Jump to content

truffy

Hornby W1 Hush Hush

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

At the same time the RN rejected high pressure water tube boilers for its warship designs after trails on one ship failed. The USN built a class of ships with them, sorted the problems out which gave them more compact and more fuel efficient machinery. The cumulated in 1000psi boilers by the end of WWII. Now what if the W1 had been built in the US?

The problem with the UK in the 30s, we were perhaps too quick to write off new designs before getting basic problems sorted out.

 

Afternoon J spencer,

 

Absolutely true but the US ships were still unreliable to a degree unacceptable to the Royal Navy. Different logistical systems in terms of maintaining ships at sea dictated a lot of what was and not acceptable in that instance.

 

The problem with the Hush Hush was introduced after the design stage by those who thought they knew better and didn't need to consult the designers' specification. To be fair to the LNER, they spent a considerable amount of time trying to sort out the locomotive. They eventually discover to their own embarrassment that the problem was of their own making. The contractors, who initially received a lot of the blame for faulty equipment, realized what the issue was much sooner but were resistant to telling the LNER with the truth. One major problem was that after a locomotive was handed over to the running department, they were expected to sort any problems. It was not expected that the CME would become directly involved again unless absolutely necessary. A similar state of affairs existed with the P2 class locomotives. The then CME, became involved with the P2 locomotives after the catastrophic failures of the crank axle, this was endemic to the design and eventually condemned the whole class.

 

29 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

After the rebuild, they were said to be both vastly superior to the original design, yet still remained 'restricted', with the increased-size cylinder valves being too small ...

 

Sounds like in whichever form, it could have been a lot more than it was ... pity!!

 

Al.

 

Mostly restricted in terms of speed and efficiency, as compared to class A4. The rebuilt W1 was still a very powerful engine, more so than the A4. The locomotive was despatched to the Aberdeen route were its 50' grate proved able to generate more than enough power to handle the P2 workings. The CME concluded that a six coupled locomotive with a 50' grate was just the solution to the P2 problem. He should perhaps of been more literal and built, or converted more W1's.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

The problem with the UK in the 30s, we were perhaps too quick to write off new designs before getting basic problems sorted out.

 

The problem persisted much longer than that! In the 1950s and 60s, that attitude cut the legs from under the British aircraft industry, even with successful designs which were not permitted to be developed further, such as the Hawker Hunter and Harrier. So often we had to start from scratch. On the other hand, it was fortunate that the Avro Manchester was an earlier exception to the rule.

 

The Nim.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon J spencer,

 

Absolutely true but the US ships were still unreliable to a degree unacceptable to the Royal Navy. Different logistical systems in terms of maintaining ships at sea dictated a lot of what was and not acceptable in that instance.

 

 

 

We are going OTT but that statement is a myth I'm afraid. USN boilers needed cleaning once every 2000 hours vs once every 750 hours for the RN. The RN did do better than many nations with only 25% of operational time spent cleaning. But overall it gave UK ships a lot less endurance vis-à-vis USN ones, took up much space (ship survival rate reduced). Even the lend lease Ex WWI US flushdeckers has less steam leaks than the UK modern ships.

 

In 1924 the RN fitted HMS Acheron with a 500IB PSI boiler vs 300lB of her sisters. Fuel consumption was 0.608lbs/shp/hr vs 0.81lbs/shp/hr. The only issue she had was with her Parsons turbines which were later said to be be old fashioned in design, and relied more on good workmanship to make up for poor designs! Ouch!

Page 101-102 "Nelson to Vangaurd" by DK Brown (ex RN designer).

 

The 20%+ fuel saving of the HP designs over more conventional one would certainly have made a good argument to invest in W1 further.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, truffy said:

 

I would also have thought that this approach would make stock allocation and tracking easier, resolving to only one R number. But there's also the likelihood that people would complain about having to stick nameplates on, especially if there's no tampo to line up with.

Since they were never fitted, you could pretty much fit them wherever you want. My personal preference would be at the same position as the A4 class. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/01/2020 at 19:00, The Black Hat said:

 

Dont worry Im already looking at one or two entering the paintshop and joining the rest of the New North Eastern Railway new build collection. Just trying to find a theme to name them... 


