Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

There are some great modelling opportunities with class O4, that makes them the best in my book. No browny points for modelling 8F's, if you can just buy it, it's kind of dull. Except for balance weights, balance weights are a big thing on 8F's. Be careful how you re number.

Edited by Headstock
add info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

Good evening Brian

Looking back at old documents the lamp arrangement in the first photo was the correct one for ECS at least prior to WW2. It was shown in the 1948 Paddington area WTT as including Parcels and Perishables trains, with the lower picture shown as ECS. 

Eric 

 

Hello Eric

 

Indeed. The main aim of my post was to alert readers that location and time period are vital factors to take into account when considering if a lamp code is right or wrong.

 

Some S&D drivers used 'standard lamp codes' for a very short while after the WR took after, but soon reverted.

 

Brian

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Killybegs said:

 

I guess it would be rude to suggest the GWR 2-8-0s. Their longevity would suggest they more than met their design criteria.

On their home road, there'd be little to touch them, but their out-of-gauge cylinders (for other roads) precluded them from elsewhere. That was probably the reason why they were not chosen by the ROD in WW1. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
34 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

 

Hello Eric

 

Indeed. The main aim of my post was to alert readers that location and time period are vital factors to take into account when considering if a lamp code is right or wrong.

 

Some S&D drivers used 'standard lamp codes' for a very short while after the WR took after, but soon reverted.

 

Brian

Yes, the S&D seems a right old mixture. There was their own standard which only distinguished between passenger trains and others. In the period around 1961/2 I've seen plenty of shots with standard codes, mainly on 2251 class locos and Ivatt tanks. Although the bottom end was SR operated at that time there aren't many instances of discs being used.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In what ways were the LMS Standard 8Fs less successful?

I don't think they were necessarily less-successful. In fact, one could argue that, being a quarter of a century newer than the original GCR 8Ks, the 8Fs should be better locos. However, as has been noted elsewhere, it was the GC 2-8-0s' long lives which made them the 'most-successful' in my view (well beyond BR steam's life in Australia), and they lasted in revenue-earning service (in one form or another) almost as long as the 8Fs. In fact, some 8Fs were withdrawn before some O4s. 

 

It's also a testament to a sound design that, during its life, it could be altered/improved. This in no way reflects a dissatisfaction with the original design (the last O4 survivors were the originals!), but an ability to accommodate new boilers and even new motion - the original frames being 'everlasting'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

The LSWR acquired some ROD locomotives after WW1.  Couldn't do Saturday reliefs at 50mph or the Ascot race specials.  Returned with thanks.

 

The LSWR decided on the 4-6-0 for its freight loco.

 

Busy drafting the notes for breaking down the Stevenage exhibition in January.  Better permit the use of hand trolleys.

 

Bill

'Busy drafting the notes for breaking down the Stevenage exhibition in January.  Better permit the use of hand trolleys.'

 

Perhaps it was the whirling, protruding blades attached to the wheels (in chariot style) on our trolley which the NEC jobsworth objected to. I've asked Mo to take them off!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Yes, the S&D seems a right old mixture. There was their own standard which only distinguished between passenger trains and others. In the period around 1961/2 I've seen plenty of shots with standard codes, mainly on 2251 class locos and Ivatt tanks. Although the bottom end was SR operated at that time there aren't many instances of discs being used.

 

On one occasion in 1960 when Railway Roundabout was filming the Evercreech Junction-Highbridge branch train, the crew mounted express lamp code on the 3F! And a GA Richardson 1963 photo shows a tender-first 7F 2-8-0 on a short freight, also displaying express code.

 

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
42 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't think they were necessarily less-successful. In fact, one could argue that, being a quarter of a century newer than the original GCR 8Ks, the 8Fs should be better locos. However, as has been noted elsewhere, it was the GC 2-8-0s' long lives which made them the 'most-successful' in my view (well beyond BR steam's life in Australia), and they lasted in revenue-earning service (in one form or another) almost as long as the 8Fs. In fact, some 8Fs were withdrawn before some O4s. 

 

It's also a testament to a sound design that, during its life, it could be altered/improved. This in no way reflects a dissatisfaction with the original design (the last O4 survivors were the originals!), but an ability to accommodate new boilers and even new motion - the original frames being 'everlasting'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

That reminds me of Triggers broom

 

 

  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

 

On one occasion in 1960 when Railway Roundabout was filming the Evercreech Junction-Highbridge branch train, the crew mounted express lamp code on the 3F! And a GA Richardson 1963 photo shows a tender-first 7F 2-8-0 on a short freight, also displaying express code.

