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

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

very usefully information. I wonder if the timings were the issue back in the day. If the 9F was struggling on a working that was no problem for the Thompson Pacific, perhaps a relaxation of the timings benefited the 9F. 650 tons, would not be  much of an issue for the A2/3 in terms of continues steaming rate over an extended period, even if the timings were sharp. It may be that the test (if that is what it was) with the A2/3 demonstrated that a more powerful locomotive was required, or the load or timing needed adjustment. I think that some people think that 9F's were as powerful as the big Pacific's, they were not.

The train in question loaded to 28 Cemflos, which comes out at 1,000 tons including guard's van.

 

38 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Weren't the 9Fs primarily designed for heavy goods, where as the Pacifics were designed for express work or do I have that wrong? If that is indeed the case then it would be startling if either could equal the other on their own patch?

Precisely so - very good design meant that the 9F could put in a very respectable showing as a mixed traffic locomotive, and could deputise on an express in a pinch if you had a crew that could thrash it. Likewise, an express passenger locomotive has the power to handle a heavy train at less than express speeds almost by default, but might not have the adhesion and brake force to start and stop it - particularly on a gradient.

 

I'd not be surprised if the noted A2/3 cement working would run into trouble on steeper hills than Stoke Bank - or maybe even on Stoke if it had come to a stop. With perhaps ten tons less on drivers than a 9F, it wouldn't have been able to put down as much force to restart a stalled train, though I believe it was fully braked. If it was only a one-off experiment, it must not have been an unqualified success or else Pacifics hauling heavy freight would have been far more common!

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

2 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

Having very limited knowledge on these matters, I would be interested to know how they compare in terms of efficiency? Were the Pacifics notably more expensive to run? Also would I be right in assuming that we are not comparing like for like either? Weren't the 9Fs primarily designed for heavy goods, where as the Pacifics were designed for express work or do I have that wrong? If that is indeed the case then it would be startling if either could equal the other on their own patch?

 

Good afternoon Lecorbusier,

 

 

I just wrote you a pretty good reply, then RM web crashed on me and I can't recover it. You would have liked it I suspect.

 

Basically, forget about different types of trains, for two reasons. The nature of a heavy fitted freight train evens out the home advantages to each type of locomotive. Thus, it comes down more to Power. The A2/3 has more power. Hence, Tony W Quoting  KX shed master P N Townend, the Thompson A2/3 was the only locomotive sent out that mastered the job on the cement trains, when the 9F's were consistently loosing time on the working.

 

Second reason, with its bigger wheels, modern boiler and wide firebox, the 9F was not really designed for slogging it out on slow moving 900 ton unfitted freight trains, as mentioned up thread. In this respect a lot of its advantages would be waisted when compared to older 2-8-0 types on the same workings. In this respect it was a move towards a locomotive more capable of fast freight work. The Thompson A 2/3 was designed as a mixed traffic Pacific with smaller driving wheels than the pure express types such as the A4, A3 and A1. In this sense the two locomotives were converging, certainly not as far apart as say a Robinson 04, pure slow speed freight slogger and an A3, a fast express engine. I have more to say on efficiency but fear another RM web crash. I Hope that helps.

Edited by Headstock
Clarify a point.
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Now I know why I never saw any Eastern Region pacifics at Ince Moss (near Springs Branch) !!.

 

Empty Anhydrite hoppers Widnes to Long Meg about to cross the WCML & take the Whelley loop line around Wigan. A service just right for the Speke Junction 9F's. A bit steep here (due to mining subsidence over the years).

 

xmo41lls.jpg

 

I wonder how the ER Pacifics would have fared on the southbound loadeds up & over over Ais Gill ? (Yes the ER Pacifics were used on passenger trains in the early 60's with success on the Settle & Carlisle).

 

Perhaps the general answer is big drivers = built for speed = express passenger and freight

Small drivers (more than six) = built for power / traction = low speed freight (though a 9F once did 90mph on passenger duties so I read).

 

I wonder what the top speed for a WD 2-8-0 was ? - bit of a clanking boneshaker at anything over 25mph.

