Jump to content
 

Hornby W1 Hush Hush


truffy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I've sometimes wondered about how the Whyte notation applies to anomalies such as double singles, double Fairies, booster engines etc.  In fact anything where the arrangement isn't the customary three groups of even numbers.  Is there some formal definition somewhere of the circumstances in which a number of axles form a group like this?  And if the result isn't the usual three groups of axles, how one know which axles are driven.

 

For example how would one classify a hypothetical engine with no leading bogie, 6 coupled drivers and a W1 pony truck or a booster bogie?

 

A plus sign is used where there is articulation such as a Mallett or Garratt, so why shouldn't your articulated W1 trailing bogie be described as 4-6-2+2 ?

 

It’s covered fairly (if you’ll excuse the pun) well here:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyte_notation

 

including articulated locomotives.

 

PS: I think the W1 would be a 4-6-2-2 and not a 4-6-2+2 because the Bissel truck is attached to the same  set of frames as the other wheels. If, for some bizarre reason the Bissel truck were attached to the tender, then it could be considered a 4-6-2+2, but then I think it would have to be a 4-6-2+2-0-0 in Whyte notation.

 

 PPS: A 4-6-2-2 could theoretically be interpreted as a locomotive with a two-axle leading bogie, followed by a three-axle leading bogie, then 2 driving wheels and a single-axle trailing truck...  Which is why UIC notation is more precise.

 

 

Edited by Zero Gravitas
Added a couple of PSs
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Whyte notation here.

This is where the W1 confusion comes from as there doesn't seem to be any way of denoting separately controlled trailing trucks.

It assumes all trailing wheels (and leading wheels) are either grouped in the main frame or common bogie.

 

There is one loco somewhere I've seen a photo of, which has a pair of carrying wheels between the driving wheels and is not articulated.

It doesn't seem to be catered for by the Whyte notation at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The Whyte notation here.

This is where the W1 confusion comes from as there doesn't seem to be any way of denoting separately controlled trailing trucks.

It assumes all trailing wheels (and leading wheels) are either grouped in the main frame or common bogie.

 

There is one loco somewhere I've seen a photo of, which has a pair of carrying wheels between the driving wheels and is not articulated.

It doesn't seem to be catered for by the Whyte notation at all.

 

That’s the same link I quoted.  And whilst 4-6-2-2 is not “strict” Whyte Notation, I think it does make sense in in the spirit of  Whyte (to me anyway...). In UIC it would be a 1C11, which would be much clearer.

 

As for your second example, I agree that Whyte doesn’t cover it - but I don’t think UIC does either.  There are (A1A)(A1A) examples (Class 31 or 18000, which is less than a mile from where I am typing this), and in any case if you were being strictly pendantic but tautological they would (Ao1Ao)(Ao1Ao).  Although you could argue that if (Ao1Ao)(Ao1Ao) were adopted formally, then A1A could be used for the situation you describe, but would fail for a B1B upwards....

 

This conversation is one of the many reasons I love RMWeb!

Edited by Zero Gravitas
Pesky predictive text...
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zero Gravitas said:

And whilst 4-6-2-2 is not “strict” Whyte Notation, I think it does make sense in in the spirit of  Whyte (to me anyway...).

 

It definitely doesn't to me. I think that the link you provided is quite clear.

 

When using three numeric digits, such as 4-6-4, it implies a standard locomotive with four unpowered leading wheels, six driving wheels and then four unpowered trailing wheels.  The fact that these trailing axles are able to move independently is immaterial in Whyte Notation.

 

When using four numeric digits such as 4-6-2-2 this always implies either a simple articulated locomotive like a Mallet or a Duplex and the Hush Hush is neither of these.  That is, the four number format implies two separate sets of driving wheels, which in the case of a 4-6-2-2 would be one set of cylinders driving six wheels and a second set of cylinders driving a single wheel behind that.  I don't think any locomotive actually had that wheel arrangement.

 

When using five numeric digits such as 2-8-8-8-2 this implies a Triplex with three separate sets of cylinders driving three separate sets of driving wheels.  A Quadruplex and Quintuplex were proposed, which would have been six and seven numbers separated by hyphens under Whyte Notation.  The common theme is that all of the numbers between the first digit and the last digit references a set of powered driving wheels.

 

The only instance under Whyte Notation where non powered wheels are not grouped together as a single number is when referencing articulated locomotives like the Garratt where a plus sign is used to separate two separate sets of unpowered wheels. The presence of the plus sign in the 2-6-2+2-6-2 notation differentiates the Garratt from the proposed Quadruplex.  That is 2-6-2-2-6-2 would be a Quadruplex with four sets of cylinders, whereas 2-6-2+2-6-2 is a Garratt with only two sets of driving wheels.