 

Brian

 

BR made a training film about wrong line working on the S&DJR.

 

They were anxious that it shouldn't show any regional associations, so they renamed Shepton Mallet to "Averton Hammer" whilst filming was undertaken, complete with running-in boards.

 

The trouble was, the loco featured was an S&DJR 2-8-0 ! This somewhat gave the game away !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

On their home road, there'd be little to touch them, but their out-of-gauge cylinders (for other roads) precluded them from elsewhere. That was probably the reason why they were not chosen by the ROD in WW1. 

 

 

I suspect that the simpler construction of the Robinson design was in its favour. Apart from which, I believe it's the case that Robinson was chair of the committee choosing the design for the Ministy of Munitions*. In addition, it would appear that he held patents for the superheater and lubricator, receiving royalties of £70 per locomotive. Which is not to say that it was not objectively a good choice, as you've all argued.

 

*I can't off-hand find a reference for this so am prepared to stand corrected.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A bit late to the game today having helped my daughter and her 'fella' move house over the last couple of days from two houses into one! I've just opened my latest BRM which arrived a couple of days ago and lo and behold there is a howler in the picture on page 40/41 with a lower quadrant signal showing an arm hanging vertically downwards. Should the photographer have spotted it? It was the first thing I saw ...

 

And, also oddly to me (although Mike, Stationmaster of this parish, might be a better authority), we have lower quadrant round post signals on a model set in the East Midlands.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There wasn't any really important difference in the performance of the Robinson and GWR 2-8-0. The former where cheaper to build, maintain and operate. The GWR locomotive was better designed for faster running, while the Robinson was a typical slogger. However, in the history of Britain's railways, fast running has never been the most important consideration for a small wheeled 2-8-0 locomotive. Prior to 1955 fast freight was a minority pursuit at best and there were far better locomotives purpose built for such work. The O4 was not that well suited to the rigours of the Annesley Woodford runners but neither were the WD 2-8-0, Gresley 02, the GWR 2-8-0 or the Stannier 8F.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A question please, gentlemen.  

 

What colour attire was worn by enginemen working on the Eastern region in the post war (peri-nationalisation) period?  Was there a ‘uniform’ as such, or standard wear?  

 

I picked up some of those nice Modelu figures at Warley last weekend and am now scratching my head regarding what colour I should paint their overalls and jackets.... and all of my reference photographs are in B&W.   If it makes any difference, they are going on the footplate of GC London Extension loco’s, 1948-50 (ish).

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chamby said:

A question please, gentlemen.  

 

What colour attire was worn by enginemen working on the Eastern region in the post war (peri-nationalisation) period?  Was there a ‘uniform’ as such, or standard wear?  

 

I picked up some of those nice Modelu figures at Warley last weekend and am now scratching my head regarding what colour I should paint their overalls and jackets.... and all of my reference photographs are in B&W.   If it makes any difference, they are going on the footplate of GC London Extension loco’s, 1948-50 (ish).

Faded light blue? Possibly grubby?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard E said:

A bit late to the game today having helped my daughter and her 'fella' move house over the last couple of days from two houses into one! I've just opened my latest BRM which arrived a couple of days ago and lo and behold there is a howler in the picture on page 40/41 with a lower quadrant signal showing an arm hanging vertically downwards. Should the photographer have spotted it? It was the first thing I saw ...

 

And, also oddly to me (although Mike, Stationmaster of this parish, might be a better authority), we have lower quadrant round post signals on a model set in the East Midlands.

It just goes to show (in my opinion) how signalling is such a poor relation in railway modelling when it comes to operation. 

 

In at least half the photos of layouts I've taken (perhaps more) the signals don't work, are unrealistically-sited, or both! I'm talking about semaphores here, though the same can also apply to colour lights. 

 

I know they're a real fiddle, and I'm very lucky to have had the services of Mick Nicholson, Graham Nicholas and Tony Gee to make/make-work my signals, but why is signalling such an 'Aunt Sally' in the hobby? Too difficult? To hard to make? Too hard to make them work? Too fragile? Too expensive if built by others?