 

Brit15

 

Afternoon Apollo,

 

the Midland men at Holbeck thought the A3s were the best thing since sliced bread

 

1 hour ago, RLBH said:

The train in question loaded to 28 Cemflos, which comes out at 1,000 tons including guard's van.

 

Precisely so - very good design meant that the 9F could put in a very respectable showing as a mixed traffic locomotive, and could deputise on an express in a pinch if you had a crew that could thrash it. Likewise, an express passenger locomotive has the power to handle a heavy train at less than express speeds almost by default, but might not have the adhesion and brake force to start and stop it - particularly on a gradient.

 

I'd not be surprised if the noted A2/3 cement working would run into trouble on steeper hills than Stoke Bank - or maybe even on Stoke if it had come to a stop. With perhaps ten tons less on drivers than a 9F, it wouldn't have been able to put down as much force to restart a stalled train, though I believe it was fully braked. If it was only a one-off experiment, it must not have been an unqualified success or else Pacifics hauling heavy freight would have been far more common!

 

I don't think Hill climbing would be much an issue. If it can be done without fear with a 600 ton passenger train or the even heavier parcels trains that ran in the early hours out of London, why would a 600 ton cement train be any different? The V2's managed 750 plus ton trains out of KX during the War, from a standing start, on the gradient with the loco stood in Gasworks tunnel.

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

Having very limited knowledge on these matters, I would be interested to know how they compare in terms of efficiency? Were the Pacifics notably more expensive to run? Also would I be right in assuming that we are not comparing like for like either? Weren't the 9Fs primarily designed for heavy goods, where as the Pacifics were designed for express work or do I have that wrong? If that is indeed the case then it would be startling if either could equal the other on their own patch?

 

In terns of efficiency, heavy slow moving unfitted freight trains requiring slow moving small wheeled freight locomotives was an anarchism. Totally inefficient, if we had full fitted freight trains our freight locomotives would be closer to express passenger types. Across between a 9F and an A2/3. A fast loco with more axels for weight and adhesion than the A 2/3, a bigger wide firebox and boiler than the 9F and bigger wheels. Oops, a Mikado, the standard freight locomotive in many countries around the world.

Edited by Headstock
A2/3 not A2/2
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

In terns of efficiency, heavy slow moving unfitted freight trains requiring slow moving small wheeled freight locomotives was an anarchism. Totally inefficient, if we had full fitted freight trains our freight locomotives would be closer to express passenger types. Across between a 9F and an A2/3. A fast loco with more axels for weight and adhesion than the A 2/3, a bigger wide firebox and boiler than the 9F and bigger wheels. Oops, a Mikado, the standard freight locomotive in many countries around the world.

I am getting myself totally confused here.

 

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

That being the case I had always understood the 9F to be perhaps the swan song as far as efficiency and available power was concerned on steam hauled heavy goods workings.  I was always rather surprised that it was recorded on occasion as having a reasonable turn of speed as well.

 

I also read somewhere that the LMS Duchesses had potentially massive power, but that they were limited by the capability of the fireman to feed the huge fire box?

 

As I said, I do not speak with any authority or depth of knowledge on any of this. It would be good to get a better handle on things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Different loco and lines but nonetheless a Pacific, the Britannias in their last days were used on express passenger, freight & parcels trains mainly between Crewe & Carlisle back in 66 / 67. - lots of photos Dad's photos here of them thundering up & down Boars Head bank Wigan in their final days.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67100-apollos-grand-days-out/page/2/

 

They were used occasionally on more menial tasks - in one book there are photos of a Brit hauling around 10 loaded sand wagons, AND banked by a Stanier 8F up Chequebent incline Westhoughton on the old Leigh & Bolton line in 1967 - Top & tail was common here - even on 10 loads as mining subsidence again had made an already steep incline (rope worked when built) very fierce at around 1 in 18. Brits were definitely not designed for those trains !!!!

 

Of course after around 1964, apart from the Britannias with all those then remaining eventually congregated at Carlisle Kingmoor, the West Coast mainline was "Pacificless". Even Patriots and Scots disappeared at the same time, just a few Jubilees left towards the end to see out ex LMS express steam power.