Taking 'Pegasus' as the class pathfinder, and knowing the LNER's fondness for an equestrian theme, why not name the others after other mythical horses? Llamrei and Hengroen were King Arthur's; Sleipnir was Odin's; Balius and Xanthus in Greek mythology; Tulpar, a winged horse in Turkish mythology; Bayard in French legend...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

 

We are going OTT but that statement is a myth I'm afraid. USN boilers needed cleaning once every 2000 hours vs once every 750 hours for the RN. The RN did do better than many nations with only 25% of operational time spent cleaning. But overall it gave UK ships a lot less endurance vis-à-vis USN ones, took up much space (ship survival rate reduced). Even the lend lease Ex WWI US flushdeckers has less steam leaks than the UK modern ships.

 

In 1924 the RN fitted HMS Acheron with a 500IB PSI boiler vs 300lB of her sisters. Fuel consumption was 0.608lbs/shp/hr vs 0.81lbs/shp/hr. The only issue she had was with her Parsons turbines which were later said to be be old fashioned in design, and relied more on good workmanship to make up for poor designs! Ouch!

Page 101-102 "Nelson to Vangaurd" by DK Brown (ex RN designer).

 

The 20%+ fuel saving of the HP designs over more conventional one would certainly have made a good argument to invest in W1 further.

 

 

 

Good evening JSpencer,

 

I've read 'Nelson to 'Vanguard many years ago, I confess that I haven't looked into Naval matters in a long time, so I can't really argue your point only accept it at face value.

 

There was never a good opportunity to properly compare Hush Hush against class A1 in terms of fuel consumption. The locomotive was once described as performing like a good A1 and that was the point, but by the time it was fit for purpose it needed to perform like a good A3. A loco that was already delivering considerable fuel efficiency over class A1. That could have been achieved but then the class A4 was waiting in the wings.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JSpencer said:

Now what if the W1 had been built in the US?...

Water tube boilers were trialled on locos in the USA and elsewhere. As ever, a great quick reference:

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm

Well, it won't be quick, you will be reading for hours!

 

Probably true of the railway application that the water tube boiler came too late, the diesel and electric traction options promised so much more at the time. The combination of water tube boiler and steam turbine electric was made, and seems to have been successful enough: but swept away by diesel electric

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/01/2020 at 17:01, JSpencer said:

 

We are going OTT but that statement is a myth I'm afraid. USN boilers needed cleaning once every 2000 hours vs once every 750 hours for the RN. The RN did do better than many nations with only 25% of operational time spent cleaning. But overall it gave UK ships a lot less endurance vis-à-vis USN ones, took up much space (ship survival rate reduced). Even the lend lease Ex WWI US flushdeckers has less steam leaks than the UK modern ships.

 

In 1924 the RN fitted HMS Acheron with a 500IB PSI boiler vs 300lB of her sisters. Fuel consumption was 0.608lbs/shp/hr vs 0.81lbs/shp/hr. The only issue she had was with her Parsons turbines which were later said to be be old fashioned in design, and relied more on good workmanship to make up for poor designs! Ouch!

Page 101-102 "Nelson to Vangaurd" by DK Brown (ex RN designer).

 

The 20%+ fuel saving of the HP designs over more conventional one would certainly have made a good argument to invest in W1 further.

 

 

 

Royal Navy boiler and engineering design was intensely conservative and yet the plant was typically poorly-finished before and during the War.  Steam leakage in the power plants of the new King George V class battleships cut back their planned endurance significantly, which caused the name ship to be at serious risk of running out of fuel in pursuit of the Bismarck in 1941.  By 1942-3 direct comparison with the latest American battleships attached to the RN at Scapa Flow to escort the Russian Convoys was causing concern.  By 1945 both navies' ships ships were serving in the vast distances of the Pacific and the issue had become positively embarrassing, with the RN ships having to be refuelled at sea far more frequently than their American counterparts and therefore having far less operational availability.

 

It didn't help that the Engineer-in-Chief of the day was adamantly opposed to the USN practice of using chemical additives to the feed-water to keep the boilers clean for longer.  This was only overcome when one RN aircraft carrier directly disobeyed orders and conducted experiments which conclusively proved the benefits.  Even so, RN boiler design only really caught-up with American efficiencies and practices by the mid-late 1950s ... by which time gas turbine propulsion was on the horizon anyway ...

Edited by Willie Whizz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Watertube boilers.

Didn't the Sentinel Railcars have a (small and compact) watertube boiler?

Edited by drmditch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cropped closeup of another from the kernow page. 