 

My conclusion is therefore that the Hush Hush is definitely not a 4-6-2-2.  My own preference is simply to refer to Hush Hush as 4-6-4, but if there is a need to split the two rear axles, the only way this can be done under Whyte Notation would be to use a plus sign.  That therefore leaves possible contenders as 4-6-2+2 or alternatively either 4-6-2+2-0-0 or perhaps more correctly 4-6-2+0-0-2 since the last axle is still trailing rather than leading (which is what 4-6-2+2-0-0 implies).

 

Who'd have thought describing a locomotive could be so complicated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

There is one loco somewhere I've seen a photo of, which has a pair of carrying wheels between the driving wheels and is not articulated.

It doesn't seem to be catered for by the Whyte notation at all.

 

I think I'd be tempted to describe such a locomotive using a plus either side of the carrying wheel that was between the driving wheels, so something like 2-4-0+2+0-4-2.  The problem with this is that whilst the plus sign is the only way to differentiate between powered and non powered wheels, it also generally implies articulation.  It's also not immediately clear that the middle wheels are unpowered, although if they were then the notation would be 2-4-2-4-2, so in this instance the presence of the zeros would provide the confirmation that the middle digit represented an unpowered axle.

 

However, I note that the notation 0-4-0+4 was used to describe a railmotor with no leading wheels, four powered and coupled driving wheels on two axles and four trailing wheels on two axles mounted in a bogie - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0-4-0%2B4.  That would therefore imply that the notation 4-6-2+2 would imply a locomotive with four leading wheels on two axles, six powered and coupled driving wheels, two trailing wheels on a single axle and a further two trailing wheels on a single axle bogie.  That is therefore perhaps the best way to describe Hush Hush if you're not content with calling her a Hudson or Baltic (ie a 4-6-4).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

It definitely doesn't to me. I think that the link you provided is quite clear.

 

When using three numeric digits, such as 4-6-4, it implies a standard locomotive with four unpowered leading wheels, six driving wheels and then four unpowered trailing wheels.  The fact that these trailing axles are able to move independently is immaterial in Whyte Notation.

 

When using four numeric digits such as 4-6-2-2 this always implies either a simple articulated locomotive like a Mallet or a Duplex and the Hush Hush is neither of these.  That is, the four number format implies two separate sets of driving wheels, which in the case of a 4-6-2-2 would be one set of cylinders driving six wheels and a second set of cylinders driving a single wheel behind that.  I don't think any locomotive actually had that wheel arrangement.

 

When using five numeric digits such as 2-8-8-8-2 this implies a Triplex with three separate sets of cylinders driving three separate sets of driving wheels.  A Quadruplex and Quintuplex were proposed, which would have been six and seven numbers separated by hyphens under Whyte Notation.  The common theme is that all of the numbers between the first digit and the last digit references a set of powered driving wheels.

 

The only instance under Whyte Notation where non powered wheels are not grouped together as a single number is when referencing articulated locomotives like the Garratt where a plus sign is used to separate two separate sets of unpowered wheels. The presence of the plus sign in the 2-6-2+2-6-2 notation differentiates the Garratt from the proposed Quadruplex.  That is 2-6-2-2-6-2 would be a Quadruplex with four sets of cylinders, whereas 2-6-2+2-6-2 is a Garratt with only two sets of driving wheels.

 

My conclusion is therefore that the Hush Hush is definitely not a 4-6-2-2.  My own preference is simply to refer to Hush Hush as 4-6-4, but if there is a need to split the two rear axles, the only way this can be done under Whyte Notation would be to use a plus sign.  That therefore leaves possible contenders as 4-6-2+2 or alternatively either 4-6-2+2-0-0 or perhaps more correctly 4-6-2+0-0-2 since the last axle is still trailing rather than leading (which is what 4-6-2+2-0-0 implies).

 

Who'd have thought describing a locomotive could be so complicated.

I’d agree with most of that. You are in exalted company as Sir Nigel Gresley described the Hush Hush as a 4-6-4. I have made the point before in relation to early broad gauge locos that to annotate carrying wheels separately just because they are to some degree independent of each other creates ambiguity. To my mind, a 4-6-2-2 has eight driving wheels, the trailing pair uncoupled and perhaps booster powered. Things become a little mired when we consider the P1 (P, of course, being the LNER designation of a 2-8-2). It is possible to argue that a P1, before its booster was removed, was a 2-8-2-0 but the LNER just cut the nonsense and described it as a 2-8-2.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so when our steam railcar is running with the boiler unit to the rear, does it change from being an 0-4-0+4 to a 4+0-4-0?

