Wright writes.....

[MarkC]

32 minutes ago, Niels said:

The A2 had outside connecting rods sitting outside the coupling rods at a centerdistance of ,let me guess 6 feet 9inch.

If built as 100000 american front driven 4-4-0 with conrods inside coupling rods at say 6 feet three inch, there would have been no clearance problem.

A2 and B16 and Q7 shared same cylinder block and on Q7 it was imposible to drive first wheelset so the idea of standartisation was the culprit.

Niels, the clearance problem was inside, not outside. There was little space between the second set of bogie wheels and the cylinders as it was; to do as you suggest would have been very challenging, if not impossible, on the same wheelbase and cylinder position in the fore and aft plane.

 

Regarding the connecting rods - they were actually mounted inside the coupling rods on the driving axle, as they were on the S3/B16 and D/H1(later A8). As an aside, what was the reasoning for this?

[Niels]

27 minutes ago, MarkC said:

 

 

Regarding the connecting rods - they were actually mounted inside the coupling rods on the driving axle, as they were on the S3/B16 and D/H1(later A8). As an aside, what was the reasoning for this?

 

If You look at pictures in Yedon for B16 it is not true.The connecting rods are further away from center than coupling rods

It would have been a better arrangement reversed but was not possible due to using the complicated cast in one three-cylinder block from mineral Q7.

[Jesse Sim]

12 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Jesse,

 

probably a bit of both, but just wait for the buzz you will get when your own kit built loco is doing the same thing.

 

 

It's a B16/1. The C6 sounds like a lot of fun, I had better get my driving wheels sorted. Shame about the C7.

I get that now with only a few wagons ive made. The engineers train in building is completely my own work and I cannot wait to see that go round. 

 

[Tony Wright]

13 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

The Raven A2 is such a brute I think! When I run trains, I get more of a kick when the A2 comes into view then any A1 or A3. I’m not sure if it’s because it’s a kitbuilt loco or because it’s a unique looking loco. 

 

I must point out that I did not build the one I have, it was purchased as is. 

 

Tony, we never worked out who built or painted it did we, all those years ago? 

I have no idea of the answers to either of your questions about your A2, Jesse,

 

It's certainly well-made, and very well-painted. Regarding the latter, I thought at first it was painted by Larry Goddard (it's so good), but, on very close inspection, transfer lining appears to have been used on the panels, and no professional painter would do that. The tool for the pro is the bow pen - which 'rules' me out! 

 

Just enjoy it for what it is, Jesse. It certainly was John Brown's best loco.

 

I built one once, for a friend, fitting an eight-wheeled tender. It was from the same DJH source. I painted it as well (not as good a job as yours). Unfortunately, his house was broken into and the culprits just threw his collection of models against the walls. As expected, the models were wrecked and there was nothing I could do. No doubt the perpetrators were the fault of society, and, of course, were never caught (because they never stole anything). It's a good job the death penalty for murder had been removed from the statute book because, had my friend caught them, he'd have faced being hanged!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Time for another moan! 

 

Has 'plethora' become the most misused word in our language today?

 

I've just been subbing/proofing four articles and it's appeared in each one. The writer (I assume) in one case wishes to state an 'abundance' of material/things, as in the availability of drawings, documents, photographs, etc, etc, on the Internet today, all invaluable to model makers. Yet, he uses 'plethora' instead. Another refers to the signage/information on a model's flanks as a 'plethora' of such stuff, when, in fact, all the signs are on the prototype. 

 

Do these writers not know that by using 'plethora' they are, in fact, conveying exactly the opposite of what they wish to express? Obviously not. 

 

My dictionary defines the word (in part) as a 'morbid condition', and 'unhealthy repletion'. Hardly complimentary! 

 

Rant over - back to making more point rodding..............

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

I get that now with only a few wagons ive made. The engineers train in building is completely my own work and I cannot wait to see that go round. 

 

There is no greater 'buzz' in railway modelling in my view, Jesse,

 

Than that of watching something you've made yourself go around your layout. 

 

One can buy bucket-loads of RTR stuff (and it's good; very good), and/or get others to do all your building for you, but nothing beats the ability of being able to say 'I made that'. 