 

Brit15

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I am getting myself totally confused here.

 

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

That being the case I had always understood the 9F to be perhaps the swan song as far as efficiency and available power was concerned on steam hauled heavy goods workings.  I was always rather surprised that it was recorded on occasion as having a reasonable turn of speed as well.

 

I also read somewhere that the LMS Duchesses had potentially massive power, but that they were limited by the capability of the fireman to feed the huge fire box?

 

As I said, I do not speak with any authority or depth of knowledge on any of this. It would be good to get a better handle on things.

I think Headstock’s main point was the problem of efficiency in moving freight was the wagon types we had in the UK influencing the traction required to move it.  Companies knew this, and some did build bogie freight stock, but as highlighted with the problem with locos like the P1 being able to haul trains longer than the length of refuge loops, it wasn’t until all the infrastructure was adapted that bogie stock like we have today could be universally adopted.

With bogie designs of fitted wagons the appropriate steam loco’ would not have been a clanking WD austerity but probably a Mikado as suggested. Adhesion and power combined with the equally important ability to stop the load.

Edited by john new
P1 not P2 duh!
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

Larger drivers deliver higher speed for a given piston speed and rate of rotation - key factors in the days when the material technology was a limiting factor. By the 50s, advances in materials meant that smaller drivers could be used to deliver a given speed.

 

As I understand it, the key point for adhesion is not so much the number of points of contact as the total weight force acting on the rail. As has been discussed, the wheel arrangement comes into play, especially on starting, as the distribution of adhesive force is different - because the force is transmitted through the springs, its distribution across the locomotive's axles can vary. On starting, the tendency is for the force to be greater towards the rear, which favours any locomotive with a rear driven axle. Hence the well-known proneness to slipping of Pacifics.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I am getting myself totally confused here.

 

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

That being the case I had always understood the 9F to be perhaps the swan song as far as efficiency and available power was concerned on steam hauled heavy goods workings.  I was always rather surprised that it was recorded on occasion as having a reasonable turn of speed as well.

 

I also read somewhere that the LMS Duchesses had potentially massive power, but that they were limited by the capability of the fireman to feed the huge fire box?

 

As I said, I do not speak with any authority or depth of knowledge on any of this. It would be good to get a better handle on things.

 

Tim,

 

I'm quite pooped out and require a pill and a snooze, I shall get back to you when I can, you may  like to look into factor of adhesion as it relates to different locomotives, you may discover a few surprises.

 

You are correct about the Duchess, but remember that the all express locomotives were limited in the same manner, at least as far as sustained power. Also, there wasn't an express train working on the whole of BR that demanded the maximum power out put ever achieved by a Duchess. Incidentally A1 Tornado, without any special arrangements and during ordinary workings on the mainline, has come within a hairsbreadth on a couple of occasions of matching the maximum power out put ever recorded by a British steam loco, the Duchess. Based on this, the new P2 is expected to exceed the Duchess by some margin, thus setting a new British record for steam traction and claiming the title of Britain's most powerful steam locomotive.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

As I understand it, the key point for adhesion is not so much the number of points of contact as the total weight force acting on the rail. As has been discussed, the wheel arrangement comes into play, especially on starting, as the distribution of adhesive force is different - because the force is transmitted through the springs, its distribution across the locomotive's axles can vary. On starting, the tendency is for the force to be greater towards the rear, which favours any locomotive with a rear driven axle. Hence the well-known proneness to slipping of Pacifics.

That makes sense ... so presumably the more wheels the greater the spread of weight and as such should a wheel start to slip it is likely to have a less pronounced impact on the other wheels? I remember reading somewhere that it takes far greater force to cause a wheel to slip than to maintain it slipping. 

 

Do I take it that all else being equal - and given that steam unlike an internal combustion engine is not reliant on RPM to prevent stalling -  the size of the drivers is somewhat irrelevant apart from allowing the spreading of the weight for a given size or allowing a greater top speed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

I don't think Hill climbing would be much an issue. If it can be done without fear with a 600 ton passenger train or the even heavier parcels trains that ran in the early hours out of London, why would a 600 ton cement train be any different? The V2's managed 750 plus ton trains out of KX during the War, from a standing start, on the gradient with the loco stood in Gasworks tunnel.