After all, the link shows the Southern Pacific Cab Forward as 4-8-8-2 not a 2-8-8-4.  And again, should the railcar stick a T on the end?

 

Does it make any difference whether the "Motor bogie" is rigid with the carriage body or articulated to it as some of them were?  I think one or two were self-contained vertical boiler locos with the carriage effectively pivoting off it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

OK so when our steam railcar is running with the boiler unit to the rear, does it change from being an 0-4-0+4 to a 4+0-4-0?

After all, the link shows the Southern Pacific Cab Forward as 4-8-8-2 not a 2-8-8-4.  And again, should the railcar stick a T on the end?

 

Does it make any difference whether the "Motor bogie" is rigid with the carriage body or articulated to it as some of them were?  I think one or two were self-contained vertical boiler locos with the carriage effectively pivoting off it.  

 

No. Because locomotives have fronts and backs, or in the case of diesels "ends". Many also use the term smokebox or cab end.

 

That's all been taken in to account in the descriptions and designs.

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

OK so when our steam railcar is running with the boiler unit to the rear, does it change from being an 0-4-0+4 to a 4+0-4-0?

 

No.  If a Pacific were running tender first, it doesn't become a 2-6-4.  Presumably the designer designates what is considered the normal direction of travel and what is reverse.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

And again, should the railcar stick a T on the end?

 

Arguably yes, although I note that the original Wikipedia article about Whyte Notation also refers to the use of R for a railcar, as in 0-4-4-0R.  Presumably that refers to a coach with a power bogie at each end (ie the same format as a Duplex or Mallet) whereas 0-4-0+4, 0-4-0+4T or 0-4-0+4R (I don't know which is most 'correct') would refer to a unit where the trailing bogie is unpowered, but not connected to the frames of the 'locomotive' end of the railcar.

 

12 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Does it make any difference whether the "Motor bogie" is rigid with the carriage body or articulated to it as some of them were?  I think one or two were self-contained vertical boiler locos with the carriage effectively pivoting off it.  

 

I agree that some were effectively a carriage pivoted off a vertical boiler locomotive.  Interestingly, the Wikipedia article also highlights the use of VB for a Vertical Boiler locomotive.  As such, I suspect if you have a carriage hanging off the back of a vertical boiler locomotive, then you would use something like 0-4-0VB+4

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This has been a fascinating discussion, and the conclusion I have drawn from it is that if there can be this much interpretation and discussion applied to something that is supposed to be a standard for classification, then (and with all due respect) then it's not a very good standard.

 

Additionally, I think the single biggest problem with Whyte notation is that is does not differentiate the powered wheels from the unpowered, and so relies on a degree of assumption and/or interpretation of what the layout of the locomotive actually is.

 

Most of the time, this works because across the majority of locomotives the wheel arrangements are broadly similar  (basically carrying wheels - driving wheels - carrying wheels) and we can make an accurate interpretation based on our experience. However, there are "corner cases" (as we are seeing) where it's a lot less clear what's going on and it's both difficult to assign a Whyte notation and then interpret what that notation actually means.

 

It's a bit like the Newtonian theories of motion - they work for the majority of situations we experience as humans (up to the solar system scale), but for very high velocities and masses (the black hole sort of scale) they don't work and Einstein's theories have to take over. 

 

So for me, whilst it's not perfect, that's why UIC notation works better for a greater majority of locomotives.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
On 17/07/2021 at 01:12, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Does it make any difference whether the "Motor bogie" is rigid with the carriage body or articulated to it as some of them were?  I think one or two were self-contained vertical boiler locos with the carriage effectively pivoting off it.  

There are instances of vertical boilers, in-line boilers and transverse boilers in the articulated steam railcar repertoire.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/07/2021 at 23:08, No Decorum said:

I’d agree with most of that. You are in exalted company as Sir Nigel Gresley described the Hush Hush as a 4-6-4. 

 

Given that the loco's designer described it as a 4-6-4 that should be enough for anybody.  

 

Les

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A Fascinating discussion and very interesting points on both sides.

I think the 4-8-4 designation for the W1 as opposed to 4-8-2-2 

or another designation, was an attempt to keep thinks things simple. Though, judging by the discussion here, I’m not sure they were as successful as they thought they were!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/07/2021 at 07:57, Zero Gravitas said:

The conclusion I have drawn from it is that if there can be this much interpretation and discussion applied to something that is supposed to be a standard for classification, then (and with all due respect) then it's not a very good standard.