 

Yes, I know there are time and skill limitations, and by stating what I've done above, no doubt another vituperative storm of indignation will be generated by the 'keyboard warriors', but modelling is all about making things in my view - including modifying things. By oneself, for oneself. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Do these writers not know that by using 'plethora' they are, in fact, conveying exactly the opposite of what they wish to express? Obviously not. 

 

My dictionary defines the word (in part) as a 'morbid condition', and 'unhealthy repletion'. Hardly complimentary!

 

Tony,

 

I like to think that I use English reasonably correctly - I DID get a Grade 1 in 'Use of English', after all.

 

Nonetheless, I will happily admit that I too have been, for some seventy years, under a misapprehension as to the true meaning of 'plethora'.

 

I shall henceforth refrain from its use when referring to a quantity or condition better described as an 'abundance'.

 

Thank you for educating my aging brain - you can teach an old dog new tricks!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[drmditch]

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

There is no greater 'buzz' in railway modelling in my view, Jesse,

 

Than that of watching something you've made yourself go around your layout. 

 

As regards 'buzz', which I take to mean personal satisfaction, I think there is a scale:-

 

10  Kits that are easy to build (for me plastic wagons)

20  Simple modification to kits and/or RTR products

30  Complex modification to kits and/or RTR products

40  Kits that are complex to build ( for me, locomotives)

50  Scratchbuilt from plans/diagrams/pictures

 

(Where 50 is the highest level)

 

I am sure other people will have other views!

 

I suspect that these levels also relate to beneficial  mental activity. 

[Bucoops]

I'll be happy to just finish something

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

According to the Cambridge English Dictionary Plethora is a "very large amount of something, especially a larger amount than you need, want, or can deal with"

Which medical dictionary have you been consukting Tony?

 

Mike.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, drmditch said:

 

As regards 'buzz', which I take to mean personal satisfaction, I think there is a scale:-

 

10  Kits that are easy to build (for me plastic wagons)

20  Simple modification to kits and/or RTR products

30  Complex modification to kits and/or RTR products

40  Kits that are complex to build ( for me, locomotives)

50  Scratchbuilt from plans/diagrams/pictures

 

(Where 50 is the highest level)

 

I am sure other people will have other views!

 

I suspect that these levels also relate to beneficial  mental activity. 

I have reordered your score. Scratchbuilding is easier than kit building, you only have your own errors to correct not someone elses. 

 

5  Scratchbuilt from plans/diagrams/pictures

10  Kits that are easy to build (for me plastic wagons)

20  Simple modification to kits and/or RTR products

30  Complex modification to kits and/or RTR products

40  Kits that are complex to build ( for me, locomotives)

 

[ArthurK]

5 hours ago, MarkC said:

As I understand it, there was a bit of a push to get a Pacific built and operational before the Grouping, so as not to let the GNR have 'bragging rights' on 31st December 1922.

 

As has already been said, simply extending an existing design doesn't always work, and certainly the boiler barrel on the 4-6-2 Class (as they were known as by the NER) was too long; by the time the flue gases got to the forward end, much of their useful heat was gone - hence the 'cold noses' name, I would think.

 

Another weak point on the first two locomotives (Subsequently amended) was building them with inside bearing fitted trailing wheels. I would like to know what the thinking was here, seeing as an outside bearing trailing truck design was already in use on the Atlantics.

 

Regarding the cylinder/valves/running gear - yes, the same arrangement was used on the S3/B16, and they were fine, long lived locomotives, but there was never any serious attempt to extract more power from them in their original form, so it must have been accepted that they were at their optimum 'as built', and upgrades came at the not insignificant cost of rebuilding the front end. The same would have applied to the Pacifics, boiler issues notwithstanding.

 

Then there was the issue of minimum radii trackwork. By using the front end from the S3/B16, which was similar to other Raven locomotives such as his Class D (later H1) 4-4-4T and his Atlantics, there were clearance issues to consider between the bogie wheels and the cylinders. (As we modellers know only too well...). Bad enough on the Atlantics, but VERY limiting on the Pacifics. This won't have helped their case either when being compared to the Gresley Pacifics. Indeed, there is a story (and possibly a photo) of an Atlantic having a wheelset jammed against the cylinder, and I fancy that it won't have happened just once.