05F81ED4-CD50-4711-809E-9B8382B85508.jpeg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double Kylchap chimney / blastpipe for the the early W1 then.

 

I prefer this, but some don't.

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

Double Kylchap chimney / blastpipe for the the early W1 then.

 

I prefer this, but some don't.

 

Al.

It's only the basic first 3d print so may not represent what the final model will be/if it will be different between the two versions of each model. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say, early days.

We'll see something else, perhaps around July time ... that's a LONG way off !!

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, atom3624 said:

Double Kylchap chimney / blastpipe for the the early W1 then.

 

I prefer this, but some don't.

 

Al.

The pic shows what appears to be a seperate chimney moulding, which would suggest Hornby could supply both chimney versions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'Day Folks

 

I'd buy the W1 as it is...................

 

manna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Denbridge said:

The pic shows what appears to be a separate chimney moulding, which would suggest Hornby could supply both chimney versions. 

 

Makes perfect sense, do it with and without a double chimney  as built = more possible sales. QED

Edited by Dick Turpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a separate moulding, I think that it's more to assist in the manufacturing.

 

Historically, a single is more appropriate, but aesthetically, a double definitely looks better, and it still ran for a year or so with it before rebuild.

 

Al.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

If there is a separate moulding, I think that it's more to assist in the manufacturing.

 

Historically, a single is more appropriate, but aesthetically, a double definitely looks better, and it still ran for a year or so with it before rebuild.

 

Al.

It can also mean the tooling is adaptable. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true.

 

The option I avoided mentioning was that initially it would be relatively easy for Hornby to apply the Kylchap of the streamlined A4-esque body on the original - thus cutting manufacturing costs. It could leave the 'single option' open, if not to Hornby, then to after-market suppliers / modellers.

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly it may just be my prejudice, and the double chimney does look impressive, but I cannot help but think that the better seller would be one that saw the most action, not an esoteric short runner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, truffy said:

Admittedly it may just be my prejudice, and the double chimney does look impressive, but I cannot help but think that the better seller would be one that saw the most action, not an esoteric short runner. 

 

I agree with you, that if the prototype spent longer with a single chimney that a double chimney, it would seem to make sense for Hornby to produce the model with a single chimney.  All things being equal, that is what I would do if I were Hornby and that is the model I'm potentially most likely to buy, but for me that decision will be price sensitive.

 

How many of those who will purchase this model will do so because it is correct for their layout?  It's not really a branch line locomotive suitable for the typical end to end layout and it wasn't even around all that long in its original form - about eight years, I think.  In my case, a W1 does not fit with a post-privatisation era layout and therefore if I purchase one of these models when they are released (as I'm tempted to do), I'd have to assume that it was a new build like Tornado to allow it to run alongside an EWS Class 66.  Therefore, should it really matter to me whether it has a single chimney or a double chimney?  If it's to represent a 21st Century rebuild, I could argue that a model in LNER Green would be as likely as one with the authentic grey livery from the 1930's and it may help with publicity for rail tours if the locomotive were named.

 

I find it strange that Hornby have announced three versions of the W1 in its original form (I'd only have been producing one if I were them), but I'm assuming that Hornby must know what they are doing and must expect to sell a significant number of models of the W1 to those who are not modelling the East Coast Mainline between 1929 and 1937.

 

Yes, some people want an accurate representation of a model in their time period but many will buy this model simply because it is different.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

...some people want an accurate representation of a model in their time period but many will buy this model simply because it is different.

I would suggest that Hornby are reliant for success on most purchases being 'eye-candy' sales, as there are relatively few that can justify this model on their layout in any of its water tube boiler compound variation forms, or the later conventional boiler simple form. Interesting and different it is then, to win the day...

 

If this model 'flies' for Hornby, what odds on a RTR OO model of the UK's other significant experimental express steam traction singleton, Stanier's Turbomotive?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

If this model 'flies' for Hornby, what odds on a RTR OO model of the UK's other significant experimental express steam traction singleton, Stanier's Turbomotive?

 

I definitely wouldn't by a model of Turbomotive, although that may be because liking of many of Gresley's locomotives means I know a bit more about those that ran on the East Coast.  However, for me there is something more aesthetically pleasing in the shape of the original W1 than there was with Turbomotive - I'm not sure that it fits the definition of 'eye candy', although maybe others disagree.  We shall just have to wait and see.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.