (or, will have ) but things like lubricators & safety valves need altering.

 

Cheers,

Ian.  

 

Do you know which styles/types you want to standardise on? Someone on here might have a spare part or a donor body?

[tomparryharry]

2 minutes ago, Corbs said:

 

Do you know which styles/types you want to standardise on? Someone on here might have a spare part or a donor body?

 

Cheers Corbs, but I'm not quite at the point of taking apart either of the Pecketts.  It'll be Ramsbottom valves, or Ross Pop. Definitely not Salters, however. If either type of valve comes along, I'll put them in with the boxes ready to use.

[Paul.Uni]

 

[tomparryharry]

Nice one Paul, looks as though I'm buying an extra B2... No 1426 has it just about 'right'.