And notoriously slipped doing so. Hauling what I believe was near a 1,000 ton cement train (not 600 tons - 28 wagons at 35 tons each, plus a 20 ton brake van) might have been pushing it a bit too far. Put an A2/3 boiler and cylinders on a 2-8-2, and you've got something that's just the thing for the job. Oh dear, we seem to have invented the P2 again. I believe it was the fast mixed traffic locomotive that Britain didn't know it needed.

 

In fact, given that the P2 was more Bulleid's baby than Gresley's, the fact that he wanted the Merchant Navy class to be a 2-8-2, and that the Merchant Navies were approved as mixed traffic types, I think at least one man did know it was what Britain needed to be building.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RLBH said:

In fact, given that the P2 was more Bulleid's baby than Gresley's, the fact that he wanted the Merchant Navy class to be a 2-8-2, and that the Merchant Navies were approved as mixed traffic types, I think at least one man did know it was what Britain needed to be building.

I believe that it was the Civil Engineer who put the kybosh on OVSB's plan to have the MNs built as 2-8-2s?

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

In terns of efficiency, heavy slow moving unfitted freight trains requiring slow moving small wheeled freight locomotives was an anarchism. Totally inefficient, if we had full fitted freight trains our freight locomotives would be closer to express passenger types. Across between a 9F and an A2/3. A fast loco with more axels for weight and adhesion than the A 2/3, a bigger wide firebox and boiler than the 9F and bigger wheels. Oops, a Mikado, the standard freight locomotive in many countries around the world.

I think something of that ilk was under consideration within the BR Standard range. From the sketches I've seen, it would have effectively been a Britannia rearranged as a 2-8-2 with 5'8" drivers, with a smaller boilered (9F/Clan?.) version for weight-restricted routes. However, given the ruling conditions you describe, they would have been locos looking for a job that, at the time, didn't exist.

 

Unfortunately, the common carrier status of our railways and the belated abolition of PO wagons, which should never have been permitted to become re-established after WW1, left the freight side of the industry stuck in a Victorian/Edwardian timewarp.

 

John  

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think something of that ilk was under consideration within the BR Standard range. From the sketches I've seen, it would have effectively been a Britannia rearranged as a 2-8-2 with 5'8" drivers, with a smaller boilered (9F/Clan?.) version for weight-restricted routes. However, given the ruling conditions you describe, they would have been locos looking for a job that, at the time, didn't exist.

 

Unfortunately, the common carrier status of our railways and the belated abolition of PO wagons, which should never have been permitted to become re-established after WW1, left the freight side of the industry stuck in a Victorian/Edwardian timewarp.

 

John  

 

Good evening John,

 

I think you are right, it surprises me that the boiler was smaller on the proposed locomotive, Old fashioned thinking because it wasn't a passenger engine? The whole point of a Mikado is that you can accommodate a massive boiler.

 

Rather, amusingly, the British railways team were obsessed with free gas flow area to the exclusion of everything else. The Britannia was designed to have the perfect proportions in that respect. The 9F was regarded as a less than perfect  compromise of the Britannia design, that  would fit all the features required above a ten coupled chassis. Yet the 9F proved to be a superior producer and user of steam than its bigger stable-mate.

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

1 hour ago, RLBH said:

And notoriously slipped doing so. Hauling what I believe was near a 1,000 ton cement train (not 600 tons - 28 wagons at 35 tons each, plus a 20 ton brake van) might have been pushing it a bit too far. Put an A2/3 boiler and cylinders on a 2-8-2, and you've got something that's just the thing for the job. Oh dear, we seem to have invented the P2 again. I believe it was the fast mixed traffic locomotive that Britain didn't know it needed.

 

In fact, given that the P2 was more Bulleid's baby than Gresley's, the fact that he wanted the Merchant Navy class to be a 2-8-2, and that the Merchant Navies were approved as mixed traffic types, I think at least one man did know it was what Britain needed to be building.