 

The Raven A2s were impressive looking machines, but to me they were very much a 'near miss' when compared to the Gresley Pacifics.

 

There is a common misconception as to the length of the boiler on the A2. One only has to note the position of the Gresley  snifting valve to realise that the boiler was much shorter than it appeared. In fact the boiler barrel was 21' (the A1 was 19'). The boiler barrel length of the A2 was 26' so there was 5' ahead of the boiler front plate. There is no evidence to suggest that it was a poor steamer.

 

Another misconception is that the three  cylinder layouts of all NER three cylinder locos was the same. They did not share the same monoblock casting. The "Z" class hand the piston valves inclined to the cylinders whereas in the others they were all parallel. 

 

ArthurK                           

[Tony Wright]

26 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

According to the Cambridge English Dictionary Plethora is a "very large amount of something, especially a larger amount than you need, want, or can deal with"

Which medical dictionary have you been consukting Tony?

 

Mike.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Mike. 

 

I bought it in 1967, and have relied on it since then.

 

One of my sons' mini-dictionaries describes plethora as 'too much' of something. 

 

Clearly, different dictionary compilers have different definitions, though I still think the word is rather pejorative, rather than complimentary; especially used in the context I described. 

 

And, anyway, in which dictionary will you find 'consuckting'? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Jesse Sim]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

There is no greater 'buzz' in railway modelling in my view, Jesse,

 

Than that of watching something you've made yourself go around your layout. 

 

One can buy bucket-loads of RTR stuff (and it's good; very good), and/or get others to do all your building for you, but nothing beats the ability of being able to say 'I made that'. 

 

Yes, I know there are time and skill limitations, and by stating what I've done above, no doubt another vituperative storm of indignation will be generated by the 'keyboard warriors', but modelling is all about making things in my view - including modifying things. By oneself, for oneself. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Totally agree Tony, I sometimes stand back and look at the things I’ve made and go “sh*t, I didn’t do a bad job on that” and others I put on the furthest line away so I can’t see where I’ve stuffed up small detail!!! 

 

Who gives a rats a*s what the keyboard warriors say, besides they’re mostly on Facebook groups and have never met or spoken with you properly. 

 

 

Jesse 

[MarkC]

31 minutes ago, ArthurK said:

 

There is a common misconception as to the length of the boiler on the A2. One only has to note the position of the Gresley  snifting valve to realise that the boiler was much shorter than it appeared. In fact the boiler barrel was 21' (the A1 was 19'). The boiler barrel length of the A2 was 26' so there was 5' ahead of the boiler front plate. There is no evidence to suggest that it was a poor steamer.

 

Another misconception is that the three  cylinder layouts of all NER three cylinder locos was the same. They did not share the same monoblock casting. The "Z" class hand the piston valves inclined to the cylinders whereas in the others they were all parallel. 

 

ArthurK                           

Thanks, Arthur. All good points.

 

The point I was trying to make about the boiler wasn't that they were poor steamers, but that the boiler was too long, and therefore not as efficient as it could have been, hence the comment about coal consumption. Given the size of the firebox, its appetite is hardly surprising. Of course, back in 1922 development was still occasionally trial and error - no such thing as computer modelling in those days - and I can see why adding some length to a boiler would have been seen as something to try. As I said, the class was a 'near miss'.

 

Thanks too for clarifying the point about cylinder blocks - this morning's claim about common castings was the first I had heard of that theory.

[Flying Pig]

52 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Mike. 

 

I bought it in 1967, and have relied on it since then.

 

One of my sons' mini-dictionaries describes plethora as 'too much' of something. 

 

Clearly, different dictionary compilers have different definitions, though I still think the word is rather pejorative, rather than complimentary; especially used in the context I described. 

 

And, anyway, in which dictionary will you find 'consuckting'? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

I think you may be confusing a plethora with a surfeit, Tony. Perhaps you need to reread 1066 and All That and stay off the palfreys for a while.

 

'Consuckting' is of course the act of consulting an egregiously unreliable source.

[MarkC]

11 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

'Consuckting' is of course the act of consulting an egregiously unreliable source.

Ooh, memories of "Call my Bluff" spring to mind

[mark axlecounter]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have reordered your score. Scratchbuilding is easier than kit building, you only have your own errors to correct not someone elses. 