 

Even fantastic layouts such as Tebay had (mostly) non-working signals and the last time I saw LSGC some signals weren't working or were not being worked. Fantastic modelling, perfect trains, wonderful presentations but dud signals. Why, with that much talent building the layouts? Lack of time? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes models, as accurate, detailed and superbly finished as the above do not look "real". A bit of weathering would render this D400'er a very nice model I reckon.

 

Here's one at Springs Branch No2, Jan 1969, all trains running very late that day. The new EMU servicing sidings are being built (nearly finished) where the wagons are behind the box. I sadly never took many (any) photos of the double headed D400's back then - two a penny and they would be there for ever(not).

 

2013-01-08-20-01-20.jpg.355f377e970dcb18cd3c1286832f3eff.jpg

 

A mucky D446 heads north. Note the water column.

 

2013-01-08-20-06-13.jpg.4a1ff5b4faa3262a00f27271e02badad.jpg

 

Brit15

Edited by APOLLO
date corrected
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Just in for photography/review, Heljan's latest O Gauge Class 50. 

 

2041519936_HeljanOGaugeClass5001.jpg.4027a472670db5ac911dc6fa81a82c35.jpg

 

It's still fixed on to its transportation wooden plinth. 

 

Does this one look like a 'big plastic toy'?

 

 

I forget what I said looked like a big plastic toy (But I did) but this looks quite convincing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'Busy drafting the notes for breaking down the Stevenage exhibition in January.  Better permit the use of hand trolleys.'

 

Perhaps it was the whirling, protruding blades attached to the wheels (in chariot style) on our trolley which the NEC jobsworth objected to. I've asked Mo to take them off!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

All this talk of dangerous trolleys, the NEC staff should take a look at out local supermarket. As well as the normal hazards such as absent minded octogenarians and young mums on the phone pushing supermarket trolleys there are staff with stacker trucks loaded with racks or boxes...

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

All this talk of dangerous trolleys, the NEC staff should take a look at out local supermarket. As well as the normal hazards such as absent minded octogenarians and young mums on the phone pushing supermarket trolleys there are staff with stacker trucks loaded with racks or boxes...

 

....... and don't forget the hoards of staff, intent on filling the click-and-collect boxes, who scarcely take their eyes off their on-line shopping list devices !

 

Don't mind me - I'm only a customer !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I suspect that the simpler construction of the Robinson design was in its favour. Apart from which, I believe it's the case that Robinson was chair of the committee choosing the design for the Ministy of Munitions*. In addition, it would appear that he held patents for the superheater and lubricator, receiving royalties of £70 per locomotive. Which is not to say that it was not objectively a good choice, as you've all argued.

 

*I can't off-hand find a reference for this so am prepared to stand corrected.

 

I think it may have been Sir Sam Fay*, which provides the GCR link.  Seriously, what options were there if a fairly modern eight coupled loco was the option.  Further refinement would be two cylinders, leading pony truck, simplicity of maintenance - that just leaves GNR and GCR.

 

Bill

 

*I can't off-hand find a reference for this so am prepared to stand corrected.

Edited by bbishop
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

(snip) why is signalling such an 'Aunt Sally' in the hobby?

 

Too difficult? To hard to make? Too hard to make them work? Too fragile? Too expensive if built by others?

Regards,

Tony. 

 

All of the above I suspect.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

If it's pug-ugly 2-8-0s you're after, you can't find more hideous than LNWR classes E and F - Whale's addition of a leading axle to Webb's 4-cylinder compound Class B 0-8-0s, to relieve the weight on the leading coupled axle. I believe these were the only British 2-8-0s to have more than two cylinders? 

 

Looking through the 2-8-0s listed above, is one forced to the conclusion that the S&DJR 2-8-0s were the least successful? They were certainly found unsatisfactory for the long-distance Toton-Brent mineral trains on the Midland.

Ah yes but, is what comes to mind. The S&DJR locos had flaws when working long distances as you rightly mention but could stop a train when going downhill much better than the more modern 8F. For their home turf they did what they had to do better than the later 8F.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, john new said:

Ah yes but, is what comes to mind. The S&DJR locos had flaws when working long distances as you rightly mention but could stop a train when going downhill much better than the more modern 8F. For their home turf they did what they had to do better than the later 8F.

 

OK, best at stopping - quite possibly the most important performance measure for a heavy mineral engine!

  • Agree 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...