 

I'm not sure if I wish to press the agree, or funny button on that one with regard to class P2. It did make me laugh. I discounted the 1000 ton freight train, just because it didn't seem to fit with the original speculation and scenario around  the use of the A2/3, rather as a further development to the story.

 

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

I believe that it was the Civil Engineer who put the kybosh on OVSB's plan to have the MNs built as 2-8-2s?

 

Mark

 

It was Bulleid who suggested to Peppercorn, that if he designed an eight coupled express locomotive, 'his name would be made'.

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

Good evening everyone, (but especially Tony)

Just read one of your posting featuring photos of some of your locos.

I’m surprised that the picture  from of RM wasn’t one of your kit built locos as I know your modelling preferences. Did you have any say in the matter? If it was me I’d have packed all the RTR stock well away!

Happy modelling 

Eric

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the comments regarding the cement trains, different locos, adhesion, suitability, etc. 

 

From my reading of the 9F/A2/3 debate regarding the heavy cement train, it seems that there were regular problems with the 9Fs losing time climbing Stoke. An A2/3 was tried, and the timekeeping problems 'disappeared'. 

 

Whether the A2/3s from New England then took over the work, we don't know. There is no mention of the working in the RCTS Pt 2A of the Green Series (which is interesting). 

 

One thing is certain, the A2/3 is a more powerful loco than a 9F. 

 

Certainly, the use of ECML Pacifics on heavy freight trains (of all types) was common. The weighty Kings Cross-Niddrie 244 Down (the Scotch Goods) was often hauled by an A4, and the fully-fitted iron ore trains between High Dyke and Doncaster had to be hauled by powerful, fast locos, to keep out of the way (on a two track main line) of the expresses. O2s were fine, if branching of at Barkston for Scunthorpe, but not on the main line northwards; not on the fastest schedules. 

 

Anyway, on to more 'dainty' locomotives......... or, at least some.

 

1346199598_GCR4-4-001.jpg.a463a2585fa1577af03982848301c0ca.jpg

 

929842458_GCR4-4-002.jpg.05e7014d9f4ab3c2da676dd86ee5a23a.jpg

 

1058769077_GCR4-4-003.jpg.74efa8c121302045a55412f0a355b630.jpg

 

I've had three friends over today running the railway. One of whom was John Quick (of GCR fame). He's scratch-built this lovely GCR 4-4-0 (of which a full-sized version is being built, I'm told!). It ran beautifully hauling its MS&LR six-wheeled coach and a 'Barnum' (buffer locking on the Barnum meant it didn't like the 3' curves). 

 

Another friend brought along these Bachmann locos he's weathered..........................

 

1129051594_weatheredBachmannDirector.jpg.c0687966ad8757304af57fa81c78e793.jpg

 

1547124254_weatheredBachmannA2.jpg.5220ed4964f49ae875555c439d72a7da.jpg

 

Thanks chaps for such a great day, and thank you for your incredible donations to CRUK!

 

 

  • Like 13
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
21 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening John,

 

I think you are right, it surprises me that the boiler was smaller on the proposed locomotive, Old fashioned thinking because it wasn't a passenger engine? The whole point of a Mikado is that you can accommodate a massive boiler.

 

Rather, amusingly, the British railways team were obsessed with free gas flow area to the exclusion of everything else. The Britannia was designed to have the perfect proportions in that respect. The 9F was regarded as a less than perfect  compromise of the Britannia design, that  would fit all the features required above a ten coupled chassis. Yet the 9F proved to be a superior producer and user of steam than its bigger stable-mate.

I think the idea was to have a Britannia boiler on the 2-8-2 for general use with a smaller boiler version for lighter-laid routes - same principle as the Clans. Most of the UK network back then wasn't RA9 for either axle loading or gauging and the 9F design took account of that.

 

Absolute boiler capacity isn't always the vital factor either. I've read driver's anecdotes that they preferred a Clan to a Britannia 'cos they could thrash the nuts off  it with no fear of it slipping. Their firemen probably disagreed!