 

5  Scratchbuilt from plans/diagrams/pictures

10  Kits that are easy to build (for me plastic wagons)

20  Simple modification to kits and/or RTR products

30  Complex modification to kits and/or RTR products

40  Kits that are complex to build ( for me, locomotives)

 

Clive you are the master of building locos from plasticard.  I can’t do what you do, I’ve tried and failed. 

 

I enjoy building locos from brass or white metal, here is one I am just finishing it’s a Djh BR standard 2, 2-6-0

 

When I started to look at building Loco kits I bought Tony’s two dvds on building locos (right track 1&2 ) and got advise from Tony when he and Mo go to shows, I’m not very good but the kit comes together well. 

 

Mark 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think you may be confusing a plethora with a surfeit, Tony. Perhaps you need to reread 1066 and All That and stay off the palfreys for a while.

 

'Consuckting' is of course the act of consulting an egregiously unreliable source.

Thanks Simon,

 

I don't think I've ever read 1066 and All That (should I?). 

 

'Surfeit' is, according to my dictionary 'Excess, especially in eating or drinking...............' I don't think I'm confusing 'plethora' with that. I still stand by what I said. In the articles, there are not too many pipes and conduits underneath a model wagon, nor are there too many signs on a model's containers. There are exactly as many as there should be. Nor is there too much (accurate) information on the interweb, which the use of 'plethora' suggests. 'There is a plethora of pipes and conduits' is wrong, surely? Especially as there are no more than there should be....................

 

Anyway, enough from me on semantics (too much already?). May I ask (showing my ignorance), what are palfreys? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

I've just looked up 'palfrey'. 'Saddle-horse for ordinary riding, especially for ladies' is what's in my dictionary. Since I've never ridden a horse, and I'm definitely not a lady, I'm confused. A very common condition, I admit.

 

Definitely no more semantics from me!

 

Puzzled of Little Bytham. 

[Arun Sharma]

I do believe the the OP is referring to someone famous [a very long time ago....] who was said to have died of a "surfeit of lampreys". A Lamprey being a sort of blood sucking fish I believe and one regarded as tasty by royalty. I suppose the odd king might consume a palfrey [a sort of horse] but it might take him longer than the average medieval/Norman banquet in order to finish the job.

 

It was in fact Henry I who died in Dec 1135 who was supposed to have died of food poisoning after eating these things - presumably shortly followed by his cook and food taster no doubt!

Edited April 3, 2019 by Arun Sharma
addnl info

[Nickey Line]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just looked up 'palfrey'. 'Saddle-horse for ordinary riding, especially for ladies' is what's in my dictionary. Since I've never ridden a horse, and I'm definitely not a lady, I'm confused. A very common condition, I admit.

 

Definitely no more semantics from me!

 

Puzzled of Little Bytham. 

 

I think the poster meant lampreys... 

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 minutes ago, Arun Sharma said:

I do believe the the OP is referring to someone famous [a very long time ago....] who was said to have died of a "surfeit of lampreys". A Lamprey being a sort of blood sucking fish I believe and one regarded as tasty by royalty. I suppose the odd king might consume a palfrey [a sort of horse] but it might take him longer than the average medieval/Norman banquet in order to finish the job.

 

King John.

 

I have been wanting to correct palfrey for lamprey for some time but RMWeb has not been working for me today. Seems to be a problem with Firefox.

[Clive Mortimore]

17 minutes ago, mark axlecounter said:

Clive you are the master of building locos from plasticard.  I can’t do what you do, I’ve tried and failed. 

 

I enjoy building locos from brass or white metal, here is one I am just finishing it’s a Djh BR standard 2, 2-6-0

 

When I started to look at building Loco kits I bought Tony’s two dvds on building locos (right track 1&2 ) and got advise from Tony when he and Mo go to shows, I’m not very good but the kit comes together well. 

 

Mark 

 

 

 

 

I am not a master of anything, that is why I put scratchbuilding as an easy thing.

 

I can never build kits they always seem to be wrong somewhere.

[Arun Sharma]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

King John.

 

I have been wanting to correct palfrey for lamprey for some time but RMWeb has not been working for me today. Seems to be a problem with Firefox.

Henry 1 according to Wiki, Joseph