 

The problem is that the 'standard' was conceived before most of the unusual cases were thought about.  Back in 1910, the wheel arrangement of most locomotives was basically carrying wheels - driving wheels - carrying wheels.  Therefore, a way to differentiate between different locomotives was to specify these three numbers separated by hyphens - eg 4-6-4.  Whyte Notation probably wasn't originally intended to be any more complex than that.  Simple articulated locomotives, which have an extra set of driving wheels were then allocated an extra digit in the notation, so that you get carrying wheels - driving wheels - driving wheels - carrying wheels.  What about large articulated locomotives like a Garrett?  Well, that's effectively two locomotives sharing a common boiler, so use the standard notation of carrying wheels - driving wheels - carrying wheels for each half of the locomotive and use the plus symbol to join them.

 

As time has moved on some people have looked to make things more specific, when the original 'standard' was intended to be quite simple.  Hush Hush has four carrying wheels at the front, six driving wheels and four carrying wheels at the rear and is therefore a 4-6-4 as the 'standard' was originally conceived.  The problem is that Whyte Notation can't differentiate between four carrying wheels that are a bogie from four carrying wheels where the two axles have independent motion as they do on Hush Hush.  I suspect that the notion that Hush Hush should be referred to as 4-6-2-2 arises from the fact that it is a UK locomotive and there were few simple articulated locomotives like the Mallets in use in the UK, so the use of the four digit form to mean carrying wheels - driving wheels - driving wheels - carrying wheels is not so widely understood as it would be elsewhere in the world, such as the US.  That therefore allows some people to assume that 4-6-2-2 is 'in the spirit of Whyte Notation', when in fact I think it's just trying to overcomplicate what was originally intended as a simple classification system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, davidw said:

Here's a taster of what's to comeIMG_20210721_170137055.jpg.aa6a25b5938669b648dd229821f0e5d7.jpg

Another taster of what’s to come. I had a phone call yesterday, saying that Hornby is putting its prices up and the retailer has no choice but to pass it on. Do I still want my 4-8-4/4-8-2-2? Yes, of course I do, but I can’t help muttering. Hornby has become increasing accident prone recently. I hope the W1 turns out all right and, in particular, that it doesn’t have its trailing wheels hovering in mid-air.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, No Decorum said:

 I hope the W1 turns out all right and, in particular, that it doesn’t have its trailing wheels hovering in mid-air.

If you look at the recent Hornby video, that is exactly what their appears to be doing , and hanging out on curves as well.

 

It has also now becoming a overpriced version just to finish my interest in the original W1 version.

 

One to get on with, taster No2

 

5943079_1aw12IMG_8707.jpg.914f4c63c78cf6d30789efba96823892.jpg

 

 

Edited by micklner
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, No Decorum said:

Another taster of what’s to come. I had a phone call yesterday, saying that Hornby is putting its prices up and the retailer has no choice but to pass it on. Do I still want my 4-8-4/4-8-2-2? Yes, of course I do, but I can’t help muttering. Hornby has become increasing accident prone recently. I hope the W1 turns out all right and, in particular, that it doesn’t have its trailing wheels hovering in mid-air.

 

I hope it has the right number of wheels.....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zero Gravitas said:

It’s actually an I (for India) 1...

 

I being the only code the LNER did not use for wheel arrangements...

 

No idea what you mean. 

 

In about three posts above the W1 has been described as a 4-8-4 and a 4-8-2-2.

 

It had six driving wheels not eight.

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

No idea what you mean. 

 

In about three posts above the W1 has been described as a 4-8-4 and a 4-8-2-2.

 

It had six driving wheels not eight.

 

 

Jason

 

Sorry. I was frivolously thinking about what the W1 would have been classified as had it been a 4-8-4 (or 4-8-2-2, but let’s not start that again).

 

Knowing then that LNER Pacifics were A Class, and the 4-6-0s were B class, there was not a class for 4-8-4s; and also given that I (for India) was the only letter not used, I made the jocular suggestion that had the Hush-Hush in fact been a 4-8-4, it would have been an I1 and not a W1 (W being the class code for 4-6-4s).

 

Edited to add: Just realised (not for the first time) I'm an idiot:  Given the W1 was the only LNER locomotive with a 4-6-4 arrangement, had it been made as a 4-8-4, the W code would still have been available and so it would still have been a W1, but W would then be assigned to 4-8-4s.

 

No wonder you've got no idea what I mean...

Edited by Zero Gravitas
I'm an idiot.
  • Friendly/supportive 4
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...