 

That said, the weakness of all the larger BR standards was they had the wrong boilers - they should have used Bulleid ones! 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Erichill16 said:

Good evening everyone, (but especially Tony)

Just read one of your posting featuring photos of some of your locos.

I’m surprised that the picture  from of RM wasn’t one of your kit built locos as I know your modelling preferences. Did you have any say in the matter? If it was me I’d have packed all the RTR stock well away!

Happy modelling 

Eric

Good evening Eric,

 

I didn't have any say on which picture would be used on the cover of the RM (why would I need to?), but I (obviously) submitted one (which they liked) featuring an RTR loco. 

 

I think it's fair to say it's a bit more than just an 'ordinary' RTR loco.......

 

1218555757_A460008.jpg.c6df82a31a42035b67c5cec1e06339b2.jpg

 

It started out as Hornby's original 'NE' black A4, SIR CHARLES NEWTON. I detailed it, changed the bogie wheels, close coupled the loco-to-tender and asked Ian Rathbone to paint it. I think, body-wise, its as good as any A4 I've made (probably better) but it's in the chassis area that the Hornby A4 is weak. The valve gear is insubstantial and too 'two-dimensional', and the slidebars and crossheads lean upwards towards the rear (the opposite of what they should be). The slidebar support brackets have long-gone - they're moulded as part of the body, and break off with too much ease. However, all the above said, with Ian's painting it does look rather nice. 

 

60008.jpg.e380ac35908f218d441a34ce1cb23183.jpg

 

It's pulling power is also rather limited, so the eight-car Talisman is about its maximum. 

 

412366317_60008small.jpg.8493cb27fa10f08173e13af70d2ef737.jpg

 

The real thing could take a fair bit more!

 

909809263_RMLittleBytham30.jpg.be9090cce0328189ea08c5781068c015.jpg

 

Given that the bodywork on 60008 is so good, what I might do is replace the Hornby chassis, and make one from SE Finecast - as I have here; underneath a modified Bachmann A4 body. This one also tows an SEF tender. Ian Rathbone also painted this.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Agree 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think the idea was to have a Britannia boiler on the 2-8-2 for general use with a smaller boiler version for lighter-laid routes - same principle as the Clans. Most of the UK network back then wasn't RA9 for either axle loading or gauging and the 9F design took account of that.

 

Absolute boiler capacity isn't always the vital factor either. I've read driver's anecdotes that they preferred a Clan to a Britannia 'cos they could thrash the nuts off  it with no fear of it slipping. Their firemen probably disagreed!

 

That said, the weakness of all the larger BR standards was they had the wrong boilers - they should have used Bulleid ones! 

 

John

 

Some interesting thoughts to ponder John, the Bulleid boilers are a whole other story.

 

The nice thing about today's extended conversation, is that it has all come about because of Little Bytham, where Tony is modelling actual trains in a real time and place.

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Tony, 

I’ve got the that issue of RM and automatically thought it was one of your kit built A4. It’s only when I look at the upward sloping slide bar that I recognise it’s origins.  Im slowly ploughing through this thread and found it encouraging, however some of it has made me realise that some of my RTR stock is not quite as good as I thought. Anyway, most have been renumbered and all have been weathered so they are mine.

regards Eric.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

It was Bulleid who suggested to Peppercorn, that if he designed an eight coupled express locomotive, 'his name would be made'.

I believe the actual quotation was 'Pepp, if you design an express locomotive with five driving wheels your name is made!'

 

Now I will have to look up my source for that - but please may I get some sleep first!

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

One thing that does rather spoil those RTR A4s is the slab sided cylinder cover.

 

On the real locos, the bottom of the cylinder, from roughly the level of the piston rod, is a lovely curve, just the same as the bottom of the cylinders on more normal other locos.

 

I appreciate that the models have been designed so that the cylinder cover is part of the body and slots down over a dummy cylinder which is attached to the frames, but there are other ways of doing it.

 

The Hornby one looks too deep anyway, coming down almost to the centre of the bogie wheels.

 

The Bachmann A2 pictured above is much better in this respect.

  • Agree 3
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...